405. Flores v. Drilon, 223 SCRA 568, 1993
The Board of Directors, National Power
Section 13. Prohibitions
403. Rafael v. Embroidery & Apparel Control Board- 21 SCRA 336
[1967]
(ISSUE: Since the Act prescribes that the chairman and
members of the Board should come from specified offices, it is
equivalent to a declaration by Congress as to who should be
appointed, thereby infringing the constitutional power of the
President to make appointments
The arrangement envisioned in section 2 is in no wise
incompatible with or violative of the established doctrine that
"the appointing power is the exclusive prerogative of the
President, upon which no limitations maybe imposed by
Congress, except those resulting from the need of securing the
concurrence of the Commission on Appointments and from the
exercise of the limited power to prescribe the qualifications to a
given appointive office." (Manalang vs. Quitoriano, 94 Phil. 903,
911).
It is significant that Congress, took care to specify, that the
representatives should come from the Bureau of Customs,
Central Bank, Department of Commerce and Industry and the
National Economic Council. The obvious reason must be
because these departments and/or bureaus perform functions
which have a direct relation to the importation of raw materials,
the manufacture thereof into embroidery and apparel products
and their subsequent exportation abroad.)
404. CLU v. Exec. Secretary- 194 SCRA 317 [1991]
(Subject EO is Unconstitutional
In the light of the construction given to Section 13, Article VII in
relation to Section 7, par. (2), Article IX-B of the 1987
Constitution, Executive Order No. 284 dated July 23, 1987 is
unconstitutional. Ostensibly restricting the number of positions
that Cabinet members, undersecretaries or assistant secretaries
may hold in addition to their primary position to not more than
two (2) positions in the government and government
corporations, Executive Order No. 284 actually allows them to
hold multiple offices or employment in direct contravention of the
express mandate of Section 13, Article VII of the 1987
Constitution prohibiting them from doing so, unless otherwise
provided in the 1987 Constitution itself.)
410. Enrique U. Betoy v.
Corporation, GR 15655657, 04 October 2011
(Subject RA is unconstitutional)
The cabinet secretaries were simply assigned with additional
In the case before us, the subject proviso directs the President duties. The privatization and restructuring of the electric power
to appoint an elective official, i.e., the Mayor of Olongapo City, industry involves the close coordination and policy determination
to other government posts (as Chairman of the Board and Chief of various government agencies, as the legislature chose these
secretaries of the various executive departments on the basis of
Executive Officer of SBMA). Since this is precisely what the
constitutional proscription seeks to prevent, it needs no their personal qualifications which made them eligible to occupy
their present positions as department heads.
stretching of the imagination to conclude that
the proviso contravenes Sec. 7, first par., Art. IX-B, of the
Constitution. Here, the fact that the expertise of an elective Other Prohibitions
official may be most beneficial to the higher interest of the body
politic is of no moment.chanroblesvirtu
411. Doromal v. Sandiganbayan- 177 SCRA 354 [1989]
406. Bitonio v. COA, G.R. no. 147392, March 12, 2004
Bitonio cannot be holding two positions as the director and
representative as it violates Article VII, Section 13 of the
Philippine Constitution which states the prohibition of dual or
multiple offices for Cabinet Members and their deputies and 412. Espiritu v. Del Rosario, GR. No. 204964, 738 SCRA 464, 2014
assistants. The R.A. No. 7916 is clearly in conflict with the
highest law of the land, which is the Constitution. It is deemed
invalid because the Constitution is more superior to a statute
and can nullify any law that goes against it.
407. Public Interest Group v. Elma, GR No. 138965, June 30, 2006 Section 14. Appointments of Acting President
Elma cannot hold the position of PCGG Chairman and the Section 15. Prohibited Appointments
CPLC.
413. In Re Appointments of Valenzuela and Vallarta, AM No. 98-5-
408. De la Cruz v. COA, GR 138489, November 27, 2001 01-SC, Nov. 9, 1998
Ex-officio members or representatives acting in ex-officio
capacity can hold dual or multiple offices because it is an
imposition of additional duties and functions.
409. Funa v. Ermita- 612 SCRA 308 [2010]
414. De la Rama v. CA, G.R. No. 131136, Feb. 28, 2001
Petitioner further contends that even if Bautista’s appointment or
designation as OIC of MARINA was intended to be merely
temporary, still, such designation must not violate a standing
constitutional prohibition.
415. De Castro v. Judicial and Bar Council, GR No. 191002, April 20,
The designation of respondent Ma. Elena H. Bautista as Officer-
in-Charge, Office of the Administrator, Maritime Industry 2010 and May 1, 2010
Authority, in a concurrent capacity with her position as DOTC
Undersecretary for Maritime Transport, is declared
UNCONSTITUTIONAL for being violative of Section 13, Article
VII of the 1987 Constitution.
 416. Velicaria-Garafil v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 20337,
June 16, 2015
Section 16. Power to Appoint; Commission on Appointments
Nature of the Appointing Power
417. Government v. Springer- 50 PHIL 259 [1927]
418. Roxas v. Lopez 17 SCRA 756
419. Bermudez v. Exec, Secretary- GR 131429 [August 4, 1999]
420. Datu Michael Abas Kida v. Senate of the Philippines,
reconsideration, GR 196271, February 2012
Kinds of Presidential Appointments
421. Pimentel v. Ermita- 471 SCRA 587 [2005]
Under Sec. 16 of Article 7, the president was well within her power to
appoint the secretaries. The distinction between ad interim appointees and
appointees should be made clear. Ad interim appointments are extended
only during a recess of congress, whereas acting appointments may be
extended any time there is a vacancy. Moreover ad-interim appointments
are submitted to the Commission on Appointments for confirmation or
rejection; acting appointments are not submitted to the Commission on
Appointments. The respondents were only meant to temporarily fill the
position. Also, if abused, there can also be a way of circumventing the
need for confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.
Scope of the Power of the Commission on Appointments
422. Sarmiento III v. Mison- 156 SCRA 549 [1987
In the 1987 Constitution, Heads of Bureau are removed from the
list of officers that needed confirmation from the Commission on
Appointments. The appointment was valid because only heads
of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public
minister or consuls, officers of the armed forces from the rank of
colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments
are vested in him in him in the constitution should need approval
of the Commission on Appointments.
423. Bautista v. Salonga- 172 SCRA 1260 [1989]
The position of chairman of CHR is not among the positions
mentioned in the first sentence of Sec. 16 Art 7 of the
Constitution, which provides that the appointments which are to
be made with the confirmation of the Commission on
Appointments.
424. Quintos- Deles v. CA- 177 SCRA 259 [1989]
425. Pobre v. Mendieta- 224 738 [1993]
426. Flores v. Drilon- GR 104732, June 22, 1993
Recess or Ad- Intern Appointments and Temporary Appointments
427. Rufino v. Endriga- 496 SCRA 13 [2006]
Congress Requiring Confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments on Other Appointments
428. Calderon v. Carale- 208 SCRA 254 [1992]
429. U-sing v. NLRC- 221 SCRA 680 [1993]
430. Tarrosa v. Singson- 232 SCRA 553 [1994]
431. Manolo v. Sistoza- 312 SCRA 239 [1999]
The police force is different from and independent of the armed
forces and the ranks in the military are not similar to those in the
Philippine National Police. Thus, directors and chief
superintendents of the PNP, such as the herein respondent
police officers, do not fall under the first category of presidential
appointees requiring the confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments.
432. Soriano v. Lista, GR 153881, March 24, 2004
Now that the PCG is under the DOTC and no longer part of the
Philippine Navy or the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the
promotions and appointments of respondent officers of the
PCG, or any PCG officer from the rank of captain and higher for
that matter, do not require confirmation by the Commission on
Appointment
The enumeration of appointments subject to confirmation by the
CA under Section 16, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution is
exclusive. The clause "officers of the armed forces from the rank
of colonel or naval captain" refers to military officers alone.
433. Pimentel v. Ermita, GR 164978, October 13, 2005
Ad-interim appointments must be distinguished from
appointments in an acting capacity. Both of them are effective
upon acceptance. But ad-interim appointments are extended
only during a recess of Congress, whereas acting appointments
may be extended any time there is a vacancy. Moreover ad-
interim appointments are submitted to the Commission on
Appointments for confirmation or rejection; acting appointments
are not submitted to the Commission on Appointments. Acting
appointments are a way of temporarily filling important offices
but, if abused, they can also be a way of circumventing the need
for confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. No abuse
in the present case. The absence of abuse is readily apparent
from President Arroyo’s issuance of ad interim appointments to
 respondents immediately upon the recess of Congress, way process for filling them, the Constitution recognizes the power of 445. De Leon v. Carpio- 178 SCRA 457 [1989]
before the lapse of one year. the President to fill the office by appointment.

434. Quintos-Deles v. Commission on Appointments, 177 SCRA 259,
1989
Sectoral Representatives to be confirmed by the Commission on
Appointments
Section 17. Power of Control
437. Lacson-Magallanes v. Pano 21 SCRA 395, 1967
446. Hutchison v. SBMA- GR 131367, August 31, 2000

Deles' appointment was made pursuant to Art. VII, Section 16,

p.2 which gives the President ”the power to make appointments
during the recess of the Congress, whether voluntary or
compulsory, but such appointments shall be effective only until 438. Maceda v. Macaraig, Jr 197 SCRA 771
disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the 447. Dadole v. COA, GR No. 125350, Dec. 3, 2002
next adjournment of the Congress.” The records show that
Deles’ appointment was made on April 6, 1988 or while
Congress was in recess (March 26, 1988 to April 17, 1988);
hence, the reference to the said paragraph 2 of Section 16, Art.
VII in the appointment extended to her.
439. Roque v. Director of Lands, L-25373, July 1, 1976
448. Domingo v. Zamora, GR 142283, Feb. 6, 2003
435. Matibag v. Benipayo, GR No. 149036, April 2, 2002

In the instant case, the President did in fact appoint permanent

Commissioners to fill the vacancies in the COMELEC, subject
only to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.
Benipayo, Borra and Tuason were extended permanent 440. Ang-Angco v. Castillo 9 SCRA 619, 1963
appointments during the recess of Congress. They were not 449. DENR v. DENR Employees, GR No. 149724, Aug. 19, 2003
appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity. The
ad interim appointments of Benipayo, Borra and Tuason are
expressly allowed by the Constitution which authorizes the
President, during the recess of Congress, to make appointments
that take effect immediately.
441. NAMARCO v. Arca 29 SCRA 648, 1969
436. Abas Kida v. Senate of the Philippines, GR No. 196271, 450. Villaluz v. Zaldivar, 15 SCRA 710
October 18, 2011

The first group of presidential appointments, specified as the

heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls, or officers of the Armed Forces, and 442. Drilon v. Lim 235 SCRA 135, 1994
other officers whose appointments are vested in the President 451. Chavez v. Romulo- 431 SCRA 534 [2004]
by the Constitution, pertains to the appointive officials who have
to be confirmed by the Commission on Appointments.

The second group of officials the President can appoint are "all
other officers of the Government whose appointments are not
otherwise provided for by law, and those whom he may be 443. Joson v. Torres 290 SCRA 279, 1998
authorized by law to appoint."27 The second sentence acts as 452. KMU v. Dir.-Gen. of NEDA- 487 SCRA 623 [2006]
the "catch-all provision" for the President’s appointment power,
in recognition of the fact that the power to appoint is essentially
executive in nature.28 The wide latitude given to the President
to appoint is further demonstrated by the recognition of the
President’s power to appoint officials whose appointments are
not even provided for by law. In other words, where there are 444. PASEI v. Torres-225 SCRA 417 [1993]
offices which have to be filled, but the law does not provide the
 453. Tondo Medical Center Employees v. CA, GR No. 167324, July Faithful Execution Clause Section 18. President’s Powers as Commander in Chief
17, 2007
461. PRA v. Bunag, GR 143784, Feb. 5, 2003 468. Lansang vs. Garcia, 42 SCRA 448

454. Malaria Employees v. Executive Secretary, GR No. 160093,

July 31, 2007 462. Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan, GR 152259, July 29, 2004 469. Aberca v. Ver, 160 SCRA 590

455. Orosa v. Roa, GR No. 14047, July 14, 2006 463. Banda v. Executive Secretary Ermita, G.R. No. 166620, April 470. IBP v. Zamora, GR 141284, August 15, 2000
20, 2010

456. Phillips Seafood v. BOI, GR No. 175787, February 4, 2009 471. Lacson v. Perez, GR 147780-81, 147799 and 1477810, May 10,
464. Prospero Pichay v. Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary for 2001
Legal Affairs, G.R. No. 196425, July 24, 2012

457. Biraogo v. Truth Commission, GR No. 192935, December 7,

2010 472. Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary, GR No. 159085, February 3,
465. Hontiveros-Baraquel v. Toll Regulatory Board, GR No. 181293, 2004
2015

458. Angeles v. Gaite- 605 SCRA 409 [2009]

473. David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, GR 171396, May 2006
466. Datu Zaldy Uy Ampatuan v, Hon. Puno, G.R. No. 190259, June
7, 20122

459. Boy Scouts of the Philippines v. Commission on Audit, GR

177131, 07 June 2011 474. David v. Ermita, GR No. 171409, May 3, 2006

467. Province v. COA, G.R. 182573, September 28, 2010.

Power of Supervision 475. Gudani v. Senga, GR No. 170165, April 15, 2006

460. Drilon v. Lim- 235 SCRA 135 [1994]

 476. Ampatuan v. Puno, 651 SCRA 228 483. Drilon v. CA 202 SCRA 378 [1991] 491. Echegaray v. Sec. of Justice, GR No. 132601, Jan 19, 1999

477. Fortun v. Arroyo, GR 190293, March 20,2012 484. Torres v. Gonzales 152 SCRA 272 [1987] Section 20. Foreign Loans

492. Spouses Constantino v. Cuisia, GR 106064, October 13, 2005

478. Guamaua v. Espino 96 SCRA 403, 403-7 (Martial Law 485. People v. Casido 269 SCRA 360 [1997]
Summary)

Section 21. Foreign Relations: Senate Concurrence in International

Agreements

Section 19. Executive Clemency 493. USAFFE Veterans Association v. Treasurer, 105 PHIL 1030,
Pardon: Nature and Legal Effects 1959
Purpose of Executive Clemency
486. Monsanto v. Factoran 170 SCRA 190 [1989]
479. Cristobal v. Labrador 71 PHIL 34 [1940-1941]

494. Gonzales v. Hechanova- 9 SCRA 230 [1963]

487. Garcia v. COA 226 SCRA 356 [1993]

Constitutional Limits on Executive Clemency

480. Llamas v. Orbos 202 SCRA 844 [1991]

495. World Health Organization v. Aquino, 48 SCRA 242

488. Sabello v. Department of Education, GR No. 87687, December

26, 1989

481. People v. Salle- 250 SCRA 581 [1995]

496. Bayan v. Executive Secretary Zamora, 343 SCRA 449, 2000

489. People v. Salle, Jr GR No. 103567, December 4, 1995

482. People v. Bacang 260 SCRA 44 [1996]

497. Pimentel v. Executive Secretary, 2005

490. Garcia v. COA, 226 SCRA 356, 1993

 498. Lim v. Executive Secretary, GR No. 151445, April 11, 2002

499. Secretary of Justice v. Judge Lantion, GR No. 139465, Oct. 17,

2000

500. Abaya v. Ebdane- 315 SCRA 720 (2007)

501. Pharmaceutical v. DOH- GR 173034, October 9, 2007

502. Vinuya v. Executive Secretary, GR No. 162230, April 28, 2010

503. Bayan Muna v. Romulo, 641 SCRA 244

Other Foreign Affairs Power

504. Vinuya v. Romulo- 619 SCRA 533 [2010]