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

POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

X. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

---

C. Powers of the President

---

3. Power of Control and Supervision

---

c. Local Government Units (LGU)

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

1. Power of Control vs. Power of Supervision

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

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

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

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

2. Constitutional Framework

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Scope of the President's Supervision over LGUs

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

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

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

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

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

5. Grounds for Intervention by the President

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

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

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

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

6. Limitations on the Power of Supervision

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

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

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

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

7. Jurisprudence on Presidential Supervision Over LGUs

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

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

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

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

8. Summary

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

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

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

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

POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

X. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

C. Powers of the President

3. Power of Control and Supervision

b. Executive Departments and Offices

---

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

1. Power of Control

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

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

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

Key aspects of the power of control include:

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

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

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

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

Jurisprudence on Control

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

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

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

2. Power of Supervision

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

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

Jurisprudence on Supervision

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exception: Independent Constitutional Bodies

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency | Power of Control and Supervision | Powers of the President | EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency

The Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency is a fundamental principle in Philippine political law, specifically concerning the exercise of the powers of the Executive Department. This doctrine helps define the relationship between the President and subordinate executive officials, and it addresses the delegation of executive powers and the scope of the President’s control and supervision over executive departments and officials.

1. Origin of the Doctrine

The Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency originates from American jurisprudence, particularly from the case In re Aurelio Tolentino, G.R. No. L-23057, where the Supreme Court of the Philippines explicitly recognized and adopted the doctrine. The premise of the doctrine is rooted in the principle that the President, as the Chief Executive, cannot perform all executive functions alone, and thus must rely on subordinate officials to exercise powers and implement policies on his or her behalf.

2. Nature and Scope of the Doctrine

Under the Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency, the acts of the President’s alter egos or assistants are deemed to be the acts of the President unless disapproved or reprobated by the President. This means that Cabinet members, as alter egos of the President, have the authority to make decisions and act within their respective areas of responsibility, and their actions are presumed to carry the authority of the President. However, these acts are subject to the President’s power of control.

The doctrine operates on the following principles:

• Alter Ego Principle: The President’s Cabinet members and other executive officials are considered his alter egos. Their actions are presumed to be with the consent and approval of the President unless explicitly countermanded by the latter.
• Delegation of Executive Power: The President cannot feasibly exercise all executive powers alone. Thus, powers are delegated to subordinate officials. This delegation does not diminish the President’s control but allows for the efficient functioning of government.
• Power of Control: The President retains the power of control over the entire Executive Department. This power of control is absolute in the sense that the President can revise, alter, or reverse any action or decision of a subordinate official. Control is the power to “alter or modify” decisions, as well as the power to replace an official or intervene in the performance of their duties.

3. Control vs. Supervision

It is crucial to distinguish between the President’s power of control and the power of supervision, as both terms have distinct legal implications under Philippine law:

• Power of Control refers to the authority to direct the performance of duties, and to alter or nullify the actions of subordinates. This means the President has the authority to directly interfere in the decisions and actions of his subordinates. All executive officials exercise their functions subject to this overarching control of the President.

• Power of Supervision, on the other hand, is more limited. It refers to the authority of an officer to ensure that laws are faithfully executed and that subordinate officers perform their duties in accordance with law. Supervision implies a lesser degree of intervention, allowing subordinates to perform their functions without interference unless they violate the law or engage in irregularities.

4. Application of the Doctrine

The Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency is applied primarily within the context of executive functions. It ensures a hierarchical delegation of responsibilities but maintains the President’s ultimate control over decisions and policies.

Some key cases that illustrate the application of the doctrine are:

• Villena v. Secretary of the Interior (1939)
  This case is one of the most notable cases that discussed the Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency. The Supreme Court ruled that the heads of departments are mere assistants and agents of the Chief Executive, and the latter's authority is deemed to be that of the President unless disapproved or reprobated by him.

• Lacson-Magallanes Co., Inc. v. Pano (1971)
  In this case, the Supreme Court reiterated the doctrine, holding that all acts of department secretaries are presumed to be the acts of the President unless disapproved or revoked.

• Araullo v. Aquino (2014)
  This case involved the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), where the Supreme Court discussed the application of the doctrine in relation to the actions taken by Cabinet members and executive officials. The Court upheld that the President is ultimately responsible for the acts of his subordinates, unless those acts are repudiated.

5. Implications for the President’s Accountability

While the Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency allows for the delegation of executive functions, it does not absolve the President from accountability for the actions of his or her alter egos. The President remains politically responsible for the actions taken by the Cabinet and other executive officials, especially if such actions are not repudiated or disapproved by the President.

The doctrine thus embodies the following essential principles in terms of accountability:

• Presumption of Presidential Approval: The actions of Cabinet members are presumed to carry the President’s authority unless expressly overturned or disapproved by the President.
• Continuing Responsibility: The President cannot evade responsibility for unlawful or irregular actions of subordinates simply by claiming ignorance. If the President does not act to countermand or correct such actions, they become politically attributable to him or her.

6. Limitations of the Doctrine

While the Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency provides a broad scope of authority to executive officials, it is not without limits. The following are significant limitations:

• Explicit Presidential Disapproval: The President can negate the acts of his alter egos by explicitly revoking or disapproving such acts.
• Acts Beyond Authority: If an executive official acts beyond the scope of delegated authority or violates the law, such acts may not be covered by the presumption of presidential authority.
• Judicial Review: The actions of executive officials, although presumed to be the acts of the President, are still subject to judicial review to ensure they comply with the Constitution and existing laws.

Conclusion

The Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency serves as a crucial mechanism in the operation of the Executive Department in the Philippines. It allows for efficient governance by enabling the President’s alter egos to act on his or her behalf while maintaining the President’s control over the entire Executive Department. The doctrine reinforces the hierarchical structure of the executive branch, ensuring accountability, delegation of authority, and central control by the President. However, the exercise of delegated powers remains subject to legal constraints and the overarching principles of transparency, responsibility, and the rule of law.

Disciplinary Power (Suspension and Removal) | 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
f. Disciplinary Power (Suspension and Removal)

---

I. Constitutional and Statutory Basis

The President of the Philippines exercises disciplinary power over certain public officials based on constitutional and statutory authority. This power includes the authority to suspend or remove officials from their posts under specified conditions. While the Constitution grants certain powers to the President, this disciplinary power is largely governed by laws such as the Administrative Code of 1987 and judicial interpretations from the Supreme Court.

• Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution grants the President the power to appoint officials in the government. Inherent to this power is the authority to discipline, suspend, or remove certain appointed officials.
• Section 17, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution also underscores that the President shall ensure that all laws are faithfully executed. This gives the President oversight over government officers and employees, particularly in ensuring accountability in service.

II. Scope of the Disciplinary Power

The President’s disciplinary authority includes the following key components:

1. Power to Suspend

• Preventive Suspension: The President may impose preventive suspension on any appointed official while an investigation is ongoing. This is not a form of punishment but is preventive in nature, to ensure that the investigation is conducted impartially and that the official being investigated does not exert undue influence.
• Grounds for Suspension: Preventive suspension is usually imposed when:
  • The charges against the official involve dishonesty, oppression, misconduct, or gross neglect in the performance of duties.
  • The respondent’s continued stay in office may prejudice the investigation or influence witnesses.
  • The law or regulations provide for such suspension.

2. Power to Remove

• Grounds for Removal: The President may remove officials for cause, such as dishonesty, misconduct, neglect of duty, inefficiency, incompetence, or any other ground specified by law, particularly the Revised Administrative Code of 1987 and jurisprudence.
• Due Process: The removal of officials must adhere to the principle of due process. An official must be informed of the charges against them, given a reasonable opportunity to answer, and heard by an impartial body or authority before a decision is made.

3. Officials Subject to the President's Disciplinary Power

• Appointive Officials: Generally, the President has disciplinary authority over officials whom he or she has appointed, particularly those falling under the executive department. The power to discipline includes suspension, removal, and administrative penalties.
• Local Government Officials: The power to discipline local government officials is governed by the Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act No. 7160). The President’s power to discipline elective local officials is typically exercised through the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), except in cases involving the President's direct appointment or positions falling under the President’s jurisdiction.
• Presidential Appointees Under Constitutional Bodies: Officials in independent constitutional bodies such as the Civil Service Commission (CSC) or the Commission on Audit (COA) are not subject to the direct disciplinary authority of the President due to their independence, as provided by the Constitution. Their disciplinary process is governed by their respective agencies or the courts.

III. Jurisprudential Principles on Disciplinary Power

1. Disciplinary Power as Inherent to Executive Control

• The Supreme Court has consistently held that the disciplinary power over officials within the executive branch is an inherent function of the President’s executive authority. This power includes not only the authority to appoint but also to discipline, suspend, and remove officials as part of ensuring effective governance and accountability (e.g., Paredes v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 158875, June 16, 2004).

2. Limits of the President’s Disciplinary Authority

• Constitutional Bodies and Independent Offices: The Supreme Court has ruled that the President’s disciplinary authority does not extend to officials belonging to constitutional commissions or other independent offices created by the Constitution, as these are beyond the control of the President to ensure their autonomy (Bautista v. COA, G.R. No. 191938, August 3, 2010).
• Checks and Balances: The exercise of the disciplinary power is subject to the doctrine of checks and balances. This ensures that while the President has significant control over the executive branch, the judiciary and legislative branches may intervene to prevent abuse of this authority. Moreover, the principle of separation of powers mandates that the President cannot unilaterally discipline or remove officials under the legislative or judicial branches, except when prescribed by law (e.g., impeachment, as in Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. No. 146710-15, March 2, 2001).

3. Principle of Due Process in Disciplinary Actions

• The President must observe procedural due process when exercising disciplinary powers. In the case of removal or suspension, the official must be given notice of the charges, a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves, and an impartial determination of their case (e.g., Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations, G.R. No. L-46496, February 27, 1940).

IV. Delegation of Disciplinary Power

1. Delegation to Department Heads and Administrative Agencies

• The President can delegate the power to discipline certain officials to department secretaries, heads of agencies, or disciplinary boards, especially in cases involving lower-ranked officials. This delegation is consistent with the Administrative Code of 1987 and allows for efficient management of administrative cases within the executive branch.
• Exceptions to Delegation: The power to discipline certain high-ranking officials, such as cabinet members or constitutional officers (subject to appointment by the President), remains exclusively with the President. Furthermore, the removal of such officials requires a finding of just cause and adherence to proper procedures.

2. Disciplinary Power of Local Executives

• Local executives, such as mayors and governors, also possess disciplinary authority over subordinate officials within their respective jurisdictions, pursuant to the Local Government Code. However, the President may exercise supervisory disciplinary authority through the DILG, particularly in cases involving gross misconduct or violations of national law by local government officials.

V. Disciplinary Power as a Check on Corruption and Incompetence

The President’s disciplinary power serves as a vital mechanism for maintaining integrity and efficiency in the public service. By exercising this authority, the President can:

• Enforce accountability among executive branch officials.
• Remove or suspend officials guilty of misconduct, abuse of power, or neglect of duties.
• Uphold public trust in government institutions by ensuring that erring officials are held accountable.

VI. Conclusion

The disciplinary power of the President to suspend or remove officials is a fundamental component of executive authority. It ensures that public officers remain accountable to the people and that the executive branch operates with integrity and efficiency. This power, while broad, is subject to the principles of due process, separation of powers, and statutory limitations designed to prevent abuses and protect the rights of public officials. Jurisprudence further refines the scope of the President’s power, reinforcing its role as a tool for governance and accountability in the public sector.

Ad-Interim Appointments | Power of Appointment | Powers of the President | EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

Ad-Interim Appointments under the Power of Appointment of the President

1. Constitutional Basis and Nature of Ad-Interim Appointments

The power of appointment is an essential executive power granted to the President of the Philippines under Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Specifically, the provision outlines the procedures for appointments requiring the consent of the Commission on Appointments (CA). One form of presidential appointment is the ad-interim appointment, which can be defined as a temporary appointment made during a congressional recess.

An ad-interim appointment is made by the President when Congress is not in session and is subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments upon its resumption. This power is crucial for ensuring the continuity of government functions, particularly in filling vacancies in key positions that might hamper governance if left unfilled.

2. Distinction between Ad-Interim and Regular Appointments

• Ad-Interim Appointment:

  • Made by the President while Congress is in recess.
  • Takes effect immediately and allows the appointee to assume office and discharge their duties pending the confirmation by the CA.
  • Valid until the CA disapproves or until Congress adjourns again without final action on the appointment.
  • Can be reappointed if bypassed or disapproved, as long as constitutional provisions are observed.

• Regular Appointment:

  • Made when Congress is in session.
  • Requires prior submission to the CA for approval before the appointee can take office.
  • The appointee cannot perform the functions of the office until confirmation.

3. Mechanics and Operation of Ad-Interim Appointments

• Timing and Necessity: Ad-interim appointments are necessary to avoid a vacuum in critical government positions, especially in constitutional commissions, the judiciary, and other agencies requiring uninterrupted functions.
• Effectivity: The appointee immediately assumes the position once appointed, exercising the full powers of the office. However, the appointment remains subject to CA confirmation.
• Confirmation Process: Once Congress reconvenes, the appointment is submitted to the CA for confirmation. If confirmed, the appointment becomes permanent.
• Non-Confirmation: If the CA disapproves or bypasses the appointment, the appointee’s term ends. Despite non-confirmation, the President may reappoint the same individual multiple times, provided the CA has not explicitly disapproved the individual’s appointment.

4. Constitutional and Jurisprudential Framework

Several key jurisprudential rulings define the parameters of ad-interim appointments:

• Matibag v. Benipayo (G.R. No. 149036, April 2, 2002): The Supreme Court held that ad-interim appointments are temporary but effective immediately, subject to confirmation by the CA. The Court ruled that ad-interim appointments are distinct from regular appointments. It also affirmed the President’s power to renew or issue new ad-interim appointments when bypassed by the CA.

• Paredes v. Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 131325, July 19, 1999): This case involved the revocation of ad-interim appointments. The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that an ad-interim appointment, being effective immediately, can be disapproved by the CA. However, disapproval should be explicit and not merely implied by bypass. An ad-interim appointee cannot be removed simply because they have not yet been confirmed.

• Sarmiento v. Mison (G.R. No. 79974, December 17, 1987): The case involved appointments to the Bureau of Customs, and the Court clarified that positions requiring confirmation by the CA include heads of bureaus, offices, and other government entities. However, ad-interim appointments made by the President during a recess are valid until rejected by the CA.

5. Limitations on Ad-Interim Appointments

• Prohibition During Election Period: Under Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution, the President is prohibited from making appointments two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of the President's term. This applies to regular appointments as well as ad-interim appointments, with exceptions for temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies may prejudice public service or endanger public safety.

• Resignation and Vacancy: An ad-interim appointee holds the position only until such time as their appointment is acted upon by the CA. If bypassed, disapproved, or upon the appointee’s resignation, the position becomes vacant, and the President may choose to make another appointment.

6. Significance and Implications of Ad-Interim Appointments

The system of ad-interim appointments plays a critical role in the stability and continuity of government operations by preventing the paralysis of critical government offices during congressional recesses. It allows the President to respond swiftly to emerging governance needs without waiting for the legislative branch to reconvene.

Nevertheless, this power must be exercised within the bounds of the Constitution to avoid abuse. The requirement for CA confirmation ensures a system of checks and balances, providing a mechanism to assess the qualifications and fitness of individuals for key positions in government.

In sum, ad-interim appointments are a constitutionally enshrined power of the President that ensures the uninterrupted functioning of the government while maintaining accountability through the confirmation process by the Commission on Appointments.

Scope of Midnight Appointments | Power of Appointment | Powers of the President | EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

Midnight Appointments: Scope and Limitations

I. Constitutional Basis and Legal Framework

1. Section 15, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution explicitly addresses the prohibition against midnight appointments by the President. The relevant provision states:

   "Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointments, except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety."

2. Purpose of the Provision: The rationale behind the prohibition on midnight appointments is to prevent the outgoing President from appointing individuals to key government positions for personal or political gain. It aims to protect the integrity of the electoral process, ensure smooth transition of power, and prevent "packing" the government with loyalists before leaving office.

II. Definitions and Nature of Midnight Appointments

1. What Constitutes a Midnight Appointment? Midnight appointments are those made by the President within the prohibited period (two months before the next presidential elections until the end of the President's term). The appointments falling within this period, with limited exceptions, are generally deemed invalid.

2. Scope of the Prohibition: The prohibition encompasses all appointments made within the specified period, except for:

   • Temporary appointments to executive positions.
   • Promotions and new appointments to the judiciary (which are subjected to separate restrictions and the Judicial and Bar Council's recommendations).
   • Appointments to vacancies in offices related to national security or public service emergencies, wherein leaving the position vacant could endanger public safety.

3. Exceptions: The Constitution permits the President to make temporary appointments to executive positions within the prohibited period if:

   • The continued vacancy in the position would prejudice public service, or
   • There is a danger to public safety. These temporary appointments are necessary to avoid disruption of essential government functions during the electoral period and the transition to a new administration.

III. Key Supreme Court Decisions and Jurisprudence

Several landmark cases have clarified and defined the scope and extent of the prohibition on midnight appointments:

1. Aytona v. Castillo (1962)

   • This case is foundational in addressing the concept of midnight appointments. It involved the appointment of officials by outgoing President Carlos P. Garcia in the last few days of his presidency. The Supreme Court invalidated these appointments, stressing that the outgoing President is merely a “caretaker” of the government during the transitional period. The Court ruled that appointments made during the twilight of a presidency are highly suspicious and must be discouraged.

2. De Castro v. Judicial and Bar Council (2010)

   • This case addressed whether the President could appoint the Chief Justice within the prohibited period. The Supreme Court ruled that the prohibition on midnight appointments does not extend to judicial appointments, specifically appointments to the Supreme Court. This ruling clarified that the Judiciary has a unique process for appointments governed by the Judicial and Bar Council, and the need for continuity in judicial functions justified the exception.

3. In Re: Valenzuela (1998)

   • This case involved the appointment of a Regional Trial Court (RTC) judge within the prohibited period. The Supreme Court invalidated the appointment, emphasizing that while judicial appointments are an exception to the prohibition, appointments to lower courts (below the Supreme Court) made during the midnight period are still subject to scrutiny and potential invalidation if found to violate the spirit of the prohibition.

4. Agan v. PIATCO (2003)

   • In this case, the Supreme Court emphasized that even though an appointment was made before the prohibited period, it could still be classified as a midnight appointment if it was rushed or made under suspicious circumstances. The timing and manner in which an appointment is made, even if technically outside the prohibited period, can affect its validity.

IV. Types of Appointments Covered by the Prohibition

1. Executive Department Appointments:

   • The prohibition primarily applies to appointments to positions in the Executive branch. These include Cabinet members, undersecretaries, and other high-level executive positions.

2. Military and Police Appointments:

   • Appointments within the military and police forces are also covered, particularly in cases where high-ranking officials are promoted or appointed within the prohibited period.

3. Judicial Appointments:

   • As clarified by De Castro v. JBC, appointments to the Supreme Court are exempted from the prohibition, though appointments to lower courts can be scrutinized if they are perceived to be midnight appointments.

4. Appointments to Independent Constitutional Bodies:

   • Positions in bodies such as the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), Commission on Audit (COA), and the Civil Service Commission (CSC) are also covered by the prohibition. This is to avoid the outgoing President unduly influencing these independent agencies by filling them with loyalists before the end of their term.

V. The Nature of Temporary Appointments

1. When Allowed:

   • Temporary appointments are allowed if there is a compelling reason for them, such as ensuring the continuity of essential government functions. These appointments, however, must be of a temporary nature, meaning the appointees can be replaced once a permanent appointment is made by the incoming President.

2. Limitations on Temporary Appointments:

   • While temporary appointments are permitted, they are subject to strict conditions. These appointments must be justified by the need to protect public service or public safety, and they are not meant to permanently fill vacancies.

VI. Legal Consequences of Midnight Appointments

1. Invalidity of Appointments:

   • Midnight appointments made in violation of Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution are null and void. Persons appointed to such positions have no legal right to occupy them, and the incoming President has the authority to revoke such appointments without the need for Senate concurrence.

2. Administrative and Criminal Liabilities:

   • Public officials who knowingly accept midnight appointments or aid in their implementation may be held liable for violating the Constitution and relevant laws. This could lead to administrative sanctions or criminal prosecution.

3. Removal of Appointees:

   • Midnight appointees can be immediately removed by the incoming President, as their appointment is deemed illegal from the start.

VII. Conclusion

The constitutional prohibition on midnight appointments is a vital safeguard to ensure the fairness and integrity of the political transition process. It prevents the outgoing President from unduly influencing the incoming administration by installing loyalists in key positions. This provision has been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court, particularly in cases like Aytona v. Castillo and De Castro v. JBC, which have shaped the jurisprudence on this matter. While there are limited exceptions to the rule, such as temporary appointments in the interest of public safety or judicial appointments to the Supreme Court, the general principle remains: appointments made during the twilight of a President’s term are highly suspicious and, in most cases, prohibited.

Appointments by an Acting President | Power of Appointment | Powers of the President | EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

Appointments by an Acting President: Legal Framework and Jurisprudence

I. Constitutional Provisions

Under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the power of appointment is an inherent function of the President of the Republic. However, in certain instances, the Constitution allows for the succession of an Acting President—a temporary holder of executive powers—who may also exercise the power of appointment. It is crucial to examine the scope and limitations of such authority, as laid down in the Constitution and relevant jurisprudence.

1. Article VII, Section 7 of the Constitution outlines the line of succession and provides for situations where the Vice President or Senate President (or the Speaker of the House of Representatives) may serve as Acting President in cases of death, disability, resignation, or removal of the President, until a new President is duly elected and qualified.

2. Article VII, Section 13 discusses prohibitions on the President and Acting President regarding certain appointments, specifically:

   • The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth civil degree cannot be appointed to any position in the government during the Acting President’s tenure.

3. Article VII, Section 16 establishes the general power of the President to make appointments with the consent of the Commission on Appointments (CA) for certain positions, as well as appointments during the Congress recess (ad interim appointments). An Acting President would typically have the same powers of appointment, but within the scope of what is constitutionally permissible.

II. Jurisprudence on the Power of Appointment by an Acting President

1. Doctrine of Necessity in Succession The Supreme Court has established that an Acting President must exercise executive functions, including the power of appointment, to maintain the continuity of government. However, the Acting President's powers may be subject to certain limitations, both constitutional and statutory.

2. Case: In Re: Appointments by Acting President (Example Hypothetical Case) A hypothetical case could discuss the extent of the authority of an Acting President to make crucial appointments that may affect the long-term structure of the government, particularly with regard to appointments that go beyond the tenure of the Acting President. The Court, in such scenarios, would likely emphasize that while the Acting President has full powers, the temporary nature of the position demands caution in making appointments, especially those that would extend beyond the temporary administration.

3. Ad Interim Appointments by an Acting President Under the constitutional framework, ad interim appointments—those made during the recess of Congress—remain valid until disapproved by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of Congress. The Acting President retains the power to make such appointments to ensure the uninterrupted functioning of the government.

4. Limitations Imposed on Acting Presidents Appointments made by an Acting President may be subject to scrutiny under the following conditions:

   • Tenure of Acting President: Since the authority of an Acting President is temporary, appointments made during this period should not be viewed as permanent, especially if they affect key positions in the executive branch.
   • Political Neutrality: Appointments made by an Acting President should avoid any political entanglements or actions that could be seen as consolidating political power in favor of the Acting President's future political ambitions or affiliations.
   • Interim Nature of Appointments: The Supreme Court may interpret the appointments made by an Acting President as generally limited to interim or temporary posts, given the provisional nature of the office.

III. Relevant Doctrines and Legal Principles

1. Doctrine of Necessity: As the Acting President exercises the full powers of the President, the Doctrine of Necessity comes into play. The Acting President must have the ability to appoint officials to maintain the functioning of government services and operations, especially in urgent situations. However, this doctrine must be balanced with constitutional restrictions on appointments.

2. Principle of Temporary Succession: The power vested in an Acting President is inherently temporary, and appointments made under this regime may also be seen as provisional or limited in nature. The Acting President is expected to avoid making "midnight appointments" or those that are controversial or politicized, particularly if they are likely to affect the succeeding administration.

3. Confirmation and Accountability: Like the President, the Acting President’s appointments to key positions (e.g., department heads, ambassadors, members of constitutional commissions) require the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments. This ensures a system of checks and balances even during the temporary assumption of power by the Acting President.

IV. Statutory and Regulatory Considerations

In addition to the constitutional framework, statutory laws and executive issuances also provide guidelines for the exercise of appointment powers by an Acting President:

1. Administrative Code of 1987:

   • Provides that the President, and by extension the Acting President, may issue appointments to fill vacancies in the executive branch. However, appointments to certain high-ranking positions require confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.

2. Executive Orders and Memoranda:

   • Specific executive issuances may clarify the authority of an Acting President in making appointments during specific situations, such as when Congress is in recess or during periods of national emergency.

V. Analysis and Conclusion

The power of appointment by an Acting President is a significant executive function designed to ensure continuity and the smooth operation of government even in times of transition. However, this power is not without its limits. The constitutional framework and relevant jurisprudence emphasize the provisional nature of an Acting President’s tenure and, by extension, the caution that must be exercised in making appointments.

Key considerations include:

• Ensuring that appointments are necessary for the continued functioning of the government.
• Avoiding controversial or permanent appointments that could entrench political allies or alter the structure of key government institutions.
• Balancing the powers of the Acting President with the overarching principle of political neutrality and continuity of governance.

In conclusion, while an Acting President has the constitutional authority to make appointments, the exercise of this power is subject to certain legal, political, and ethical constraints that aim to preserve the integrity and continuity of governance during periods of presidential transition.

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.