Memorandum

For the Prosecution

To: Senior Deputy Prosecutor Byron G. San Pedro

From: Atty. John Rey A. Feraren
Date: 21 November 2019
On the validity of the exercise of executive power and police power
by the President and certain law enforcement officials.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

On the 10th of November 2019, the President Mr. Rodrigo Roa Duterte
declared that he will ban vaping in the country together with the
importation and sale thereof.

Five days later on the 15 th of November 2019, the Philippine National

Police declared that the police force will arrest anyone seen vaping in
public

On the same day several citizens were arrested for vaping

ARGUMENTS

The Arrest made by law enforcement officials is a valid exercise of

police power. The directive order came from none other than the
President itself. In CONST. (1987), Art VII, Sec 1 1. “The executive power
shall be vested in the President of the Philippines”. The Police officers are
merely acting within the orders of the President when they arrested those
citizens for vaping.

CONST. (1987), Art. III, Sec 1

 Also in the case of National Electrification Administration v. Court of
Appeals2 “Executive officials who are subordinate to the President should
not trifle with the President’s constitutional power of control over the
executive branch.” This case indicates that the Police Officers should not
question the directives of the President and should only follow the, since
the National Police is from the executive branch and the President having
the control over it, They also acted in good faith when they tried to arrest
the citizens as in the case of “Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan3”. That officers
subordinate to the president are merely acting in good faith because they
are only performing their duty as law enforcement officials subject to the
Presidents pronouncements.

In regards with the President’s declaration ban on vaping. The

President is merely acting within the scope E.O. 26 (2017) 4 which is one
of his major policies during his administration. The E.O. mainly contains
the prohibition of smoking in public places. Smoking as stated in the E.O.
can be understand the general sense. There is a maxim in statutory
construction which is “ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguire
debemos”, it means “where the law does not distinguish, neither do we
distinguish.” The smoking word smoking cannot be unduly limited to
“smoking tobacco” only but also covers vaping as well, as it is the true
intent of the framers of the to secure other people from the effects of
second hand smoking.

National Electrification Administration v. CA, G.R. 143481, 15 February 2012

3

Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. 103501-03, 03 February 1997

4

Executive Order No. 26 (2017)

2
CONCLUSION

Therefore the executive power of the President which is vested

to him in the Constitution, recent policy, and jurisprudence. Can be
concluded that there are sufficient legal basis to conclude that the
President and other law enforcement officials acted in valid
exercise of their police power. The President is only looking after
the general welfare or health of the public acting as parens patriae
of the citizens of the Philippines