8/9/2019 Consti 112814

1/21

ARTICLE VI

THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Section 19. The Electoral Tribunals and the Commission on Appointments shall be

constituted within thirty days after the Senate and the House of Representatives shall

have been organized with the election of the President and the Speaer! The

Commission on Appointments shall meet only while the Congress is in session" at the

call of its Chairman or a ma#ority of all its $embers" to discharge such powers and

functions as are herein conferred upon it!

ARTICLE VII

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

Section 15. Two months immediately before the ne%t presidential elections and up tothe end of his term" a President or Acting President shall not mae appointments"

e%cept temporary appointments to e%ecutive positions when continued vacancies

therein will pre#udice public service or endanger public safety!

Section 16. The President shall nominate and" with the consent of the Commission on

 Appointments" appoint the heads of the e%ecutive departments" ambassadors" other

public ministers and consuls" or officers of the armed forces from the ran of colonel or

naval captain" and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this

Constitution! He shall also appoint all other officers of the &overnment whose

appointments are not otherwise provided for by law" and those whom he may beauthorized by law to appoint! The Congress may" by law" vest the appointment of other

officers lower in ran in the President alone" in the courts" or in the heads of

departments" agencies" commissions" or boards!

The President shall have the power to mae appointments during the recess of the

Congress" whether voluntary or compulsory" but such appointments shall be effective

only until disapproved by the Commission on Appointments or until the ne%t

ad#ournment of the Congress!

BOO III

O!!ICE O! THE PRESIDENT

Tit"e I

PO#ERS O! THE PRESIDENT

8/9/2019 Consti 112814

2/21

CHAPTER 1

PO#ER O! CONTROL

CHAPTER 5PO#ER O! APPOINTMENT

Section 16. Power of Appointment. ' The President shall e%ercise the power to appoint

such officials as provided for in the Constitution and laws!

Section 1$. Power to (ssue Temporary )esignation! '

*+, The President may temporarily designate an officer already in the government

service or any other competent person to perform the functions of an office in the

e%ecutive branch" appointment to which is vested in him by law" when- *a, theofficer regularly appointed to the office is unable to perform his duties by reason

of illness" absence or any other cause. or *b, there e%ists a vacancy.

*/, The person designated shall receive the compensation attached to the

position" unless he is already in the government service in which case he shall

receive only such additional compensation as" with his e%isting salary" shall not

e%ceed the salary authorized by law for the position filled! The compensation

hereby authorized shall be paid out of the funds appropriated for the office or

agency concerned!

*0, (n no case shall a temporary designation e%ceed one *+, year!

ARANETA VS DANGLASAN

84 Phil. 368 – Political Law – First Emergency Powers Cases

 Antonio Araneta is being charged for allegedly violating of E%ecutive 1rder 2/ which

regulates rentals for housesand lots for residential buildings! 3udge Rafael )inglasan

was the #udge hearing the case! Araneta appealed seeing to prohibit )inglasan and the

4iscal from proceeding with the case! He averred that E1 2/ was issued by virtue of 

Commonwealth Act *CA, 5o! 26+ which he claimed ceased to e%ist" hence" the E1 has

no legal basis!

Three other cases were consolidated with this one! 7'0899 which is an appeal by 7eon

$a! &uerrero" a shoe e%porter" against E1 +:/ which controls e%ports in the

Philippines. he is seeing to have permit issued to him!

8/9/2019 Consti 112814

3/21

7'089; is filed by Eulogio Rodriguez to prohibit the treasury from disbursing funds

8/9/2019 Consti 112814

4/21

their assignments for allegedly violating the Articles of ar and the time honoured principle

of the FChain of Command!G &en! Senga ordered them to be sub#ected before the &eneral

Court $artial proceedings for willfuly violating an order of a superior officer!

ISSUE%hether or not the President has the authority to issue an order to the members of the A4P

preventing them from testifying before a legislative inIuiry!

RULING%

es! The SC hold that President has constitutional authority to do so" by virtue of her power

as commander'in'chief" and that as a conseIuence a military officer who defies such

in#unction is liable under military #ustice! At the same time" any chamber of Congress which

sees the appearance before it of a military officer against the consent of the President has

adeIuate remedies under law to compel such attendance! Any military official whomCongress summons to testify before it may be compelled to do so by the President! (f the

President is not so inclined" the President may be commanded by #udicial order to compel

the attendance of the military officer! 4inal #udicial orders have the force of the law of the

land which the President has the duty to faithfully e%ecute!

SC ruled in Senate v! Ermita that the President may not issue a blanet reIuirement of prior 

consent on e%ecutive officials summoned by the legislature to attend a congressional

hearing! (n doing so" the Court recognized the considerable limitations on e%ecutive

privilege" and affirmed that the privilege must be formally invoed on specified grounds!

However" the ability of the President to prevent military officers from testifying beforeCongress does not turn on e%ecutive privilege" but on the Chief E%ecutive=s power as

commander'in'chief to control the actions and speech of members of the armed forces! The

President=s prerogatives as commander'in'chief are not hampered by the same limitations

as in e%ecutive privilege!

 At the same time" the refusal of the President to allow members of the military to appear

before Congress is still sub#ect to #udicial relief! The Constitution itself recognizes as one of

the legislature=s functions is the conduct of inIuiries in aid of legislation! (nasmuch as it is

ill'advised for Congress to interfere with the President=s power as commander'in'chief" it issimilarly detrimental for the President to unduly interfere with Congress=s right to conduct

legislative inIuiries! The impasse did not come to pass in this petition" since petitioners

testified anyway despite the presidential prohibition! et the Court is aware that with its

pronouncement today that the President has the right to reIuire prior consent from

members of the armed forces" the clash may soon loom or actualize!

8/9/2019 Consti 112814

5/21

The duty falls on the shoulders of the President" as commander'in'chief" to authorize the

appearance of the military officers before Congress! Even if the President has earlier 

 disagreed with the notion of officers appearing before the legislature to testify" the Chief

E%ecutive is nonetheless obliged to comply with the final orders of the courts!

Teodosio Lansang vs Garcia (G.R. No. L-33964)Posted: August 10, 2011 in Case Digests, Political Law 

0

 Abandonment of the Doctrine Held in the Barcelon Case & the Montenegro Case

FACTS: Due to the throwing of two hand grenades in a Liberal Party caucus in 1!1

causing the death of " #eo#le, Marcos issued PP "" which sus#ended the #ri$ilege of 

the writ of habeas cor#us% Marcos urged that there is a need to curtail the growth of 

Maoist grou#s% &ubse'uently, Lansang et al were in$ited by the P( headed by )arcia for

interrogation and in$estigation% Lansang et al 'uestioned the $alidity of the sus#ension

of the writ a$erring that the sus#ension does not *eet the constitutional re'uisites%

ISSUE: +hether or not the sus#ension is constitutional%

HELD: he doctrine established in -arcelon and Montenegro was subse'uently

abandoned in this case where the &( declared that it had the #ower to in'uire into the

factual basis of the sus#ension of the #ri$ilege of the writ of habeas cor#us by Marcos in

Aug 1!1 and to annul the sa*e if no legal ground could be established% Accordingly,

hearings were conducted to recei$e e$idence on this *atter, including two closed.door

sessions in which rele$ant classi/ed infor*ation was di$ulged by the go$ern*ent to the

*e*bers of the &( and selected lawyers of the #etitioners% n the end, after satisfying

itself that there was actually a *assi$e and syste*atic (o**unist.oriented ca*#aign

to o$erthrow the go$ern*ent by force, as clai*ed by Marcos, the &( unani*ouslydecided to u#hold t5he sus#ension of the #ri$ilege of the +rit of abeas (or#us%

B!gos ". #aca$agal%A!!o&o

)%3% 4o% 1"!11

22 une 2010

http://lawskooliscool.wordpress.com/category/case-digests/http://lawskooliscool.wordpress.com/category/case-digests/http://lawskooliscool.wordpress.com/category/political-law/http://lawskooliscool.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/teodosio-lansang-vs-garcia-g-r-no-l-33964/#respondhttp://lawskooliscool.wordpress.com/category/case-digests/http://lawskooliscool.wordpress.com/category/political-law/http://lawskooliscool.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/teodosio-lansang-vs-garcia-g-r-no-l-33964/#respond

8/9/2019 Consti 112814

6/21

P'NENTE: -rion, %

PARTIES:

1% PETITI'NER: 6DA -73)8&

2% RESP'NDENTS: P36&D64 )L83A MA(APA)AL.A33898, )64% 63M8)646&

6&P6384, 3%, L% )64% 38M68 P% 8L6448, MA% )64% 7A48 )8M6, MA% )64%

D6L;4 -A4), L% (8L% 486L (L6M64, L% (8L% M6L

8/9/2019 Consti 112814

7/21

the P4P did not fully eBert their eort in the conduct of in$estigation% he (A ruled that

the A;P has the burden of connecting certain loose ends regarding the identity of >a

3a*on and the allegation that >a 3a*on is indeed onas in the I8rder of -attle%J As for

the P4P.(D), the (A branded its in$estigation as Irather shallowJ and Iconducted

ha#haardly%J

PERTINENT ISSUE: +hether or not the failure of the P4P and A;P to conduct an

eBhausti$e and *eaningful in$estigation and to eBercise eBtraordinary diligence in the

#erfor*ance of their duties is a fatal to the grant of the #ri$ilege of the +rit of A*#aro%

ANS*ER: 9es%

SUPRE#E C'URT RULINGS:

'N PRIVILEGE 'F THE *RIT 'F A#PAR'

Efect o the ailure o the PNP and AFP to conduct an exhaustive and 

meaningul investigation and to exercise extraordinary diligence in the

 perormance o their duties – (onsidering the /ndings of the (A and our re$iew of the records of the #resent case, we conclude that the P4P and the A;P ha$e so far failed

to conduct an eBhausti$e and *eaningful in$estigation into the disa##earance of onas

-urgos, and to eBercise the eBtraordinary diligence ?in the #erfor*ance of their duties

that the 3ule on the +rit of A*#aro re'uires% -ecause of these in$estigati$e

shortco*ings, we cannot rule on the case until a *ore *eaningful in$estigation, using

eBtraordinary diligence, is undertaken%

DISP'SITIVE:

n dis#osing of the case, the &u#re*e (ourt issued the following directi$es:

1% D36(6D the (o**ission on u*an 3ights to conduct a##ro#riate in$estigati$e

#roceedings, including /eld in$estigations = acting as the (ourtHs directly

co**issioned agency for #ur#oses of the 3ule on the +rit of A*#aro

2% 36

8/9/2019 Consti 112814

8/21

@% D36(6D the P4P.(D) to #ro$ide direct in$estigati$e assistance to the

(o**ission on u*an 3ights as it *ay re'uire, #ursuant to the authority granted

under this 3esolution

5% A7836D the (o**ission on u*an 3ights to conduct a co*#rehensi$e and

eBhausti$e in$estigation that eBtends to all as#ects of the case ?not li*ited to the

s#eci/c directi$es as outlined abo$e, as the eBtraordinary *easures the case *ay

re'uire under the 3ule on the +rit of A*#aro and

G% 36

8/9/2019 Consti 112814

9/21

RULING:

1% he #ower of Nudicial re$iew is set forth in &ection 1, Article Q of the

(onstitution, to wit:

&ection 1% he Nudicial #ower shall be $ested in one &u#re*e (ourt and in suchlower courts as *ay be established by law%

 udicial #ower includes the duty of the courts of Nustice to settle actual

contro$ersies in$ol$ing rights which are legally de*andable and enforceable,

and to deter*ine whether or not there has been gra$e abuse of discretion

a*ounting to lack or eBcess of Nurisdiction on the #art of any branch or

instru*entality of the )o$ern*ent%

+hen 'uestions of constitutional signi/cance are raised, the (ourt can eBercise

its #ower of Nudicial re$iew only if the following re'uisites are co*#lied with,

na*ely: ?1 the eBistence of an actual and a##ro#riate case ?2 a #ersonal andsubstantial interest of the #arty raising the constitutional 'uestion ? the

eBercise of Nudicial re$iew is #leaded at the earliest o##ortunity and ?@ the

constitutional 'uestion is the lis *ota of the case%

2% he de#loy*ent of the Marines does not constitute a breach of the ci$ilian

su#re*acy clause% he calling of the Marines in this case constitutes

#er*issible use of *ilitary assets for ci$ilian law enforce*ent% he #artici#ation

of the Marines in the conduct of Noint $isibility #atrols is a##ro#riately

circu*scribed% t is their res#onsibility to direct and *anage the de#loy*ent ofthe Marines% t is, likewise, their duty to #ro$ide the necessary e'ui#*ent to the

Marines and render logistical su##ort to these soldiers% n $iew of the foregoing,

it cannot be #ro#erly argued that *ilitary authority is su#re*e o$er ci$ilian

authority% Moreo$er, the de#loy*ent of the Marines to assist the P4P does not

un*ake the ci$ilian character of the #olice force% 4either does it a*ount to an

Iinsidious incursionJ of the *ilitary in the task of law enforce*ent in $iolation of

&ection 5?@, Article FQ of the (onstitution%

Lacson $s Pere

;acts: 8n May 1, 2001, Pres% )loria Maca#agal Arroyo issued a Procla*ation 4o% "declaring that there was a state of rebellion in the 4ational (a#ital 3egion becauseof the fact that she was faced by an Sangry and $iolent *ob ar*ed with eB#losi$es,/rear*, bladed wea#ons, clubs, stones, and other deadly wea#onsS% &he also issued)eneral 8rder 4o% 1 directing the A;P and P4P to su##ress the rebellion in the 4(3%

8/9/2019 Consti 112814

10/21

+arrantless arrest of se$eral alleged leaders and #ro*oters of the rebellion werethereafter eected% he #etitioners /led for #rohibition, inNunction, *anda*us, andhabeas cor#us with an urgent a##lication for the issuance of te*#orary restrainingorder andKor writ of #reli*inary in$estigation% he #etitioners assails the declarationof a state of rebellion by the President and the warrantless arrest allegedly eectedby $irtue hereof, as ha$ing no basis both in fact and in law% hey also contend that

they are allegedly faced with unlawful restraint being that hold de#arture orderswere issued against the*%

&&76: +hether or not the declaration of state of rebellion is constitutionalT

3uling:

 9es, under &ection 1", Article Q of the (onstitution #ro$ides that Sthe Presidentshall be the (o**ander.in.chief of all ar*ed forces of the #hil% and whene$er itbeco*es necessary, he *ay call out such ar*ed forces to #re$ent or su##resslawless $iolence, in$asion or rebellion%

AMPA7A4 $% P748

October 26, 2012 § ea!e a comment 

 une !, 2011 ?)%3% 4o% 1025

PA36&:

Petitioners: DA7 ALD9 79 AMPA7A4, A4&A37DD4 AD84), 36)6 &AAL.)6463AL6

3es#ondents : 84% 384ALD8 P748, A3M6D ;83(6& 8; 6 PLPP46&, PLPP46 4A84AL

P8L(6

;A(&:

8n 4o$e*ber 2@, 200, the day after the grueso*e *assacre of 5! *en and wo*en, then President

)loria Maca#agal.Arroyo issued Procla*ation 1@G, #lacing Ithe Pro$inces of Maguindanao and &ultan

>udarat and the (ity of (otabato under a state of e*ergency%J &he directed the A;P and the P4P Ito

undertake such *easures as *ay be allowed by the (onstitution and by law to #re$ent and su##ress

http://thelawiscool.wordpress.com/2012/10/26/ampatuan-v-puno/#respondhttp://thelawiscool.wordpress.com/2012/10/26/ampatuan-v-puno/#respond

8/9/2019 Consti 112814

11/21

all incidents of lawless $iolenceJ in the na*ed #laces% 7nder A8 2!, she also delegated to the DL)

the su#er$ision of the A3MM%

 he #etitioners clai*ed that the PresidentHs issuances encroached the A3MMHs autono*y, that it

constitutes an in$alid eBercise of e*ergency #owers, and that the President had no factual basis for

declaring a state of e*ergency, es#ecially in the Pro$ince of &ultan >udarat and the (ity of (otabato,

where no critical $iolent incidents occurred% hey want Proc% 1@G and A8 2! be declared

unconstitutional%

 he res#ondents, howe$er, said that its #ur#ose was not to de#ri$e the A3MM of its autono*y, but to

restore #eace and order in subNect #laces% t is #ursuant to her Icalling outJ #ower as (o**ander.in.

(hief% he deter*ination of the need to eBercise this #ower rests solely on her wisdo*%

 he President *erely delegated her su#er$isory #owers o$er the A3MM to the DL) &ecretary who was

her alter ego any way% he delegation was necessary to facilitate the in$estigation of the *ass killings

&&76:

+84 President Arroyo in$alidly eBercised e*ergency #owers when she called out the A;P and the P4P

to #re$ent and su##ress all incidents of lawless $iolence in Maguindanao, &ultan >udarat, and

(otabato (ity

6LD: 48% he President did not #roclai* a national e*ergency, only a state of e*ergency in the three

#laces *entioned% And she did not act #ursuant to any law enacted by (ongress that authoried her to

eBercise eBtraordinary #owers% he calling out of the ar*ed forces to #re$ent or su##ress lawless

$iolence in such #laces is a #ower that the (onstitution directly $ests in the President% &he did not

need a congressional authority to eBercise the sa*e%

&&76 ?2: +84 there is factual basis on the calling out of the Ar*ed ;orces%

6LD: 9es% he PresidentHs call on the ar*ed forces to #re$ent or su##ress lawless $iolence s#rings

fro* the #ower $ested in her under &ection 1", Article Q of the (onstitution% +hile it is true that the

8/9/2019 Consti 112814

12/21

(ourt *ay in'uire into the factual bases for the PresidentHs eBercise of the abo$e #ower, unless it is

shown that such deter*ination was attended by gra$e abuse of discretion, the (ourt will accord

res#ect to the PresidentHs Nudg*ent%

>NORTH COTABATO VS. GRP GR NO. 183591>FACTS: The Memorandum of Areemen! on !he An"e#!ra$ %oma&n

'MOA(A%) *rouh! a*ou! *+ !he Go,ernmen! of !he re-u*$&" of !he

Ph&$&--&ne# 'GRP) and !he Moro #$am&" /&*era!&on 0ron! 'M/0) a# an

a#-e"! of Tr&-o$& Areemen! of Pea"e &n 221 #"hedu$ed !o *e #&ned &n

ua$a /um-ur4 Ma$a+#&a.Th areemen! a# -e!&!&oned *+ !he Pro,&n"e of Nor!h Co!a*a!o for

Mandamu# and Proh&*&!&on &!h Pra+er for !he ##uan"e of 6r&! of

Pre$&m&nar+ n7un"!&on and Tem-orar+ Re#!ra&n&n Order. The areemen!

men!&on# Ban#amoro ur&d&"a$ :n!&!+; 'B:) !o h&"h &! ran!# !he

au!hor&!+ and 7urd&"!&on o,er !he An"e#!ra$ %oma&n and An"e#!ra$ /and#

of !he Ban#amoro< au!hor&!+ and 7urd&"!&on o,er a$$ na!ura$ re#our"e#

 &!h&n &n!erna$ a!er#. The areemen! "om-o#ed of !o $o"a$ #!a!u!e#=

!he oran&" a"! for au!onomou# re&on &n Mu#$&m M&ndanao and !he

nd&enou# Peo-$e# R&h!# A"! 'PRA).

ISSUE: 6he!her or no! !he GRP ,&o$a!ed !he Con#!&!u!&ona$ and #!a!u!or+

-ro,&on# on -u*$&" "on#u$!a!&on and !he r&h! !o &nforma!&on hen !he+

neo!&a!ed and &n&!&a!ed !he MOA(A% and 6he!her or no! !he MOA(A%

 *rouh! *+ !he GRP and M/0 "on#!&!u!&ona$

HELD:GRP ,&o$a!ed !he Con#!&!u!&ona$ and #!a!u!or+ -ro,&on# on -u*$&"

"on#u$!a!&on and !he r&h! !o &nforma!&on hen !he+ neo!&a!ed and

&n&!&a!ed !he MOA(A% and &! are un"on#!&!u!&ona$ *e"au#e &! "on!rar+ !o

$a and !he -ro,&on# of !he "on#!&!u!&on !hereof.

REASONING: The GRP re?u&red *+ !h $a !o "arr+ ou! -u*$&"

"on#u$!a!&on# on *o!h na!&ona$ and $o"a$ $e,e$# !o *u&$d "on#en#u# for -ea"e

http://krizsexzy.wordpress.com/2010/05/07/north-cotabato-vs-grp-gr-no-183591/http://krizsexzy.wordpress.com/2010/05/07/north-cotabato-vs-grp-gr-no-183591/

8/9/2019 Consti 112814

13/21

aenda and -ro"e## and !he mo*&$&@a!&on and fa"&$&!a!&on of -eo-$e#

-ar!&"&-a!&on &n !he -ea"e -ro"e##.

 Ar!&"$e 'B&$$ of R&h!#)

Se". . The r&h! of -eo-$e on ma!!er# of -u*$&" "on"ern #ha$$ *e re"on&@ed4

a""e## !o off&"&a$ re"ord# and !o do"umen!# and -a-er# -er!a&n&n !o off&"&a$

a"!#4 !ran#a"!&on#4 or de"&on#4 a# e$$ a# !o o,ernmen! re#ear"h da!a u#ed

a# *a# for -o$&"+ de,e$o-men! #ha$$ *e afforded !he "&!&@en4 #u*7e"! !o #u"h

$&m&!a!&on# a# ma+ *e -ro,&ded *+ $a.

 Ar!&"$e

Se". 8. Su*7e"! !o rea#ona*$e "ond&!&on# -re#"r&*ed *+ $a 4 !ha! #!a!e

ado-!# and &m-$emen!# a -o$&"+ of fu$$ -u*$&" d"$o#ure of a$$ &!#

!ran#a"!&on# &n,o$,&n -u*$&" &n!ere#!.

/GC '1991)4 re?u&re a$$ na!&ona$ aen"&e# and off&"er# !o "ondu"! -er&od&"

"on#u$!a!&on#. No -ro7e"! or -roram *e &m-$emen!ed un$e## #u"h

"on#u$!a!&on# are "om-$&ed &!h and a--ro,a$ mu# *e o*!a&ned.;

 Ar!&"$e V ':e"u!&,e %e-ar!men!)

Se". 1. No !rea!+ or &n!erna!&ona$ areemen! #ha$$ *e ,a$&d and effe"!&,e

un$e## "on"urred &n *+ a! $ea#! !o(!h&rd# of a$$ !he Mem*er# of !he Sena!e.

 Ar!&"$e . '/o"a$ Go,ernmen!)

Se". 1. The !err&!or&a$ and -o$&!&"a$ #u*d&,&on# of !he Re-u*$&" of !he

Ph&$&--&ne# are !he -ro,&n"e4 "&!&e#4 mun&"&-a$&!&e# and *arana+#. There

#ha$$ *e au!onomou# re&on# on Mu#$&m M&ndanao and !he Cord&$$era a#here&naf!er -ro,&ded.

Se". 15. There #ha$$ *e "rea!ed au!onomou# re&on# &n Mu#$&m M&ndanao

and &n !he Cord&$$era# "on#!&n of -ro,&n"e#4 "&!&e#4 mun&"&-a$&!&e# and

eora-h&"a$ area# #har&n "ommon and d!&n"!&,e h!or&"a$ and "u$!ura$

8/9/2019 Consti 112814

14/21

her&!ae4 e"onom&" and #o"&a$ #!ru"!ure# and o!her re$e,an! "hara"!er!&"#

 &!h&n !he frameorD of !h "on#!&!u!&on and !he na!&ona$ #o,ere&n!+ a#

 e$$ a# !err&!or&a$ &n!er&!+ of !he Re-u*$&" of !he Ph&$&--&ne#.

Se"!&on 1E. The Pre#&den! #ha$$ eer"e enera$ #u-er,&on o,er

au!onomou# re&on# !o en#ure !ha! $a# are fa&!hfu$$+ ee"u!ed.

Se". 18. The "rea!&on of au!onomou# re&on #ha$$ *e effe"!&,e hen

a--ro,ed *+ a ma7or&!+ of !he ,o!e# "a#! *+ !he "on#!&!uen!# un&!# &n a

-$e*"&!e "a$$ed for !he -ur-o#e4 -ro,&ded !ha! on$+ -ro,&n"e#4 "&!&e# and

eora-h&" area# ,o!&n fa,oura*$+ &n #u"h -$e*"&!e #ha$$ *e &n"$uded &n

!he au!onomou# re&on.

Se". 2. 6&!h&n &!# !err&!or&a$ 7urd&"!&on and #u*7e"! !o !he -ro,&on# of

!h Con#!&!u!&on and na!&ona$ $a#4 !he oran&" a"! of au!onomou# re&on#

#ha$$ -ro,&de for $e$a!&,e -oer# o,er=

1. Adm&n!ra!&,e oran&@a!&on<

. Crea!&on of #our"e# of re,enue#<

3. An"e#!ra$ doma&n and na!ura$ re#our"e#<

F. Per#ona$4 fam&$+4 and -ro-er!+ re$a!&on#<

5. Re&ona$ ur*an and rura$ -$ann&n de,e$o-men!<

E. :"onom&"4 #o"&a$4 and !ourm de,e$o-men!<

. :du"a!&ona$ -o$&"&e#<

8. Pre#er,a!&on and de,e$o-men! of !he "u$!ura$ her&!ae< and

9. Su"h o!her ma!!er# a# ma+ *e au!hor&@ed *+ $a for !he -romo!&on of !he

enera$ e$fare of !he -eo-$e of !he re&on.

The Pre#&den! ha# #o$e au!hor&!+ &n !he !rea!+(maD&n.

 ARTC/: V 'AM:N%M:NTS OR R:VSONS)

Se"!&on 1. An+ amendmen! !o4 or re,&on of4 !h Con#!&!u!&on ma+ *e

-ro-o#ed *+=

8/9/2019 Consti 112814

15/21

1. The Conre##4 u-on a ,o!e of !hree(four!h# of a$$ &!# Mem*er#< or

. A "on#!&!u!&ona$ "on,en!&on.

Se"!&on F. An+ amendmen! !o4 or re,&on of4 !h Con#!&!u!&on under

Se"!&on 1 hereof #ha$$ *e ,a$&d hen ra!&f&ed *+ a ma7or&!+ of !he ,o!e# "a#!

&n a -$e*"&!e h&"h #ha$$ *e he$d no! ear$&er !han #&!+ da+# nor $a!er !han

n&ne!+ da+# af!er !he a--ro,a$ of #u"h amendmen! or re,&on.

MOA(A% #!a!e# !ha! a$$ -ro,&on# !hereof h&"h "anno! *e re"on"&$ed &!h

!he -re#en! "on#!&!u!&on and $a# #ha$$ "ome &n!o for"e u-on #&n&n of a

"om-rehen#&,e "om-a"! and u-on effe"!&n !he ne"e##ar+ "hane# !o !he

$ea$ frameorD.; The -re#&den!# au!hor&!+ $&m&!ed !o -ro-o#&n

"on#!&!u!&ona$ amendmen!#. She "anno! uaran!ee !o an+ !h&rd -ar!+ !ha!

!he re?u&red amendmen!# &$$ e,en!ua$$+ *e -u! &n -$a"e nor e,en *e

#u*m&!!ed !o a -$e*"&!e. MOA(A% &!#e$f -re#en!# !he need !o amend

!here&n.

To #ee !he or&&na$ "o-+ of !h&

ARTICLE VII

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

Section 19. E%cept 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 #udgment!

He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a ma#ority of all

the $embers of the Congress!

Section &'. The President may contract or guarantee foreign loans on behalf of the

Republic of the Philippines with the prior concurrence of the $onetary @oard" and

sub#ect to such limitations as may be provided by law! The $onetary @oard shall" within

thirty days from the end of every Iuarter of the calendar year" submit to the Congress a

complete report of its decision on applications for loans to be contracted or guaranteed

by the &overnment or government'owned and controlled corporations which would

8/9/2019 Consti 112814

16/21

have the effect of increasing the foreign debt" and containing other matters as may be

provided by law!

ARTICLE IX

CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION

C. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

Section (. The Commission may" during the election period" supervise or regulate the

en#oyment or utilization of all franchises or permits for the operation of transportation

and other public utilities" media of communication or information" all grants" special

privileges" or concessions granted by the &overnment or any subdivision" agency" or

instrumentality thereof" including any government'owned or controlled corporation or its

subsidiary! Such supervision or regulation shall aim to ensure eIual opportunity" time"

and space "and the right to reply" including reasonable" eIual rates therefor" for public

information campaigns and forums among candidates in connection with the ob#ective

of holding free" orderly" honest" peaceful" and credible elections!

Section 5. 5o pardon" amnesty" parole" or suspension of sentence for violation of

election laws" rules" and regulations shall be granted by the President without the

favorable recommendation of the Commission!

Section 6. A free and open party system shall be allowed to evolve according to the

free choice of the people" sub#ect to the provisions of this Article!

barrioIuinto vs fernandez

3imenez and @arrioIuinto were charged for murder for the illings they made during the

war! The case was proceeded against 3imenez because @arrioIuinto was nowhere to

be found! 3imenez was then sentenced to life imprisonment! @efore the period for 

perfecting an appeal had e%pired" the defendant 3imenez became aware

of Proclamation 5o! J" which grants amnesty in favor of all persons who may be

charged with an act penalized under the RPC in furtherance of the resistance to the

enemy or against persons aiding in the war efforts of the enemy! @arrioIuinto learned

about the proclamation and he surfaced in order to invoe amnesty as well! However"Commissioner 4ernandez of the +;th Amnesty Commission refused to process the

amnesty reIuest of the two accused because the two refused to admit to the crime as

charged! 3imenez K @arrioIuinto in fact said that a certain Tolentino was the one who

committed the crime being charged to them!

ISSUE% hether or not admission of guilt is necessary in amnesty!

https://uber2002.wordpress.com/tag/barrioquinto-vs-fernandez/https://uber2002.wordpress.com/tag/barrioquinto-vs-fernandez/

8/9/2019 Consti 112814

17/21

HELD% Pardon is granted by the President and as such it is a private act which must be

pleaded and proved by the person pardoned" because the courts tae no notice thereof.

while amnesty by Proclamation of the President with the concurrence of Congress" and

it is a public act of which the courts should tae #udicial notice! Pardon is granted to one

after conviction. while amnesty is granted to classes of persons or communities who

may be guilty of political offenses" generally before or after the institution of the criminal

prosecution and sometimes after conviction! Pardon loos forward and relieves the

offender from the conseIuences of an offense of which he has been convicted" that is" it

abolishes or forgives the punishment" and for that reason it does Fnor wor the

restoration of the rights to hold public office" or the right of suffrage" unless such rights

be e%pressly restored by the terms of the pardon"G and it Fin no case e%empts the culprit

from the payment of the civil indemnity imposed upon him by the sentenceG *art 02"

RPC,! hile amnesty loos bacward and abolishes and puts into oblivion the offense

itself" it so overloos and obliterates the offense with which he is charged that the

person released by amnesty stands before the law precisely as though he hadcommitted no offense!

(n order to entitle a person to the benefits of the Amnesty Proclamation" it is not

necessary that he should" as a condition precedent or sine Iua non" admit having

committed the criminal act or offense with which he is charged" and allege the amnesty

as a defense. it is sufficient that the evidence" either of the complainant or the accused"

shows that the offense committed comes within the terms of said

 Amnesty Proclamation! Hence" it is not correct to say that Finvocation of the benefits of 

amnesty is in the nature of a plea of confession and avoidance!G Although the accused

does not confess the imputation against him" he may be declared by the courts or the Amnesty Commissions entitled to the benefits of the amnesty! 4or" whether or not he

admits or confesses having committed the offense with which he is charged" the

Commissions should" if necessary or reIuested by the interested party" conduct

summary hearing of the witnesses both for the complainants and the accused" on

whether he has committed the offense in furtherance of the resistance to the enemy" or 

against persons aiding in the war efforts of the enemy" and decide whether he is entitled

to the benefits of amnesty and to be Fregarded as a patriot or hero who have rendered

invaluableservices to the nation"G or not" in accordance with the terms of the

 Amnesty Proclamation! Since the Amnesty Proclamation is a public act" the courts as

well as the Amnesty Commissions created thereby should tae notice of the terms of said Proclamation and apply the benefits granted therein to cases coming within their 

province or #urisdiction" whether pleaded or claimed by the person charged with such

offenses or not" if the evidence presented shows that the accused is entitled to said

benefits!

 

8/9/2019 Consti 112814

18/21

VERA VS PE'PLE

Dera" together with :/ others were charged for the crime of idnapping with murder 

done against a certain7ozaLes! The said crime was committed allegedly to aid the

3apanese occupation! )uring the hearing" none of the petitioners'defendants admitted

having committed the crime charged! (n fact" &audencio Dera" the only defendant who

too the witness stand" instead of admitting the illing of the deceased 7ozaMes"

categorically denied it! Hence" the Amnesty Commission held that it could not tae

cognizance of the case" on the ground that the benefits of the Amnesty Proclamation"

could be invoed only by defendants in a criminal case who" admitting the commission

of the crime" plead that said commission was in pursuance of the resistance movement

and perpetrated against persons who aided the enemy during the 3apanese occupation!

ConseIuently" the Commission ordered that the case be remanded to the court of origin

for trial!

ISSUE% hether or not the accused can avail of amnesty sans admission of guilt!

HELD% (t is ran inconsistency for appellant to #ustify an act" or see forgiveness for an

act which" according to him" he has not committed! Amnesty presupposes the

commission of a crime" and when an accused maintains that he has not committed a

crime" he cannot have any use for amnesty! here an

amnesty proclamationimposes certain conditions" as in this case" it is incumbent upon

the accused to prove the e%istence of such conditions! The invocation of amnesty is in

the nature of a plea of confession and avoidance" which means that the pleader admits

the allegations against him but disclaims liability therefor on account of intervening facts

which" if proved" would bring the crime charged within the scope of the

amnesty proclamation! The present rule reIuires a previous admission of guilt since a

person would not need the benefit of amnesty unless he was" to begin with" guilty of the

offense covered by the proclamation!

Miguel (ristobal $s AleNo Labrador U

 eo/lo &antos

Santos was convicted of the crime of estafa! He was given pardon by the president but

even prior to his pardon he was already holding the position as the municipality

president of $alabon notwithstanding his conviction! Cristobal" on the other hand"

averred that Santos should be e%cluded from the list of electors in $alabon because he

was already convicted of final #udgment Ffor any crime against propertyG! This is

pursuant to CA 096 of the 5ew Election Code! The lower court presided by 7abrador 

https://uber2002.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/miguel-cristobal-vs-alejo-labrador-teofilo-santos/https://uber2002.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/miguel-cristobal-vs-alejo-labrador-teofilo-santos/https://uber2002.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/miguel-cristobal-vs-alejo-labrador-teofilo-santos/https://uber2002.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/miguel-cristobal-vs-alejo-labrador-teofilo-santos/

8/9/2019 Consti 112814

19/21

8/9/2019 Consti 112814

20/21

issue to the 1ffice of the President and 4actoran denied $onsanto=s reIuest averring

that $onsanto must first see appointment and that the pardon does not reinstate her 

former position! Also" $onsanto avers that by reason of the pardon" she should no

longer be compelled to answer for the civil liabilities brought about by her acts!

ISSUE% hether or not $onsanto should be reinstated to her former post!

HELD% A pardon loos to the future! (t is not retrospective! (t maes no amends for the

past! (t affords no relief for what has been suffered by the offender! (t does not impose

upon the government any obligation to mae reparation for what has been suffered!

FSince the offense has been established by #udicial proceedings" that which has been

done or suffered while they were in force is presumed to have been rightfully done and

 #ustly suffered" and no satisfaction for it can be reIuired!G This would e%plain why

petitioner" though pardoned" cannot be entitled to receive bacpay for lost earnings and

benefits! 1n the other hand" civil liability arising from crime is governed by the RPC! (t

subsists notwithstanding service of sentence" or for any reason the sentence is not

served by pardon" amnesty or commutation of sentence! Petitioner=s civil liability may

only be e%tinguished by the same causes recognized in the Civil Code" namely-

payment" loss of the thing due" remission of the debt" merger of the rights of creditor 

and debtor" compensation and novation!

G.R. No. $6)$& 3uly /0" +:J6

#IL!REDO TORRES * SUMULONG+  petitioner "

vs!

HON. NEPTALI A. GON,ALES+ THE CHAIRMAN+ BOARD O! PARDONS AND

PAROLE+ -n THE DIRECTOR+ BUREAU O! PRISONS+ respon!ents!

(n +:6J" ilfredo Torres was convicted of estafa! (n +:6:" he was pardoned by the

president with the condition that he shall not violate any penal laws again! (n +:J/"

Torres was charged with multiple crimes of estafa! (n +:J2" then Chairman of the @oard

of Paroles 5eptali &onzales petitioned for the cancellation of Torres= pardon! Hence" the

president cancelled the pardon! Torres appealed the issue before the Supreme Court

averring that the E%ecutive )epartment erred in convicting him for violating the

conditions of his pardon because the estafa charges against him were not yet final and

e%ecutory as they were still on appeal!

8/9/2019 Consti 112814

21/21

ISSUE% hether or not conviction of a crime by final #udgment of a court is necessary

before Torres can be validly rearrested and recommitted for violation of the terms of his

conditional pardon and accordingly to serve the balance of his original sentence!

HELD% The SC affirmed the following-

+! The grant of pardon and the determination of the terms and conditions of a

conditional pardon are purely e%ecutive acts which are not sub#ect to #udicial scrutiny!

/! The determination of the occurrence of a breach of a condition of a pardon" and the

proper conseIuences of such breach" may be either a purely e%ecutive act" not sub#ect

to #udicial scrutiny under Section 2; *i, of the Revised Administrative Code. or it may be

a #udicial act consisting of trial for and conviction of violation of a conditional pardon

under Article +9: of the Revised Penal Code! here the President opts to proceed

under Section 2; *i, of the Revised Administrative Code" no #udicial pronouncement of 

guilt of a subseIuent crime is necessary" much less conviction therefor by final

 #udgment of a court" in order that a convict may be recommended for the violation of his

conditional pardon!

0! @ecause due process is not semper et "#i$"e  #udicial process" and because the

conditionally pardoned convict had already been accorded #udicial due process in his

trial and conviction for the offense for which he was conditionally pardoned" Section 2;

*i, of the Revised Administrative Code is not afflicted with a constitutional vice!

(n proceeding against a convict who has been conditionally pardoned and who is

alleged to have breached the conditions of his pardon" the E%ecutive )epartment has

two options- *i, to proceed against him under Section 2; *i, of the Revised

 Administrative Code. or *ii, to proceed against him under Article +9: of the RPC which

imposes the penalty of prision correccional " minimum period" upon a convict who

Fhaving been granted conditional pardon by the Chief E%ecutive" shall violate any of the

conditions of such pardon!G Here" the President has chosen to proceed against the

petitioner under Section 2; *i, of the Revised Administrative Code! That choice is an

e%ercise of the President=s e%ecutive prerogative and is not sub#ect to #udicial scrutiny!