ARTICLE VII

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

SECTION 1. The executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines.

The Article 7 has started of with Section 1 stating that the executive power shall be vested in the president of
the Philippines.

The 1987 Constitution is said to be a reactionary constitution, meaning it was crafted as a reaction to the
marcosian rule, so that everything that was perceived to be bad during the Marcos era was a need in the 1987
constitution.

Now Bernas started of in his book on Article 7 by saying there seems to be a consensus among the members of
the Constitutional Commission that the Marcos touched executive power beyond allowable limits to use his
own word, so that the Constitutional Commission announced policy was to limit rather than expand
presidential powers as a reaction to such excesses.

Hence, in the 1987 Constitution, Bernas continues there had been attached more explicit structural limitations
to the specific powers of the President provided in the previous documents meaning the 1973 as well as 1935
Constitutions so that Bernas seems to be giving us the impression that in the 1987 Constitution they tried to cut
the powers that were in the 1973 and 1935 Constitution of the executive power; then he cited Marcos vs
Manglapus; after saying that the presidency emerges the 1987 constitution is still a potent institution largely
because the primary source of its political authority election by the people at large is still there so he tried to
connect this statement of Bernas to the Marcos vs Manglapus rule.
 Bernas is giving us the impression that notwithstanding that the constitutional commission a removed
or need the extra ordinary so called powers of presidency of the 1935 and 1973 constitutions because
the primary source of political power of the president which is election by large it is still there that is
why it is still a potent institution.

Marcos vs Manglapus case

This case stemmed from the ban by the Pres. Cory Aquino on Marcos to return to the Philippines. When
Marcos was deposed in a people power revolution so to speak in 1986 and was confined he was brought to
Hawaii. In the meantime, that he was there he wanted to return to the Philippines. Pres Aquino banned the
return of Marcos. Marcos went to court and the case reached the Supreme Court. The point in the ban or in the
case would be the provision of the bill of rights Sec. 6 Art 3 which says that neither the right to travel be
impaired, except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.
Meaning to say that your reason of the ban of the impairment would be in the interest of national security,
public safety, or public health but you must be able to point to a law that may give you (meaning the president)
the authority to impose the ban. So there must be a law as the basis of the banned. Corazon Aquino did not
have a basis, there was no law that would be basis of the ban she was imposing on Marcos. Nevertheless, the
Supreme Court decided against Marcos, against the case filed and appealed the ban of Cory.

How did they do that?

Because Bernas came up earlier with the statement that the presidency is still a potent institution coped largely
because the primary source of its political authority that is election by the people at large; we would think that
this reason would be the reason of the Supreme Court in upholding Aquino that the Presidency is still potent,
Aquino’s power is still potent because the Presidency is elected by the people at large. But that is not the case,
that was not the reason for the Supreme Court to uphold Corazon Aquino,

How did the Supreme Court uphold Aquino?

Marcos vs Manglapus: the ban was challenge as violative of the right of travel and the right to return to one’s
abode. Since the authority to impair the right to travel must be based on law, the President had to be able to
1
point to a law giving her such authority, said the Supreme Court and then the SC said the court found the
brutality of executive powers both stated and unstated in the Philippine Constitution explicit and the residual
asserting that the President has residual powers not specifically mentioned in the constitution. The SC
concluded that the president has the authority to prevent the return of Marcos even in the absence of any
specific law granting her of such authority.

Now do you find any hint of the statement of Bernas that the presidency is still potent because of her
election to be at large in the justification of upholding the ban of Marcos by Aquino? None. Instead the
SC did a magic here-----SC playing politics.

Marcos vs Manglapus

Commentary of Bernas: unwittingly perhaps he said ''We the members of constitutional commission inserted
into the document aspects which have made the President of the 1987 constitution more dominant than in the
1935 constitution. (Recent was last year). Then his book was written after the 1987 constitution where he said,
that it was the consensus of the constitutional commission which he was a member that they will reduce the
power of the president. Now he is saying probably, well he said unwittingly we made have inserted into the
document aspects which have made the President of the 1987 constitution more dominant than in the 1935
constitution.

The new process he was referring to the JBC although intended to eliminate partisanship strengthened the
hand of the president and there by merely transfer partisanship from the Commission on Appointments to the
president. Bernas now admits that same though different color. Whether it was as provided in the 1935
constitution through the appointment of judges and justices was through the COA or in the JBC it was the
same political partisanship.

There is no provision in the 1987 constitution -- the president from immunity from suit. This is another aspect
is the president immune from suit?

According to Bernas, there is no immunity from suit in the 1987 constitution because it is already understood
that under in the Phil. Jurisprudence he may not be sued during his tenure, this assertion is based on the case of
a 1910 decision Forbes vs. Tiangco in Crossfield.

Soliven vs. Judge Macasiar

Facts: Soliven was the publisher of the star and the columnist was the late Luis Beltran. Both late Beltran and
Soliven were sued by Cory Aquino, because Beltran stated in his column that during the buzzing of the jets
(airplane) of Malacanang (because Aquino attended 7 cruise, and one of those planes, airforce jets where
buzzing Malacanang) and Luis Beltran said on his column that the time planes buzzing Malacanang Cory
Aquino hid under her bed. Cory Aquino took it seriously and sued the two for libel. She even invited the media
to her bedroom and showed them that it is impossible for her to hide under her bed.

Immunity from suit of the President came out in this case but it was mentioned by the accused, Beltran and
Soliven. The Doctrine immunity from suit of the President must be used by the President as a defense not by
the accused.

In the case of Soliven vs. Judge Macasiar, one principle that we must learn here is that by filing the case
against Beltran and Soliven, the President waived her immunity from suit.

Estrada vs. Desierto, (2001)

The Supreme Court said that a non-sitting President does not enjoy immunity from suit. Then the Supreme
Court went further by adding that even the sitting president is not immune from suit for non-official acts or for
wrongdoing.

2
David vs. Arroyo (May 3, 2006) G.R No. 171396
In 2006, during the EDSA Anniversary, there was then an attempt to topple Gloria Arroyo’s administration.
Some elements tried to kick her out. (Arroyo became President when Estrada left Malacanang. She ascended
to Presidency).

Justification of the Immunity from suit of the President:

The Supreme Court, as held in the case of David vs. Arroyo (G.R No. 171396), explained the immunity from
suit of the President. The Supreme Court said that the Constitution settled the doctrine that the President
during his tenure of office or actual incumbency may not be sued in any civil or criminal case and there is no
need to provide for it in the constitutional law. The reason is it will degrade the dignity of high office of the
President, the head of the state, if he can be dragged into court litigations while serving as such. Furthermore,
it is important that he may be freed from any form of harassments, hindrances or distractions to enable him to
fully attend to the performance of his official duties and functions. Unlike the legislative and judicial branches,
only one constitutes the Executive branch and anything which impairs his usefulness in the discharge of the
many great and important duties imposed upon him by the Constitution necessary impaired the operation of
the government.

Take note also the other doctrines that were enunciated in the David vs Arroyo case.

The Cabinet, as an institution is extra-constitutionally created.

 The constitution mentions it several times but there is no specific provision creating it in the
constitution whether in the 1935, the 1973 or the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
 Example where the cabinet institution was mentioned: Article 7 Section. 3, 11, and 13. Mentioned 3
time.

SECTION 2. No person may be elected President unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a
registered voter, able to read and write, at least forty years of age on the day of the election, and a resident
of the Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding such election.

Section 2 states the qualifications of the President.

What is important here is for you to remember the definition of a natural born citizen, and the definition is
found in Article 4 Citizenship, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution.

Article 4, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution

Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to
perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in
accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens.

This has something to do with the election of Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority of those
born of Filipino mothers. The provision can be found in the 1935 constitution. Explained also in Article 4 of
the Constitution.

Tecson and Desiderio vs COMELEC, Fernando Foe and Fornier

Poe’s citizenship was questioned. The Supreme Court upheld the citizenship of Fernando Poe. There was a
doctrine enunciated here because previous to the Poe’s case it is well-known that illegitimate children of
Filipino Fathers cannot carry the citizenship of their father. FPJ was found to be an illegitimate child of a
Filipino father. The father and the mother were not yet married. So therefore, the opponents contended that he
is an illegitimate child. Because he is an illegitimate child, the provision under the 1935 Constitution. He could
not be a Filipino citizen under that provision because he is an illegitimate child, that was the doctrine then.

3
The Supreme Court said the 1935 Constitution does not say that a child must be legitimate son or child of a
Filipino father.

In statutory construction ''if the law does not distinguish, then you must not distinguish''. Since the
Constitution did not distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate child then we must not distinguish. So,
therefore, whether legitimate or illegitimate for as long as your father is a Filipino citizen you are a Filipino
citizen.

Then the president must be a registered voter as prescribed in Article 5, Section 1 of the Constitution.

SECTION 3. There shall be a Vice-President who shall have the same qualifications and term of office and
be elected with and in the same manner as the President. He may be removed from office in the same
manner as the President.
The Vice-President may be appointed as a Member of the Cabinet. Such appointment requires no
confirmation.

Same qualification with the President, term of office, and elected with the same manner as the President.

Proposed Federalism The President and the Vice President shall be elected as a team. A vote for the
presidential candidate shall be counted as a vote for his vice presidential candidate. (Article 8, Section 4)

In the draft of federal constitution, it is proposed by the consultative committee that a president and vice
president shall be in tandem. If the president wins the Vice president is carried with him.

2nd paragraph "The VP shall be appointed as member of the cabinet such appointment requires no
confirmation"

Binay was a member of the Cabinet of President Noynoy as Secretary, and he did not have to go through COA
confirmation.

SECTION 4. The President and the Vice-President shall be elected by direct vote of the people for a term of
six years which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following the day of the election and
shall end at noon of the same date six years thereafter. The President shall not be eligible for any
reelection. No person who has succeeded as President and has served as such for more than four years
shall be qualified for election to the same office at any time.
No Vice-President shall serve for more than two consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office
for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of the service for the full
term for which he was elected.
Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election for President and Vice-President shall be held on the
second Monday of May.
The returns of every election for President and Vice-President, duly certified by the board of canvassers of
each province or city, shall be transmitted to the Congress, directed to the President of the Senate. Upon
receipt of the certificates of canvass, the President of the Senate shall, not later than thirty days after the
day of the election, open all certificates in the presence of the Senate and the House of Representatives in
joint public session, and the Congress, upon determination of the authenticity and due execution thereof in
the manner provided by law, canvass the votes.
The person having the highest number of votes shall be proclaimed elected, but in case two or more shall
have an equal and highest number of votes, one of them shall forthwith be chosen by the vote of a majority
of all the Members of both Houses of the Congress, voting separately.
The Congress shall promulgate its rules for the canvassing of the certificates.

4
The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns,
and qualifications of the President or Vice- President, and may promulgate its rules for the purpose.
Can there be a hold over of the President and Vice President? If there is no president is elected or qualified
can there be a hold over by the former?
No.

What is basis then?

Because the constitution specifically pointed the exact term of the President and Vice President. It says when
it will begin and when it will end. So there cannot be any second reading in so far as that provision is concern.

(Go back to Art 6 and try to find out how the election of members of Congress, how members of congress
elected and how they served their term. There is no similar provision such as this one)

The President shall not be eligible for re-election. Anytime after his term, whether it is immediate after his
term or even after the lapse of one, two or three terms. He cannot be elected, he shall not eligible for any
reelection.

Why in 2010, Former President Estrada was allowed to file a certificate of candidacy and he was allowed to
campaign?
The President shall not be eligible for re-election.

Case of Arroyo
No person who succeeded as President and served as President for more than four years shall be qualified for
re-election to the same office at anytime.

Estrada was elected 1998, Estrada resigned and Arroyo took over on 2001, only after 3 years. So that when
Arroyo took over she became President for only 3 years. Test the situation in the last sentence (Sec.4).

Section 4 Paragraph 1 Vice President

No Vice President shall serve for more than two successive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any
length of time shall not be considered as interruption in the continuity of the service for the full term for which
he was elected.

Voluntary renunciation of the office shall not mean a cut in the term of the officer whether the Vice President,
President, and Congress, even Local Government Units officials.

Section 4, Paragraph 2
Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election for President and Vice President shall be held on the
second Monday of May.

Next procedure is the canvassing of votes for the President and Vice President.

How are the votes cast for the President and the Vice President canvassed? Who will canvass the same?
It is canvassed by the Congress, which assembled jointly.

Section 4, Paragraph 3
The returns of every election for President and Vice President, duly certified by the board of canvassers of
each province or city, shall be transmitted to the Congress, directed to the President of the Senate.

Returns
It is the summary by precinct and duly certified by the province. Then it is sent to Congress attention to the
President of the Senate.

5
Upon receipt of the certificates of canvass, the President of the Senate shall not later than thirty days after the
day of the election, open all the certificates in the presence of the Senate and the House of Representatives in
joint public session, and the Congress, upon determination of the authenticity and due execution thereof in the
manner provided by law, canvass the votes.

This is a new provision, meaning determination of the authenticity and due execution.

In the previous constitutions, the Congress was merely a counter or tagabilang, it could not decide on the due
execution and authenticity of the returns of the canvass. The Congress did not have decision-making power,
but in the 1987 Constitution, the Congress was given that power.

However, in the 2004 election where Pangilinan was presiding, the opposition those with FPJ kept questioning
the authenticity when a lot of returns was tampered especially those coming from Mindanao. But Pangilinan
kept saying "noted", there was no ruling. It was a violation because Congress under specific power given by
the constitution can decide on the due execution and authenticity of the documents.

What could had been done was for Congress to set aside those that are being questioned and later on go back to
it and examine the due execution and authenticity of this, but it did not happen. So Arroyo won.

Section 4, Paragraph 4
The person having the highest number of votes shall be proclaimed elected, but in case two or more shall have
an equal and highest number of votes, one of them shall forthwith be chosen by the vote of a majority of all the
Members of both Houses of the Congress, voting separately.

Last paragraph appointing already "the supreme court as the sole judge of all contest relating to the election,
returns and qualification of the President and Vice President and may promulgate its rule for the purpose"

It is the Supreme Court as the sole judge of all contest relating to the election, returns and qualification of the
President and Vice President, very much like of Leni Robredo and Bongbong Marcos, it is the SC constituted
as a Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET).

The designation of the Supreme Court as a Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) is only under the 1987
constitution previously there was no PET. No agency was designated as PET both in 1935 and 1973
constitution. It is only now in the 1987 constitution where the Supreme Court is constituted as the Presidential
Electoral Tribunal.

Section 5. The Oath of the President and Vice President.

Before they enter on the execution of their office, the President, the Vice-President, or the Acting President
shall take the following oath or affirmation:
“I do solemnly swear [or affirm] that I will faithfully and conscientiously fulfill my duties as President [or
Vice-President or Acting President] of the Philippines, preserve and defend its Constitution, execute its laws,
do justice to every man, and consecrate myself to the service of the Nation. So help me God.” [In case of
affirmation, last sentence will be omitted].

SECTION 6. The President shall have an official residence. The salaries of the President and
Vice-President shall be determined by law and shall not be decreased during their tenure. No increase in
said compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of the term of the incumbent during which
such increase was approved. They shall not receive during their tenure any other emolument from the
Government or any other source.

Section 6 The official residence of the President

The President stays in Malacanang.

6
The salaries of the President and Vice President shall not be decreased during their tenure (decrease, next
sentence is increase). No increase in said compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of the term
of the incumbent during which such increase was approved.

If you would remember, we studied that as the increase in the salaries of the members of the Congress was
concerned. It is only after the expiration of term of all those who approved the salary increase, in the same
manner that the increase in the salary of the President shall be only after the expiration of the term of the
President who approved the increase.

They shall not receive during their tenure any other emolument from the Government or any other source.

SECTION 7. The President-elect and the Vice-President-elect shall assume office at the beginning of their
terms.
If the President-elect fails to qualify, the Vice-President-elect shall act as President until the President-elect
shall have qualified.
If a President shall not have been chosen, the Vice-President-elect shall act as President until a President
shall have been chosen and qualified.
If at the beginning of the term of the President, the President-elect shall have died or shall have become
permanently disabled, the Vice-President-elect shall become President.
Where no President and Vice-President shall have been chosen or shall have qualified, or where both shall
have died or become permanently disabled, the President of the Senate or, in case of his inability, the
Speaker of the House of Representatives shall act as President until a President or a Vice-President shall
have been chosen and qualified.
The Congress shall, by law, provide for the manner in which one who is to act as President shall be selected
until a President or a Vice-President shall have qualified, in case of death, permanent disability, or inability
of the officials mentioned in the next preceding paragraph.

Section 7 and 8.
It deals with the vacancy.
Section 7 deals with the vacancy at the beginning of the term even before the President and/or Vice President
has assumed office.
Section 8 deals with vacancy at midterm after the President and/or the Vice President have been already
elected and qualified and have assumed office.

The President-elect and the Vice President-elect shall assume office at the beginning of their terms.
If the President-elect fails to qualify meaning to say the President was elected but he failed to qualify for any
other reason, the Vice President-elect shall act as President until the President-elect shall have qualified.

If a President shall not have been chosen meaning to say there was no President elected, the Vice
President-elect shall act as President until a President shall have been chosen and qualified.

If at the beginning of the term of the President, the President-elect shall have died or shall have become
permanently disabled, the Vice President-elect shall become President.

Where no President and Vice-President shall have been chosen or shall have qualified, or where both shall
have died or become permanently disabled, the President of the Senate or, in case of his inability, the Speaker
of the House of Representatives, shall act as President until a President or a Vice-President shall have been
chosen and qualified.

The Congress shall, by law, provide for the manner in which one who is to act as President shall be selected
until a President or a Vice-President shall have qualified, in case of death, permanent disability, or inability of
the officials mentioned in the next preceding paragraph.

7
Last paragraph means the Congress shall come up with a law providing how an acting President shall be
chosen if in case the President is disqualified for whatever reason, then the Vice President, then also the Senate
President if disqualified and also if the speaker is disqualified. That is the importance of last paragraph, that
Congress will come up with such a law, there is a shed no law for that.

Section 8. In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of the President, the
Vice-President shall become the President to serve the unexpired term. In case of death, permanent disability,
removal from office, or resignation of both the President and Vice-President, the President of the Senate or, in
case of his inability, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, shall then act as President until the
President or Vice-President shall have been elected and qualified.

It deals with a situation where a president is chosen and was qualified but he died, permanently disabled and
was removed from office, either by impeachment or quo warranto or resignation of the president, then the
Vice President shall become the President to serve the unexpired term.

Estrada left Malacanang and came up with the statement which was interpreted later on after the incident
already were cases were filed, it was interpreted even by the Supreme Court as resignation or I should say
many people suspected that the Supreme Court interpreted it as a resignation. Although if you read the case,
there is no unanimity on the part of the member of the SC, and whether ERAP resigned or whatever, there was
no explicit ruling on whether he resigned or not. Because of that statement, Arroyo took over.

Section 11. Whenever the President transmits to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House
of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,
and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be
discharged by the Vice-President as Acting President.

Estrada vs Arroyo
Cited by Bernas. This was the case that was filed when Estrada belatedly tried to use Section 11 because it was
already late in the day when he came up with that idea that he can use Section 11.

On January 20, 2001, high noon, Chief Justice Davide administered oath of office to Arroyo as President. On
the same day, Estrada left the palace and issued a statement to the effect that while he doubts the legality and
constitutionality of her proclamation, he does not wish to be a factor to prevent the restoration of unity and
order and for this reason he is leaving Malacanang.

Remember that the oath taking was at high noon. Arroyo was already the President when Estrada left
Malacanang.

It appears that on the same day, Estrada signed a letter addressed to the House Speaker and Senate President to
the effect that by virtue of Art. 7, Sec. 11 he is transmitting his declaration that he is unable to exercise his
powers of his office and that by operation of law Vice President Arroyo shall be the acting President.

The import of this is that Estrada dubilatedly was saying, on the same day that he left Malacanang, on the same
day Arroyo took her off. Estrada wrote the speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the
Senate. (not accurate) The letter was written at least two or three days after he left Malacanang. The idea of
using Section 11 was an afterthought, I don’t know why with all the brilliance of the late Ed Angara who was
the Executive Secretary of Estrada during that time, he never used Section 11, he could have advised Estrada
to issue a letter to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representative before he left
Malacanang, saying that " at this time I won’t be able to perform the duties of my office, and therefore by the
operation of law you are acting president, what is the import of that? Arroyo would have been acting President,
instead of taking her oath as a President. She was able to perform her take her oath because Estrada when he
left and came up with the statement to the press was deemed to have resigned that was the interpretation

8
already, and since he resigned Section 8 comes in to play "In case of the President’s resignation, the Vice
President shall be not acting but shall be President". That is how Arroyo became President. The interplay of
the case narrated by Bernas is not true.

The Supreme Court said through Justice Puno, Estrada is no longer the President because he resigned and that
calls a permanent vacancy in the presidency, by operation of law of Section 8, Arroyo is the President.

Section 9. Whenever there is a vacancy in the Office of the Vice-President during the term for which he was
elected, the President shall nominate a Vice-President from among the Members of the Senate and the
House of Representatives who shall assume office upon confirmation by a majority vote of all the Members
of both Houses of the Congress, voting separately.

This provision was used when Guinggona was proposed by Arroyo as her Vice President. Guinggona went
through a votation in the House of Representative and the Senate.

SECTION 10. The Congress shall, at ten o’clock in the morning of the third day after the vacancy in the
offices of the President and Vice-President occurs, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a
call and within seven days enact a law calling for a special election to elect a President and a
Vice-President to be held not earlier than forty-five days nor later than sixty days from the time of such call.
The bill calling such special election shall be deemed certified under paragraph 2, Section 26, Article VI of
this Constitution and shall become law upon its approval on third reading by the Congress. Appropriations
for the special election shall be charged against any current appropriations and shall be exempt from the
requirements of paragraph 4, Section 25, Article VI of this Constitution. The convening of the Congress
cannot be suspended nor the special election postponed. No special election shall be called if the vacancy
occurs within eighteen months before the date of the next presidential election.

Section 10 deals with the procedure on how the Congress shall meet if there is a vacancy in the office of the
President and the Vice-President.

Is there a possibility of snap election in the office of the President and/or the Vice-President in the 1987
constitution?
Yes, there is. In case the President and/or the Vice-President is not elected nor qualified. Because the
ascension of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives in case of the disability of the Senate
President is temporary, there has to be an election conducted. Section 10 lays down the procedure on how
Congress go about calling for special election.

Recitation: In Section 10, relate the rule in case of the vacancy of both the office of the President and/or the
Vice-President. How is it done? Section 10 has the answer.

Section 11. Whenever the President transmits to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House
of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,
and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be
discharged by the Vice-President as Acting President.

1st paragraph transmitting written declaration

2nd paragraph not only the president, if he does not do that it can be done also by the Cabinet officials.
Whenever a majority of all the Members of the Cabinet transmit to the President of the Senate and to the
Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the
powers and duties of his office, the Vice-President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the
office as Acting President. Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President of the Senate and to the
Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall reassume the

9
powers and duties of his office. Meanwhile, should a majority of all the Members of the Cabinet transmit
within five days to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, their written
declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Congress shall
decide the issue. For that purpose, the Congress shall convene, if it is not in session, within forty-eight hours,
in accordance with its rules and without need of call.

Is Section 10 stupid?

Section 11 was tested in Estrada vs. Arroyo, the court said both houses of Congress have recognized
respondent Arroyo as the President when they passed resolution, by that recognition the inability of Estrada is
no longer temporary. Congress has clearly rejected petitioner’s claim of inability. (As I am saying belatedly
kase yung Sec. 11, because at the time they thought about it 2 days after, they already recognized Arroyo). If
both houses had already come up with their resolution of support for Arroyo as President, it is now useless for
Estrada to write the same Congress and tell them because he cannot able to perform the duties of his office
then Arroyo should be acting as President. Hindi na pwede because ni-recognized na by the same people
whom he is asking to act on his letter have already recognized Arroyo as their President.
Puno: It is too late, both houses recognized respondent Arroyo as President when they passed resolution, by
that recognition the inability of Estrada is no longer temporary. Congress has clearly rejected petitioner claim
of inability. One thing more, the court cannot pass upon petitioners claim of inability, the question is political
in nature and addressed only to Congress by Political fiat.

SECTION 12. In case of serious illness of the President, the public shall be informed of the state of his
health. The Members of the Cabinet in charge of national security and foreign relations and the Chief of
Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, shall not be denied access to the President during such illness.

This is a reaction to Marcosian Rule, when Aquino was assassinated in 1993, there was a story circulating that
Marcos when told about the killing of Aquino, threw astray to Imelda. Why? Because that time Marcos had
lupus, nobody could go to Marcos except for Imelda or trusted people.

SECTION 13. The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants
shall not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or employment during their
tenure. They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any other profession, participate
in any business, or be financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege
granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including
government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of
interest in the conduct of their office.
The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth civil degree of the President shall
not during his tenure be appointed as members of the Constitutional Commissions, or the Office of the
Ombudsman, or as Secretaries, Undersecretaries, chairmen or heads of bureaus or offices, including
government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries.

What are these instances unless otherwise provided in this Constitution?

Refers to the Vice President who may be appointed to the cabinet.
1st instance It is provided specifically in the constitution that the VP maybe appointed to the cabinet so
therefore the prohibition that the VP shall not hold any other office or employment during their tenure does not
hold because there is a specific provision in the constitution.
2nd instance And like the Secretary of Justice who is an ex-officio member of JBC is again an exception as
maybe provided in this constitution

Prohibitions for the President, Vice-President, and the Members of the Cabinet:
They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any other profession, participate in any
business, or be financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by
the Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or

10
controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their
office.

Also another prohibition:

The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth civil degree of the President shall not,
during his tenure, be appointed as Members of the Constitutional Commissions, or the Office of the
Ombudsman, or as Secretaries, Undersecretaries, chairmen or heads of bureaus or offices, including
government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries.

SECTION 14. Appointments extended by an Acting President shall remain effective, unless revoked by the
elected President within ninety days from his assumption or reassumption of office.

SECTION 15. Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term,
a President or Acting President shall not make appointments, except temporary appointments to executive
positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety.

In relation to Article 8, Section 4 of the Constitution:

SECTION 4. (1) The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate
Justices. It may sit en banc or in its discretion, in divisions of three, five, or seven Members. Any
vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof.

Justice Puno retired about 2 or 3 months before the election, then because he retired, the President under the
law, had to appoint the Chief Justice, that’s when Corona came in. But in Section 15 it says that two months
before the election, and not the end of his term, a President shall not make appointments. Arroyo made the
appointment, he appointed Corona as Chief Justice. Then of course, a case was filed questioning it. De Castro
vs JBC, the Supreme Court sustained the appointment of Corona, that is why Noynoy was annoyed because he
knows that the appointment of Corona should have not been made because it was prohibited. But anyway, the
Supreme Court said, the prohibition in Section 15 does not apply to the appointment in the Judiciary. The
provision of Article 8 Section 4 requiring vacancies at the Supreme Court is made up within 90 days must be
followed.

This is the case of Arthuro M. De Castro vs JBC and Pres. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. In that case, the Supreme
Court held that the framers of the constitution intended to extend the prohibition contained in Sec. 15 art. 7 to
the appointments of the members of SC, they could have easily done so. They could have not ignored the
malicious ordering of the provision. They could have easily unsurely written the prohibition made explicit in
Sec. 15, Art 7 as equally being applicable to the appointments of the members of Judiciary in Art 8 itself most
likely Sec. 4.

READ: G.R No. 191002, 615 SCRA 666 - interplay of Sec. 15 art. 7 and Art 8, Sec. 4

SECTION 16. The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments,
appoint the heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, or
officers of the armed forces from the rank 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
Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, and those whom he may be
authorized by law to appoint. The Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of other officers lower in
rank in the President alone, in the courts, or in the heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or
boards.
The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of the Congress, whether
voluntary or compulsory, but such appointments shall be effective only until after disapproval by the
Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the Congress.

11
Other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution:
1. Chairman and Commissioners of the COMELEC, Commission on Audit and the Civil Service Commission
(Article 9; b, c, d)
2. The regular members of the Judicial and Bar Council (Article 8; a)
3. Sectoral representative (don’t exist anymore)

Only the following appointments did confirmation by the Commission of Appointments:

 the head of the executive department, ambassadors, public ministers and other officers whose
appointments are vested in him in this Constitution
 They have to go through the Commission on Appointments.

The appointment of the Chairman and members of the Commission on Human Rights falls under the all other
officers whose appointments are not otherwise provided by law.

If you go back to Section 16, he shall also appoint all other officers of the Government whose appointments
are not otherwise provided for by law, and those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint.

Not every officer of cabinet run will be confirmed by the Commission on Appointments, only heads of
Executive departments:
 Secretary such as Roque but he is not subjected to confirmation of CA
 Lambino, the administrator of CEZA

Only all those enumerated in Sec 16 must go through confirmation proceedings in the Commission on
Appointments.

Why are police generals not subject to confirmation?

Because under Section 16 of the constitution, they characterized as police force, the PNP is characterized as
police force, civilian in nature, no confirmation is needed.

When the Commission on Appointments checks the appointment made or confirms the appointments made by
the president, that is checks and balance. Is it a part of legislature meddling into a strictly executive role of
appointment like that of the President?

In Cunanan vs. Tan cited by Bernas, when the Commission on Appointments checks the appointments made
by the President (refer to Article 6) confirms or checks by Commission on Appointments (refer to Article 8
Section 15).

When the Commission on Appointments checks the appointments made by the President, it is not strictly the
case of legislative department interfering with the executive department.
The Commission on Appointments is a creature of the constitution and not of Congress and not legislative but
executive in nature. Although its membership is confined to members of Congress, the Commission on
Appointments is independent of Congress. In fact, the functions of Commission on Appointments are purely
executive in nature.

Section 16, last paragraph: The President shall have the power to make 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 next adjournment of the Congress.

 The power of the President to make appointments during the recess of the Congress is called
ad-interim appointments. It is recess appointments.
 The only difference is that in ad-interim appointments, those appointed officials can immediately enter
into the functions of their office, even without confirmation, because Congress is in recess.

12
  Why? Because Commission on Appointments cannot meet, but the appointments shall be effective
only until the disapproval of their appointments by the CA if they are going to be disapproved, or if not
acted upon, if not disapproved or if not approved it shall end at the next adjournment of Congress.
 1. Appointment’s made during recess
2. resumption of session appointment’s still binding
3. during the session, the Commission on Appointments is now active, they act on the appointments
made during the recess
a. if disapproved – end of the appointments
b. if approved - no problem
c. if no action - at the adjournment of the session the appointment again shall be terminated

Voluntary or compulsory recess during which the President is empowered to make appointments means
when congress is not in session because it has voluntary declared a recess under Section 15 Sec. 16 no. 5,
Art. 6. Congress is not allowed by the Constitution to be in session,
 compulsory recess, referring to the thirty-day period before the next opening session, Sec. 15 Art 6 or
between the beginnings of a new term June 30, in the beginning of regular session, fourth Monday of
July provided in Sec. 15 Art 6

The President is empowered to make appointments during recess of Congress, when is Congress in recess? Is
it those what I have enumerated.
1. Sec. 16 no. 5, Art. 6
2. Sec. 15 Art 6
3. Sec. 15 Art 6

A recess or ad interim appointment is effective once it was delivered and adopted by the appointee however
they’re effective only until the disapproval of CA or until the next adjournment of Congress as it was already
stated.
An Ad interim appointment is not a temporary appointment, it is permanent, it takes effect immediately and
the appointee cannot once assume office and exercise de jure or the powers pertaining to his office.

When the Congress is in session, the President nominates and only upon the consent of CA of that nomination
may the person nominated assumed office. That is the difference between the appointment that has been made
during recess and during the session of Congress.

It would seem therefore that the appointment made by the President during recess is more immediate because
if the appointment is made during recess the appointee can immediately function but if it’s made during the
time that Congress is in session and therefore, (CA is active) it is only when the CA have confirmed the
nomination made by the president that the nominee can assume the duties of his office. Otherwise not yet, not
even in an acting capacity.

The Constitution expressly prohibits acting or temporary appointments of a constitutional commissions

(Section 2, Article 9, abcd)
A - general provision applicable to all three commissions that is the CSC, COMELEC and COA. B - CSC
C - COMELEC
D – COA

SECTION 17. The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He
shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.

The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices.

What is meant by power of control as provided under Sec. 17?

13
The power of control has been defined as the power of an officer to alter, modify, nullify or set aside what a
subordinate officer had done with the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former of
that of the latter.

What is the doctrine of qualified political agency?

The doctrine of qualified political agency means that all executive and administrative organizations are
adjuncts of the Executive Department, the heads of the various executive departments are assistants and agents
of the Chief Executive, and acts of the secretaries of such departments performed and promulgated in the
regular course of business are unless disapproved by the Chief Executive, presumptively the acts of Chief
Executive.

Moran vs. Office of the President

Exhaustion of administrative remedies the principle is before you can sue an executive officer, you must
exhaust administrative remedies before you can sue a director, for example, head of an office, you have to
exhaust administrative remedies before you can sue him in court. You have to go all up to the President before
he can be sued in court. The Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency is an exemption to this one, the
implication of the doctrine is that the decision of the department’s secretary for as long as it is not disapproved
or reprobated by the President is the last step in the process of exhausting administrative remedies.
Moran vs. Office of the President, G.R. No. 192957, Sept 29, 2014
This is a case that would demonstrate Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies.

SECTION 18. 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. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in
writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in
regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set
aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend
such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion
shall persist and public safety requires it.
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or
suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without any need of a call.
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the
factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the
extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of
the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and
agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of
the writ.
The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or
offenses inherent in or directly connected with the invasion.
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially
charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released.

 Section 18
 The Martial law power of the President
 Commander-in-Chief-ship powers of the President
 Section 18 provides the powers of the President. He can use or call upon these powers to answer in a
situation in terms of gravity.
 Depending on the gravity of the situation these powers are enumerated in Section 18.

14
 1st power: to call out the armed forces of the Philippines
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.

2nd power: in terms of gravity of the situation, to suspend the writ of habeas corpus
3rd power: to declare the Philippines or any part thereof under Martial law

What is the writ of habeas corpus?

 It means producing the body of the person detained in court.
 A writ of habeas corpus shall be issued as a matter of course when applied for. The police, the armed
forces will go to the court and apply for the writ of habeas corpus, as a matter of course, the court will
issue except for extreme exceptions the writ of habeas corpus. For example, there is a person detained
in a camp, and there is the petitioner, the lawyer of the one detained will go to court and apply for the
writ of habeas corpus. The court will issue a writ of habeas corpus and will issue the order to the one
detaining the person being detained ordering that the one in custody to produce the body of that
detained person to court, so that the question of his incarceration maybe questioned or may be looked
into.
 When you say you suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus (the second power of the
president) you don’t say suspend the writ of habeas corpus. The writ of habeas corpus cannot be
suspended; it is the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus that can be suspended.

What is the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus?

 The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is the privilege of being brought to court so that questions to
the incarceration to the custody of that person maybe looked into. It is the privilege of that person
being detained to be brought to court. So that when you suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus the person detaining that person need not bring that person to court because the privilege of
being brought to court is suspended.

If the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended the court cannot issue an order?
 The writ of habeas corpus when applied for is an order to produce the body of the person detained it is
issued by the court to the person detaining that person under question. So it is served to the person
detaining one.
 For example, in that order, it says bring one at 8:00 am to 8:30 am so that we will look into why you are
detaining it. But if the president as he has died in Mindanao and suspended the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus, the privilege of being brought to court is suspended. The court will issue the order pero
hindi kailangang sundin nung nagdedetain yung order na ito, if the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus is suspended. So what will he do? He will write now the court (answer to the court) saying your
honor the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended in so far as one is concerned so I will not
free him to court.
 The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is used by the military or police or state to
take in custody in the meantime suspects those who are suspected of the destabilization to bring them
in custody and not be questioned because privilege is suspended. Nobody can order them. The court
cannot order the military to bring that person to court. They cannot be questioned.

Because of the many safeguards of the Commander-in-Chief-ship powers of the President in the 1987
Constitution, is the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus still an effective tool for the
state to protect itself?
The Commander-in-Chief-ship powers of the President under Section 18 are tools of the President to protect
the state; the state has the right to protect itself. And these are the powers used by the President to protect the
state.

15
When Marcos declared Martial law, according to him, the NPAs already surrounded Metro Manila that’s why
he declared Martial law. Granting its true, the President was right in declaring Martial law because it is his
duty to protect the state.

What are the rights of those persons? Next lesson in Bill of Rights

Is the declaration of Martial law still an effective too?

1. Within forty-eight hours from the declaration of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The
Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session,
may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President.
(The Congress will immediately approve the proclamation of Martial law. But no. It is very clear that
Congress will meet if they want to revoke. They may revoke if they want to, but it does not say that they will
have to approve it. The President declares the martial law for 60 days, congress may revoke if its wants to)
2. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation
or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist
and public safety requires it.

New provision
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the
factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
or the extension thereof and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.

Upon the petition of any citizen the Supreme Court can look into the factual basis – it means it is different from
martial law and pre martial law and Marcos martial law cases, where the SC said it can look into the
proclamation of Martial but as to only if the constitution had been followed, procedure have been followed.

There is a presumption that the President because of the intelligence report in his fingertips, only he knows the
factual basis so he declares martial law but upon the petition before the Supreme Court that factual basis may
be looked into by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court may look into factual basis, is there a factual basis? Was there invasion? Was there
rebellion? Was there lawless violence and is it necessary?

A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution (a reaction to Marcosian rule), it
cannot supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, because Marcos closed the
Congress, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ. The declaration of the Martial law does not
automatically suspend the privilege of the writ.

The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall apply only to persons judicially charged for
rebellion or offenses inherent in, or directly connected with, invasion. It applies only to person judicially
charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in, or directly connected with, invasion. When you suspend the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, it is to keep a person a suspect without bringing him to court, his
privilege being brought to court, kaya nga huhulihin itatago mo sya, kaya sinuspend mo yung privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus.

Pero dito sa 2nd to last paragraph, it shall apply only to persons judicially charged, kapag chinarge mo na in
court, kapag wala na sa poder ng civillian authorities, militar or army yung tao, that person is under the
jurisdiction of the court you cannot touch him anymore unless upon order of the court. So do you think na
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is still effective?

16
Sinasabi na di na pwedeg hulihin maski suspended ang writ of habeas corpus kung hindi sa judicially charged.
Pag judicially chardged na, that person is in the jurisdiction of the court. The military cannot touch him
anymore.

During the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, any person thus arrested or detained shall
be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released - Just in case may makalusot sa second
to the last paragraph, may nahuli na hindi judicially charged

Read Commentary of former CJ Panganiban. Inquirer - August 13, 2017. Consequences of Martial
Law

Prior to the 1987 constitution, the broad power to call out the armed forces to suppress lawless violence,
invasion, or rebellion is not subject to judicial review. In 1987, it is specifically provided that a
Commander-in-Chief-ship powers of the President is subject for judicial review.

Commentary of Bernas, in sum 1987 constitution:

1. Narrowed the grounds for the imposition of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus.
2. Limited the discretion of the president and put it under review powers of Congress and of the SC.
3. Rejected the bulk of the Martial law jurisprudence.

In the 1935 and 1973 constitutions, the basis for the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
and the declaration of Martial law shall be invasion, insurrection or rebellion or imminent danger thereof when
public safety requires it. (Tinanggal na yung insurrection and imminent danger thereof because that is very
dangerous)

Under 1935 and 1973 Constitution President could suspend the privilege and impose martial law for an
indefinite duration,

In 1987 Constitution it is for a period not exceeding 60 days and subject to review powers of the Congress.

Section 18 is related to Section 13, Article 3, Bill of rights, when the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus is suspended, it does not suspend the right to bail.
Also related to Section 15, Article 3 of the Bill of Rights, when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall
be suspended only in case of invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires it.

Is the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is still effective as a tool for the protection
of the state?

If they are detained and the proclamation for the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is
lifted already, then they will let go, the courts can come in already. The person detained can file for petition of
a writ of habeas corpus. That one detaining that person must now free it to court.

SECTION 19. 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.

Three limitations in the executive power of clemency:

1. It cannot be exercised over cases of impeachment
2. It can only be exercised after conviction by final judgment

17
3. The grant of amnesty must be with the concurrence of a majority of all the members of the Congress

Galvez is the Chief of staff of AFP. He said on media that Trillianes apply for Amnesty, while the president of
republic saying, he did not apply for Amnesty.

Related to Sec. 5, Art. 9 c, which says no pardon, amnesty, parole or suspension of sentence for violation of
election laws should be granted by the president without the favorable recommendation of the COMELEC.

SECTION 20. 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.

Reaction to Marcosian rule.

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.

Before, only treaty had concurrence.

SECTION 22. The President shall submit to the Congress within thirty days from the opening of every
regular session, as the basis of the general appropriations bill, a budget of expenditures and sources of
financing, including receipts from existing and proposed revenue measures.

SECTION 23. The President shall address the Congress at the opening of its regular session. He may also
appear before it at any other time.

18
19