En Banc and Division Cases | The Supreme Court | JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Topic: Political Law and Public International Law > XI. Judicial Department > E. The Supreme Court > 2. En Banc and Division Cases

I. Constitutional Basis

The Supreme Court of the Philippines, as the highest judicial body, is mandated by the 1987 Philippine Constitution under Article VIII, Section 4(1) to sit either en banc or in divisions of three, five, or seven justices. This provision ensures the efficient discharge of its functions while safeguarding the integrity and consistency of judicial decisions.

II. En Banc Cases

A. Definition

The term en banc refers to the Supreme Court sitting as a full body, with all the justices participating. It is reserved for cases that are deemed of significant importance or those that require the collective wisdom of the entire court.

B. Instances When the Supreme Court Sits En Banc

Pursuant to the Constitution and Rule 2, Section 2 of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court (A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC), the following cases must be decided by the Court en banc:

1. Cases involving the constitutionality of treaties, international or executive agreements, laws, presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations.

   • This is a manifestation of the principle of judicial review, ensuring that no law or executive action violates the Constitution.

2. Cases involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of the Court’s own rules.

   • Ensures that the internal rules of the Supreme Court comply with the Constitution and maintain judicial independence.

3. Cases that involve the discipline, disbarment, or suspension of members of the bar or judges.

   • These cases affect the integrity of the judiciary and the legal profession, necessitating the full participation of the Supreme Court.

4. Election contests involving the President and Vice-President under Article VII, Section 4 of the Constitution.

   • As the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET), the Supreme Court exercises original jurisdiction over these cases. These involve the highest offices of the land, warranting full Court deliberation.

5. Cases where the penalty of reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or death is imposed.

   • Given the gravity of such cases, a decision from the entire Court is required.

6. Cases involving the constitutionality of laws or rules concerning the judiciary, or other cases determined by the Court to be of sufficient importance to merit en banc consideration.

7. Administrative cases involving the Supreme Court or its officials.

   • These cases affect the Court’s ability to function and must be handled by the full Court.

8. All other cases or matters as the Court may deem appropriate.

   • This is a catch-all provision allowing the Court flexibility to take on significant cases en banc when it sees fit.

C. Powers and Jurisdiction of the Court Sitting En Banc

• As the full Court, the Supreme Court en banc exercises its complete authority over cases requiring its full wisdom and resources.
• The en banc's decision, unless overturned by constitutional amendments or reconsidered by the Court itself, is final and executory.

III. Division Cases

A. Definition

A division case refers to matters decided by one of the divisions of the Supreme Court, consisting of either three, five, or seven justices. This system is designed for efficiency, ensuring that the Court can address a large volume of cases without unduly burdening the full bench.

B. Constitutional and Legal Basis

The Constitution permits the Supreme Court to sit in divisions to expedite the resolution of cases. The Court is divided into three divisions, with each justice being a member of one of these divisions.

C. Jurisdiction of Divisions

1. Ordinary Appeals

   • Cases where a final judgment from a lower court or tribunal is brought before the Supreme Court for review.

2. Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus

   • Petitions involving errors of jurisdiction, such as those questioning the lower court’s or tribunal’s overreach or failure to exercise its jurisdiction.

3. Other Civil and Criminal Cases

   • Cases not classified as en banc cases, including most civil, criminal, and administrative matters.

4. Taxation, Labor, and Election Law Cases

   • Routine cases involving specialized areas of law.

D. Referral to the Court En Banc

In instances where a division of the Court is confronted with a legal question that has not yet been settled by the Court en banc or when there are conflicting rulings by different divisions, the matter may be referred to the Court en banc for resolution.

E. Internal Rules on Division Cases

The Internal Rules of the Supreme Court provide that:

• Each division shall have a quorum of three justices.
• A unanimous vote of three justices is required to promulgate a decision. If there is no unanimity, the case is referred to a larger composition, usually five justices.
• If the majority decision of the division still cannot be reached, the case may be referred to the Court en banc for final adjudication.

IV. Stare Decisis in En Banc and Division Cases

A. Binding Nature of En Banc Decisions

• En banc decisions of the Supreme Court are considered binding precedents. These decisions must be followed by all courts within the judicial hierarchy, including the Supreme Court divisions. They serve as primary authority in subsequent cases.

B. Effect of Division Decisions

• Decisions by divisions, although authoritative, are not as weighty as en banc rulings. However, they are binding unless overturned by an en banc ruling or overruled by future decisions from the same or higher authorities.

C. Conflicting Decisions

• If divisions of the Supreme Court issue conflicting rulings, the matter is typically elevated to the en banc for resolution. The en banc ruling will then resolve the conflict and provide a uniform interpretation of the law.

V. Significance of En Banc and Division Deliberations

The division of the Supreme Court into en banc and divisions is integral to its functioning, allowing it to handle both routine and highly significant cases effectively. The en banc system is reserved for the most pressing legal questions, while the divisions handle a broader array of cases. This structure enables the Court to maintain its efficiency while ensuring that vital constitutional issues receive the full attention of the highest judicial body in the country.

The en banc mechanism further strengthens the principle of judicial review and maintains the integrity of the constitutional system, as it ensures that all major decisions, particularly those concerning the Constitution and the separation of powers, receive the wisdom and input of the full Court. In contrast, the division system allows for more expeditious resolution of less complex matters, which is essential for a highly burdened judicial system such as that of the Philippines.

---

This comprehensive overview addresses the constitutional and procedural framework governing en banc and division cases in the Philippine Supreme Court, providing a clear understanding of when and how these bodies operate and their respective jurisdictions.

Powers | Judicial and Bar Council | Appointments to the Judiciary | JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

XI. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

D. Appointments to the Judiciary

2. Judicial and Bar Council (JBC)

b. Powers

The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) is a constitutionally created body under the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Its primary function is to assist the President in the appointment of members of the Judiciary. Under Section 8, Article VIII of the Constitution, the JBC is tasked with recommending appointees to the judiciary to ensure transparency, meritocracy, and insulation from political influence. The Council plays a pivotal role in maintaining the integrity and independence of the judicial branch.

Below is a detailed examination of the powers of the JBC:

1. Primary Function: Recommendation of Nominees

The principal function of the JBC is to submit a list of at least three (3) nominees to the President for every vacancy in the judiciary. The positions covered include:

• Justices of the Supreme Court
• Judges of lower courts (Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts)
• Members of the Court of Appeals, Court of Tax Appeals, and Sandiganbayan
• Other judicial positions created by law

The JBC ensures that those nominated possess the necessary qualifications as mandated by the Constitution and relevant laws. The President is mandatorily bound to appoint only from the list submitted by the JBC. This power is crucial in ensuring that political considerations do not unduly influence judicial appointments.

2. Screening of Applicants

The JBC has the authority to screen and evaluate applicants for judicial positions. This involves:

• Application and Nomination Process: Individuals aspiring for judicial office may apply or be nominated by third parties. The JBC opens applications and nominations for every vacant position.
• Public Interviews: The JBC conducts public interviews of the applicants, allowing both transparency and public scrutiny.
• Psychological and Medical Examinations: The JBC subjects applicants to thorough psychological, psychiatric, and medical examinations to assess their fitness for the role.
• Background Investigation: The JBC conducts an investigation of each applicant's background, including any pending criminal or administrative cases, character, and ethical standards.
• Public Comments: The JBC also invites the public to submit any opposition, complaint, or comment on the applicants, ensuring that the selection process is inclusive and takes into account public sentiment.

3. Setting of Standards and Criteria

The JBC has the discretion to set criteria for the selection of judicial appointees, including:

• Integrity, Competence, and Independence: The JBC gives high importance to the ethical integrity, legal competence, and independence of the applicants.
• Seniority: For positions like the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, seniority among incumbent justices can also be considered, though it is not determinative.
• Qualifications: The JBC ensures that applicants meet the constitutional qualifications for the judiciary, such as natural-born citizenship, age, and years of legal practice or judicial experience.

The JBC evaluates each applicant against these standards, considering factors like legal expertise, knowledge of jurisprudence, work ethic, and judicial temperament.

4. Investigative Powers

In the performance of its screening duties, the JBC has the power to investigate any allegations or complaints against applicants. This power includes:

• Conducting hearings or meetings where witnesses may be presented
• Issuing subpoenas and requiring the submission of documents pertinent to its investigation
• Resolving and dismissing baseless or unfounded complaints

This investigative power allows the JBC to maintain the highest standards in the selection of nominees by ensuring that applicants are free from any allegations of misconduct or unfitness.

5. Rule-Making Power

The JBC has the authority to promulgate its internal rules of procedure for the effective performance of its functions. The JBC's Rules of Procedure, as currently implemented, outline its processes for accepting applications, conducting interviews, handling complaints, and submitting the shortlist to the President.

The JBC's rule-making power is essential for providing a clear and transparent framework for its operations, ensuring that its processes are fair, systematic, and aligned with its constitutional mandate.

6. Administrative Powers

In addition to its primary function of nominating judges, the JBC has the power to manage its administrative affairs, including:

• The appointment of its own personnel
• Management of its budget and resources
• Overseeing its internal operations to ensure the efficient discharge of its duties

The JBC is an autonomous constitutional body and, as such, it operates independently from other government departments or agencies, including the Judiciary and the Executive.

7. Quasi-Judicial Powers

While primarily a recommending body, the JBC exercises certain quasi-judicial functions in relation to the evaluation and selection of candidates, particularly in:

• Resolving oppositions and complaints: The JBC may act on formal oppositions to an applicant’s candidacy by weighing evidence and making determinations based on its investigation.
• Disqualification of Applicants: The JBC has the power to disqualify candidates from being considered for judicial office based on findings of misconduct, lack of qualifications, or other reasons.

8. Submission of Shortlist to the President

After completing its evaluation process, the JBC submits a list of at least three (3) nominees for each vacancy to the President. The President is constitutionally required to choose from this list when making judicial appointments. Failure of the President to select from the list would constitute a breach of constitutional protocol, as the JBC's role is designed to prevent the arbitrary appointment of judges.

9. Independent Functioning

The JBC operates independently of both the Executive and Judicial branches. While it assists the President in judicial appointments, it is not subject to the President’s direct control or supervision. Similarly, the Supreme Court, while headed by the Chief Justice who serves as the ex-officio chairman of the JBC, does not exercise control over its functions.

10. Composition and Role in Ensuring Judicial Independence

The composition of the JBC as prescribed by Article VIII, Section 8(1) of the Constitution ensures a balanced and diverse body. It is composed of:

• The Chief Justice as ex-officio chairman
• The Secretary of Justice as ex-officio member
• A representative from Congress (alternating between a Senator and a House member)
• A representative of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
• A professor of law
• A retired member of the Judiciary
• A representative of the private sector

This composition ensures that the JBC reflects a broad spectrum of interests and perspectives, while preventing the dominance of any one sector or branch of government. This design reinforces the principle of judicial independence and insulates the judiciary from political influence.

Conclusion

The JBC plays a critical role in ensuring that appointments to the judiciary are based on merit, integrity, competence, and independence. Its powers, including the ability to screen applicants, investigate complaints, and recommend nominees, are essential to preserving the impartiality and integrity of the judicial branch. By limiting the President’s choice to a shortlist of vetted candidates, the JBC acts as a safeguard against the politicization of the judiciary, ensuring that judges are chosen based on their qualifications rather than political affiliations or connections.

Composition | Judicial and Bar Council | Appointments to the Judiciary | JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) - Composition

1. Constitutional Basis The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) was established under Article VIII, Section 8 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. It is a body designed to depoliticize and professionalize the selection process of judicial officers, ensuring the appointment of competent, moral, and independent individuals to the judiciary. Its primary function is to recommend appointees to the judiciary to the President of the Philippines.

2. Composition of the Judicial and Bar Council The JBC is composed of seven (7) members as provided under Section 8(1), Article VIII of the Constitution. These are:

1. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (Ex-Officio Chairman):

   • The Chief Justice serves as the head of the JBC in an ex-officio capacity, meaning they do not hold this position by appointment but by virtue of their role as the head of the judiciary.

2. Secretary of Justice (Ex-Officio Member):

   • As a member of the executive branch, the Secretary of Justice sits as an ex-officio member. This position ensures that the executive branch is represented in the selection process of judicial nominees.

3. Representative of Congress (Ex-Officio Member):

   • The 1987 Constitution originally provided for only one representative from Congress. However, subsequent interpretation and practice allowed both the Senate and the House of Representatives to each have a representative in the JBC, making Congress effectively have two representatives. This practice was the subject of controversy, leading to conflicting interpretations of the Constitution regarding the number of congressional representatives allowed in the JBC.

4. Representative of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP):

   • The IBP is the official organization of Philippine lawyers. It nominates a member who represents the bar. This ensures that the legal profession has a voice in the selection of judicial candidates.

5. Professor of Law Representative:

   • The JBC includes an academic representative, typically a distinguished law professor, to provide an educational perspective on judicial appointments.

6. Retired Justice of the Supreme Court Representative:

   • A retired justice of the Supreme Court is included to offer insights based on their judicial experience, ensuring that past judicial wisdom plays a role in selecting future justices.

7. Private Sector Representative:

   • The private sector representative is usually a lawyer from private practice or the business sector, ensuring that there is input from non-governmental stakeholders in the process.

3. Terms of Members

• According to Article VIII, Section 8(2) of the Constitution, the regular members of the JBC serve for a term of four (4) years, without reappointment.
• However, ex-officio members serve as long as they hold their respective offices (e.g., the Chief Justice, Secretary of Justice, and Congressional Representatives).

4. Powers and Functions of the Judicial and Bar Council

• Recommendation of Nominees: The JBC submits a list of at least three (3) nominees for each vacancy in the judiciary to the President, from which the President is required to appoint one. The President is constitutionally mandated to make appointments from this list.

• Vetting Process: The JBC is responsible for screening applicants and nominees to the judiciary. This process includes the publication of the names of applicants, conducting public interviews, reviewing their qualifications, and receiving feedback from the public. The JBC uses rigorous standards to evaluate the integrity, competence, independence, and moral fitness of the candidates.

• Confidential Deliberations: While the JBC conducts public interviews and accepts public feedback, its final deliberations on the candidates are conducted in confidence. This ensures that the council can freely discuss the merits and demerits of each candidate without external pressures.

5. Representation of Congress: The Debate

• The original provision of the 1987 Constitution under Section 8(1) only provided for "a representative of Congress," leading to a debate on whether this should mean one representative for both the Senate and the House, or one representative from each chamber.
• In 2013, the Supreme Court addressed this in Chavez v. Judicial and Bar Council (G.R. No. 202242, July 17, 2013), where it ruled that only one representative from Congress should sit as a member of the JBC, to adhere to the original intent of the Constitution.
• The ruling caused friction, as previously, both the Senate and the House of Representatives sent one representative each to the JBC. After the ruling, the legislature alternates the representation between the Senate and the House of Representatives.

6. Quorum and Decision-Making

• Section 8(1) of Article VIII of the Constitution is silent on the issue of a quorum. The JBC, however, follows its own rules of procedure, which require the presence of a majority of its members to constitute a quorum for its meetings and decision-making processes.
• Decisions on the list of nominees to be submitted to the President are usually made by a majority vote.

7. Safeguards and Impartiality

• Anti-political safeguards: The composition of the JBC was designed to prevent undue political influence in judicial appointments by balancing the executive, legislative, and judicial powers and including representatives from the legal profession, academe, and the private sector.

• Independence: By incorporating non-governmental members (IBP representative, law professor, and private sector representative), the JBC ensures that independent and impartial perspectives guide the selection of judicial candidates.

8. Challenges and Issues

• Executive Influence: There have been concerns that the executive branch, by virtue of the President’s power of appointment and the inclusion of the Secretary of Justice in the JBC, still holds considerable influence over judicial appointments.
• Public Scrutiny: While the JBC strives for transparency, there are critiques that its processes, particularly the final deliberations, are not entirely open to the public, potentially diminishing the perception of transparency.

9. Appointment Process

• Once the JBC has finalized its list of nominees, it submits this list to the Office of the President. The President is constitutionally obligated to make an appointment from the list within 90 days from the occurrence of the vacancy, as required by Section 9, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.

• Appointment to the Supreme Court: The appointment process for vacancies in the Supreme Court is particularly crucial, given the significance of the Court’s role in constitutional and political questions. The same JBC process applies, but the vetting of candidates may involve more rigorous scrutiny due to the weight of the position.

Conclusion The Judicial and Bar Council is a critical institution that ensures a merit-based, depoliticized process for the selection of judges in the Philippines. Through its diverse composition, the JBC incorporates inputs from multiple sectors of society, balancing governmental and independent interests in its recommendations for judicial appointments. However, the debates around its composition, especially the representation of Congress, and concerns over transparency and executive influence, continue to shape the discourse on its role in the judicial system.

Qualifications of Members | Appointments to the Judiciary | JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Qualifications of Members of the Judiciary in the Philippines

Under the Philippine Constitution and relevant laws, the qualifications for appointments to the judiciary are clearly delineated for different courts. These qualifications ensure that members of the judiciary possess the necessary legal knowledge, experience, competence, integrity, and independence to adjudicate cases impartially. Below is a detailed breakdown of the qualifications required for the members of the judiciary, with specific attention to the Supreme Court and lower courts.

---

I. Constitutional Basis

The qualifications for members of the judiciary in the Philippines, particularly for the Supreme Court and other lower courts, are primarily provided in the 1987 Constitution and supplementary statutory laws. Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, titled "Judicial Department," governs the rules on appointments, composition, and qualifications of judicial members.

---

II. Qualifications for the Supreme Court

Article VIII, Section 7(1) of the 1987 Constitution provides the qualifications for appointment to the Supreme Court:

1. Natural-Born Citizen – The appointee must be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, meaning the individual did not have to perform any act to acquire Philippine citizenship.

2. At Least 40 Years of Age – At the time of appointment, the individual must be at least forty (40) years of age. This ensures maturity and experience in the legal profession.

3. Fifteen Years of Legal Experience – The appointee must have at least fifteen (15) years of experience as a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines. This emphasizes the need for extensive legal expertise and competence in dealing with judicial matters. The term "practice of law" encompasses a wide range of legal activities, such as working as a legal counsel, prosecutor, professor of law, or holding legal advisory positions in the government.

4. Proven Competence, Integrity, Probity, and Independence – These are the ultimate qualifications for a judicial appointment:

   • Competence refers to the appointee's ability to understand and apply the law.
   • Integrity demands that the candidate's character be beyond reproach and that they have consistently demonstrated honesty in their professional and personal life.
   • Probity refers to the moral uprightness of the candidate, ensuring they adhere to high ethical standards.
   • Independence implies that the appointee must be free from improper influences, be they political, economic, or otherwise, to ensure fair and impartial justice.

---

III. Qualifications for Lower Courts

The Constitution also grants Congress the power to define the qualifications of judges for the lower courts. These include judges in the Court of Appeals, Regional Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Shari’a Courts, and other courts established by law.

1. Court of Appeals:

   • The qualifications for appointment to the Court of Appeals are similar to those of the Supreme Court, albeit with fewer years of required experience.
   • Must be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines.
   • Must be at least 40 years of age.
   • Must have ten (10) years of experience as a judge of a lower court or in the practice of law in the Philippines.
   • Must possess competence, integrity, probity, and independence.

2. Regional Trial Courts (RTC):

   • For appointment to the RTC, the requirements are slightly lower:
   • Must be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines.
   • Must be at least 35 years of age.
   • Must have ten (10) years of legal experience either as a judge of a lower court or in legal practice.
   • Must have proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence.

3. Municipal Trial Courts (MTC) and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTC):

   • Must be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines.
   • Must be at least 30 years of age.
   • Must have five (5) years of legal experience.
   • Must demonstrate competence, integrity, probity, and independence.

4. Shari’a Courts:

   • The qualifications for Shari’a District Court and Shari’a Circuit Court judges are provided under Presidential Decree No. 1083 or the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines.
   • For Shari’a District Court, the appointee must be learned in Islamic law and jurisprudence, a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, and must have passed the special Bar examination for Shari’a Courts.
   • For Shari’a Circuit Courts, the qualifications are less stringent but still require familiarity with Islamic law and a legal background.

---

IV. Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) Involvement

Article VIII, Section 8 of the Constitution establishes the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), which plays a critical role in the appointment process. The JBC is tasked with recommending appointees to the judiciary. Before the President appoints members of the Supreme Court or lower courts, the JBC must vet and nominate at least three (3) candidates for each vacancy.

The JBC's evaluation process ensures that only those who meet the qualifications, especially in terms of integrity, probity, and independence, are recommended for judicial positions. This process minimizes political interference in judicial appointments and enhances the judiciary's independence.

---

V. Restrictions on Appointments

Article VIII, Section 7(2) of the Constitution provides that members of the judiciary must not:

• Engage in the practice of law or any other profession.
• Participate in business activities or engage in any political office while holding judicial office.
• They are also prohibited from holding any other government position unless expressly authorized by law.

These restrictions safeguard the judiciary's independence and ensure that justices and judges dedicate their time and effort solely to their judicial duties.

---

VI. Tenure and Retirement

Judicial officers, including members of the Supreme Court, hold office until they reach the age of seventy (70) or become incapacitated to discharge their duties. The Constitution provides for their retirement age, and they may also be removed from office through impeachment.

---

VII. Impeachment and Removal

Members of the Supreme Court, as well as other impeachable officers under Article XI (Accountability of Public Officers), may be removed from office by impeachment. Grounds for impeachment include:

1. Culpable violation of the Constitution;
2. Betrayal of public trust;
3. Graft and corruption;
4. Other high crimes.

---

VIII. Other Relevant Statutory Laws and Jurisprudence

Other laws, such as the Judiciary Reorganization Act (Batas Pambansa Blg. 129), and subsequent jurisprudence also provide additional guidelines and interpretations for the qualifications and appointment of judges in the Philippines.

In jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has continuously upheld the requirements of competence, integrity, probity, and independence as cornerstones of judicial appointments, reinforcing the idea that the judiciary must remain impartial and free from any form of corruption or undue influence.

---

Conclusion

The qualifications for appointment to the judiciary in the Philippines are stringent and are designed to ensure that only individuals of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence can serve. The constitutional and statutory requirements aim to maintain a strong, independent judiciary capable of upholding justice and the rule of law in the country. The involvement of the Judicial and Bar Council further enhances the merit-based selection process, reducing political interference and ensuring that the judicial system remains impartial and credible.

Judicial Independence and Fiscal Autonomy | JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE AND FISCAL AUTONOMY UNDER PHILIPPINE LAW

I. JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE

Judicial Independence is the concept that the judiciary must be able to decide cases free from external pressures and interference from the executive, legislative, or any other entity, ensuring that it can exercise its judicial powers impartially and without fear or favor.

In the Philippines, judicial independence is enshrined in the Constitution and reinforced through various laws, jurisprudence, and institutional practices.

1. Constitutional Guarantee:

   • The 1987 Philippine Constitution specifically protects judicial independence in several provisions:
     • Article VIII, Section 1 states that "judicial power includes the duty of courts... to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government."
     • Article VIII, Section 2 provides that "The Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Appropriations for the Judiciary may not be reduced by the legislature below the amount appropriated for the previous year and, after approval, shall be automatically and regularly released."

2. Key Elements of Judicial Independence:

   • Tenure Security (Article VIII, Section 11): Justices and judges hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of 70, or unless they become incapacitated to discharge their duties. This provision ensures that they cannot be arbitrarily removed or unduly influenced by political or external forces.
   • Disciplinary Proceedings (Article VIII, Section 11): While justices and judges can be disciplined, they can only be removed from office through impeachment, with removal for other officials done in accordance with existing laws or by the Supreme Court itself in appropriate cases.
   • Appointment Process (Article VIII, Section 9): Appointments to the judiciary are made by the President from a list of nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), a constitutional body independent from the legislature and executive. The JBC ensures that appointees are of high moral integrity and competence.
   • Financial Independence: As detailed below under fiscal autonomy, the judiciary must be financially independent to prevent manipulation by other branches through budgetary constraints.

3. Institutional Safeguards:

   • Judicial and Bar Council (JBC): The JBC ensures that appointees to the judiciary meet strict standards of competence, integrity, and independence, reducing political influence in the appointment process.
   • Immunity from Suit: Judges are not subject to civil, criminal, or administrative liability for decisions made in the regular course of judicial duties, provided that these decisions are made in good faith and within their jurisdiction. This immunity is essential to ensure that judges can make decisions without fear of personal liability.

II. FISCAL AUTONOMY

Fiscal Autonomy refers to the judiciary's financial independence from other branches of government. Fiscal autonomy is critical to safeguarding judicial independence because financial control can lead to undue influence.

1. Constitutional Provision (Article VIII, Section 3):

   • The Constitution guarantees that the judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. It further mandates that appropriations for the judiciary cannot be reduced by the legislature below the amount appropriated for the previous year, and once the appropriations are approved, they must be automatically and regularly released.

2. Implications of Fiscal Autonomy:

   • Non-reduction of Budget: This constitutional provision ensures that the judiciary's budget is not subject to political pressures through reductions or manipulations. The legislature cannot diminish the appropriations for the judiciary to exercise control or as a form of political retaliation.
   • Automatic and Regular Release of Funds: After the judiciary's budget is approved, the funds must be automatically and regularly released. This ensures that the judiciary can operate smoothly without needing to depend on the executive for the release of its budget.

3. Application and Case Law:

   • Cases on Judicial Fiscal Autonomy:
     • In Bengzon v. Drilon (208 SCRA 133, 1992), the Supreme Court emphasized that the judiciary’s fiscal autonomy means that it enjoys full discretion on how to use its funds, without interference from other branches. The Court stressed that the regular release of funds must be automatic, and no prior condition can be imposed before its release.
     • In Judicial and Bar Council v. de Castro (G.R. No. 191002, April 20, 2010), the Supreme Court held that the judiciary's fiscal autonomy ensures that it has sufficient resources to perform its duties without external interference. The case reiterated that judicial fiscal autonomy is part of judicial independence.
     • In The Judiciary v. DBM (G.R. No. 158791, October 19, 2007), the Supreme Court further explained the scope of fiscal autonomy and its impact on ensuring that the judiciary is financially capable of performing its constitutionally mandated functions without dependency on other branches.

4. Fiscal Autonomy of Other Constitutional Bodies:

   • Aside from the judiciary, the 1987 Constitution also guarantees fiscal autonomy to other bodies such as the Civil Service Commission (CSC), Commission on Audit (COA), and the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The common theme across these bodies is the recognition that financial dependence on the executive or legislative branches could compromise their constitutional duties and independence.

5. Limitations and Challenges:

   • Budgetary Constraints: While fiscal autonomy protects the judiciary from budgetary reductions, it does not mean that the judiciary is immune to challenges posed by limited national resources. Budgetary requests are still subject to approval by Congress, which may limit the judiciary’s request based on the country’s overall fiscal condition.
   • Executive Control: Delays in the actual release of funds have been an issue in the past, as the executive branch exercises control over the release of funds. Such delays, though unconstitutional, can sometimes affect judicial operations.

6. Practical Effects of Fiscal Autonomy:

   • The judiciary can control the management and allocation of its funds, including the compensation of its personnel, improvements to infrastructure, and modernization of the judicial system. This autonomy ensures that the judiciary has the resources it needs to maintain an effective and independent system of justice.

III. CONCLUSION

The principles of judicial independence and fiscal autonomy are cornerstones of the rule of law in the Philippines. Judicial independence is necessary for maintaining impartiality and fairness in the judicial system, while fiscal autonomy is essential to protect the judiciary from political and financial manipulation. These twin principles are enshrined in the 1987 Constitution and are upheld by jurisprudence, guaranteeing that the judiciary can fulfill its role as a co-equal branch of government without interference from the executive and legislative branches.

Judicial Review | JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

XI. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

B. Judicial Review

Judicial review is the power of the courts to examine the constitutionality of legislative acts, executive orders, or administrative regulations, and to strike them down if they are found to be in violation of the Constitution. In the Philippines, the power of judicial review is an essential feature of constitutional law, allowing courts, especially the Supreme Court, to safeguard the supremacy of the Constitution. It is derived from the principle of checks and balances within the framework of separation of powers.

1. Constitutional Basis

The power of judicial review in the Philippines is implied in several provisions of the 1987 Constitution:

• Article VIII, Section 1: Vests judicial power in the Supreme Court and such lower courts as may be established by law. Judicial power includes "the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government."

This provision expands the traditional scope of judicial review by allowing courts to address not only issues of legality but also whether government actions involve "grave abuse of discretion."

2. Scope of Judicial Review

Judicial review covers both constitutional and legal issues. It allows courts to assess:

• The constitutionality of laws, treaties, executive orders, presidential decrees, proclamations, rules and regulations.
• The legality of administrative actions.
• Compliance with constitutional mandates by the legislative and executive branches.
• The exercise of "grave abuse of discretion" by any branch or instrumentality of the government.

Judicial review is not limited to laws passed by Congress but extends to:

• Presidential acts (executive orders, proclamations, administrative orders).
• Decisions of administrative agencies (subject to appeal via certiorari).
• Acts of local governments and other political subdivisions.

3. Limitations on the Power of Judicial Review

Although the courts possess broad powers of judicial review, it is subject to certain limitations:

A. Political Question Doctrine

• Courts refrain from deciding matters that are classified as "political questions" — issues that are fundamentally political in nature and not for judicial determination. These typically involve discretion by the political branches of government, particularly in matters of policy or diplomacy.
• The scope of this doctrine has been narrowed in the 1987 Constitution by allowing judicial review in cases of "grave abuse of discretion" even in political acts, as provided in Article VIII, Section 1. For example, decisions on martial law or the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus may now be reviewed for grave abuse of discretion.

B. Requisites of Judicial Review

Judicial review can only be exercised when specific requisites are present:

1. Actual Case or Controversy: There must be an actual case or controversy involving rights that are legally demandable and enforceable. Courts cannot issue advisory opinions.
2. Locus Standi (Legal Standing): The person invoking judicial review must have a direct and personal interest in the case. In some instances, courts relax this requirement in matters of public concern (e.g., taxpayer suits or cases involving environmental rights).
3. Mootness: Courts do not decide cases that have become moot, unless the issue is capable of repetition yet evading review, or the case involves a matter of public interest that requires resolution.
4. Ripeness: Courts will not entertain premature cases where the harm being complained of is speculative or hypothetical.

C. Hierarchy of Courts

The principle of hierarchy of courts requires litigants to initially seek redress from the lower courts before resorting to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is a court of last resort and exercises discretionary jurisdiction, particularly in cases of constitutional significance or those affecting the national interest.

D. Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Courts generally refrain from intervening in administrative actions unless all available administrative remedies have been exhausted. This doctrine ensures that agencies with specialized expertise are given the first opportunity to address disputes arising under their jurisdiction.

E. Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction

This doctrine requires courts to defer to the judgment of administrative agencies in matters within the agency's expertise. It allows agencies to resolve issues first, after which judicial review may be sought.

4. Justiciable Controversies (Actual Case or Controversy)

Judicial review cannot be invoked without an actual case or controversy involving opposing legal rights that are ripe for adjudication. This prevents courts from entertaining hypothetical issues or issuing advisory opinions.

• The controversy must involve legally demandable and enforceable rights. For example, challenges to statutes, presidential proclamations, or administrative orders must involve claims that specific provisions violate constitutional rights.

5. Grave Abuse of Discretion

The 1987 Constitution has expanded judicial review by mandating courts to rule on matters involving "grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction" on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government. Grave abuse of discretion refers to arbitrary or despotic exercise of power beyond the bounds of reason.

• Examples:
  • The Supreme Court invalidating laws that violate constitutional rights, such as those infringing on the right to due process or equal protection.
  • Reviewing acts of the Executive during emergency situations like martial law or the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus to ensure they are not arbitrary or despotic.
  • Administrative actions being invalidated when found to be issued with "grave abuse of discretion."

6. Supreme Court’s Expanded Power of Judicial Review (Article VIII, Section 1)

One of the most significant features of the 1987 Constitution is the expanded power of the Supreme Court to review government actions that involve "grave abuse of discretion." This provision is meant to prevent abuse of power and ensure that no branch or agency of the government is beyond judicial scrutiny.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion has been defined in numerous cases as "whimsical, arbitrary, or despotic exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction." In the landmark case of Angara v. Electoral Commission, the Supreme Court underscored the importance of judicial review in maintaining the balance of power between the branches of government.

This expanded review can be seen in cases like Marcos v. Manglapus, where the Supreme Court reviewed the President’s actions in barring the return of a former president based on national security concerns, ultimately finding no grave abuse of discretion.

7. Judicial Review of Treaties and International Agreements

Under the 1987 Constitution, Article VII, Section 21, no treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the members of the Senate. This constitutional requirement subjects treaties and international agreements to judicial review for compliance with constitutional procedures and protections.

• Judicial Review of International Law: Courts may review whether an international treaty or agreement violates the Constitution or existing laws. For example, in Bayan Muna v. Romulo, the Supreme Court reviewed the constitutionality of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), which involved questions of sovereignty and constitutionality.

8. Judicial Review as a Safeguard of Rights

Judicial review plays a critical role in the protection of constitutional rights. Through its power to interpret the Constitution, the Supreme Court ensures that any governmental action—whether executive, legislative, or administrative—that violates constitutional rights is subject to invalidation.

• This protective role is seen in cases involving civil liberties, due process, freedom of expression, equal protection, and protection from arbitrary actions of the state.

• Notably, the Writ of Amparo and the Writ of Habeas Data were judicial innovations introduced by the Supreme Court to protect citizens from extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, and violations of privacy rights.

9. Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint

The power of judicial review is accompanied by debates over judicial activism and judicial restraint. Judicial activism refers to a more proactive role by the judiciary in striking down unconstitutional actions and enforcing constitutional rights. Judicial restraint, on the other hand, encourages the courts to defer to the actions of the political branches of government unless there is a clear and unquestionable violation of the Constitution.

• Landmark Cases: The Philippine Supreme Court has exercised both judicial activism (e.g., nullifying parts of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020) and judicial restraint (e.g., refusing to intervene in issues seen as purely political or discretionary).

10. Key Doctrines in Judicial Review

• Doctrine of Separation of Powers: Courts ensure that one branch does not encroach on the powers of another.
• Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy: The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and all laws and government actions must conform to it.
• Doctrine of Stare Decisis: Courts should follow precedent, especially on constitutional matters, to maintain consistency and stability in the law.

Conclusion

Judicial review in the Philippines is a vital mechanism for maintaining constitutional supremacy and protecting the rights of citizens. The courts, especially the Supreme Court, play a key role in checking the powers of the legislature, executive, and administrative agencies, ensuring that all government actions conform to the Constitution. With the expanded power under the 1987 Constitution, judicial review ensures that no government act is beyond judicial scrutiny, particularly in cases of grave abuse of discretion.

Concept of Judicial Power | JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW > JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT > A. Concept of Judicial Power

I. Definition of Judicial Power

Judicial power is the authority vested in the judiciary by the Constitution to interpret and apply laws, settle justiciable controversies, and ensure the observance of the rule of law within its jurisdiction. The 1987 Philippine Constitution expressly defines judicial power in Article VIII, Section 1, which provides:

"The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law."

Moreover, Section 1(2) further elaborates that:

"Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government."

The dual aspect of judicial power is:

1. Traditional Adjudicatory Power – Settling actual controversies involving rights that are legally demandable and enforceable.
2. Expanded Power of Judicial Review – The duty to check and determine whether there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by any governmental agency, including the executive and legislative branches.

II. Components of Judicial Power

1. Traditional Adjudicatory Power

The courts have the authority to:

• Settle actual disputes by determining rights and liabilities of parties involved.
• Apply existing laws to cases brought before them.
• Protect the rights of individuals and groups under the law, ensuring the rule of law prevails in society.

In the exercise of this power, courts must determine whether the issues presented involve justiciable controversies. A controversy is justiciable if it is definite, concrete, and involves legally demandable rights, and not merely abstract or hypothetical.

The courts cannot render advisory opinions or decide political questions (before the expanded scope of judicial review) unless there is an actual case or controversy. This ensures that the courts do not overstep their bounds and interfere with matters that are not within their constitutional mandate.

2. Expanded Power of Judicial Review (Grave Abuse of Discretion)

The 1987 Constitution expanded the scope of judicial power to allow courts to review and annul acts of any branch or instrumentality of the government, including the executive and legislative branches, where there is grave abuse of discretion.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion means capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The abuse must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law.

• Political Questions Doctrine – Prior to the 1987 Constitution, courts generally refrained from reviewing actions involving political questions, which are issues entrusted by the Constitution to the discretion of the executive or legislative branches. However, with the expanded power, courts now have the authority to review actions previously deemed political if there is grave abuse of discretion involved.

III. Limits of Judicial Power

Despite the broad definition, judicial power is subject to certain limitations:

1. Constitutional and Statutory Limits – The judiciary can only act within the bounds provided by the Constitution and law. Courts cannot exercise power beyond what is conferred by law.

2. Jurisdictional Limits – Courts must act within their specific jurisdiction as defined by law. Any ruling made beyond its jurisdiction would be null and void.

3. Doctrine of Separation of Powers – While judicial power allows for checks and balances, it must respect the separate and co-equal branches of government. It must not unduly interfere with the executive and legislative branches unless grave abuse of discretion is proven.

4. Doctrine of Judicial Restraint – Courts typically refrain from deciding matters not ripe for judicial determination or where the parties lack standing. They also avoid intruding into areas exclusively delegated to the other branches unless necessary to prevent grave abuse of discretion.

5. Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy – Courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have the final say in interpreting the Constitution and determining whether laws and executive actions are constitutional. This is anchored in the principle that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

IV. Judicial Review

Judicial review is the power of the courts to assess the constitutionality of legislative acts, executive orders, and other governmental actions. Judicial review arises when a question is brought before a court regarding the validity of an act by the legislative or executive branches.

Requisites for Judicial Review:

1. Actual Case or Controversy – There must be an actual, bona fide dispute involving real parties.

2. Legal Standing (Locus Standi) – The party bringing the suit must have a direct and personal interest in the case, and must stand to suffer injury as a result of the challenged action.

3. Mootness and Ripeness – The issue must be ripe for adjudication and not moot. A case is considered ripe if it has developed into an actual legal dispute. A case is moot if it ceases to be a live controversy due to intervening events.

4. Hierarchy of Courts – Judicial review should follow the proper judicial hierarchy, with higher courts acting as courts of last resort.

Doctrine of Judicial Review:

• The exercise of judicial review assumes a presumption of constitutionality for laws and executive actions. Courts will only nullify a law if it is clearly unconstitutional, and the unconstitutionality must be established beyond reasonable doubt.

The Power of Judicial Review in the Philippines includes the ability to:

• Declare laws unconstitutional.
• Invalidate executive actions that exceed the powers granted by law.
• Protect citizens from government overreach and uphold the Bill of Rights.
• Ensure that all governmental actions conform to the fundamental law of the land.

V. Importance of Judicial Independence

Judicial independence is the cornerstone of judicial power. The judiciary must be free from influence or interference from the executive or legislative branches to function impartially and uphold the rule of law. The Constitution guarantees this by providing for:

• Security of tenure for justices and judges, who can only be removed by impeachment.
• Fiscal autonomy, allowing the judiciary to manage its own budget without interference from other branches.
• Immunity from suits for acts done in the exercise of their judicial functions.

VI. Conclusion

Judicial power, as vested in the judiciary, plays a crucial role in the balance of governmental powers. Through its power to interpret laws and to review the constitutionality of actions by other branches of government, the judiciary serves as the protector of constitutional rights and the rule of law. The expanded power of judicial review grants the courts a more active role in maintaining constitutional supremacy and preventing abuses of power, particularly through the application of the grave abuse of discretion standard. This role is vital to the preservation of democracy and the protection of individual freedoms under the law in the Philippines.

Rules of succession | EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW: EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

D. Rules of Succession

The Rules of Succession in the Executive Department, specifically in the Philippine government, are enshrined primarily in the Constitution and other pertinent laws. The rules of succession aim to ensure continuity of governance in the event that the President or other high-ranking officials of the executive branch are unable to fulfill their duties.

In the Philippines, the main provisions governing presidential succession are found in the 1987 Constitution under Article VII (Executive Department). Below is a comprehensive analysis of the rules of succession:

I. PRESIDENTIAL SUCCESSION

Presidential succession addresses scenarios where the President is permanently or temporarily unable to perform the duties of the office.

1. Permanent Vacancy

A permanent vacancy occurs when the President:

• Dies,
• Is permanently disabled,
• Resigns,
• Is removed from office via impeachment, or
• Any other cause of permanent incapacity.

In these situations, the Constitution lays down the following rules:

1. Succession by the Vice President: Under Section 8 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, the Vice President assumes the position of the President upon the occurrence of a permanent vacancy in the presidency. The Vice President serves for the unexpired term of the President.

2. No President and Vice President: If both the President and the Vice President are unable to serve due to permanent vacancies, the Senate President or, in case of his inability, the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall act as President until a President or Vice President is elected and qualified.

   • This election must take place not more than 30 days after the vacancies occur. Congress, by law, shall provide for this special election.

3. Special Law for Presidential Disability: Congress has the constitutional duty to provide by law for situations involving the temporary or permanent disability of the President and the manner by which such a disability may be determined. The law is also expected to provide the manner of restoration of power if the disability is temporary.

2. Temporary Vacancy

A temporary vacancy occurs when the President becomes temporarily unable to discharge the duties of the office due to illness or other temporary incapacity.

1. Voluntary Temporary Incapacity (Section 11, Article VII): If the President submits a written declaration to the Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives stating an inability to discharge the duties of the office, the Vice President will serve as Acting President. The President can resume the powers and duties of the office by submitting a subsequent written declaration stating that the incapacity no longer exists.

2. Involuntary Temporary Incapacity (Section 11, Article VII): If a majority of the Cabinet, including the Executive Secretary, determines that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office, the Vice President will immediately assume the office in an acting capacity. However, the President can contest this declaration by submitting a written declaration that no inability exists.

   If the Cabinet challenges the President’s declaration, Congress must decide the issue. A two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, voting separately, is needed to uphold the declaration of the President’s inability.

II. VICE PRESIDENTIAL SUCCESSION

1. Permanent Vacancy: In case of a permanent vacancy in the Office of the Vice President due to death, resignation, incapacity, or removal from office, the President is empowered under Section 9, Article VII of the Constitution to appoint a Vice President from among the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives, subject to confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

   • This Vice President serves only for the unexpired term of the predecessor.

III. CONGRESS' ROLE IN PRESIDENTIAL SUCCESSION

The Philippine Congress has a significant role in ensuring a clear and lawful process of succession. In cases where both the President and Vice President are unable to serve, Congress is tasked with conducting a special election within 30 days of the vacancies. Moreover, Congress is empowered to determine by law how to handle instances of presidential disability and inability and the means by which such incapacity is determined.

Congress also plays a role when disputes arise concerning the President’s ability to resume office after a temporary incapacity. Its decision on the matter is conclusive and binding, provided a two-thirds vote of all members of both Houses is achieved.

IV. CONTINUITY OF GOVERNMENT

The clear goal of the rules on presidential and vice-presidential succession is to ensure continuity and stability in the executive department of the government. The framers of the 1987 Constitution ensured that the executive branch would remain functional under any circumstances by laying out these specific rules.

In addition to the provisions in the Constitution, other laws and executive issuances may provide more details regarding the specifics of incapacity, disability, or succession planning (e.g., Administrative Code provisions), though the Constitution remains the supreme law in these matters.

V. PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW CONSIDERATIONS

From a public international law perspective, the rules of executive succession reflect the principle of state continuity and the need for a functioning government to maintain its international obligations. Regardless of internal transitions, the Philippines as a state remains bound by its international commitments, and the executive branch is expected to ensure the nation remains engaged with international law.

---

In conclusion, the rules of succession in the Philippine executive department ensure that the transition of power occurs seamlessly, whether due to permanent or temporary vacancies in the presidency or vice presidency. The Constitution primarily guides this process, with significant oversight from the legislative branch and provisions for ensuring stability in governance.

Veto powers | Powers of the President | EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

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

I. Introduction to the Veto Power

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

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

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

II. Forms of Presidential Veto Power

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

III. Process of Overriding a Presidential Veto

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

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

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

IV. Limitations and Considerations of the Veto Power

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

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

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

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

V. Rationale for the Veto Power

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

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

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

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

VI. Veto Powers in the Context of Public International Law

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

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

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

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

VII. Conclusion

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

Residual powers | Powers of the President | EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

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

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

Constitutional Basis

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nature and Scope of Residual Powers

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

Residual powers include:

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

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

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

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

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

Limitations on Residual Powers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key Judicial Precedents

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

1. Marcos v. Manglapus (1989):

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

2. Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary (2004):

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

3. David v. Arroyo (2006):

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

Conclusion

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

Delegated powers | Powers of the President | EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

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

1. Definition of Delegated Powers

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

2. Basis for Delegated Powers

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

3. Constitutional Basis for Delegation

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

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

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

4. Requirements for Valid Delegation

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

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

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

5. Examples of Delegated Powers to the President

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Limitations on Delegated Powers

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

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

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

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

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

7. Conclusion

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

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

POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

X. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

C. Powers of the President

8. Powers Relative to Appropriation Measures

---

I. General Principles

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

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

---

II. The President's Role in the Budget Process

A. Proposal of the National Budget (Budgetary Initiative)

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

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

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

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

---

B. Line-Item Veto Power

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

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

2. Scope of the Line-Item Veto:

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

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

---

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

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

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

2. Savings:

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

   Jurisprudence on the Use of Savings:

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

3. Unprogrammed Funds and Presidential Discretionary Funds:

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

---

III. The Power to Approve or Veto Appropriation Bills

A. General Appropriations Act (GAA)

1. Legislative Process:

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

2. Power to Veto:

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

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

B. Reenacted Budget

1. Effect of Reenacted Budget:

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

2. Challenges and Implications of a Reenacted Budget:

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

---

IV. Special Appropriation Measures

A. Supplementary Appropriations

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

B. Special Funds

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

C. Presidential Power in Times of National Emergency

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

---

V. Conclusion

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

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

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

1. Constitutional Basis

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

The relevant provision states:

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

2. Treaties vs. Executive Agreements

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

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

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

3. Process of Entering into Treaties

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Withdrawal from Treaties

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

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

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

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

5. Termination of Treaties

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

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

6. Recent Case Law and Jurisprudence

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

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

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

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

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

7. Withdrawal from the International Criminal Court (ICC)

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

1. Constitutional Basis

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

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

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

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

2. Requirements and Conditions

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

• Prior Concurrence of the Monetary Board:

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

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

• Limitations Imposed by Law:

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

• Reporting to Congress:

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

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

3. Nature and Scope of the Power

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

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

4. Limitations on Borrowing

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

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

5. Legal Framework and Jurisprudence

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

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

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

6. Impact on Foreign Relations

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

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

7. Checks and Balances

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

Diplomatic Powers of the President: An In-Depth Analysis

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

A. Overview of Diplomatic Power

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

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

B. Sources of Diplomatic Power

1. Constitutional Basis

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

2. Statutory and Jurisprudential Foundations

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

C. Components of Diplomatic Power

1. Treaty-Making Power

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

2. Executive Agreements

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

3. Diplomatic Recognition

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

4. Appointment of Ambassadors and Consuls

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

5. Conduct of Diplomatic Relations

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

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

1. Senate Concurrence

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

2. Judicial Review

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

3. Principles of International Law

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

4. Legislative Oversight

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

5. Public Accountability

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

E. Key Jurisprudence on Diplomatic Power

1. Bayan v. Zamora (2000)

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

2. Pimentel v. Executive Secretary (2005)

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

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

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

F. Conclusion

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

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

POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

X. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

C. Powers of the President

6. Pardoning Power

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

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

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

Forms of Executive Clemency

1. Pardon

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

   • Types of Pardon:

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

   • Requirements and Effects:

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

2. Commutation

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

3. Reprieve

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

4. Remission of Fines and Forfeitures

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

5. Amnesty

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

Limitations on the Pardoning Power

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

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

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

Judicial Review and Pardoning Power

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

Conclusion

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

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

Pardoning Power of the President: Scope and Limitations

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

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

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

I. Scope of the Pardoning Power

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Effect on Civil and Political Rights

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

II. Limitations of the Pardoning Power

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

III. Judicial Review of the Pardoning Power

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

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

IV. Notable Case Law

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

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

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

V. Policy Considerations

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Constitutional Basis

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

The relevant portion of the Constitution states:

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

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

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

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

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

Invasion

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

Rebellion

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

Public Safety

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

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

Effect of Martial Law

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

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

Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus

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

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

Duration

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

Congressional Powers

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

Judicial Review

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

Extension and Revocation

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

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

Restrictions

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

Historical Precedents

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

I. Constitutional Basis

Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution states:

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

II. Nature and Scope of the Calling Out Power

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

1. Lawless Violence

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

2. Invasion

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

3. Rebellion

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

III. Judicial Review and Limitations

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

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

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

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

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

V. Executive Discretion

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

VI. Limitations on the Use of Military Force

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

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

VII. Notable Applications

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

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

VIII. Conclusion

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

Emergency Powers | Powers of the President | EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

EMERGENCY POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT (Philippine Legal Context)

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

Constitutional Basis

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

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

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

Conditions for Granting Emergency Powers

Emergency powers may be exercised only under the following conditions:

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

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

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

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

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

Scope and Limitations of Emergency Powers

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

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

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

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

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

Historical Context

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statutory Provisions on Emergency Powers

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

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

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

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

Comparison to Martial Law Powers

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

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

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

Conclusion

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