Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
According to the Marcoses, such act deprives them of their right to life, liberty, property without
due process and equal protection of the laws. They also said that it deprives them of their right to
travel which according to Section 6, Article 3 of the constitution, may only be impaired by a
court order.
Issue:
1. Whether or not, in the exercise of the powers granted by the Constitution, the President
may prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines.
2. Whether or not the President acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when she determined that the return of the
Marcoses to the Philippines poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare and
decided to bar their return.
Decision:
No to both issues. Petition dismissed.
Ratio:
Separation of power dictates that each department has exclusive powers. According to Section 1,
Article VII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the executive power shall be vested in the
President of the Philippines. However, it does not define what is meant by executive power
although in the same article it touches on exercise of certain powers by the President, i.e., the
power of control over all executive departments, bureaus and offices, the power to execute the
laws, the appointing power to grant reprieves, commutations and pardons (art VII secfs. 1423). Although the constitution outlines tasks of the president, this list is not defined & exclusive.
She has residual & discretionary powers not stated in the Constitution which include the power
to protect the general welfare of the people. She is obliged to protect the people, promote their
welfare & advance national interest. (Art. II, Sec. 4-5 of the Constitution). Residual powers,
according to Theodore Roosevelt, dictate that the President can do anything which is not
forbidden in the Constitution (Corwin, supra at 153), inevitable to vest discretionary powers on
the President (Hyman, American President) and that the president has to maintain peace during
times of emergency but also on the day-to-day operation of the State.
The rights Marcoses are invoking are not absolute. Theyre flexible depending on the
circumstances. The request of the Marcoses to be allowed to return to the Philippines cannot be
considered in the light solely of the constitutional provisions guaranteeing liberty of abode and
the right to travel, subject to certain exceptions, or of case law which clearly never contemplated
situations even remotely similar to the present one. It must be treated as a matter that is
appropriately addressed to those residual unstated powers of the President which are implicit in
and correlative to the paramount duty residing in that office to safeguard and protect general
welfare. In that context, such request or demand should submit to the exercise of a broader
discretion on the part of the President to determine whether it must be granted or denied.
For issue number 2, the question for the court to determine is whether or not there exist factual
basis for the President to conclude that it was in the national interest to bar the return of the
Marcoses in the Philippines. It is proven that there are factual bases in her decision. The
supervening events that happened before her decision are factual. The President must take
preemptive measures for the self-preservation of the country & protection of the people. She has
to uphold the Constitution.
Held. Yes, the President has broad authority to conduct foreign affairs.
Discussion. There is a fundamental difference in the role of government in foreign affairs and
domestic affairs. The federal government has both constitutional and inherent authority to
conduct foreign affairs as it sees fit. The President is the United States sole representative to
foreign nations. In order to achieve the United States foreign policy aims, the President is better
able than Congress to judge conditions that exist in foreign nations and is afforded substantial
discretion and wide latititude in those decisions. The President has confidential information as
well as consular, diplomatic and foreign affairs officers to help in his decision.
law.Sec. 28 [Article II]. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and
implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest.
h a n n a m a p a n d iPage 2
Thereafter, PEA was granted patent to the reclaimed areas of land and then, years later,
PEA entered into a JVA with AMARI for the development of the Freedom Islands. These
two entered into a joint venture in the absence of any public bidding.
Later, a privilege speech was given by Senator President Maceda denouncing the JVA
as the grandmother of all scams. An investigation was conducted and it was concluded that the
lands that PEA was conveying to AMARI were lands of the public domain; the certificates
of title over the
Freedom Islands were void; and the JVA itself was illegal. This prompted Ramos to form an
investigatory committee on the legality of the JVA.
Petitioner now comes and contends that the government stands to lose billions by the
conveyance or sale of the reclaimed areas to AMARI. He also asked for the full disclosure
of the renegotiations happening between the parties.
ISSUE:
W/N stipulations in the amended JVA for the transfer to AMARI of the lands, reclaimed
or to be reclaimed, violate the Constitution.
HELD:
The ownership of lands reclaimed from foreshore and submerged areas is rooted in the Regalian
doctrine, which holds that the State owns all lands and waters of the public domain.
The 1987 Constitution recognizes the Regalian doctrine. It declares that all natural resources
are owned by the State and except for alienable agricultural lands of the public domain,
natural resources cannot be alienated.
The Amended JVA covers a reclamation area of 750 hectares. Only 157.84 hectares of the 750
hectare reclamation project have been reclaimed, and the rest of the area are still submerged
areas forming part of Manila Bay. Further, it is provided that AMARI will reimburse the
actual costs in reclaiming the areas of land and it will shoulder the other reclamation costs to be
incurred.
The foreshore and submerged areas of Manila Bay are part of the lands of the public domain,
waters and other natural resources and consequently owned by the State. As such, foreshore
and submerged areas shall not be alienable unless they are classified as agricultural lands of
the public domain. The mere reclamation of these areas by the PEA doesnt convert these
inalienable natural resources of the State into alienable and disposable lands of the public
Senate v. Ermita, G.R. No. 169777, April 20, 2006 A report by Charles Aguilar
FACTS: On September 21 to 23, 2005, the Committee of the Senate as a whole issued invitations
to various officials of the Executive Department for them to appear as resource speakers in a
public hearing on the railway project of the North Luzon Railways Corporation with the China
National Machinery and Equipment Group (hereinafter North Rail Project). On September 28,
2005, t
he President then issued Executive Order 464, Ensur
ing Observance of the Principle of Separation of Powers, Adherence to the Rule on Executive
Privilege and Respect for the Rights of Public Officials Appearing in Legislative Inquiries in Aid
of Legislation Under the Constitution,
and For Other Purposes, w
hich, pursuant to Section 6 thereof, took effect immediately. ISSUES: 1.
Whether E.O. 464 violates the right of the people to information on matters of public concern;
and 3.
Whether respondents have committed grave abuse of discretion when they implemented E.O.
464 prior to its publication in a newspaper of general circulation. HELD: 1.
Yes. Although there are clear distinctions between the right of Congress to information which
underlies the power of inquiry and the right of the people to information on matters of public
concern, any executive issuance tending to unduly limit disclosures of information in
investigations in Congress necessarily deprives the people of information which, being presumed
to be in aid of legislation, is presumed to be a matter of public concern. 3.
Yes. While E.O. 464 applies only to officials of the executive branch, it does not follow that the
same is exempt from the need for publication. It has a direct effect on the right of the people to
information on matters of public concern. Due process requires that the people should have been
apprised of its issuance before it was implemented
Whether or not Section 15, Article VII apply to appointments in the Supreme Court or to the
Judiciary.
Ruling:
1. No. Prohibition under Section 15, Article VII does not apply to appointments to fill a vacancy
in the SupremeCourt or to other appointments to the Judiciary.The Constitutional Commission
confined the prohibition to appointments made in the Executive Department.
Theframers did not need to extend the prohibition to appointments in the Judiciary, because
their establishment of the JBC and their subjecting the nomination and screening of candidates
for judicialpositions to the unhurried and deliberate prior process of the JBC ensured that there
would no longer bemidnight appointments to the Judiciary.Section 4(1) and Section 9, Article
VIII
2
, mandate the President to fill the vacancy in the Supreme Court within90 days from the
occurrence of the vacancy, and within 90 days from the submission of the list, in the case of
thelower courts.
The 90-day period is directed at the President, not at the JBC.
Thus, the JBC should start the process of selecting the candidates to fill the vacancy in the
Supreme Court
before
the occurrence of the vacancy.2. Under the Constitution, it is mandatory for the JBC to submit to
the President the list of nominees to fill avacancy in the Supreme Court in order to enable the
President to appoint one of them within the 90-day periodfrom the occurrence of the vacancy.3.
The JBC has no discretion to submit the list to the President after the vacancy occurs, because
that shortensthe 90-day period allowed by the Constitution for the President to make the
appointment. For the JBC to do sowill be unconscionable on its part, considering that it will
thereby effectively and illegally deprive the President of the ample time granted under the
Constitution to reflect on the qualifications of the nominees named in the list of .
Rufino vs. Endriga GR No 139554, July 21 2006 EN BANC CASE MAIN POINT: Appointing
authority may be given to other officials than the President provided the appointment is in a rank
lower than the appointing official. (ARTICLE 7, SECTION 16: APPOINTING POWER CAN
BE VESTED IN OTHER OFFICIALS)
FACTS: Two groups of appointed members of the Board of Trustees of CCP are