LEGASPI VS.

MINISTER OF FINANCE
G.R. No. L-58289. July 24, 1982

Barredo, J.

Political Law Forms of Government

FACTS:

Legaspi, then incumbent member of the interim Batasang Pambansa, petitioned to declare Presidential
Decree 1840 granting tax amnesty and filing of statement of assets and liabilities and some other
purposes unconstitutional. He argued that said decree was promulgated despite the fact that under the
Constitution (T)he Legislative power shall be vested in a Batasang Pambansa (Sec. 1, Article VIII) and
the President may grant amnesty only with concurrence of the Batasang Pambansa.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the President (PM) can issue such decrees.

HELD:

It is to be observed that the original text mentions President (Prime Minister). This is so because . . .
The incumbent President of the Philippines shall be the Prime Minister and he shall continue to exercise
all his powers even after the interim Batasang Pambansa is organized and ready to discharge its
functions, and likewise he shall continue to exercise his powers and prerogatives under the 1935
Constitution and the powers vested in the President and the Prime Minister under this Constitution.
Parenthetically, the term Incumbent President employed in the transitory provisions could only refer to
President Ferdinand E. Marcos (Aquino vs. Commission on Elections, 62 SCRA 275). After the April
7 amendments there exists no longer a President (Prime Minister) but A President and A Prime
Minister. They are now two different offices which cannot be held by a single person not a transitory
one but a regular one provided for and governed by the main provisions of the newly amended
Constitution. Subsequent events accept the reality that we are no longer governed by the transitory
provisions of the Constitution. This form of government is essentially parliamentary with presidential
features.
LEGASPI VS. MINISTER OF FINANCE
G.R. No. L-58289. July 24, 1982

Barredo, J.

Amnesty Does not Need Concurrence from Congress if the President Acts Pursuant to His Power to
Legislate

FACTS:

In 1982, after the lifting of Martial Law, Legaspi, then incumbent member of the interim Batasang
Pambansa, petitioned to declare Presidential Decree 1840 granting tax amnesty and filing of statement
of assets and liabilities and some other purposes unconstitutional. He argued that said decree was
promulgated despite the fact that under the Constitution (T)he Legislative power shall be vested in a
Batasang Pambansa (Sec. 1, Article VIII) and the President may grant amnesty only with concurrence
of the Batasang Pambansa. In this case, there was no concurrence given by the IBP. Legaspi averred
that since Martial Law is already lifted, the president can no longer arbitrarily enact laws. At the same
time, Legaspi averred that Amendment No. 6, which provides legislative powers to Marcos, is invalid
because that is no longer allowed after the lifting of the ML.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Marcos can validly grant tax amnesties w/o the concurrence of the Batasan Pambansa.

HELD:

Yes. Marcos can validly grant tax amnesties w/o the concurrence of the Batasan Pambansa.

SC ruled PD 1840 to be valid. Legaspi argued that PD 1840 is invalid for it did not enjoy the concurrence
of the Batasan. He relies on Article 7, Sec 11 of the Constitution which provides that

The President may, except in cases of impeachment, grant reprieves, commutations and pardons,
remit fines and forfeitures and with the concurrence of the Batasang Pambansa, grant amnesty.

The SC noted that Article 7, sec. 11, applies only when the President is exercising his power of
executive clemency. In the case at bar, PD 1840 was issued pursuant to his power to legislate under
Amendment No. 6. It ought to be indubitable that when the President acts as legislator as in the case
at bar, he does not need the concurrence of the Batasan. Rather, he exercises concurrent authority
vested by the Constitution.