Bypassed Appointments and their Effects | Power of Appointment | Powers of the President | EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

Political Law and Public International Law

X. Executive Department

C. Powers of the President

2. Power of Appointment

b. Bypassed Appointments and their Effects

Overview of the Power of Appointment

The power of appointment is vested in the President of the Philippines under Article VII, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution. This authority allows the President to select individuals for various public offices, including those in the judiciary, executive departments, bureaus, and agencies. This is a crucial aspect of the executive power as it ensures the functioning of the government by filling key positions.

Appointments by the President may be classified into:

• Regular Appointments (with the consent of the Commission on Appointments or without their involvement, depending on the position),
• Ad Interim Appointments (temporary appointments made during the recess of Congress), and
• Bypassed Appointments, where the nominee fails to secure confirmation from the Commission on Appointments.

Bypassed Appointments: Definition and Consequences

A bypassed appointment occurs when a nomination or ad interim appointment made by the President is not acted upon or confirmed by the Commission on Appointments (CA) within a certain period. This can happen for a variety of reasons, such as the CA failing to reach a consensus, lack of quorum, or deliberate inaction.

Under the 1987 Constitution, the effects and legal consequences of bypassed appointments depend on the nature of the appointment:

1. Ad Interim Appointments:

   • These are temporary appointments made by the President during the recess of Congress, subject to confirmation by the CA when it reconvenes.
   • Validity: An ad interim appointment is effective immediately upon appointment and the appointee can begin performing their duties. However, the appointment is subject to confirmation by the CA when Congress resumes session.
   • Bypass Scenario: If the CA fails to confirm the ad interim appointment before the adjournment of Congress, the appointment is considered bypassed. This means that the appointee can no longer hold office, and the position becomes vacant upon the adjournment of Congress.
   • Reappointment: The President may reappoint the bypassed appointee when Congress is again in recess. This reappointment is not prohibited by law and may be repeated, although repeated bypassing may indicate political difficulties for the appointee.

2. Nomination (Non-Ad Interim Appointments):

   • Appointments requiring the CA's confirmation must first be confirmed before the appointee can assume office. Unlike ad interim appointments, these individuals cannot perform their duties without confirmation.
   • Bypass Scenario: If the CA fails to confirm the nomination, it is bypassed. A bypassed nomination does not have any legal effect as the individual has not yet assumed office, but the President may re-nominate the individual in the next session.

Legal Framework for Bypassed Appointments

1. 1987 Constitution:

   • Article VII, Section 16 outlines the general rule for appointments, stating that the President shall nominate individuals for positions that require CA confirmation.
   • The President can issue ad interim appointments when Congress is not in session. These appointments are valid until the CA either confirms or bypasses them.

2. Jurisdiction of the Commission on Appointments:

   • The Commission on Appointments has the constitutional duty to confirm appointments made by the President for certain high-ranking officials, including department secretaries, ambassadors, and officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain.
   • The CA’s refusal to act, deliberate inaction, or failure to confirm an appointment before adjournment constitutes a bypass, triggering the end of the ad interim appointment’s validity.

3. Jurisprudence:

   • The Supreme Court has clarified the effects of bypassed appointments in several cases:
     • Pimentel v. Ermita (G.R. No. 164978, October 13, 2005): The Court held that ad interim appointments are effective immediately upon issuance, but are valid only until Congress adjourns without confirmation. A bypass does not constitute a rejection but merely a non-action by the CA.
     • Matibag v. Benipayo (G.R. No. 149036, April 2, 2002): The Court upheld the constitutionality of repeated reappointments of bypassed appointees, as there is no express prohibition in the Constitution against such practice. The Court emphasized that the President has the discretion to reappoint bypassed appointees, provided that each ad interim appointment complies with the constitutional process.

4. Effects of Bypassing:

   • Ad Interim Appointment: When bypassed, the appointee must vacate the office immediately upon the adjournment of Congress. The President may reappoint the individual during the next recess, but continuous bypassing may reflect negatively on the appointee’s suitability.
   • Nomination: When bypassed, the nominee simply does not assume office. The President may re-nominate the person in the next session or choose a different nominee.

5. Reappointment of Bypassed Appointees:

   • The Constitution allows the President to reappoint a bypassed appointee through a fresh ad interim appointment during another recess. There is no limit to how many times a President may reappoint an individual who has been bypassed, but political or practical considerations may discourage repeated reappointments, especially if the CA is likely to bypass or reject the nominee again.
   • Practical Effects: While reappointment is legally allowed, repeated bypassing signals a lack of consensus or opposition in the CA, which may force the President to reconsider the nomination. The President may also explore other ways to appoint or confirm loyal or highly qualified individuals to important posts.

Conclusion

In summary, bypassed appointments have specific effects depending on whether the appointment is ad interim or nominative. Ad interim appointments allow immediate assumption of office but cease upon the adjournment of Congress without confirmation by the CA. Bypassed nominees simply cannot take office. The President retains the discretion to reappoint bypassed appointees, and such reappointments are allowed under the Constitution. However, repeated bypasses may highlight difficulties in gaining the CA's approval, which can have political consequences for both the appointee and the President.

Process of Confirmation by the Commission on Appointments | Power of Appointment | Powers of the President | EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

Power of Appointment of the President and the Process of Confirmation by the Commission on Appointments

I. Constitutional Framework on the Power of Appointment

The power of appointment is vested in the President of the Philippines under Article VII, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution. This provision grants the President the authority to appoint individuals to public office, either with or without the need for confirmation by the Commission on Appointments (CA).

The relevant portion of Article VII, Section 16 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.”

This power is broad and applies to various positions in government, but the Constitution provides specific rules for appointments that require the confirmation of the CA, as well as those that do not.

II. Classifications of Appointments

1. Appointments Requiring Confirmation by the Commission on Appointments (CA): Appointments to certain key government positions require the consent of the CA before they can take effect. These positions include:

   • Heads of executive departments (Cabinet Secretaries)
   • Ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls
   • Officers of the Armed Forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain
   • Other officers as may be provided by law or vested in the President by the Constitution

   The rationale for requiring confirmation from the CA is to provide a system of checks and balances, ensuring that these key appointments are subject to legislative oversight. The CA is composed of members of Congress and acts as a mechanism to prevent abuse in appointments.

2. Appointments Not Requiring CA Confirmation: The President is also empowered to appoint a wide range of officials without the need for CA confirmation. These include:

   • Members of the Supreme Court and lower courts (judicial appointments are subject to the Judicial and Bar Council’s nomination process, but not CA confirmation)
   • Members of Constitutional Commissions such as the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), Civil Service Commission (CSC), and Commission on Audit (COA), although they require confirmation from the CA
   • The Ombudsman and his or her Deputies (subject to CA confirmation)
   • Heads of government agencies or offices other than those listed for CA confirmation
   • Temporary appointments made during a recess of Congress (recess appointments), which are effective only until the next adjournment of Congress

III. The Appointment Process

1. Nomination and Appointment: The process begins with the nomination by the President. The nominee's qualifications, integrity, and capacity to serve are often evaluated based on their record, background, and the requirements of the position.

2. Submission to the Commission on Appointments: For positions that require confirmation, the nomination is submitted to the CA. The CA is a bicameral body composed of members from both the Senate and the House of Representatives. It is chaired by the Senate President and functions as a collective body distinct from the legislative function of Congress.

3. Hearing and Deliberation: The CA, through its relevant committees, conducts public hearings where the nominee is invited to answer questions regarding his or her qualifications, background, and plans for the position. The process is rigorous, and members of the CA may raise objections, seek clarification, or support the nomination based on the responses of the nominee and the overall assessment of their suitability for the role.

4. Voting: After the hearings, the CA proceeds to vote on the nomination. A majority vote of all members of the CA is required for confirmation. If the nominee secures the majority vote, the CA issues a formal confirmation of the appointment. In the case of non-confirmation, the nomination is rejected, and the President must submit a new nominee for the same position or make an interim appointment during a recess of Congress.

5. Effect of Non-Confirmation: If the CA disapproves or rejects the appointment, the nominee is barred from assuming office. However, the President may appoint a new nominee to the same position or, in certain cases, may issue a temporary or ad interim appointment during a recess of Congress (discussed further below).

IV. Ad Interim Appointments

1. Nature of Ad Interim Appointments: An ad interim appointment is a temporary appointment made by the President during a recess of Congress. Such appointments take effect immediately and enable the appointee to assume office, even before the CA has confirmed the appointment. However, the appointment is subject to CA confirmation when Congress reconvenes.

2. Effectivity of Ad Interim Appointments: Ad interim appointments remain effective unless the CA expressly disapproves the appointment upon reconvening. If the CA rejects the ad interim appointment, the appointee must vacate the position. If no action is taken by the CA, the ad interim appointment remains valid until the end of the next session of Congress.

3. Limitations on Ad Interim Appointments: While ad interim appointments are a means for the President to fill critical vacancies during Congress’ recess, they are meant to be temporary. They are often scrutinized for potential misuse, particularly in attempts to bypass the CA's oversight role. As such, a non-confirmed appointee cannot be reappointed ad interim after the rejection of the nomination by the CA.

V. Checks and Balances: Role of the Commission on Appointments

The Commission on Appointments plays a pivotal role in ensuring the integrity of key presidential appointments. It serves as a check on executive power, preventing abuse in the selection of high-ranking government officials. The CA’s confirmation power ensures that only qualified and capable individuals are appointed to positions of critical importance in the government.

1. Independent Function of the CA: The CA operates independently of both the legislative and executive branches in its function of reviewing and confirming appointments. Although composed of members of Congress, it acts as a separate body with its own rules and procedures.

2. Transparency and Public Accountability: The public nature of CA hearings allows transparency in the confirmation process. Nominees are questioned not only on their qualifications but also on any past controversies or issues of integrity that may arise. This open scrutiny helps ensure public accountability of high-ranking officials.

3. Limitations on the CA’s Power: The CA’s confirmation power is limited to specific positions expressly provided for by the Constitution and by law. It does not extend to appointments that fall outside its jurisdiction, such as judicial appointments or appointments to certain government agencies. This is in line with the principle of separation of powers and allows for distinct processes depending on the nature of the appointment.

VI. Judicial Review of Appointments

In some cases, disputes regarding appointments or the confirmation process may be subject to judicial review. The Supreme Court of the Philippines has, in several cases, ruled on the validity of appointments, especially concerning issues of constitutional interpretation, qualifications, and the role of the CA. The judiciary may intervene if there is a grave abuse of discretion in the appointment or confirmation process.

VII. Key Jurisprudence

1. Flores v. Drilon (1993) – The Supreme Court clarified that the CA's role in confirming appointments is limited only to positions specifically enumerated in the Constitution and by law. Appointments to positions outside this list do not require CA confirmation.

2. Matibag v. Benipayo (2002) – The Court upheld the validity of ad interim appointments and clarified that an appointee who is rejected by the CA cannot be reappointed in the same capacity during the same legislative session.

3. Pimentel v. Executive Secretary (2002) – This case reaffirmed that the CA must confirm key appointments, such as those for constitutional commissions, to prevent the concentration of appointment powers in the executive branch.

VIII. Conclusion

The power of appointment is one of the most significant powers vested in the President of the Philippines. However, the Constitution ensures that this power is not exercised unchecked by requiring certain appointments to undergo the process of confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. This process balances executive authority with legislative oversight, maintaining a system of checks and balances essential to the democratic governance of the country. The CA's confirmation role safeguards the integrity of appointments, ensuring that only qualified and reputable individuals serve in key government positions.

General Executive and Administrative Powers | Powers of the President | EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

X. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

C. Powers of the President

1. General Executive and Administrative Powers

---

The President of the Philippines, as the Chief Executive, is granted various executive and administrative powers by the 1987 Constitution and other relevant laws. These powers can be classified into the following general categories:

A. Executive Power

Article VII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution states: "The executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines." This is a broad mandate that encompasses the authority to ensure the enforcement of laws, as well as manage and administer the operations of the government.

1. Nature and Scope of Executive Power
   The executive power vested in the President allows the Chief Executive to act in all areas not prohibited by law or delegated to other branches of government. In the landmark case of Marcos v. Manglapus (G.R. No. 88211, September 15, 1989), the Supreme Court emphasized that executive power includes inherent authority that is not strictly confined to the express powers enumerated in the Constitution. The President, as the Chief Executive, has broad discretion in matters of governance, particularly in ensuring the faithful execution of the laws.

2. Executive Function vs. Legislative and Judicial Functions
   The executive function primarily involves the enforcement of the law, in contrast to the legislative function, which involves the creation of laws, and the judicial function, which involves the interpretation and application of laws. Executive power is generally concerned with the day-to-day administration of government affairs.

3. General Control and Supervision
   The President has control over the entire executive branch. Control refers to the power to alter, modify, nullify, or set aside actions taken by subordinates, and to substitute one’s judgment for that of a subordinate. This power of control includes the ability to appoint officials, issue directives, and overrule decisions of lower-ranking officials. The President’s power of control is distinguished from the power of supervision, which is limited to ensuring that laws are faithfully executed but does not include the authority to substitute one's judgment for that of a subordinate.

4. Residual Powers
   Residual powers are those not expressly provided for in the Constitution but are inherent in the office of the President as part of executive power. These include actions necessary to fulfill the President’s constitutional duty to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed. The case of David v. Arroyo (G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006) recognized that the President has the authority to act in situations not explicitly covered by constitutional provisions, provided that such actions are not illegal.

B. Administrative Power

Administrative powers pertain to the President’s authority to supervise and control the executive branch’s bureaucracy. This includes appointments, the power to discipline, the issuance of executive orders, and the general oversight of administrative functions.

1. Power of Appointment
   The President has the power to appoint officials in the executive branch. This power is specifically outlined in Article VII, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution. The President can appoint heads of executive departments, ambassadors, public ministers, consuls, officers of the armed forces, and other officers whose appointments are vested in the President by law. Many of these appointments are subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.

   • Appointment Process and Limitations
     The power to appoint is not absolute, and it is subject to checks and balances. For example, some appointments require the consent of the Commission on Appointments. Moreover, the Civil Service Commission provides that appointments to the civil service must be made based on merit and fitness, which are determined through competitive examinations and other relevant measures.

   • Midnight Appointments
     Under Article VII, Section 15 of the Constitution, the President is prohibited from making appointments two months before the next presidential elections until the end of the President’s term (commonly referred to as "midnight appointments"). The prohibition seeks to prevent outgoing Presidents from filling key positions as a way of entrenching their influence. The Supreme Court, in the case of De Castro v. Judicial and Bar Council (G.R. No. 191002, March 17, 2010), clarified that this prohibition does not apply to appointments to the Supreme Court.

2. Power of Removal and Discipline
   The President has the power to remove and discipline public officials and employees in the executive branch. The power to remove is an essential corollary to the power of control. The President can remove officials who serve at the President’s pleasure (those not protected by civil service tenure rules) and has disciplinary authority over civil service employees. However, officials appointed with the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments can only be removed for cause.

3. Issuance of Executive Orders
   The President issues executive orders to manage the operations of the executive branch. These orders are directives that regulate the affairs of the government and implement policies or laws. Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987) defines executive orders as acts of the President providing rules of a general or permanent character in implementation or execution of constitutional or statutory powers.

   • Limitations on Executive Orders
     Executive orders cannot contravene the Constitution or existing statutes. While they have the force and effect of law within the executive branch, they do not create new laws but only provide mechanisms for the implementation of existing laws.

4. Power of Control over the Executive Departments
   The President exercises direct control over all executive departments, bureaus, and offices. This power includes the authority to reorganize these agencies, subject to statutory limitations. In Executive Order No. 292, the Administrative Code of 1987 empowers the President to reorganize the structure and staffing of the executive branch in order to promote efficiency and effectiveness.

   • Reorganization Authority
     The President’s power to reorganize the executive branch is an important administrative tool, but it must be in accordance with the law. In the case of Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB v. Zamora (G.R. No. 142801, July 10, 2001), the Supreme Court held that the President can validly abolish or merge government offices provided that such reorganization is done in good faith and for the purpose of efficiency.

C. Power of Supervision

The President exercises supervision over local governments, as explicitly provided for in Article X, Section 4 of the Constitution. Supervision involves ensuring that local government units (LGUs) comply with national laws, policies, and standards, but it does not allow the President to substitute his or her judgment for that of local officials.

1. Power over Autonomous Regions and Local Government Units (LGUs)
   The President’s power of supervision includes oversight over the implementation of laws at the local level. Local governments have autonomy, but their actions are subject to the supervision of the President to ensure compliance with national policies.

   • Delegated Authority to DILG
     The Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), under the President’s control, exercises direct supervision over local governments. The President, through the DILG, can suspend or remove local officials for violations of law, but only after observing the proper due process.

2. Delegation of Supervisory Powers
   The President can delegate supervisory functions to heads of executive departments. In the case of autonomous regions, the President has a duty to ensure that their laws and policies are in accordance with the Constitution and national laws.

D. Faithful Execution of the Laws

Under Article VII, Section 17 of the Constitution, the President has the duty to "ensure that the laws are faithfully executed." This is one of the most fundamental aspects of the executive’s role in governance, emphasizing the obligation of the President to enforce and implement the laws passed by Congress.

1. Use of Executive Instruments
   The President employs various instruments, such as executive orders, administrative orders, proclamations, and memorandum circulars, to fulfill the duty of faithful execution. These instruments operationalize the implementation of legislative enactments within the executive branch.

2. Discretion in Law Enforcement
   The President, through the executive departments and the police and military, exercises discretion in law enforcement. This discretion is not unlimited, as it must be consistent with constitutional and legal standards. Executive discretion in law enforcement is recognized in the case of David v. Arroyo, where the Supreme Court underscored the importance of balancing executive discretion with adherence to the rule of law.

---

These powers collectively enable the President to effectively lead the executive branch and fulfill the role of the Chief Executive in administering the affairs of the government. The President's executive and administrative powers are essential to ensure that the government's machinery operates smoothly, that laws are implemented, and that national policies are carried out effectively.

Executive Privilege | Privileges, Inhibitions, and Disqualifications | EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

Executive Privilege: Privileges, Inhibitions, and Disqualifications under the Executive Department

I. Definition of Executive Privilege

Executive privilege is the constitutional doctrine that allows the President and other high-ranking executive officials to withhold information from the other branches of government, particularly the legislative and judicial branches. This privilege is grounded on the doctrine of separation of powers, which prevents undue encroachment by one branch of government over another. In the Philippine context, executive privilege is an implied power inherent in the executive branch, though not explicitly provided for in the 1987 Constitution.

The doctrine of executive privilege is primarily invoked to protect sensitive information, such as those concerning national security, diplomatic relations, military affairs, and internal deliberations within the executive branch. The principle is that in certain instances, the need to maintain confidentiality outweighs the need for transparency or disclosure.

II. Legal Basis

While the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines does not explicitly mention "executive privilege," its existence has been upheld by the judiciary, drawing from the principle of separation of powers and the need to preserve the independence and efficiency of the executive branch. The jurisprudence on executive privilege in the Philippines can be traced to the landmark case of Senate v. Ermita (G.R. No. 169777, April 20, 2006), where the Supreme Court outlined the parameters of executive privilege and its application.

III. Scope of Executive Privilege

Executive privilege covers a variety of information and documents, including but not limited to the following:

1. Military, Diplomatic, and National Security Matters: The President can invoke executive privilege to protect information that pertains to national security, military operations, foreign affairs, and diplomatic communications. Such information, if disclosed, could harm national interests or compromise sensitive negotiations.

2. Presidential Communications: This includes advice, recommendations, and deliberations within the Office of the President. It protects the confidentiality of communications made by or to the President. In U.S. v. Nixon (418 U.S. 683, 1974), which has been cited in Philippine jurisprudence, the U.S. Supreme Court held that there is a presumptive privilege over presidential communications to ensure that the President can receive candid advice without the fear of immediate public disclosure.

3. Internal Deliberations: The privilege extends to the deliberative process within the executive branch, particularly those relating to policy formulation and decision-making. This protects internal discussions that are necessary for the effective functioning of the executive department.

IV. Limits to Executive Privilege

Executive privilege is not absolute. It must be balanced against the right of the public and other branches of government to access information, especially when such information is crucial for the exercise of their constitutional powers.

1. Judicial Review: The judiciary has the power to review the invocation of executive privilege to determine whether the withholding of information is justified. In Senate v. Ermita and Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations (G.R. No. 180643, March 25, 2008), the Supreme Court established that while the President has the right to invoke executive privilege, the courts have the final authority to determine whether such privilege is validly asserted.

2. Congressional Investigations: While the executive branch can invoke privilege in the context of congressional inquiries, such privilege can be overridden if the information is critical to Congress' legislative or oversight functions. Under the 1987 Constitution, Congress has broad investigatory powers under Section 21, Article VI, and can compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents, subject to the limitation of executive privilege.

3. Public Interest: In certain cases, the public's right to know and the principles of transparency and accountability may outweigh the President's right to keep certain information confidential. For example, when the issue involves allegations of corruption or abuse of power, the courts may rule that the public's interest in disclosure prevails.

4. Criminal Investigations: In U.S. v. Nixon, the U.S. Supreme Court held that executive privilege cannot be used to shield information in the context of a criminal investigation or prosecution. Although this is a U.S. decision, it has been recognized in Philippine jurisprudence as persuasive authority. In the case of Estrada v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 164368, April 2, 2009), the Supreme Court rejected the invocation of executive privilege to protect documents related to criminal conduct.

V. Legislative Framework

While there is no comprehensive statute in the Philippines specifically defining the scope of executive privilege, several constitutional provisions, laws, and administrative orders regulate its application:

1. 1987 Constitution:

   • Article VI, Section 21 provides that Congress may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation, subject to the rights of witnesses, including the privilege against self-incrimination. The President, through executive privilege, can refuse to disclose certain information in such inquiries.
   • Article VII, Section 17 of the Constitution vests the President with control of the executive department, which includes the discretion to withhold information vital to national security and foreign policy.

2. Senate v. Ermita (2006): The case involved a challenge to Executive Order No. 464, which required executive officials to obtain prior presidential consent before testifying before Congress. The Supreme Court struck down portions of E.O. 464 that unduly restricted legislative inquiries but upheld the President's right to invoke executive privilege in specific cases.

3. Neri v. Senate Committee (2008): In this case, the Supreme Court affirmed the right of then-NEDA Director-General Romulo Neri to invoke executive privilege when asked to disclose certain communications with the President in relation to the National Broadband Network (NBN) scandal. The Court ruled that conversations involving diplomatic relations, military concerns, and internal deliberations between the President and his advisors are protected by executive privilege.

VI. Types of Executive Privilege

In the Philippine context, executive privilege can generally be categorized into the following types:

1. State Secrets Privilege: Protects information that, if disclosed, could endanger national security, foreign relations, or military operations.

2. Presidential Communications Privilege: Covers communications between the President and close advisors or between the President and other high-ranking executive officials, intended to protect candid advice and discussions.

3. Deliberative Process Privilege: Protects documents and communications reflecting advisory opinions, recommendations, and deliberations that are part of the decision-making process within the executive branch.

VII. Judicial and Legislative Checks on Executive Privilege

1. Judicial Review: Courts can compel disclosure if they find that the invocation of executive privilege is unjustified. Courts have the power to weigh the interest of confidentiality against the need for disclosure, particularly in criminal proceedings or matters of public interest.

2. Legislative Oversight: Congress, through its investigative powers, can challenge the invocation of executive privilege if it believes the information is essential for its legislative or oversight functions. Congress may also pass legislation limiting or defining the scope of executive privilege, though such legislation would still be subject to judicial review.

VIII. Conclusion

Executive privilege is a fundamental aspect of the President’s powers, designed to protect the confidentiality of sensitive information and to ensure the effective functioning of the executive branch. However, it is not an absolute privilege and must be balanced with the constitutional principles of transparency, accountability, and the checks and balances imposed by the legislative and judicial branches. The Philippine Supreme Court has played a key role in defining and limiting the scope of executive privilege, ensuring that its exercise is not abused to shield the executive from scrutiny, particularly in cases involving criminal misconduct or issues of public interest.

Presidential Immunity | Privileges, Inhibitions, and Disqualifications | EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

Presidential Immunity in the Philippines

1. Nature and Scope of Presidential Immunity

Presidential immunity refers to the doctrine that the President of the Philippines, while in office, is immune from suit. This immunity is rooted in the constitutional principle that the President, as the head of state and chief executive, must be allowed to perform the duties of the office without distraction from legal processes. The rationale behind this immunity is to ensure that the President can focus on governance and state functions without the burden of defending against lawsuits.

Constitutional Basis

The Constitution of the Philippines, while not explicitly providing for presidential immunity, implies this doctrine through its structural framework. Article VII of the 1987 Constitution establishes the executive power in the President but does not expressly mention immunity. However, this immunity has been affirmed and developed through jurisprudence.

Scope of Immunity

• While in Office: The President is immune from civil, criminal, and administrative suits while holding office. This immunity covers both official and personal acts, as long as the President remains in office.

  Case Reference: Soliven v. Makasiar (G.R. No. 82585, November 14, 1988) – In this landmark case, the Supreme Court affirmed that the sitting President is immune from suit, whether the act was committed in the performance of official functions or in a private capacity. The Court stressed that immunity is an incident of the office and must be construed as necessary to enable the President to discharge the functions of the office effectively.

• Official Acts: For acts done in the performance of official duties, the President is immune not only while in office but also after leaving office, as such acts are considered acts of state. The rationale is that these acts were performed in the exercise of the President's authority as head of the executive branch, and thus, the President should not be personally held liable for them.

• Acts in a Private Capacity: Acts that the President commits in a private capacity are covered by immunity only while the President remains in office. Once the President leaves office, actions related to these private acts may proceed.

  Case Reference: Estrada v. Desierto (G.R. Nos. 146710-15, March 2, 2001) – The Court ruled that once the President's term ends, he or she can be subject to suits in relation to acts that are not related to the exercise of official functions. This distinction reinforces that the immunity granted while in office does not extend indefinitely for acts not performed in the execution of the President's official duties.

2. Limitations on Presidential Immunity

Presidential immunity is not absolute and has recognized limitations:

• Impeachment: While the President is immune from suits, he or she is still subject to removal from office through impeachment, as provided under Article XI, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution. Impeachment is the constitutional mechanism to hold the President accountable for culpable violations of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.

  Case Reference: In re: Impeachment of Chief Justice Sereno (G.R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018) – Though this case pertains to the Chief Justice, the impeachment mechanism was discussed as a remedy for high-ranking officials, including the President, who are otherwise immune from ordinary legal processes.

• Acts Post-Presidency: Once the President's term ends, he or she can be sued for actions taken in a private capacity while in office. This is because the immunity is intended to protect the office, not the individual, and applies only while the individual holds the position of President. After leaving office, the individual no longer enjoys this privilege.

• International Crimes: In line with developments in international law, certain crimes, such as crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide, may not be covered by presidential immunity. Although the Philippines does not have a specific ruling addressing this directly, international tribunals, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), have held that heads of state are not immune from prosecution for international crimes. However, the Philippines withdrew from the ICC in 2019, adding complexity to this matter.

  Case Reference: Rwanda Tribunal (Prosecutor v. Akayesu) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) jurisprudence emphasize that sitting or former heads of state can be held accountable for international crimes. While the Philippines has withdrawn from the Rome Statute, the principles of accountability for international crimes persist under customary international law.

3. Presidential Privileges

In addition to immunity from suit, the President enjoys certain privileges while in office:

• Executive Privilege: The President has the power to withhold information from the public, Congress, and even the judiciary, under the doctrine of executive privilege. This privilege allows the President to maintain confidentiality in matters relating to national security, diplomacy, and sensitive information that could impair the function of the executive branch if disclosed.

  Case Reference: Senate v. Ermita (G.R. No. 169777, April 20, 2006) – In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that executive privilege is a constitutionally recognized power of the President. However, the Court also held that this privilege is not absolute and can be overridden by the need for transparency in certain circumstances, especially in the context of legislative inquiries.

• Pardon and Amnesty Powers: The President has the exclusive power to grant pardons, commutations, and amnesties under Article VII, Section 19 of the Constitution. This power allows the President to mitigate or nullify the legal consequences of a conviction.

4. Inhibitions and Disqualifications

While holding office, the President is subject to certain inhibitions and disqualifications designed to prevent conflicts of interest and to maintain the integrity of the office:

• Prohibition on Holding Other Offices: Article VII, Section 13 of the Constitution prohibits the President from holding any other office or employment during his or her tenure, unless otherwise provided in the Constitution. This ensures that the President can fully devote his or her time to the responsibilities of the office.

• Prohibition on Financial Interests: The President is prohibited from engaging in businesses or financial transactions that conflict with the interests of the state. The same provision in Article VII, Section 13 ensures that the President does not use his or her office for personal gain, protecting the public interest from any potential abuses of power.

5. Conclusion

Presidential immunity is a well-established principle in Philippine jurisprudence, designed to protect the President from distractions caused by lawsuits and to allow for the full and effective performance of executive duties. While broad, this immunity is not absolute and is balanced by the constitutional mechanisms of impeachment and post-term accountability. Moreover, international developments suggest that immunity does not extend to violations of international law, although this is still subject to evolving jurisprudence. The privileges of the office, such as executive privilege and the power of pardon, further enhance the President's ability to govern effectively, while the disqualifications ensure accountability and transparency in the conduct of the office.

Qualifications, Election, and Term of the President and Vice-President | EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

Qualifications, Election, and Term of the President and Vice-President

I. Constitutional Basis:

The qualifications, election, and term of the President and Vice-President of the Philippines are primarily governed by the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, particularly in Article VII (Executive Department).

II. Qualifications:

1. President (Section 2, Article VII):

   • Natural-born citizen of the Philippines.
   • A registered voter.
   • Must be able to read and write.
   • At least 40 years of age on the day of the election.
   • A resident of the Philippines for at least ten (10) years immediately preceding the election.

2. Vice-President (Section 3, Article VII):

   • The qualifications for the Vice-President are identical to those for the President:
     • Natural-born citizen of the Philippines.
     • A registered voter.
     • Must be able to read and write.
     • At least 40 years of age on the day of the election.
     • A resident of the Philippines for at least ten (10) years immediately preceding the election.

III. Election:

1. Election of the President and Vice-President:

   • The President and Vice-President are elected by direct vote of the people for a term of six (6) years (Section 4, Article VII).
   • The election is held every second Monday of May (Sec. 4, Art. VII).

2. Method of Voting:

   • The President and Vice-President are elected separately, meaning a voter can choose candidates from different political parties for each position.

3. Term:

   • The term of office for both the President and Vice-President is six (6) years (Section 4, Article VII).
   • The term begins at noon on June 30 following their election and ends at noon on June 30 six years later.

4. Limitation on Re-election:

   • President: No person who has served as President for more than four years is eligible for re-election (Section 4, Article VII). This means a President can only serve a single term of six years, regardless of whether they served a full or partial term.
   • Vice-President: The Vice-President can serve two consecutive terms (Section 4, Article VII). This means that after serving two terms, the Vice-President is barred from seeking a third consecutive term but may run again after a break in office.

5. Election Process in Case of a Tie:

   • In case two or more candidates for President or Vice-President have an equal and highest number of votes, the Congress, voting separately by majority of all its Members, shall choose the winner (Section 4, Article VII).

IV. Ineligibility and Disqualification:

1. Dual Office-Holding (Section 13, Article VII):

   • The President and Vice-President cannot hold any other office or employment in the government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries, during their tenure.

2. Conflict of Interest:

   • They are also prohibited from engaging in any profession or business, or from being financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by the government or any of its subdivisions, during their term.

3. Impeachment:

   • Both the President and Vice-President are subject to impeachment for culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust (Section 2, Article XI).

V. Vacancies:

1. Vacancy in the Presidency:

   • If the President dies, is permanently disabled, resigns, or is removed from office, the Vice-President shall become the President to serve the unexpired term (Section 8, Article VII).
   • If both the President and the Vice-President are unable to serve, the Senate President or, in case of the Senate President’s inability, the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall act as President until a new President or Vice-President is elected and qualified (Section 7, Article VII).

2. Special Election:

   • A special election may be called by Congress to elect a new President and Vice-President, but this can only happen if the vacancies occur at least 18 months before the next presidential election (Section 10, Article VII).
   • The President and Vice-President elected in a special election will serve only the unexpired portion of the term.

VI. Oath of Office:

• Before assuming office, the President and Vice-President must take the following oath or affirmation (Section 5, Article VII):

  "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully and conscientiously fulfill my duties as President (or Vice-President) of the Philippines, preserve and defend its Constitution, execute its laws, do justice to every man, and consecrate myself to the service of the Nation. So help me God." (In case of affirmation, the last sentence is omitted).

VII. Immunity from Suit:

• The President is immune from suit during their tenure in office, which includes immunity from civil and criminal prosecution for acts done in their official capacity.

• The Vice-President does not enjoy such immunity and may be subject to litigation.

VIII. Other Relevant Provisions:

1. Presidential Succession Act (RA 7432):

   • This Act provides further guidance on the succession to the Presidency in cases of death, permanent disability, removal, or resignation of the President and Vice-President.

2. Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET):

   • Disputes regarding the election, returns, and qualifications of the President and Vice-President are decided by the Supreme Court sitting en banc as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (Section 4, Article VII).

IX. Important Jurisprudence:

1. David v. Arroyo (G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006) – This case reaffirmed the limitation on presidential re-election, wherein the Supreme Court emphasized that a person who serves as President for more than four years is ineligible for re-election.

2. Estrada v. Desierto (G.R. No. 146710-15, March 2, 2001) – In this case, the Supreme Court held that Joseph Estrada’s resignation and removal from office led to the lawful succession of Vice-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to the Presidency. The Court also ruled on the issue of presidential immunity from suit post-tenure.

3. Romualdez-Marcos v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 119976, September 18, 1995) – This case involves a challenge to the qualifications of a candidate and clarified the residency requirement for presidential candidates.

Summary:

The President and Vice-President of the Philippines must meet strict qualifications, are elected by direct popular vote, and serve a single, six-year term (for the President) or two consecutive terms (for the Vice-President). Both are subject to disqualification for holding any other government position and can be removed through impeachment. The President is immune from suit during their term, while the Vice-President does not enjoy such immunity. Presidential succession is clearly defined, with the Vice-President first in line. Legal disputes regarding their election and qualifications are settled by the Presidential Electoral Tribunal.

Functions | The Ombudsman and the Office of the Special Prosecutor under Article… | Accountability of Public Officers | LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

The Ombudsman and the Office of the Special Prosecutor under Article XI of the 1987 Constitution in relation to R.A. No. 6770 or the Ombudsman Act of 1989

I. Constitutional Basis: Article XI, 1987 Philippine Constitution

Article XI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution establishes the principle of accountability of public officers and creates the Office of the Ombudsman as an independent constitutional body. Section 5 of Article XI provides for the powers, functions, and duties of the Ombudsman and its deputies.

Key sections relevant to the functions of the Ombudsman are:

• Section 12: Empowers the Ombudsman to investigate any act or omission by any public official, employee, office, or agency that appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.
• Section 13: Enumerates the specific duties of the Ombudsman, including the power to recommend actions, prosecute cases before courts, and direct officers of government agencies to take appropriate measures in cases of abuse or inefficiency.

II. Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989)

Republic Act No. 6770, also known as the Ombudsman Act of 1989, further defines the powers, functions, and structure of the Office of the Ombudsman, established in the Constitution. It also outlines the roles of the Special Prosecutor, who plays a crucial part in the accountability mechanism.

A. Functions of the Ombudsman

The Ombudsman, as empowered by the Constitution and reinforced by R.A. No. 6770, has broad and extensive functions designed to enforce accountability and address abuses in government. These functions can be categorized as follows:

1. Investigatory Function

   • The Ombudsman is mandated to investigate on its own, or upon complaint, any act or omission by any public official, employee, office, or agency that appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient (Sec. 15(1), R.A. No. 6770).
   • The power of investigation includes acts or omissions that may lead to administrative, civil, or criminal liability of public officers.

2. Prosecutory Function

   • The Ombudsman has the power to prosecute public officials and employees for graft and corruption cases, violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019), the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (R.A. No. 6713), and other offenses committed by public officers in relation to their office.
   • This prosecutory function extends to the filing of cases before the Sandiganbayan and other appropriate courts, including the authority to deputize prosecutors from the Department of Justice (DOJ) or other government lawyers to assist in such prosecutions (Sec. 11, R.A. No. 6770).

3. Ombudsman’s Power to Recommend

   • The Ombudsman may recommend the filing of criminal and administrative charges against public officials (Sec. 15(3), R.A. No. 6770).
   • It also has the authority to recommend corrective measures to public offices to prevent abuses or inefficiencies.

4. Administrative Adjudication

   • The Ombudsman has the authority to act as a disciplinary authority for public officials (except for those in Congress and the Judiciary) and impose administrative sanctions, including suspension, removal, and fines (Sec. 21, R.A. No. 6770).
   • The Ombudsman may also direct the filing of appropriate administrative complaints with the proper government agency (Sec. 19, R.A. No. 6770).

5. Directing Agencies to Take Action

   • The Ombudsman can direct the heads of government offices or agencies to take appropriate action in cases involving maladministration or inefficiency (Sec. 15(5), R.A. No. 6770).
   • It can also compel the submission of periodic reports from heads of offices in the government as part of its mandate to ensure transparency and accountability (Sec. 15(4), R.A. No. 6770).

6. Public Assistance

   • The Ombudsman can extend public assistance to people by acting on complaints or requests for help, such as the correction of erroneous government policies, the recovery of undelivered services, and providing advice on how to resolve issues with government offices (Sec. 15(6), R.A. No. 6770).

7. Monitoring of Government Activities

   • The Ombudsman has the authority to monitor government procurement, management of public funds, and the delivery of public services to ensure transparency and efficiency. It can conduct performance audits and inspect records of government agencies (Sec. 15(8), R.A. No. 6770).

8. Advisory Function

   • The Ombudsman may recommend to the President and Congress measures for the improvement of public administration and for the adoption of anti-corruption policies (Sec. 15(7), R.A. No. 6770).
   • The Ombudsman can submit reports to the President and Congress, detailing observations and findings from investigations, as well as proposed reforms in the government.

B. Office of the Special Prosecutor

The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) is an integral part of the Ombudsman’s structure. It is vested with a specific role under both the Constitution and R.A. No. 6770.

1. Nature and Role

   • The Special Prosecutor’s Office is under the Office of the Ombudsman, and it is responsible for prosecuting criminal cases involving public officers before the Sandiganbayan.
   • The Special Prosecutor works in collaboration with the Ombudsman and may prosecute graft and corruption cases and other offenses involving government officials, especially those occupying positions under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

2. Powers and Duties

   • The Special Prosecutor, under the supervision and control of the Ombudsman, can conduct preliminary investigations and prosecute cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan (Sec. 11, R.A. No. 6770).
   • While the Special Prosecutor may act independently in prosecuting cases, their actions are still subject to the overall supervision and control of the Ombudsman.

3. Prosecution Before the Sandiganbayan

   • The primary jurisdiction of the Special Prosecutor is to bring cases of public officers falling under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, which typically covers high-ranking officials, those with Salary Grade 27 or higher, or those accused of specific offenses such as graft and corruption, plunder, or bribery.

III. Independence and Powers of the Ombudsman

1. Independence from Other Branches of Government

   • The Ombudsman is constitutionally independent and is not subject to the control or supervision of the Executive, Legislative, or Judicial branches of government (Sec. 5, Art. XI, 1987 Constitution).
   • It is free from political interference and ensures impartiality in the discharge of its duties, making it a critical watchdog against government abuses and inefficiencies.

2. Supervisory Powers Over Investigations

   • The Ombudsman’s investigatory powers are broad and include both administrative and criminal cases. Its independence allows it to probe allegations of corruption and misconduct without needing approval or endorsement from other government branches.

3. Non-Diminution of Powers

   • Section 8 of R.A. No. 6770 ensures that the powers vested in the Office of the Ombudsman cannot be diminished or altered by Congress or any other law, reinforcing its constitutional independence.

IV. Conclusion

The Ombudsman and the Office of the Special Prosecutor play pivotal roles in enforcing public accountability in the Philippines. As mandated by Article XI of the 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989), these offices are empowered with broad investigatory, prosecutorial, and disciplinary functions, aimed at addressing inefficiencies, abuse, and corruption in the government. The independence and authority of the Ombudsman ensure it can fulfill its mandate without interference, while the Special Prosecutor acts as its prosecutorial arm, particularly in cases involving high-ranking officials and serious offenses tried before the Sandiganbayan. Together, these offices serve as crucial mechanisms in upholding the principle that public office is a public trust.

Rules on Appropriation and Realignment | Powers of Congress | LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Powers of Congress: Rules on Appropriation and Realignment

The legislative power of appropriation is vested in Congress under Article VI, Section 29 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. This includes the power to allocate public funds for specific purposes through the passage of appropriations laws. The power of realignment, however, must be distinguished and handled in accordance with constitutional and statutory limitations.

Below is a comprehensive discussion on the rules of appropriation and realignment under the legislative powers of Congress:

---

I. Appropriation Defined

An appropriation is the authorization made by law or ordinance, directing the payment of public funds for a specific public purpose. The power of appropriation is a legislative function, and no money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law (Article VI, Section 29(1), 1987 Constitution).

Appropriations laws typically come in the form of the General Appropriations Act (GAA) which specifies the budget for all branches of government, or special appropriations laws which allocate funds for a specific purpose.

II. Types of Appropriation

1. General Appropriations Act (GAA):

   • This is the national budget which is passed annually by Congress, allocating funds to all government departments, agencies, and instrumentalities for their operations and projects for the next fiscal year.

2. Special Appropriations:

   • These are laws that allocate a particular sum of money for a specific purpose, not covered by the GAA. These appropriations must be accompanied by a certification from the National Treasurer that funds are available for the purpose (Art. VI, Sec. 25(4)).

3. Automatic Appropriations:

   • These are appropriations provided by law without need of further legislative action every fiscal year. Examples include debt service payments and retirement benefits for government personnel.

III. Constitutional Rules on Appropriation

1. Initiative by the Executive:

   • The Constitution mandates that appropriations bills must originate exclusively from the House of Representatives but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments (Article VI, Section 24).
   • The President submits a budget proposal for Congress to consider, and no appropriations law can be passed without originating in the House, though amendments may come from the Senate.

2. Balanced Budget Requirement:

   • The President is required to submit a balanced budget to Congress (Article VI, Section 22). This submission is a key reference for appropriations bills.

3. Specific Appropriation Requirement:

   • The Constitution requires that appropriation laws must specify the purpose for which the funds are intended. This ensures transparency and accountability in public spending (Article VI, Section 25(2)).

4. Prohibition on Transfer of Appropriations:

   • No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, the Chief Justice, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may by law be authorized to augment any item in the GAA for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations (Article VI, Section 25(5)). This power to augment does not extend to realignments of funds to a new item that was not previously included in the budget.

IV. Power of Realignment

Realignment is the act of transferring funds from one program or project to another within the same department or agency. Under the Constitution and established jurisprudence, realignment is a limited power, mainly granted to certain officials to address emergency or unforeseen needs.

1. Distinction from Appropriation:

   • While appropriation is the act of assigning funds for a specific purpose by Congress, realignment occurs after appropriation and involves shifting or redistributing funds within an already appropriated budget.

2. Power to Realign Savings:

   • The power to realign is limited to instances where there are savings. Savings refer to any balances from appropriated funds which remain unspent after fulfilling the purpose of the appropriations, due to efficiency or the completion of a project for less than the budgeted amount.
   • Augmentation from savings may only be applied to an item already included in the appropriations law.

3. Constitutional Limits:

   • As provided under Article VI, Section 25(5), only the President, Senate President, Speaker of the House, Chief Justice, and heads of Constitutional Commissions may be authorized by law to realign funds.
   • Realignment can only augment existing items within the budget, and savings cannot be used to fund new projects or expenditures not covered by the original appropriation law. This rule is emphasized in cases where executive overreach in fund realignment has been challenged (e.g., Araullo v. Aquino on the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) case).

V. Jurisprudence on Realignment and Appropriation

1. Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) Case:

   • In Araullo v. Aquino (G.R. No. 209287, July 1, 2014), the Supreme Court held that the realignment of funds under DAP was unconstitutional. The Court clarified that savings can only be realigned to augment an existing item in the GAA and cannot be used to fund new projects or programs. Furthermore, the Court ruled that funds cannot be declared as savings prior to the end of the fiscal year or before they have been freed from their appropriated purpose.

2. Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) Case:

   • In the PDAF (Pork Barrel) case (Belgica v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 208566, November 19, 2013), the Supreme Court ruled that legislative post-enactment intervention in the form of realigning funds through congressional insertions was unconstitutional. Congress’ role in appropriation ends after the passage of the budget, and legislators cannot intervene in the use of public funds post-enactment.

3. Veto Power:

   • The President has the power of line-item veto (Article VI, Section 27(2)), which allows the executive to veto specific items in an appropriation bill. Once vetoed, funds for that specific item cannot be released or realigned unless Congress overrides the veto with a two-thirds vote in both chambers.

VI. Conclusion

The power of appropriation is a key function of Congress, ensuring that public funds are allocated for specified public purposes. The realignment of funds is a more restricted executive power, contingent on the availability of savings and constrained by constitutional provisions. Appropriations laws, particularly the General Appropriations Act, must conform to the constitutional principles of transparency, accountability, and separation of powers. Jurisprudence further delineates the boundaries of both appropriation and realignment, safeguarding against the misuse of public funds through unauthorized executive or legislative actions.

Presidential Veto and Congressional Override | Powers of Congress | LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Presidential Veto and Congressional Override in the Philippines

Under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the power of presidential veto and the congressional override mechanism are integral checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches of government. These principles ensure that the law-making process undergoes rigorous scrutiny, balancing the interests of both branches in the governance process.

---

A. Presidential Veto Power

The veto power is the authority vested in the President of the Philippines to reject a bill passed by Congress (i.e., both the House of Representatives and the Senate). This power is provided under Article VI, Section 27(1) of the 1987 Constitution.

1. Types of Veto

• General or Absolute Veto: This type of veto allows the President to reject a bill in its entirety. When the President exercises this veto, the whole bill is sent back to Congress with his objections.

• Line-item Veto: Under Article VI, Section 27(2) of the 1987 Constitution, the President may exercise a line-item veto on appropriation, revenue, or tariff bills. This means the President can veto specific provisions or items in such bills without vetoing the entire measure. This power enables the President to reject certain allocations or tax measures while allowing the rest of the bill to become law.

2. Requirements for a Veto

• Time Limit: The President must act on a bill within 30 days from the time it is presented to him. If the President fails to act within this period, the bill automatically becomes law as if he had signed it (known as pocket approval).

• Communication of Veto: When vetoing a bill, the President must return the bill with his written objections to the originating house of Congress. The veto message is crucial because it informs Congress of the specific reasons why the bill is unacceptable.

3. Effects of a Veto

• Once the bill is vetoed, it does not become law unless Congress overrides the veto.

• The line-item veto applies only to appropriation, revenue, or tariff bills. If a vetoed line item is overridden by Congress, the bill will become law with the overridden items restored.

---

B. Congressional Override of the Presidential Veto

Under Article VI, Section 27(1) of the Constitution, Congress has the power to override a presidential veto.

1. Requirements for Override

For Congress to override a veto, the following conditions must be met:

• Two-thirds Vote: The vetoed bill must be approved by a two-thirds vote of all members of each house (House of Representatives and Senate), voting separately.

  • The "two-thirds" requirement means that it is not merely two-thirds of those present in the session, but two-thirds of the total membership of each chamber. This makes overriding a presidential veto a significant challenge and ensures that only those measures with substantial legislative support can bypass the executive disapproval.

2. Procedure for Override

• Upon receipt of the President’s veto, the house where the bill originated (either the House of Representatives or the Senate) will reconsider the bill. If two-thirds of the total members of that house approve the bill despite the veto, it will be sent to the other house for reconsideration.

• If the second house also achieves a two-thirds majority in favor of the bill, the veto is overridden, and the bill becomes law without the President’s signature.

• The process requires a vote of "yeas" and "nays" which must be recorded in the journal of each house.

3. Limits on Congressional Override

• A vetoed bill can only be subject to an override vote if it is reconsidered during the session when it was originally passed. If Congress adjourns before the veto is acted upon, it cannot be reconsidered until the next session.

• In the case of a line-item veto, Congress can override only the specific vetoed item, and not the entire bill unless the entire bill was subject to a general veto.

4. Consequence of an Override

If Congress successfully overrides a veto, the bill becomes law despite the President's objections. It is treated as if the President had signed it.

---

C. Presidential Veto in Relation to the Power of the Purse

In the case of appropriation, revenue, or tariff bills, the line-item veto gives the President the power to influence the allocation of public funds, an essential aspect of the government's fiscal policy. However, Congress can override specific line-item vetoes through the same two-thirds vote mechanism, giving Congress a critical role in final fiscal decisions.

---

D. Judicial Review of the Veto

The judiciary may review the use of the veto power in cases where it is alleged that the President has acted in violation of the Constitution or in an arbitrary or capricious manner. However, courts are generally reluctant to interfere in the political decisions of the executive unless there is a clear breach of constitutional provisions.

1. Cases Involving the Veto Power

• Philippine Constitution Association v. Enriquez (G.R. No. 113105, August 19, 1994): The Supreme Court upheld the President’s line-item veto power, emphasizing that it is a necessary executive tool in ensuring fiscal responsibility.

• Demetria v. Alba (G.R. No. L-71977, February 27, 1987): This case clarified the extent of the President’s veto power over special appropriations, emphasizing that the President has discretion to veto items in appropriation bills without violating the principle of separation of powers.

---

E. Policy Considerations and Implications

The veto power plays a pivotal role in the system of checks and balances, providing the President with a safeguard against potentially harmful or imprudent legislation. However, it also serves as a point of potential friction between the executive and legislative branches. Congress's ability to override a veto ensures that the legislative intent can still prevail, but only with substantial consensus. This design encourages compromise and dialogue between the branches.

---

F. Comparative Overview: The Veto in Other Jurisdictions

The presidential veto in the Philippines closely mirrors that of the United States, where the U.S. President also has general veto power and a limited line-item veto. However, unlike the United States, where the Supreme Court struck down the line-item veto as unconstitutional (in Clinton v. City of New York, 1998), the Philippines retains a functioning line-item veto specifically for appropriation, revenue, and tariff bills, emphasizing fiscal responsibility in the government's budgeting process.

---

Conclusion

The presidential veto and congressional override provisions in the 1987 Constitution represent critical checks and balances between the legislative and executive branches. The President’s veto power allows for a robust review of legislation, while Congress’s ability to override this veto ensures that no single branch dominates the law-making process. This interplay is a vital aspect of Philippine political law, ensuring accountability and balance in governance.

Limitations on Revenue, Appropriations, and Tariff | Powers of Congress | LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

IX. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

I. Powers of Congress

---

4. Limitations on Revenue, Appropriations, and Tariff Powers

Congress of the Philippines, as the primary legislative body, is vested with broad powers in matters of revenue, appropriations, and tariffs. However, these powers are subject to constitutional limitations and statutory constraints. Below is a detailed discussion of these limitations:

---

A. Limitations on Revenue Powers

The power of Congress to impose taxes, duties, imposts, and excises is an inherent aspect of its legislative authority. This power is subject to the following constitutional and statutory limitations:

1. Uniformity and Equity in Taxation (Art. VI, Sec. 28 (1))

• Uniformity means that persons or things belonging to the same class shall be taxed at the same rate. The tax must operate in the same manner upon all individuals or corporations of the same class.
• Equity in taxation implies that the burden must be proportionate to the taxpayer's ability to pay. Taxes should not be arbitrary or confiscatory.

2. Progressive System of Taxation (Art. VI, Sec. 28 (1))

• The Constitution mandates that the taxation system in the Philippines should be progressive. This means that the rate of tax increases as the ability of the taxpayer to pay increases. The legislative intent is to place heavier tax burdens on those who have more and to relieve those with lesser financial capability.

3. Non-Delegation of Taxing Power (Art. VI, Sec. 24)

• The power to impose taxes is inherently legislative and cannot be delegated to any other body except through constitutional exceptions, such as the delegation of limited powers to local government units (LGUs) under the Local Government Code (R.A. No. 7160).
• Revenue Bills must originate exclusively from the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments. Revenue bills pertain to taxes, customs duties, and tariffs, as well as measures affecting fiscal policy.

4. Presidential Veto Power on Tax Measures (Art. VI, Sec. 27 (2))

• The President has the power to veto bills, including tax measures, passed by Congress. A presidential veto may extend to a specific provision of an appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill. However, Congress can override the veto by a two-thirds vote of all members of both Houses.

---

B. Limitations on Appropriations Power

Appropriations refer to the allocation of public funds by Congress for specific government expenditures. The Constitution imposes stringent rules on how Congress may exercise its appropriation power:

1. Requirement for an Appropriation Law (Art. VI, Sec. 29 (1))

• No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law. This requires the passing of a specific appropriation law to authorize the disbursement of public funds.

2. Appropriations for Public Purpose (Art. VI, Sec. 29 (1))

• Public funds may only be appropriated for public purposes. An appropriation that serves private interest or is otherwise not for public benefit is unconstitutional.

3. Presidential Submission of the Budget (Art. VI, Sec. 22)

• The President is required to submit to Congress a proposed national budget or General Appropriations Bill (GAB) within 30 days from the opening of each regular session. The proposed budget includes details of projected income and proposed expenditures.
• The role of Congress is to deliberate and approve, modify, or reject the budget submitted by the President. The GAB must originate from the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose amendments.

4. Prohibition on Reenactment of the Budget (Art. VI, Sec. 25 (7))

• In the absence of a new General Appropriations Act, Congress may not reenact a previous budget indefinitely. However, the reenacted budget may be applied temporarily until a new budget is passed.

5. Prohibition Against Impairment of Judiciary and Constitutional Bodies (Art. VIII, Sec. 3; Art. IX-A, Sec. 5)

• Congress is prohibited from reducing the appropriations of the Judiciary below the amount appropriated in the previous year. A similar restriction applies to constitutional commissions (e.g., Commission on Audit, Civil Service Commission, and Commission on Elections).

6. Presidential Power to Veto Appropriation Items (Art. VI, Sec. 27 (2))

• The President has the power to veto individual appropriation items within a General Appropriations Bill, a practice known as the line-item veto. The veto can apply to specific appropriations while allowing the rest of the budget to be enacted.

7. Prohibition of “Pork Barrel” and Lump-Sum Appropriations

• The Supreme Court declared the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or pork barrel system unconstitutional in Belgica v. Ochoa (2013). Congress is prohibited from appropriating lump-sum funds to be later distributed at the discretion of legislators. All appropriations must be specific and itemized in the GAB.

8. Automatic Appropriations for Certain Expenditures

• Certain expenditures are automatically appropriated by law. These include:
  • Debt Service Payments (Art. VI, Sec. 26 (3)): Payments for principal and interest on government borrowings are automatically appropriated.
  • Salaries of Constitutional Officers: Salaries and pensions of constitutional officers such as the Judiciary and constitutional commissions are automatically appropriated.

---

C. Limitations on Tariff Powers

The power to impose duties and tariffs is part of Congress's broader fiscal power. However, specific constitutional and statutory limitations apply:

1. Delegation of Tariff Powers (Art. VI, Sec. 28 (2))

• While Congress possesses the exclusive power to impose tariffs, it may delegate to the President limited authority to adjust tariff rates, import and export quotas, and other trade restrictions. Such delegation is permissible for flexibility in economic policy but must be within the bounds of law.

2. Executive Modification of Tariff Rates (Customs Modernization and Tariff Act)

• Pursuant to laws like the Customs Modernization and Tariff Act (R.A. No. 10863), the President, upon recommendation of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), can modify tariff rates to address changes in domestic and international markets. However, these modifications must still conform to the objectives and limitations prescribed by Congress.

3. Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and International Trade Commitments

• Congress must respect the commitments of the Philippines under international agreements such as World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations and Free Trade Agreements. Tariffs and trade policies must conform to these international standards, and any changes require legislative action or treaty modification.

---

Conclusion

The powers of Congress to legislate on matters of revenue, appropriations, and tariffs are broad but subject to significant constitutional constraints. These limitations are designed to ensure accountability, prevent abuse, promote fairness, and protect public funds for legitimate public purposes. The overarching principle governing these limitations is that taxation and appropriations must serve the collective good and adhere to constitutional mandates of uniformity, equity, and fiscal responsibility.

Limitations on Legislative Power | Powers of Congress | LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

IX. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
I. Powers of Congress
3. Limitations on Legislative Power

---

The Philippine Congress, composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives, is granted legislative power under the 1987 Constitution (Art. VI, Sec. 1). However, this power is not absolute. It is subject to limitations, which can be categorized into three main types: (1) Constitutional limitations, (2) Inherent limitations, and (3) External limitations derived from principles of international law or treaties. Each will be discussed meticulously below.

---

1. Constitutional Limitations

These are explicit and implicit limitations imposed by the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. These limitations ensure that Congress exercises its powers within the bounds set by the fundamental law.

a. Bill of Rights (Art. III of the 1987 Constitution)

Congress cannot enact laws that violate fundamental rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Examples include:

• Freedom of speech and expression (Sec. 4): Congress cannot pass laws that infringe upon the freedom of speech, press, or peaceful assembly.
• Freedom of religion (Sec. 5): Any law that imposes or establishes a state religion, or that restricts the free exercise of religion, would be unconstitutional.
• Due process and equal protection (Sec. 1): Congress cannot pass arbitrary laws or laws that deprive people of life, liberty, or property without due process, nor can it pass laws that violate the equal protection clause.
• Ex post facto laws and bills of attainder (Sec. 22): Congress is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws (laws that retroactively change the legal consequences of actions) and bills of attainder (laws that declare a person or group guilty of a crime without a judicial trial).

b. Separation of Powers (Art. VI, Sec. 1 and Art. VII, Sec. 1)

The principle of separation of powers places an inherent limitation on Congress’s power by preventing it from encroaching upon the powers of the Executive or the Judiciary:

• Non-delegation of legislative power (Art. VI, Sec. 1): Congress cannot delegate its law-making power to other bodies or branches of government unless there is a clear standard or framework for doing so (Doctrine of Subordinate Legislation).
• Encroachment on judicial powers (Art. VIII, Sec. 1): Congress cannot enact laws that interfere with the judiciary’s power to interpret the Constitution or decide cases.

c. Appropriations and Taxation

Certain constitutional provisions place limitations on the legislative power of Congress in relation to money bills, taxation, and appropriation laws.

• Money bills (Art. VI, Sec. 24): All appropriations, revenue, or tariff bills, bills authorizing the increase of the public debt, and bills of local application must originate exclusively in the House of Representatives. The Senate may propose or concur with amendments.
• Equal protection in taxation (Art. VI, Sec. 28): Congress must ensure uniformity and equity in taxation. The power to tax must be exercised according to law and must not violate the equal protection clause.

d. Amendments or Revisions of the Constitution (Art. XVII)

Congress’s power to amend or revise the Constitution is subject to the procedures outlined in Article XVII. Any proposed constitutional amendment or revision must go through specific procedures, either through a constituent assembly, a constitutional convention, or a people’s initiative, and requires ratification by the Filipino people in a plebiscite.

e. Other Specific Constitutional Provisions

Congress is also bound by other explicit limitations in the Constitution, including:

• Prohibition on monopolies and unfair competition (Art. XII, Sec. 19)
• Prohibition on the passage of laws granting titles of royalty or nobility (Art. VI, Sec. 31)
• Prohibition on laws that impair the obligation of contracts (Art. III, Sec. 10)

---

2. Inherent Limitations

These are limitations that are naturally imposed on legislative bodies based on the very nature of sovereignty, statehood, and the legal structure of the country. These inherent limitations are often judicially implied from the Constitution or recognized under the jurisprudence developed by the Supreme Court.

a. Territorial and Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Congress can legislate only within the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines and on matters that fall within its subject matter jurisdiction. It cannot legislate for matters that are exclusive to local governments (subject to the principle of local autonomy) or matters that are reserved to international or global governance (subject to international law).

b. Police Power, Eminent Domain, and Taxation

These are inherent powers of the State that Congress exercises through legislation, but these powers have inherent limitations:

• Police Power: Must be exercised only for the purpose of promoting public health, safety, morals, or welfare, and it must be reasonably related to achieving that purpose.
• Eminent Domain: Congress can authorize the taking of private property for public use, but this is subject to the payment of just compensation.
• Taxation: Must be exercised for a public purpose, and Congress must adhere to the principle of uniformity and equity in imposing taxes.

---

3. Limitations Derived from International Law

As a member of the international community, the Philippines is bound by the principles of international law, and its legislative power is constrained by its obligations under international agreements and treaties, as well as principles of customary international law.

a. International Law as Part of Philippine Law (Art. II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution)

The 1987 Constitution provides that the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. This means Congress cannot enact laws that violate such principles.

b. Treaty Obligations

When the Philippines enters into a treaty, it undertakes to fulfill certain obligations under international law. Congress cannot pass laws that would violate these treaty obligations. Some key treaties include:

• United Nations Charter: The Philippines, as a signatory, is committed to upholding international peace and human rights, meaning Congress cannot pass laws that would contravene these principles.
• International Human Rights Treaties: The Philippines has ratified treaties like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), and others. Congress must ensure that laws do not violate human rights protected under these treaties.
• World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreements: As a member of the WTO, the Philippines must comply with international trade rules, and Congress cannot enact protectionist legislation that would breach these commitments.

c. Customary International Law

In addition to treaty obligations, customary international law, which refers to international practices that are accepted as law, also limits the legislative powers of Congress. For example, international principles on non-interference in the affairs of other states or rules prohibiting genocide must be respected in domestic legislation.

---

4. Judicial Review and Safeguard

Any law passed by Congress is subject to judicial review by the Supreme Court. Under the power of judicial review (Art. VIII, Sec. 1), the Supreme Court can declare any law unconstitutional if it violates the limitations discussed above. This serves as the ultimate safeguard against the abuse or misuse of legislative power.

---

Conclusion

The legislative power of the Philippine Congress is broad but is tightly circumscribed by constitutional provisions, inherent limitations, and obligations under international law. These constraints ensure that Congress legislates in a manner consistent with democratic principles, respect for human rights, the rule of law, and the country's commitments to the global community.

Power of Impeachment | Powers of Congress | LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

Legislative Department – Powers of Congress: Power of Impeachment

The power of impeachment is a unique mechanism in the Constitution of the Philippines designed to remove from office certain high-ranking officials for serious offenses. It is vested in Congress, comprising both the House of Representatives and the Senate, with specific roles assigned to each chamber in the process. This power reflects the principle of checks and balances, ensuring accountability of high-ranking public officials.

Constitutional Basis

The power of impeachment is explicitly provided in Article XI, Section 2 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which outlines the grounds and procedure for impeachment. The same article and subsequent sections provide the specific roles of the House of Representatives and the Senate in the process.

Who Can Be Impeached?

The Constitution provides that the following officials may be removed from office through impeachment:

1. The President
2. The Vice President
3. The Members of the Supreme Court
4. The Members of the Constitutional Commissions (Commission on Elections, Civil Service Commission, and Commission on Audit)
5. The Ombudsman

These are the highest officials in the government, reflecting the gravity of impeachment as a political and legal remedy.

Grounds for Impeachment

Impeachment can only proceed based on any of the following serious offenses:

1. Culpable Violation of the Constitution – A deliberate and willful breach of the Constitution.
2. Treason – Betrayal of the country, typically by aiding its enemies during wartime.
3. Bribery – Offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting anything of value to influence the actions of an official.
4. Graft and Corruption – Illegal or unethical actions that enrich oneself or others to the detriment of public interest.
5. Other High Crimes – Serious offenses which demonstrate an abuse of power or breach of the public trust.
6. Betrayal of Public Trust – Acts that are considered reprehensible by the standard of public accountability, often involving ethical misconduct or gross negligence.

The Impeachment Process:

The impeachment process consists of two main phases: impeachment proper in the House of Representatives and the trial in the Senate.

1. Impeachment in the House of Representatives:

   • Initiation of the Complaint:

     • An impeachment complaint may be initiated either by one-third (1/3) of all the members of the House of Representatives through a verified complaint or resolution of endorsement.
     • Alternatively, any Filipino citizen can file a verified complaint, but it must be endorsed by any member of the House of Representatives.
     • Once initiated, no other impeachment proceedings can be filed against the same official within a period of one year (Article XI, Section 3[5]).

   • Referral to the House Committee on Justice:

     • The impeachment complaint is referred to the House Committee on Justice, which will determine whether the complaint is sufficient in form and substance.
     • The Committee may conduct hearings and will submit a report to the House plenary, recommending whether the complaint should proceed.

   • Plenary Deliberation and Voting:

     • The House of Representatives, in plenary session, will deliberate on the articles of impeachment.
     • If at least one-third (1/3) of all the members of the House approve the articles of impeachment, the complaint is deemed valid, and the official is considered impeached.
     • This means the official will now face trial before the Senate.

2. Trial in the Senate:

   • The Senate acts as the impeachment court with the Senators serving as the judges.

   • When the President of the Philippines is on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the impeachment trial. For all other impeachable officials, the Senate President presides over the trial.

   • Prosecutors from the House of Representatives will present the case before the Senate.

   • The impeached official is afforded the right to counsel and due process.

   • Verdict:

     • After hearing the evidence and arguments, the Senate will deliberate and render its judgment.
     • A conviction requires a two-thirds (2/3) vote of all members of the Senate.
     • If convicted, the impeached official is removed from office. The Senate can also disqualify the official from holding any future office of public trust, but it cannot impose any other punishment (e.g., imprisonment). If criminal liability is involved, that must be dealt with by the regular courts.

Key Constitutional Provisions:

1. Article XI, Section 3(2): The House of Representatives has the exclusive power to initiate impeachment cases.
2. Article XI, Section 3(6): The Senate has the sole power to try and decide all impeachment cases.
3. Article XI, Section 3(7): The penalty in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than removal from office and disqualification to hold any office of public trust. However, the impeached party remains liable to prosecution and punishment in accordance with law after removal.

Notable Impeachment Cases in the Philippines:

1. Joseph Ejercito Estrada (2000):

   • President Estrada was impeached on charges of bribery, graft and corruption, betrayal of public trust, and culpable violation of the Constitution. However, the impeachment trial was disrupted, and mass protests (popularly known as EDSA II) eventually led to his ouster.
   • Estrada was later convicted by the Sandiganbayan of plunder but was pardoned by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

2. Renato C. Corona (2012):

   • Chief Justice Corona was impeached by the House of Representatives in December 2011, largely based on charges of betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution for failure to disclose certain assets in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN).
   • He was convicted by the Senate Impeachment Court in 2012, with a majority of Senators voting to remove him from office.

Limitations on the Power of Impeachment:

1. One-Year Bar Rule: Once an impeachment complaint has been initiated against an official, no other impeachment proceedings can be initiated against the same official within a one-year period (Article XI, Section 3[5]).

2. Political Nature of Impeachment: Impeachment is not strictly a judicial proceeding but a political one. While due process is afforded to the official, the standards of evidence and procedure are not the same as in regular courts. It is fundamentally a political question, where political considerations can come into play.

3. No Appeal from Senate Decision: The Senate’s decision in an impeachment trial is final and non-appealable. The judgment is purely within the political realm, and the decision-making power is vested entirely in the Senate.

Implications of Impeachment:

1. Removal from Office: The primary consequence of a conviction is removal from the office held.
2. Disqualification: The convicted official may also be disqualified from holding any future office of public trust.
3. Criminal Liability: Impeachment does not exempt the official from criminal prosecution and penalties in regular courts if the offense is subject to penal laws (e.g., bribery, graft, and corruption).

Conclusion:

The power of impeachment is a vital tool in the Philippine constitutional system designed to hold high-ranking officials accountable for serious offenses. It serves as a check against abuses of power by ensuring that no one, not even the highest officials of the land, is above the law. Congress, through the House of Representatives and the Senate, plays a central role in ensuring the integrity of the process. However, it is a political process, and its success largely depends on the integrity and wisdom of the members of Congress.

Legislative Inquiries and Oversight Functions | Powers of Congress | LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Legislative Inquiries and Oversight Functions of Congress (Philippine Setting)

I. Constitutional Basis

The powers of legislative inquiries and oversight functions of Congress are enshrined in the 1987 Philippine Constitution, particularly in Article VI (Legislative Department), which grants Congress the power to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation and to exercise oversight over the Executive branch of government.

1. Legislative Inquiry Power (Section 21, Article VI, 1987 Constitution):

   • Text of the provision: "The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected."

   This provision gives Congress (both the Senate and the House of Representatives) the authority to conduct investigations as part of its lawmaking power.

2. Oversight Function (Section 22, Article VI, 1987 Constitution):

   • Text of the provision: "The heads of departments may upon their own initiative, with the consent of the President, or upon the request of either House, as the rules of each House shall provide, appear before and be heard by such House on any matter pertaining to their departments. Written questions shall be submitted to the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives at least three days before their scheduled appearance. Interpellations shall not be limited to written questions, but may cover matters related thereto. When the security of the State or the public interest so requires and the President so states in writing, the appearance shall be conducted in executive session."

   This provision emphasizes the role of Congress in exercising control or supervision over the Executive branch by requiring department heads to appear before them and explain or defend their actions.

II. Legislative Inquiries in Aid of Legislation

A legislative inquiry refers to an investigation or hearing conducted by Congress or its committees to gather information and evidence necessary to craft or amend legislation. While it is often associated with fact-finding missions, its primary purpose is to aid the legislative process.

Essential Elements of Legislative Inquiry

1. In Aid of Legislation:
   Any investigation must be conducted with the genuine intention of drafting or revising laws. It cannot be conducted for reasons of mere curiosity, harassment, or to substitute for the role of the judiciary in deciding legal disputes.

2. Committee or House Authorization:
   An inquiry must be duly authorized by the entire House (Senate or House of Representatives) or by one of its committees. Each committee’s authority and jurisdiction must conform to the duly published rules of procedure of Congress.

3. Observance of Rights:
   The rights of those who are summoned or involved in legislative inquiries must be protected, including the right to due process, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to counsel. This is often referred to as the "respected rights" clause of Section 21, Article VI.

4. Publication of Rules:
   The rules of procedure for conducting legislative inquiries must be published to provide transparency, clarity, and predictability in the conduct of investigations.

Limitations on the Legislative Inquiry Power

1. Must Be In Aid of Legislation:
   The inquiry must have a clear legislative purpose, and it cannot be used for purposes such as determining criminal guilt, which is a judicial function (see Arnault v. Nazareno).

2. Respect for Judicial Independence:
   Congress must refrain from encroaching on judicial matters or intervening in cases pending before the courts. This principle is upheld by the doctrine of the separation of powers.

3. Presidential Privilege:
   In certain cases, the President may invoke executive privilege to withhold information from Congress if disclosure would impair national security, diplomatic negotiations, or other state interests (see Senate v. Ermita).

4. Due Process and Rights of Persons:
   Legislative inquiries must respect the rights of witnesses and resource persons, including the right to refuse to answer questions that might incriminate them.

Jurisdiction of Committees in Legislative Inquiries

Each house of Congress has standing and special committees that are empowered to conduct investigations. The scope of the committee’s jurisdiction must be aligned with its mandate and expertise, as outlined in the rules of each House.

III. Oversight Functions of Congress

Congress also exercises oversight functions to monitor, review, and scrutinize the actions of the Executive branch, its agencies, and its officials. Oversight is a critical check on executive power and ensures that laws passed by Congress are being implemented effectively and in accordance with legislative intent.

Key Features of the Oversight Function

1. Control and Supervision:
   Congress, through its oversight committees, can control or supervise the implementation of laws and review the exercise of executive powers to ensure that administrative actions align with the laws passed by the legislature.

2. Power to Summon Department Heads (Section 22, Article VI):
   Congress can compel department heads to appear before it to answer questions or provide reports on the performance of their duties. This allows Congress to scrutinize the actions of the Executive branch.

3. Written Questions and Interpellation:
   Congress has the power to submit written questions to department heads before they appear, and it can subject these officials to interpellation on broader issues. The interpellation process provides Congress with critical information for lawmaking and policy review.

4. Conduct of Executive Sessions:
   In matters involving national security or sensitive public interest, Congress may conduct executive sessions. These sessions are held in private and are often requested by the President when public disclosure may compromise state secrets.

Legislative Veto and Congressional Oversight

While legislative vetoes have been deemed unconstitutional (see Abakada Guro Party List v. Ermita), Congress retains certain powers to ensure that executive agencies follow the legislative intent of laws. Through post-enactment measures, such as budgetary reviews and the creation of special oversight committees, Congress exercises its role in scrutinizing the executive.

Oversight Committees

Congress has established various oversight committees tasked with monitoring the implementation of laws, evaluating the performance of executive agencies, and investigating matters of public interest. These include:

1. Committee on Public Accountability – Ensures that public officials and agencies are held accountable for their actions.
2. Committee on Good Government – Examines instances of graft and corruption within the government.
3. Joint Congressional Oversight Committees – Established by certain laws to monitor the implementation of specific statutes (e.g., the Congressional Oversight Committee on the Implementation of the Philippine Competition Act).

IV. Case Law on Legislative Inquiry and Oversight Powers

Several landmark Supreme Court decisions have shaped the understanding of legislative inquiry and oversight functions:

1. Arnault v. Nazareno (1950)
   This case established that legislative inquiries must always be in aid of legislation. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress cannot use its investigative powers to determine the guilt or innocence of an individual, as this is a function reserved for the courts.

2. Senate v. Ermita (2006)
   The Supreme Court struck down Executive Order No. 464, which prohibited executive officials from appearing before Congress without the President’s consent. The Court ruled that while executive privilege may be invoked in certain cases, a blanket prohibition is unconstitutional and impairs Congress’ power to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation.

3. Neri v. Senate (2008)
   This case involved the invocation of executive privilege by then-NEDA Director-General Romulo Neri during a Senate investigation into the NBN-ZTE broadband deal. The Supreme Court upheld the invocation of executive privilege, citing the need to protect sensitive communications between the President and her advisers.

4. Abakada Guro Party List v. Ermita (2005)
   The Court struck down the legislative veto provision in the VAT law, emphasizing that such vetoes encroach on executive prerogatives. However, the decision affirmed Congress' power to monitor the implementation of laws through its oversight functions, provided these do not violate the principle of separation of powers.

V. Conclusion

The legislative inquiry and oversight functions of Congress are integral to the balance of powers in the Philippine government. While Congress has broad investigative powers in aid of legislation, these are subject to constitutional limitations, including respect for executive privilege, judicial independence, and the rights of individuals. Similarly, the oversight function ensures that the Executive branch implements laws faithfully and effectively, serving as a critical check on executive power.

Powers | Electoral Tribunals and the Commission on Appointments | LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Electoral Tribunals and the Commission on Appointments: Powers under the Legislative Department

A. Electoral Tribunals

Electoral Tribunals are bodies established by the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines to resolve disputes involving the election, returns, and qualifications of members of Congress. Specifically, the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) for Senators and the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) for members of the House of Representatives. These tribunals are vested with exclusive jurisdiction over electoral contests relating to their respective chambers.

1. Constitutional Basis

• Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) and House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) are created under Article VI, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution.

  • Section 17: The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective members.
  • Each tribunal is composed of nine members: three from the Supreme Court, designated by the Chief Justice, and six from the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case may be, chosen based on proportional representation from the political parties and party-list organizations.

2. Powers and Functions of the Electoral Tribunals

• Exclusive Jurisdiction: The Electoral Tribunals have the exclusive authority to hear and decide electoral contests concerning members of the Senate and the House of Representatives. No other entity can assume jurisdiction over these matters.

  • Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET): Exercises exclusive jurisdiction over all contests related to the election, returns, and qualifications of Senators.
  • House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET): Exercises exclusive jurisdiction over all contests related to the election, returns, and qualifications of members of the House of Representatives.

• Judicial Function: The Tribunals function in a quasi-judicial capacity. They are independent of the legislative functions of Congress and act as quasi-judicial bodies that review evidence and legal arguments.

• Scope of Authority:

  • The tribunals can inquire into the qualifications of candidates, such as citizenship, age, residency, and other eligibility requirements under the Constitution.
  • They review issues concerning the election process, including fraud, vote-buying, and errors in the counting and canvassing of votes.
  • Proclamation Disputes: They can invalidate the proclamation of a winning candidate if evidence shows irregularities.

• Decisions: The decisions of the Electoral Tribunals are final and executory. These decisions are generally not appealable, except in cases of grave abuse of discretion, which may be subject to review by certiorari by the Supreme Court under its expanded judicial power (Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution).

3. Composition and Process

• Three Justices of the Supreme Court, designated by the Chief Justice, and six members of the Senate or the House, selected based on proportional representation.

• Impartiality: The tribunal members must act impartially, even though a majority are from the legislative body. A balance is maintained by the presence of justices from the Supreme Court.

• Quorum and Decision: A majority of the members of the Electoral Tribunal constitutes a quorum for its meetings, and decisions are rendered by a majority vote of all its members.

---

B. Commission on Appointments

The Commission on Appointments (CA) is a constitutional body vested with the power to confirm certain appointments made by the President of the Philippines. It acts as a check on the executive branch by ensuring that presidential appointments meet the requirements of competence, integrity, and fitness for office.

1. Constitutional Basis

• Article VI, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution provides for the creation of the Commission on Appointments.

  • Section 18: The Commission on Appointments consists of the President of the Senate, as ex officio chairman, and twelve Senators and twelve members of the House of Representatives, elected by each House on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties or organizations therein. The Chairman of the Commission shall vote only in case of a tie.

2. Powers and Functions of the Commission on Appointments

• Power of Confirmation: The primary power of the CA is to approve or disapprove certain appointments made by the President. The positions requiring confirmation include:

  • Heads of executive departments (i.e., Cabinet members).
  • Ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls.
  • Officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain.
  • Heads of government-owned or controlled corporations (GOCCs) or their subsidiaries, as provided by law.

• Appointments that Do Not Require Confirmation: The following appointments do not require confirmation by the CA:

  • The Vice President (when appointed to a Cabinet position).
  • Judges and justices (whose appointments are under the purview of the Judicial and Bar Council, Article VIII, Section 9).
  • Career officials whose promotions are based on merit and seniority, as required by law.

• Scope of Review: The CA reviews the qualifications and fitness of the appointees. This involves an assessment of the appointees' qualifications, ethical standards, track record, and integrity. Appointees must undergo confirmation hearings where they may be asked to answer questions about their background and qualifications.

• Decision-Making Process:

  • The CA votes in plenary after hearings conducted by its committees. Appointees must receive a majority vote of all the members of the CA present in the session for their appointment to be confirmed.

  • Rejection of Appointments: The CA has the power to reject an appointment. Once rejected, the President may no longer reappoint the same individual to the same position unless the CA reverses its decision.

• Voting and Powers of the Chair: The Senate President serves as the ex officio chairman of the Commission and votes only in the case of a tie.

3. Checks and Balances

• The Commission on Appointments is an essential part of the checks and balances mechanism in the Philippine government. It ensures that the executive branch does not have unchecked power over appointments and that only qualified and competent individuals are appointed to sensitive positions in the government.

4. Confirmation Process

• The Commission exercises its power through its committees, each of which handles specific categories of appointments (e.g., foreign affairs, defense, etc.). Appointees appear before these committees for public hearings, during which members of the Commission may question them about their qualifications and fitness for the position.

5. Decisions and Appeals

• The decisions of the CA, like those of the Electoral Tribunals, are final and binding. Once the CA confirms or rejects an appointment, the decision is effective immediately. There is no higher authority to appeal CA decisions on confirmations.

C. Interrelationship and Key Jurisprudence

• The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the independence of both the Electoral Tribunals and the Commission on Appointments as essential mechanisms of checks and balances.

• The Electoral Tribunals are considered quasi-judicial bodies, and their decisions can only be reviewed by the Supreme Court under the narrow ground of grave abuse of discretion (e.g., Cayetano v. Monsod and Francisco v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal).

• The Commission on Appointments, on the other hand, is a political body, and its decisions, especially on the rejection of appointments, are generally considered political questions and are not subject to judicial review.

D. Conclusion

Both the Electoral Tribunals and the Commission on Appointments play critical roles in the Philippine constitutional system. They serve as independent entities that ensure the proper functioning of the democratic processes related to elections and appointments in government. These bodies safeguard against abuses of power and uphold the constitutional principles of checks and balances.

Nature | Electoral Tribunals and the Commission on Appointments | LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Nature of Electoral Tribunals and the Commission on Appointments

I. Electoral Tribunals

The Constitution of the Philippines establishes the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) and the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) as independent constitutional bodies tasked with the resolution of electoral contests involving members of Congress.

A. Constitutional Basis

1. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET)

   • Established under Article VI, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution.
   • Composition: Nine members, consisting of three Justices of the Supreme Court designated by the Chief Justice, and six members of the House of Representatives chosen based on proportional representation from the political parties or groups.

2. Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET)

   • Established under Article VI, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution.
   • Composition: Nine members, consisting of three Justices of the Supreme Court designated by the Chief Justice, and six Senators chosen based on proportional representation from the political parties or groups.

B. Nature and Jurisdiction

1. Jurisdiction Over Electoral Contests

   • The Electoral Tribunals (HRET and SET) have exclusive jurisdiction over all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, respectively.
   • Jurisdiction begins once a member has been proclaimed, taken their oath of office, and assumed their position. This exclusive jurisdiction means that no other body, including the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), courts, or even Congress itself, may resolve electoral contests involving members of Congress.

2. Quasi-Judicial Function

   • The Electoral Tribunals exercise a quasi-judicial function. Although created as part of the legislative branch, they perform adjudicatory functions similar to those of the judiciary.
   • The tribunals have the power to issue decisions that are binding, final, and executory, subject only to review by the Supreme Court on grounds of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction (Rule 65 of the Rules of Court).

3. Independence

   • The HRET and SET are designed to be independent of the respective houses they serve to avoid bias and ensure impartiality in resolving electoral contests. Their decisions must be free from any interference by the legislative body.
   • Although members of the Senate and the House of Representatives form part of the tribunals, the balance between legislators and Justices of the Supreme Court ensures impartiality, with judicial members often expected to lead in the determination of legal and procedural issues.

C. Procedure in Electoral Tribunals

1. Petition

   • An election contest is initiated by filing a petition contesting the election, returns, and qualifications of a member of Congress. The petition must allege specific grounds such as fraud, irregularities in the counting or canvassing, ineligibility of the proclaimed winner, or other electoral violations.

2. Decision-Making Process

   • Decisions are rendered by a majority vote of all the members of the tribunal.
   • The proceedings are conducted in a judicial manner, observing due process and procedural rules that are similar to those followed in court litigation.

3. Finality and Review

   • Decisions of the Electoral Tribunals are final and executory, subject to review only by the Supreme Court through a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which is a limited review based on grave abuse of discretion.

II. Commission on Appointments

A. Constitutional Basis

The Commission on Appointments (CA) is a constitutional body created under Article VI, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution. It serves as a check on the appointing power of the President, particularly for high-level executive, military, and diplomatic positions.

B. Composition

1. The Commission on Appointments is composed of 12 Senators and 12 Members of the House of Representatives, elected on the basis of proportional representation from political parties and groups. The Senate President is the ex officio Chairman of the CA but does not vote except in cases of a tie.
2. The CA is a bicameral body in nature, as it draws members from both houses of Congress, and its composition is determined by political representation within each chamber.

C. Nature and Functions

1. Confirmatory Power

   • The CA exercises a confirmatory power over certain appointments made by the President. This power ensures that appointments to high-ranking positions undergo legislative scrutiny, promoting checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches of government.

2. Scope of Appointments Subject to Confirmation

   • The following appointments by the President are subject to the confirmation of the CA:

     • Heads of executive departments (e.g., Secretaries of National Defense, Foreign Affairs, Finance).
     • Ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls.
     • Officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and higher.
     • Other officers whose appointments are vested in the President by law and are not otherwise provided for by the Constitution.

   • The appointment of judges of the Supreme Court, the Ombudsman, and the heads of constitutional commissions (e.g., Commission on Audit, Civil Service Commission, COMELEC) are not subject to CA confirmation, as these are specifically exempted by the Constitution and are subject to direct appointment by the President.

3. Quasi-Legislative Function

   • The CA exercises a quasi-legislative function, involving the exercise of discretion in approving or rejecting presidential appointments. The CA does not create laws but functions as a legislative body ensuring that appointments conform to public interest, qualifications, and the national good.

4. Independence

   • The CA is meant to be an independent body, distinct from the control of the executive branch. It operates to scrutinize appointees impartially, though it is composed of members of Congress who may belong to the same party as the President.

5. Non-Judicial in Character

   • Unlike the Electoral Tribunals, the CA does not perform a judicial or quasi-judicial function. Its role is to approve or reject appointments based on political and legal considerations, without adjudicating disputes or making binding legal rulings.

D. Procedure in the Commission on Appointments

1. Nomination and Confirmation

   • Upon the nomination of an appointee by the President, the CA conducts public hearings where the nominee is subject to questioning by members of the commission. The nominee’s qualifications, integrity, and competence are scrutinized.
   • After deliberations, the CA either approves or rejects the nomination through a vote.

2. Majority Vote

   • A majority of the members present during a session is needed to approve an appointment. A quorum (majority of all the members) must be present for the CA to conduct its proceedings.

3. Rejection of Appointments

   • If the CA rejects an appointment, the President may appoint another nominee or make an ad interim appointment when Congress is not in session. Such ad interim appointments, however, must still be confirmed by the CA when Congress reconvenes.

4. Ad Interim Appointments

   • The President may make ad interim appointments during recesses of Congress. These appointments are effective immediately but are subject to confirmation by the CA upon the reconvening of Congress. If the CA rejects the ad interim appointee, they are automatically removed from office.

III. Distinction Between the Electoral Tribunals and the Commission on Appointments

1. Functions

   • The Electoral Tribunals perform a judicial function, specifically resolving electoral contests, while the Commission on Appointments exercises a legislative confirmatory function over certain presidential appointments.

2. Independence

   • Both bodies are constitutionally independent, but their independence is exercised in different spheres. The electoral tribunals are meant to be independent of the houses they serve to ensure impartial resolution of electoral disputes, while the CA ensures the independence of the appointment process from unchecked executive power.

3. Composition and Decision-Making

   • The Electoral Tribunals are composed of members from both Congress and the judiciary, ensuring a blend of political and judicial oversight. The CA, on the other hand, is purely a legislative body composed solely of members of Congress, focusing on legislative oversight of the executive.

In conclusion, both the Electoral Tribunals and the Commission on Appointments are crucial elements in maintaining the system of checks and balances under the 1987 Constitution. They ensure the legitimacy of elected officials and appointees to public office, safeguarding democratic processes through their distinct but complementary roles.

Law-making process | LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Law-Making Process in the Philippines

(Under Political Law and Public International Law)

The law-making process in the Philippines is governed primarily by Section 26 to Section 27 of Article VI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Rules of the Senate, and other relevant laws. The Congress of the Philippines, a bicameral body consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives, is vested with the power to enact laws.

Below is a comprehensive and meticulous breakdown of the legislative process in the Philippines:

1. Proposal of a Bill

• Who May File: Bills may be introduced by any member of Congress (either from the Senate or the House of Representatives). However, appropriation bills, revenue bills, and tariff bills must originate exclusively from the House of Representatives, as mandated by Section 24 of the 1987 Constitution.
• Exception: The President, judiciary, and Constitutional Commissions may not introduce bills directly but can propose measures that sympathetic legislators may file.

2. First Reading

• During the First Reading, the bill is read by its number and title only. No debate or discussion occurs at this stage.
• The bill is referred to the appropriate committee for study and recommendation.
• The committee may conduct public hearings and consultations with stakeholders, experts, and affected sectors.

3. Committee Consideration and Report

• The committee to which the bill is referred evaluates its merits.
• It may recommend approval without amendments, approval with amendments, or disapproval.
• The committee then submits a committee report to the plenary, which may include the amended bill or substitute bill if the original version is substantially altered.

4. Second Reading

• The Second Reading is the most critical stage of the legislative process. Here, the bill is subjected to extensive debate and scrutiny.
• The bill is read in full unless copies have already been distributed to all members.
• Sponsorship: The principal sponsor, usually the chair of the committee to which the bill was referred, explains its purpose and provisions.
• Debate: Members of the chamber may ask questions, propose amendments, or challenge certain provisions.
• Amendments: Any member may propose amendments to the bill. Amendments may be:
  • Committee amendments: Suggested by the committee.
  • Individual amendments: Proposed by individual members.
• The bill is then voted upon in its entirety, with all amendments incorporated.

5. Third Reading

• The bill, now in its final form, is printed and distributed to all members at least three days before the Third Reading.
• No further amendments are allowed at this stage.
• The bill is read by its title only, and each member of the chamber votes on the bill through nominal voting (i.e., roll call vote).
• The results are recorded in the journal of the respective chamber.
• If the bill is approved by a majority of the members present, it is forwarded to the other chamber for concurrence.

6. Transmittal to the Other House

• Once approved by one chamber, the bill is transmitted to the other house (House of Representatives or Senate) where it undergoes the same legislative process:
  • First Reading
  • Committee Consideration
  • Second Reading
  • Third Reading
• If the second chamber amends the bill, the amended bill is returned to the originating chamber for concurrence.
• If the originating chamber does not concur with the amendments, a Bicameral Conference Committee may be convened to reconcile differences.

7. Bicameral Conference Committee

• The Bicameral Conference Committee consists of members from both the Senate and the House of Representatives.
• The committee reconciles any differences between the versions of the bill passed by both chambers.
• The reconciled version is then submitted for ratification by both chambers.
• No amendments are allowed once the bicameral version is presented for ratification.

8. Presidential Action

• After both chambers have ratified the bill, it is enrolled and transmitted to the President for action.
• The President may:
  • Sign the bill into law: The bill becomes a law.
  • Veto the bill: The President returns the bill with a veto message to the chamber where it originated. A vetoed bill may still become law if both chambers of Congress override the veto by a two-thirds vote of all members.
  • Allow the bill to lapse into law: If the President does not act on the bill within 30 days of receiving it, the bill automatically lapses into law without the President's signature.

9. Veto Override

• If the President vetoes the bill, Congress may reconsider the veto.
• Both chambers must vote separately to override the veto, requiring a two-thirds majority in each chamber.
• If successful, the bill becomes law notwithstanding the President’s veto.

10. Publication Requirement

• A law must be published either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation before it takes effect, as required by the landmark Supreme Court case of Tañada v. Tuvera (1986).

11. Implementation

• Once the law is published and takes effect, it is implemented by the appropriate government agencies.
• Implementing rules and regulations (IRR) may be drafted by the executive branch to provide specific details for the enforcement of the law.

Special Considerations:

a. Special Bills

• Appropriation bills, revenue bills, and tariff bills must originate exclusively from the House of Representatives. However, the Senate may propose or concur with amendments.
• Private bills that affect specific individuals or groups, such as franchise bills, follow a similar process but often require additional committee hearings to address specific concerns.

b. Emergency Legislation

• In cases of national emergency, Congress may grant emergency powers to the President under specific terms and conditions (Section 23, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution).

c. Treaty-Making Power

• Under public international law, the President of the Philippines, as the chief architect of foreign policy, has the power to negotiate and enter into treaties.
• However, Section 21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution requires that treaties and international agreements must be concurred by at least two-thirds of all the members of the Senate before they become valid and effective.

---

Jurisprudential Clarifications

1. Doctrine of Enrolled Bill

The "enrolled bill doctrine" states that once a bill has been certified by the officials of both chambers as having passed the requisite readings, the courts will not inquire into any irregularities in the legislative process. This was upheld in the case of Astorga v. Villegas.

2. No Law Shall Be Passed by Title Alone

• The 1987 Constitution, under Section 26, mandates that “every bill passed by Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.”
• This rule ensures that no provision of the law will be sneaked in unnoticed (e.g., Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, which examined the constitutionality of revenue provisions under the title of a general law).

3. Three Readings on Separate Days

• The Constitution requires that a bill undergoes three readings on separate days, except when certified as urgent by the President.
• A presidential certification only dispenses with the requirement of separate days for the readings, not the three readings themselves.

---

The legislative process in the Philippines is designed to ensure that proposed laws undergo rigorous scrutiny by lawmakers while also providing checks and balances through the bicameral nature of Congress and the executive’s power to veto. The law-making process also reflects the country’s adherence to constitutional mandates, which safeguard the democratic process of law creation.

Discipline of Members | LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Legislative Department: Discipline of Members (Philippine Constitutional Law)

Under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the legislative branch of government is vested in Congress, which is bicameral in nature, consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Each chamber has autonomy over its internal governance, including the discipline of its members. The provisions governing the discipline of members of Congress are found in Article VI of the Constitution, as well as in the rules of each legislative chamber.

Constitutional Provisions on Discipline

1. Power to Discipline Its Members

   • Article VI, Section 16(3) of the 1987 Constitution provides that:

     "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its members, suspend or expel a member."

   This grants each chamber of Congress the exclusive power to discipline its own members for conduct that violates its internal rules or for behavior deemed "disorderly." This reflects the principle of legislative autonomy, where each House exercises authority over its internal affairs without interference from the other or from external bodies.

2. Grounds for Discipline The Constitution does not exhaustively list the grounds for disciplinary action but uses the term "disorderly behavior." The actual grounds and procedures for discipline are typically specified in the internal rules of the Senate and the House of Representatives, and may include:

   • Conduct unbecoming of a legislator, either inside or outside the chamber;
   • Violation of internal rules or ethical standards;
   • Criminal convictions;
   • Corruption or abuse of office.

3. Forms of Disciplinary Action Under the Constitution and the internal rules of both Houses, disciplinary actions may include:

   • Reprimand or censure: A formal statement of disapproval, often for less severe infractions.
   • Suspension: Temporary removal of a member from participation in legislative activities. This requires a vote of two-thirds of all the members of the respective House. Suspension is often imposed for more serious infractions, though the duration of the suspension must not exceed 60 days (Article VI, Section 16[3]).
   • Expulsion: The most severe form of discipline, which results in permanent removal from office. Expulsion likewise requires the concurrence of two-thirds of all the members.

4. Procedural Safeguards

   • Due process must be observed before any member can be suspended or expelled. Although Congress has wide discretion in disciplining its members, the rules of natural justice, particularly the right to be heard, must be upheld. The disciplinary process is typically initiated by a complaint or resolution within the chamber, followed by investigation and hearings before the appropriate committee (e.g., the Ethics Committee).
   • The constitutional provision that requires a two-thirds vote to suspend or expel members is a procedural safeguard against arbitrary or politically motivated actions.

5. Immunity from Arrest

   • Article VI, Section 11 of the Constitution provides that:

     "A Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session."

   This immunity prevents the arrest of legislators for certain offenses during sessions of Congress, but it does not shield them from disciplinary action by their own chamber. Moreover, immunity does not extend to offenses punishable by more than six years of imprisonment, such as serious crimes like treason, murder, or plunder.

6. Effects of Criminal Conviction

   • If a member of Congress is convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude or is sentenced to more than six years imprisonment, this can serve as grounds for expulsion. While the Constitution does not explicitly provide for automatic expulsion upon conviction, most chambers have internal rules allowing for such action.

7. Inquiries in Aid of Legislation and Contempt Powers

   • Each House has the power to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation (Article VI, Section 21). In connection with this, the respective Houses may cite individuals, including members, for contempt for failure to comply with a subpoena or for obstructing the proceedings of Congress. Disciplinary measures may be invoked against members who are found in contempt of a legislative inquiry.

8. House of Representatives and Senate Rules

   • Both the House of Representatives and the Senate have their own rules of procedure governing discipline. For instance, in the House of Representatives, the Committee on Ethics and Privileges investigates complaints and recommends sanctions. In the Senate, the Senate Committee on Ethics and Privileges performs a similar function. Both committees have the authority to recommend appropriate sanctions, which may then be approved or modified by a vote of the entire chamber.

   Notably, internal rules often provide guidelines on how investigations should be conducted, ensuring transparency and accountability in the process.

Case Law and Judicial Review

While the Constitution grants each chamber of Congress the exclusive authority to discipline its members, the exercise of this power is subject to the fundamental principle of due process. The Supreme Court has ruled in several cases that while the judiciary generally refrains from interfering in the internal proceedings of Congress (a reflection of the doctrine of separation of powers), it retains the power to review whether legislative actions conform to constitutional requirements.

1. Paredes v. Sandiganbayan (1999)

   • In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that criminal prosecution of members of Congress is not a ground for invoking legislative immunity from disciplinary action. The Court emphasized that members of Congress are not above the law and can be subject to criminal prosecution, in addition to any disciplinary action imposed by the legislative chamber.

2. Osmeña v. Pendatun (1960)

   • This landmark case held that the legislative power to discipline members is primarily an internal matter of Congress, and the courts will not intervene unless there is a clear violation of constitutional rights. The Supreme Court stated that Congress has the power to discipline its members for disorderly conduct as it sees fit, subject to due process.

Conclusion

The discipline of members of Congress is primarily governed by the principle of legislative autonomy, allowing each chamber to control its internal proceedings and maintain order. The power to discipline includes reprimand, suspension, and expulsion, with significant safeguards, including a two-thirds vote requirement and due process protections. However, legislative discipline is not beyond the reach of judicial review, particularly where constitutional rights are implicated.

In summary, the disciplinary process in Congress is a balance between preserving legislative independence and upholding the rule of law, ensuring that members of Congress remain accountable both to their peers and to the public.

Quorum and Voting Majorities | LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Political Law and Public International Law > IX. Legislative Department > E. Quorum and Voting Majorities

1. Quorum:

A quorum refers to the minimum number of members of a deliberative body, such as a legislative assembly, required to be present in order to legally transact business or pass legislation. Under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the rules regarding quorum in legislative bodies are outlined in Article VI.

• Article VI, Section 16(2):
  • It provides that a quorum in either House of Congress (the Senate or the House of Representatives) shall consist of a majority of each House’s members.
  • Specifically:
    • The Senate: A majority of all its members (24 members in total) is required to form a quorum. This means at least 13 members must be present.
    • The House of Representatives: A majority of all its members (depending on the current composition, but often around 152-155 members) is required to form a quorum.

Without a quorum, the legislative body cannot conduct its business. However, members who are present, even in the absence of a quorum, are allowed to:

• Call the attention of the presiding officer to the lack of a quorum.
• Compel the attendance of absent members.

2. Voting Majorities:

Different voting majorities are required in Congress depending on the nature of the matter being voted upon. The Philippine Constitution mandates specific thresholds based on the importance of the action to be taken. These are:

a. Simple Majority:

A simple majority refers to a vote of more than half of the members present during a quorum. It is the most basic threshold for passing general legislation.

• Article VI, Section 16(2):
  • A simple majority of members present, constituting a quorum, is typically required for ordinary legislation and motions, such as:
    • Passing a bill (general legislation).
    • Approval of resolutions.
  • For instance, if 20 Senators are present during a session, a vote of at least 11 Senators is needed to pass a bill.
  • In the House of Representatives, assuming a quorum of 152 members is present, a simple majority would require at least 77 affirmative votes.

b. Absolute Majority (Majority of All Members):

An absolute majority requires the vote of more than half of all members of a particular House of Congress, not just those present during the session.

• It is required in some cases, such as:
  • Expulsion of a member (Article VI, Section 16[3]): A member of Congress may be expelled with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its members. This means 16 Senators or around 200 House members.
  • Override of a Presidential Veto (Article VI, Section 27[1]): To override the President's veto, Congress needs a two-thirds vote of all its members. This means 16 Senators and two-thirds of all members of the House.

c. Special Majorities:

1. Two-thirds Majority: Certain critical actions require a two-thirds vote of the total membership of either or both Houses of Congress. These include:

   • Declaration of the existence of a state of war (Article VI, Section 23[1]):

     • Both Houses of Congress, voting separately, need a two-thirds majority of all members to declare the existence of a state of war.
     • This would mean 16 votes in the Senate and approximately 203 votes in the House of Representatives.

   • Amending or revising the Constitution (Article XVII, Section 1):

     • Congress may propose amendments to or revisions of the Constitution upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members.
     • In this case, a total of 18 Senators and 228 Representatives would be required for such a measure to pass.

2. Three-fourths Majority:

   • Grant of emergency powers to the President (Article VI, Section 23[2]):
     • In times of national emergency, Congress may, by law, authorize the President to exercise powers necessary to carry out a national policy. This requires a three-fourths vote of all members of both Houses.

3. Impeachment Proceedings (Article XI, Section 3):

   • Initiation of Impeachment (One-third of House Members):
     • A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by any member of the House of Representatives or by any citizen upon a resolution of endorsement by any member thereof. It must be supported by at least one-third of all members of the House to proceed to trial in the Senate.
   • Conviction by the Senate (Two-thirds Majority):
     • Conviction requires a vote of at least two-thirds of all the members of the Senate sitting as an impeachment court. This means at least 16 Senators must vote in favor of conviction.

d. Plurality Vote:

In the election of the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Senate President, a plurality vote is typically applied. This means the candidate who garners the highest number of votes among those present wins, even if they do not obtain an absolute majority.

3. Key Points:

• Effect of Lack of Quorum: No business can be transacted without a quorum, except to adjourn from day to day or to compel the attendance of absent members (Article VI, Section 16[2]).
• Attendance during Sessions: Members of Congress are constitutionally required to attend all its sessions unless they are excused or are on official mission (Article VI, Section 16[2]).
• Participation in Voting: Each member of either House shall cast their vote on every question put to a vote unless disqualified by a legal reason. Failure to vote may subject a member to disciplinary measures.

Summary

The Constitution provides specific guidelines for quorum and voting majorities in both Houses of Congress. A quorum, or majority of all members, is necessary for any legislative action. Simple majority, absolute majority, two-thirds, and three-fourths majorities are used depending on the significance of the legislative action. Special thresholds exist for constitutional amendments, declarations of war, impeachment, and emergency powers for the President, reflecting the critical importance of these decisions.

This structure ensures that Congress operates with sufficient participation and reflects democratic principles while safeguarding the integrity of important decisions by requiring more than simple majority in special cases.

Legislative Privileges, Inhibitions, and Disqualifications | LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Legislative Privileges, Inhibitions, and Disqualifications under Philippine Law

In the Philippine Constitution, legislators—both Senators and Members of the House of Representatives—are afforded specific privileges and subjected to certain inhibitions and disqualifications in order to protect the integrity of the legislative process, safeguard the independence of the legislative branch, and ensure ethical conduct. These rules are essential in preventing conflicts of interest, promoting transparency, and maintaining the dignity of the legislative office. The relevant provisions can primarily be found in Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.

1. Legislative Privileges

a. Freedom of Speech and Debate Under Section 11, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, members of Congress are protected by parliamentary immunity. It states:

“A Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session. No member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof.”

This parliamentary privilege grants legislators:

• Immunity from Arrest: A legislator cannot be arrested for crimes punishable by imprisonment of six years or less while Congress is in session. However, for serious offenses (e.g., crimes punishable by more than six years), this privilege does not apply.

• Speech and Debate Immunity: Legislators cannot be questioned or held liable in any other place for any speech, debate, or utterance made in the discharge of their official functions within the halls of Congress. This ensures freedom of speech within Congress without fear of external pressure or reprisals.

b. Privilege from Arrest The immunity from arrest applies only while Congress is in session. The scope of this privilege is limited to minor offenses (those punishable by six years or less). It serves to protect the independence of the legislature and ensure the uninterrupted participation of members in legislative functions.

2. Legislative Inhibitions and Disqualifications

To prevent conflicts of interest and safeguard public office's integrity, the Constitution imposes several prohibitions on legislators:

a. Conflict of Interest Provisions (Section 14, Article VI)
Legislators are prohibited from having a direct or indirect interest in government contracts and businesses during their term. The provision states:

“No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may personally appear as counsel before any court of justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other administrative bodies. Neither shall he, directly or indirectly, be interested financially in any contract with, or in any franchise or special privilege granted by, the Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries, during his term of office. He shall not intervene in any matter before any office of the Government for his pecuniary benefit or where he may be called upon to act on account of his office.”

Key points:

• Prohibition against Appearing as Counsel: Legislators are forbidden from appearing as legal counsel before any court, quasi-judicial body, or administrative body during their term of office. This prevents legislators from using their influence to sway legal proceedings in favor of their clients.

• Prohibition on Financial Interest in Government Contracts: Legislators cannot have any direct or indirect financial interest in any government contract, franchise, or special privilege. This ensures that legislators do not exploit their positions for personal financial gain.

• Prohibition on Intervention for Pecuniary Benefit: Legislators cannot intervene in any government matter for personal monetary gain. This prevents the use of legislative power for personal enrichment.

b. Incompatibility with Other Offices (Section 13, Article VI)

“No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may hold any other office or employment in the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries, during his term without forfeiting his seat.”

This prohibition seeks to prevent legislators from holding conflicting roles in government to maintain the separation of powers and prevent undue influence. The legislature must remain independent from other branches of government.

Key aspects:

• Holding Another Office: A legislator who accepts or holds another office in the government automatically forfeits their legislative seat. The goal is to avoid conflicts of interest and ensure that legislators focus solely on their legislative duties.

• Incompatibility with Public Office: This extends to employment in any government entity, including government-owned or controlled corporations. This ensures that public service is not compromised by dual roles that may lead to conflicts of interest.

c. Prohibition on Appointments and Employment After Term (Section 6, Article IX-B) Former legislators are barred from being appointed to any government office that was created, or where the emoluments were increased, during their term of office. This prevents legislators from passing laws that benefit them personally in the future.

d. Prohibition Against Nepotism (Civil Service Laws) Although not explicitly stated in the Constitution, the Civil Service Law applies to legislators as well, prohibiting nepotism in appointments within government offices under their influence.

3. Additional Disqualifications

Beyond the constitutional provisions, there are other legal and ethical guidelines applicable to legislators:

a. Statutory Disqualifications
Certain laws may impose additional disqualifications on legislators, particularly those related to conflict of interest, anti-graft laws, and anti-corruption measures, such as:

• Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act): This act imposes penalties on legislators who engage in corrupt practices, including the improper use of influence, entering into prohibited contracts, or committing acts that amount to graft or corruption.

b. Disqualification Due to Election Offenses Under the Omnibus Election Code, a legislator convicted of an election offense is disqualified from holding public office. This prevents individuals who undermine the electoral process from serving as public officials.

4. Jurisdiction Over Disputes on Privileges, Inhibitions, and Disqualifications

a. Ethics Committees Each House of Congress has its Ethics Committee, which handles cases of unethical conduct by its members. These committees have the power to recommend disciplinary actions, including suspension or expulsion, against legislators who violate the rules on privileges, inhibitions, and disqualifications.

b. The Supreme Court The Supreme Court of the Philippines has the ultimate authority to interpret constitutional provisions, including those related to the legislative department. In cases involving disputes over legislative privileges, inhibitions, or disqualifications, the Supreme Court may be called upon to rule on the constitutionality of actions or decisions.

c. Electoral Tribunals The Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) and the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) handle disputes related to the qualifications, elections, returns, and disqualifications of their respective members. These tribunals have exclusive jurisdiction over such cases.

5. Sanctions for Violations

Violations of the prohibitions on legislative inhibitions and disqualifications can result in various sanctions, including:

• Forfeiture of Legislative Seat: As discussed earlier, holding an incompatible office or employment leads to the automatic forfeiture of the legislative seat.
• Suspension or Expulsion: Violations of ethical standards or legislative rules may result in suspension or expulsion, as recommended by the Ethics Committee of either House of Congress.
• Criminal or Administrative Liability: Violations of anti-graft laws, election laws, or other statutory provisions can lead to criminal or administrative cases, resulting in imprisonment, fines, or disqualification from public office.

Conclusion

The privileges, inhibitions, and disqualifications of legislators under the 1987 Philippine Constitution reflect the delicate balance between ensuring the independence and effectiveness of the legislative branch while safeguarding it against conflicts of interest, unethical behavior, and abuses of power. These constitutional safeguards serve to uphold the dignity of the legislature and protect the public trust in its elected officials.

Declaration of the Existence of a State of War | LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Declaration of the Existence of a State of War

1. Constitutional Basis

The declaration of the existence of a state of war is governed by the 1987 Philippine Constitution, specifically Article VI, Section 23(1). This provision states:

"The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses in joint session assembled, voting separately, shall have the sole power to declare the existence of a state of war."

Key points:

• Sole Power of Congress: The authority to declare war is exclusively vested in Congress. This emphasizes the separation of powers, ensuring that the executive branch does not unilaterally engage in warfare.
• Voting Requirement: The declaration requires a two-thirds vote of all the members of both the Senate and the House of Representatives. This vote must be conducted while Congress is in joint session but voting separately.
• Joint Session: While the two chambers of Congress convene together, the voting is conducted separately by each chamber.

2. Role of the Executive

While Congress has the sole authority to declare the existence of a state of war, the President, as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces (Article VII, Section 18), plays a critical role in the implementation and prosecution of such a war:

• The President cannot declare war but can request Congress to declare war if circumstances require it.
• As Commander-in-Chief, the President directs the conduct of military operations after a declaration of war.
• In certain cases, the President may use the calling out powers (Article VII, Section 18) to prevent or suppress violence, rebellion, or invasion, but this does not constitute a declaration of war.

3. Historical Context

The constitutional provision on the declaration of war reflects lessons from history:

• Pre-1935 Constitution: During the Spanish and American colonial periods, the power to declare war was vested in foreign sovereigns (Spain and the United States).
• 1935 Constitution: The Philippine Commonwealth Constitution (1935) vested the declaration of war in the National Assembly.
• The 1941 Japanese invasion led to the Philippines becoming involved in World War II after the United States' declaration of war.
• Post-World War II, under the 1973 Constitution, the power to declare war was similarly vested in Congress, though with increased centralization of power in the executive during Martial Law.
• The 1987 Constitution restored and reinforced the principle of checks and balances, particularly emphasizing the role of Congress in war declarations.

4. Implications of the Declaration

The declaration of a state of war has profound legal and practical consequences:

• Military Engagement: Upon the declaration of war, the Philippines is engaged in active hostilities against another state or entity. This engages the nation's armed forces in both offensive and defensive operations.
• Suspension of Certain Rights: During a state of war, certain rights may be restricted in the interest of national security, though martial law and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus are separate measures and are not automatically invoked by a declaration of war (Article VII, Section 18).
• International Relations: A declaration of war may affect diplomatic relations, triggering obligations under international treaties, such as defense agreements (e.g., Mutual Defense Treaty with the United States). It may also invoke international humanitarian law (laws of war), including the Geneva Conventions.

5. Role of Public International Law

The declaration of war is also governed by principles of Public International Law:

• UN Charter and War: The United Nations Charter (to which the Philippines is a signatory) significantly restricts the use of force by states. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force except in cases of self-defense or when authorized by the UN Security Council.
• The declaration of war must be consistent with international law, particularly the rules on jus ad bellum (the right to wage war).
• International Humanitarian Law (IHL): Once war is declared, the Philippines must adhere to the obligations under IHL, specifically the Geneva Conventions, which govern the conduct of hostilities and protect persons who are not or no longer participating in the conflict, such as civilians and prisoners of war.

6. Congressional Oversight and Termination of War

After the declaration of war:

• Congress retains the power to terminate the state of war. This can occur through the passage of a resolution or legislation indicating that the conflict has ended or been resolved.
• Congress also exercises oversight functions by controlling the budget for military operations, ensuring accountability in the prosecution of war.

7. Practical Challenges

In practice, the declaration of a state of war by Congress can raise several issues:

• Speed of Response: Modern warfare may require quick military responses, which can be challenging given the procedural requirements for a joint session and a two-thirds vote.
• Political Will: Securing a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress can be politically challenging, especially in situations where the nation may be divided on whether to engage in a conflict.
• Diplomatic Consequences: A formal declaration of war can have significant diplomatic ramifications, including the potential escalation of conflict, trade sanctions, and impacts on foreign alliances.

8. Comparative Legal Perspectives

• In other jurisdictions, the power to declare war may be vested solely in the executive (e.g., United Kingdom, where the Royal Prerogative allows the Prime Minister to declare war), or shared between the executive and legislature (e.g., United States, where Congress has the power to declare war, though the President may conduct military operations without a formal declaration).

9. Relevant Cases and Jurisprudence

There are limited cases in Philippine jurisprudence directly addressing the declaration of war. However, key decisions highlight related principles on the limits of executive power and the role of Congress in times of conflict, such as:

• Lansang v. Garcia (1971), which examined the calling out powers of the President.
• David v. Arroyo (2006), which tackled the constitutionality of emergency measures during political crises.

---

This comprehensive outline addresses the legal framework, historical context, and practical implications of the declaration of the existence of a state of war under Philippine law, reflecting both domestic and international legal considerations.