Political Law: Ex Officio Officials-Members of the Cabinet-Singularity of Office-EO 284
FACTS: In July 1987, then President Corazon Aquino issued Executive Order No. 284 which allowed members of the Cabinet, their undersecretaries and assistant secretaries to hold other government offices or positions in addition to their primary positions subject to limitations set therein. The Civil Liberties Union (CLU) assailed this EO averring that such law is unconstitutional. The constitutionality of EO 284 is being challenged by CLU on the principal submission that it adds exceptions to Sec 13, Article 7 of the Constitution which provides:
Sec. 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.
CLU avers that by virtue of the phrase unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, the only exceptions against holding any other office or employment in Government are those provided in the Constitution, namely: (i) The Vice-President may be appointed as a Member of the Cabinet under Sec 3, par. (2), Article 7; and (ii) the Secretary of Justice is an ex-officio member of the Judicial and Bar Council by virtue of Sec 8 (1), Article 8.
ISSUE: Whether or not EO 284 is constitutional.
HELD: No, it is unconstitutional. It is clear that the 1987 Constitution seeks to prohibit the President, Vice-President, members of the Cabinet, their deputies or assistants from holding during their tenure multiple offices or employment in the government, except in those cases specified in the Constitution itself and as above clarified with respect to posts held without additional compensation in an ex-officio capacity as provided by law and as required by the primary functions of their office, the citation of Cabinet members (then called Ministers) as examples during the debate and deliberation on the general rule laid down for all appointive officials should be considered as mere personal opinions which cannot override the constitutions manifest intent and the peoples understanding thereof.
In the light of the construction given to Sec 13, Art 7 in relation to Sec 7, par. (2), Art IX-B of the 1987 Constitution, EO 284 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 2 positions in the government and government corporations, EO 284 actually allows them to hold multiple offices or employment in direct contravention of the express mandate of Sec 13, Art 7 of the 1987 Constitution prohibiting them from doing so, unless otherwise provided in the 1987 Constitution itself.
DELA CRUZ VS COURT OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 29, 2001
FACTS: Twenty petitioners were members of the Board of Directors of the National Housing Authority (NHA) from 1991 to 1996. On September 19, 1997, the Commission on Audit issued Memorandum No. 97-038 directing all unit heads/ auditors/ team leaders of the national government agencies and government owned and controlled corporations which have effected payment of any form of additional compensation or renumeration to cabinet secretaries, their deputies and assistants, or their representatives in violation of the rule on multiple positions, to: a.) immediately cause the disallowance of such additional compensation or renumeration given to and received by the concerned officials, and
b.) effect the refund of the same from the time of the finality of the Supreme Court En Banc Decision in the consolidated cases of Civil Liberties Union vs. Executive Secretary and Anti- Graft League of the Philippines, Inc. et. al. vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, et. al., promulgated on February 22, 1991.
The COA Memorandum further stated that the said Supreme Court Decision, which became final and executory on August 19, 1991 declared Executive Order No. 284 unconstitutional insofar as it allows Cabinet members, their deputies and assistants to hold other offices in addition to their primary offices and to receive compensations therefore.
Accordingly on October 23, 1997, NHA Resident Auditor Salvador J. Vasquez issued Notice of Disallowance No. 97-011-061 disallowing in audit the payment of representation allowances and per diems amounting to P276,600.00 of "Cabinet members who were ex- officio members of the National Housing Authority Board of Directors and/ or their respective alternates who actually received the payments."
Petitioner through then Chairman dela Serna of the NHA Board of Directors, appealed from the Notice of Disallowance to the Commission on Audit on these following grounds:
a.) that the SC Decision in Civil Liberties and Anti Graft League of the Philippines; was clarified in the resolution of the Court en banc that the constitutional ban against multiple positions applies only to the members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants. It does not cover appointive officials with equivalent rank or those lower than the position of Assistant Secretary; and
b.) The National Housing Authority Directors are not Secretaries, Undersecretaries or Assistant Secretaries and that they occupy positions lower than the position of Assistant Secretary.
On September 22, 1998, the COA issued Decision No. 98-381 denying petitioners' appeal. ISSUE: Whether or not COA erred in disallowing compensation in favor of NHA Board Members
HELD: No. Under Sec. 7 of P.D. 757 or the law in creating NHA, the persons mandated by law to sit as members of he NHA Board are the following: 1. Secretary of Public Works, Transportation and Communications, 2. the Director- General of the National Economic and Development Authority 3.) The Secretary of Finance 4.) the Secretary of Labor 5.) the Secretary of Industry 6.) the Executive Secretary and 7.) the General Manager of the NHA.
While petitioners are not among those officers, however, they are "alternates" of the said officers, "whose acts shall be considered as acts of the principals". Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution provides that:
Sec. 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. The Court, in Civil Liberties and Anti Graft League of the Philippines interpreted in Sec. 13 to mean that the prohibition in holding dual or multiple offices must not be construed as applying to posts occupied by Executive officials specified therein without additional compensation in an ex officio capacity as provided by law and as required by the primary functions of said officials' office.
It should be obvious that, if say, Secretary of Finance attends a meeting of the Monetary Board as an ex- offficio member, he is actually in legal contemplation performing the primary function of his principal office in defining policy in monetary banking matters, which come under the jurisdiction of his department. For such attendance, he is not entitled to collect any extra compensation whether be in the form of per diemm or an honorarium or an allowance or some other such euphemism. Such additional prohibition is prohibited in the Constitution.
In rendering its challenged decision, the COA did not gravely abuse its discretion. Petition DISMISSED in favor of the respondents.
SARMIENTO VS MISON 156 SCRA 549 Political Law Appointment of Head of Bureaus Officers Requiring Confirmation by the Commission on Appointments
FACTS: This is the 1 st major case under the 1987 Constitution. In 1987, Salvador Mison was appointed as the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs by then president Corazon Aquino. Ulpiano Sarmiento III and Juanito Arcilla, being members of the bar, taxpayers, and professors of constitutional law questioned the appointment of Mison because it appears that Misons appointment was not submitted to the Commission on Appointments (COA) for approval. Sarmiento insists that uner the new Constitution, heads of bureaus require the confirmation of the COA.
Meanwhile, Sarmiento also sought to enjoin Guillermo Carague, the then Secretary of the Department of Budget, from disbursing the salary payments of Mison due to the unconstitutionality of Misons appointment.
ISSUE: Whether or not the appointment of heads of bureaus needed confirmation by the Commission on Appointment.
HELD: No. In the 1987 Constitution, the framers removed heads of bureaus as one of those officers needing confirmation by the Commission on Appointment. Under the 1987 Constitution, there are four (4) groups of officers whom the President shall appoint. These four (4) groups are:
First, the heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, 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;
Second, all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law;
Third, those whom the President may be authorized by law to appoint;
Fourth, officers lower in rank whose appointments the Congress may by law vest in the President alone.
The first group above is the only public officers appointed by the president which require confirmation by the COA. The second, third, and fourth group do not require confirmation by the COA. The position of Mison as the head of the Bureau of Customs does not belong to the first group hence he does not need to be confirmed by the COA.
IBP VS ZAMORA AUGUST 15, 2000
FACTS: Invoking his powers as Commander-in-Chief under Sec. 18, Art. VII of the Constitution, the President directed the AFP Chief of Staff and PNP Chief to coordinate with each other for the proper deployment and utilization of the Marines to assist the PNP in preventing or suppressing criminal or lawless violence. The President declared that the services of the Marines in the anti-crime campaign are merely temporary in nature and for a reasonable period only, until such time when the situation shall have improved. The IBP filed a petition seeking to declare the deployment of the Philippine Marines null and void and unconstitutional.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not the Presidents factual determination of the necessity of calling the armed forces is subject to judicial review
(2) Whether or not the calling of the armed forces to assist the PNP in joint visibility patrols violates the constitutional provisions on civilian supremacy over the military and the civilian character of the PNP
HELD: When the President calls the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion, he necessarily exercises a discretionary power solely vested in his wisdom. Under Sec. 18, Art. VII of the Constitution, Congress may revoke such proclamation of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and the Court may review the sufficiency of the factual basis thereof. However, there is no such equivalent provision dealing with the revocation or review of the Presidents action to call out the armed forces. The distinction places the calling out power in a different category from the power to declare martial law and power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, otherwise, the framers of the Constitution would have simply lumped together the 3 powers and provided for their revocation and review without any qualification.
The reason for the difference in the treatment of the said powers highlights the intent to grant the President the widest leeway and broadest discretion in using the power to call out because it is considered as the lesser and more benign power compared to the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and the power to impose martial law, both of which involve the curtailment and suppression of certain basic civil rights and individual freedoms, and thus necessitating safeguards by Congress and review by the Court.
In view of the constitutional intent to give the President full discretionary power to determine the necessity of calling out the armed forces, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to show that the Presidents decision is totally bereft of factual basis. The present petition fails to discharge such heavy burden, as there is no evidence to support the assertion that there exists no justification for calling out the armed forces.
The Court disagrees to the contention that by the deployment of the Marines, the civilian task of law enforcement is militarized in violation of Sec. 3, Art. II of the Constitution. The deployment of the Marines does not constitute a breach of the civilian supremacy clause. The calling of the Marines constitutes permissible use of military assets for civilian law enforcement. The local police forces are the ones in charge of the visibility patrols at all times, the real authority belonging to the PNP
Moreover, the deployment of the Marines to assist the PNP does not unmake the civilian character of the police force. The real authority in the operations is lodged with the head of a civilian institution, the PNP, and not with the military. Since none of the Marines was incorporated or enlisted as members of the PNP, there can be no appointment to civilian position to speak of. Hence, the deployment of the Marines in the joint visibility patrols does not destroy the civilian character of the PNP.
DE RAMA VS COURT OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 28, 2001
FACTS: Upon his assumption to the position of Mayor of Pagbilao Quezon, petitioner Conrado de Rama wrote a letter to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) seeking the recall of the appointments of fourteen (14) municipal employees. Petitioner justified that his recall request were on allegation that the appointments of the said employees were midnight appointments of the former mayor, Ma. Evelyn S. Abeja done in violation of Article VII, Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution which provides: Sec. 15, Article VII: Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, the 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.
While the matter was pending before CSC, three of the employees filed with the CSC a claim of their salary payments, alleging that although appointments were declared by Conrado Gulim, Director II of CSC Field Office; petitioner withheld their salaries and benefits pursuant to Office Order No. 95-01 which was issued on June 30, 1995 wherein appointments of said 14 employees were recalled.
On April 30, the CSC denied petitioners request for lack of merit. Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration to which CSC denied. Aside from the fact that petitioner failed to present evidence to revocation of said appointments, the CSC reiterated in its ruling that these subject appointments are deemed valid.
ISSUE: Whether or not 14 municipal employees should be recalled.
HELD: Recall of appointments may be done on the following grounds: 1. Non- compliance with the procedures of the criteria 2. Failure to pass through the agencys Selection and Promotion Board 3. Violation of the existing collective agreement between management and employees relative to promotion and 4. Violation of other existing civil service laws, rules and regulations In the case at bar, the only reason advanced by the petitioner to justify the recall was that these are midnight appointments. Sec. 15 of Article VII only states that midnight appointments were specifically those made within two months immediately prior to the next presidential elections applies only to President and Acting President.
DISSENTING OPINION BY J.MENDOZA
Article VII Sec. 15 of the 1987 Constitution binds not only the President nor the Acting President but also the mayors who are vested with the power of appointment since this rule flows from the principle that a public office is a public trust. In Aytona v. Castillo, the Court did not need a specific constitutional provision to rule that the making of 350 appointments after proclamation of a new President and during the last hours of the Chief Executive could not be considered consistent with good faith. The hurried appointments of respondents detract from that degree of good faith, morality and propriety required for appointments made by a faithful and prudent caretaker in order to be considered valid.
MONSANTO VS FACTORAN 170 SCRA 190 Pardon Does not Extinguish Civil Liabilities & It is Prospective
FACTS: Monsanto was the Asst Treasurer of Calbayug City. She was charged for the crime of Estafa through Falsification of Public Documents. She was found guilty and was sentenced to jail. She was however granted pardon by Marcos. She then wrote a letter to the Minister of Finance for her to be reinstated to her former position since it was still vacant. She was also requesting for back pays. The Minister of Finance referred the issue to the Office of the President and Factoran denied Monsantos request averring that Monsanto must first seek appointment and that the pardon does not reinstate her former position. Also, Monsanto avers that by reason of the pardon, she should no longer be compelled to answer for the civil liabilities brought about by her acts.
ISSUE: Whether or not Monsanto should be reinstated to her former post.
HELD: A pardon looks to the future. It is not retrospective. It makes no amends for the past. It affords no relief for what has been suffered by the offender. It does not impose upon the government any obligation to make reparation for what has been suffered. Since the offense has been established by judicial proceedings, that which has been done or suffered while they were in force is presumed to have been rightfully done and justly suffered, and no satisfaction for it can be required. This would explain why petitioner, though pardoned, cannot be entitled to receive backpay for lost earnings and benefits. On the other hand, civil liability arising from crime is governed by the RPC. It subsists notwithstanding service of sentence, or for any reason the sentence is not served by pardon, amnesty or commutation of sentence. Petitioners civil liability may only be extinguished by the same causes recognized in the Civil Code, namely: payment, loss of the thing due, remission of the debt, merger of the rights of creditor and debtor, compensation and novation.
FACTS:
In a decision by the Sandiganbayan convicted petitioner Salvacion A. Monsanto was accused of the crime of estafa thru falsification of public documents and sentenced them to imprisonment and to indemnify the government in the sum of P4,892.50 representing the balance of the amount defrauded and to pay the costs proportionately. She was given an absolute pardon by President Marcos which she accepted. Petitioner requested that she be restored to her former post as assistant city treasurer since the same was still vacant, she also asked for the backpay for the entire period of her suspension. Finance Ministry ruled that petitioner may be reinstated to her position without the necessity of a new appointment
The Office of the President said that that acquittal, not absolute pardon, of a former public officer is the only ground for reinstatement to his former position and entitlement to payment of his salaries, benefits and emoluments due to him during the period of his suspension pendente lite. In fact, in such a situation, the former public official must secure a reappointment before he can reassume his former position. And a pardon shall in no case exempt the culprit from payment of the civil indemnity imposed upon him by the sentence. Petitioner argued that general rules on pardon cannot apply to her case by reason of the fact that she was extended executive clemency while her conviction was still pending appeal in this Court. There having been no final judgment of conviction, her employment therefore as assistant city treasurer could not be said to have been terminated or forfeited. The court viewed that is not material when the pardon was bestowed, whether before or after conviction, for the result would still be the same
ISSUE:
1. Effects of a full and absolute pardon 2. WON a public officer, who has been granted an absolute pardon by the Chief Executive, is entitled to reinstatement to her former position without need of a new appointment.
HELD:
(1) A pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offense and the guilt of the offender; and when the pardon is full, it releases the punishment and blots out of existence the guilt, so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offense. If granted before conviction, it prevents any of the penalties and disabilities, consequent upon conviction, from attaching; if granted after conviction, it removes the penalties and disabilities and restores him to all his civil rights; it makes him, as it were, a new man, and gives him a new credit and capacity. But unless expressly grounded on the persons innocence (which is rare), it cannot bring back lost reputation for honesty, integrity and fair dealing.
A pardon looks to the future. It is not retrospective. It makes no amends for the past. It affords no relief for what has been suffered by the offender. It does not impose upon the government any obligation to make reparation for what has been suffered.
(2) No. To insist on automatic reinstatement because of a mistaken notion that the pardon virtually acquitted one from the offense of estafa would be grossly untenable. A pardon, albeit full and plenary, cannot preclude the appointing power from refusing appointment to anyone deemed to be of bad character, a poor moral risk, or who is unsuitable by reason of the pardoned conviction. The absolute disqualification or ineligibility from public office forms part of the punishment prescribed by the Revised Penal Code for estafa thru falsification of public documents. The pardon granted to petitioner has resulted in removing her disqualification from holding public employment but it cannot go beyond that. To regain her former post as assistant city treasurer, she must re-apply and undergo the usual procedure required for a new appointment.
RANDOLF DAVID VS ARROYO G.R. NO. 1711396 MAY 3, 2006
FACTS: During the celebration of People Power I, President Arroyo issued Presidential Proclamation 1017 (PP 1017 for brevity) declaring a state of national emergency. The President also issued General Order (G.O.) No. 5 implementing PP 1017. The President stated that over the past months, elements in political opposition have conspired with extreme left represented by NDF- CCP- NPA and military adventurists, which caused her to declare such order. The President considered aims to oust the President and take- over reigns of government as clear and present danger.
On March 3, President Arroyo lifted PP 1017. Solicitor General argued that the basis of declaring PP 1017 was that the intent of the Constitution is to give full discretionary powers to the President in determining the necessity of calling out the AFP.
However despite the contentions of the Solicitor General, the Magdalo group indicted the Oakwood mutiny and called to wear red bands on their left arms to show disgust. At the same time Oplan Hackle I was discovered, which constitutes plans of bombings and attacks on PMA Alumni Homecoming in Baguio, the same event where the President was invited. The next morning after the alumni homecoming celebration, a bomb was found inside the campus.
PNP Chief Arturo Lomibao also intercepted information that PNP- SAF members are planning to defect from the administration, while on the same view Congressman Peping Cojuanco plotted moves to bring down the Arroyo Administration. Huge number of soldiers joined the rallies to provide critical mass and armed component to Anti- Arroyo protests.
Bombings of telephone communication towers and cell sites in Bulacaan and Bataan was also considered as an additional factual basis after the issuance of PP 1017 and GO 5. Because of these incidental series of events which clearly presents a critical situation, President Arroyo cancelled all activities related to EDSA People Power I. Mike Arroyo, then Executive Secretary, announced that warrantless arrest and takeover of facilities can be implemented.
Succeeding this announcement was the arrest of Randy David, a Filipino journalist and UP professor due to a mistake of fact that he was actually involved in the street rallies. Seizure of Daily Tribune, Malaya and Abante-- all local news publication, took place which, according to the PNP, was meant to show a strong presence to tell the media outlets not to connive or do anything that would help rebels in bringing down the government. Police also arrested Congressman Crispin Beltran, who then represented the Anakpawis Party.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the issuance of Presidential Proclamation PP 1017 is unconstitutional? 2. Whether or not the arrest of Randy David and the seizure of Daily Tribune et. al., is unconstitutional?
HELD: Respondents claim that such petition is moot and academic based on the issuance of PP 1017, but the Court rejects such contention. A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy. In this case, the Court is convinced that the President was justified in issuing PP 1017 which calls for military aid.
Most people then equate it to martial law, but such case is different wherein the basis then was the 1973 Constitution. Under the present 1987 Constitution, the President may summon armed forces to aid him in supporting lawless violence.
The President's declaration of state rebellion was merely an act declaring a status or conduction of a public moment of interest. State of national emergency, however, is the prerogative of the President. Her exercise of emergency powers such as the taking over of privately owned utility requires delegation from the Congress, which is entirely different from the martial law.
As to the seizure of the Daily Tribune and the arrest of Randy David, the Court considers those actions unlawful based on the fact that it violates the constitutional mandate of freedom of expression.
RANDOLF DAVID VS ARROYO G.R. NO. 1711396 MAY 3, 2006 489 SCRA 160 Political Law The Executive Branch Presidential Proclamation 1017 Take Care Clause Take Over Power Calling Out Power - Bill of Rights - Freedom of Speech Overbreadth
FACTS: In February 2006, due to the escape of some Magdalo members and the discovery of a plan (Oplan Hackle I) to assassinate the president, then president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA) issued Presidential Proclamation 1017 (PP1017) and is to be implemented by General Order No. 5 (GO 5). The said law was aimed to suppress lawlessness and the connivance of extremists to bring down the government.
Pursuant to such PP, GMA cancelled all plans to celebrate EDSA I and at the same time revoked all permits issued for rallies and other public organization/meeting. Notwithstanding the cancellation of their rally permit, Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU) head Randolf David proceeded to rally which led to his arrest.
Later that day, the Daily Tribune, which Cacho-Olivares is the editor, was raided by the CIDG and they seized and confiscated anti-GMA articles and write ups. Later still, another known anti- GMA news agency (Malaya) was raided and seized. On the same day, Beltran of Anakpawis, was also arrested. His arrest was however grounded on a warrant of arrest issued way back in 1985 for his actions against Marcos. His supporters cannot visit him in jail because of the current imposition of PP 1017 and GO 5.
In March, GMA issued PP 1021 which declared that the state of national emergency ceased to exist. David and some opposition Congressmen averred that PP1017 is unconstitutional for it has no factual basis and it cannot be validly declared by the president for such power is reposed in Congress. Also such declaration is actually a declaration of martial law. Olivares-Cacho also averred that the emergency contemplated in the Constitution are those of natural calamities and that such is an overbreadth. Petitioners claim that PP 1017 is an overbreadth because it encroaches upon protected and unprotected rights. The Sol-Gen argued that the issue has become moot and academic by reason of the lifting of PP 1017 by virtue of the declaration of PP 1021. The Sol-Gen averred that PP 1017 is within the presidents calling out power, take care power and take over power.
ISSUE: Whether or not PP 1017 and GO 5 is constitutional.
HELD: PP 1017 and its implementing GO are partly constitutional and partly unconstitutional. The issue cannot be considered as moot and academic by reason of the lifting of the questioned PP. It is still in fact operative because there are parties still affected due to the alleged violation of the said PP. Hence, the SC can take cognition of the case at bar. The SC ruled that PP 1017 is constitutional in part and at the same time some provisions of which are unconstitutional. The SC ruled in the following way;
Resolution by the SC on the Factual Basis of its declaration The petitioners were not able to prove that GMA has no factual basis in issuing PP 1017 and GO 5. A reading of the Solicitor Generals Consolidated Comment and Memorandum shows a detailed narration of the events leading to the issuance of PP 1017, with supporting reports forming part of the records. Mentioned are the escape of the Magdalo Group, their audacious threat of the Magdalo D-Day, the defections in the military, particularly in the Philippine Marines, and the reproving statements from the communist leaders. There was also the Minutes of the Intelligence Report and Security Group of the Philippine Army showing the growing alliance between the NPA and the military. Petitioners presented nothing to refute such events. Thus, absent any contrary allegations, the Court is convinced that the President was justified in issuing PP 1017 calling for military aid. Indeed, judging the seriousness of the incidents, GMA was not expected to simply fold her arms and do nothing to prevent or suppress what she believed was lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. However, the exercise of such power or duty must not stifle liberty.
Resolution by the SC on the Overbreadth Theory First and foremost, the overbreadth doctrine is an analytical tool developed for testing on their faces statutes in free speech cases. The 7 consolidated cases at bar are not primarily freedom of speech cases. Also, a plain reading of PP 1017 shows that it is not primarily directed to speech or even speech-related conduct. It is actually a call upon the AFP to prevent or suppress all forms of lawless violence. Moreover, the overbreadth doctrine is not intended for testing the validity of a law that reflects legitimate state interest in maintaining comprehensive control over harmful, constitutionally unprotected conduct. Undoubtedly, lawless violence, insurrection and rebellion are considered harmful and constitutionally unprotected conduct. Thus, claims of facial overbreadth are entertained in cases involving statutes which, by their terms, seek to regulate only spoken words and again, that overbreadth claims, if entertained at all, have been curtailed when invoked against ordinary criminal laws that are sought to be applied to protected conduct. Here, the incontrovertible fact remains that PP 1017 pertains to a spectrum of conduct, not free speech, which is manifestly subject to state regulation.
Resolution by the SC on the Calling Out Power Doctrine On the basis of Sec 17, Art 7 of the Constitution, GMA declared PP 1017. The SC considered the Presidents calling-out power as a discretionary power solely vested in his wisdom, it stressed that this does not prevent an examination of whether such power was exercised within permissible constitutional limits or whether it was exercised in a manner constituting grave abuse of discretion. The SC ruled that GMA has validly declared PP 1017 for the Constitution grants the President, as Commander-in-Chief, a sequence of graduated powers. From the most to the least benign, these are: the calling-out power, the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and the power to declare Martial Law. The only criterion for the exercise of the calling-out power is that whenever it becomes necessary, the President may call the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. And such criterion has been met.
Resolution by the SC on the Take Care Doctrine Pursuant to the 2 nd sentence of Sec 17, Art 7 of the Constitution (He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.) the president declared PP 1017. David et al averred that PP 1017 however violated Sec 1, Art 6 of the Constitution for it arrogated legislative power to the President. Such power is vested in Congress. They assail the clause to enforce obedience to all the laws and to all decrees, orders and regulations promulgated by me personally or upon my direction. The SC noted that such provision is similar to the power that granted former President Marcos legislative powers (as provided in PP 1081). The SC ruled that the assailed PP 1017 is unconstitutional insofar as it grants GMA the authority to promulgate decrees. Legislative power is peculiarly within the province of the Legislature. Sec 1, Article 6 categorically states that [t]he legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives. To be sure, neither Martial Law nor a state of rebellion nor a state of emergency can justify GMA[s exercise of legislative power by issuing decrees. The president can only take care of the carrying out of laws but cannot create or enact laws.
Resolution by the SC on the Take Over Power Doctrine The president cannot validly order the taking over of private corporations or institutions such as the Daily Tribune without any authority from Congress. On the other hand, the word emergency contemplated in the constitution is not limited to natural calamities but rather it also includes rebellion. The SC made a distinction; the president can declare the state of national emergency but her exercise of emergency powers does not come automatically after it for such exercise needs authority from Congress. The authority from Congress must be based on the following: (1) There must be a war or other emergency. (2) The delegation must be for a limited period only. (3) The delegation must be subject to such restrictions as the Congress may prescribe. (4) The emergency powers must be exercised to carry out a national policy declared by Congress.
Resolution by the SC on the Issue that PP 1017 is a Martial Law Declaration The SC ruled that PP 1017 is not a Martial Law declaration and is not tantamount to it. It is a valid exercise of the calling out power of the president by the president.
GUDANI VS SENGA G.R. NO. 170165 AUGUST 15, 2006
FACTS: Senator Biazon invited senior officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) including General Gudani to appear before a public hearing in the Senate Committee on National Defense and Security wherein Hello Garci controversy of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo emerged. Upon the discretion of the President, AFP Chief of Staff Senga issued a memorandum prohibiting General Gudani and company from appearing before the Senate Committee without Presidental approval. However, General Gudani and Col. Batulan still attended the said committee in compliance with Senator Biazon.
ISSUE: Whether or not the President can prevent military officers from testifying at a legislative inquiry.
HELD: The President has a constitutional authority to prohibit members of the AFP from attending a Senate hearing by virtue of her power as a commander-in-chief. This is under her prerogative as the highest official of the AFP. Note that it is not an invocation of her executive privilege, but on the Chief Executive's power to control the actions and speech of the members of the AFP. Non compliance of the military subordinates would violate the principle that "the civilian authority is supreme over the military authority".
The ability of the President to prevent military officers from testifying before Congress does not turn on executiveprivilege, but on the Chief Executives power as commander-in-chief to control the actions and speech of members of the armed forces. The Presidents prerogatives as commander-in-chief are not hampered by the same limitations as in executive privilege.
FACTS: On Sept. 22, 2005, Sen. Biazon invited several senior officers of the AFP, including Gen. Gudani, to appear at a publichearing before the Senate Committee on National Defense and Security concerning the conduct of the 2004 elections wherein allegations of massive cheating and the Hello Garci tapes emerged. AFP Chief of Staff Gen. Senga issued a Memorandum, prohibiting Gen. Gudani, Col. Balutan and company from appearing before the Senate Committee without Presidential approval. Nevertheless, Gen. Gudani and Col. Balutan testified before said Committee, prompting Gen. Senga to order them subjected to General Court Martial proceedings for willfully violating an order of a superior officer. In the meantime, President Arroyo issued EO 464, which was subsequently declared unconstitutional.
ISSUE: Whether or not the President can prevent military officers from testifying at a legislative inquiry
RULING: We hold that the President has constitutional authority to do so, by virtue of her power as commander-in-chief, and that as a consequence a military officer who defies such injunction is liable under military justice. At the same time, we also hold that any chamber of Congress which seeks the appearance before it of a military officer against the consent of the President has adequate remedies under law to compel such attendance. Any military official whom Congress summons to testify before it may be compelled to do so by the President. If the President is not so inclined, the President may be commanded by judicial order to compel the attendance of the military officer. Final judicial orders have the force of the law of the land which the President has the duty to faithfully execute.
Ability of President to prevent military officers from testifying before Congress is based on Commander-in-chief powers.
As earlier noted, we ruled in Senate that the President may not issue a blanket requirement of prior consent on executive officials summoned by the legislature to attend a congressional hearing. In doing so, the Court recognized the considerable limitations on executive privilege, and affirmed that the privilege must be formally invoked on specified grounds. However, the ability of the President to prevent military officers from testifying before Congress does not turn on executive privilege, but on the Chief Executives power as commander-in-chief to control the actions and speech of members of the armed forces. The Presidents prerogatives as commander-in-chief are not hampered by the same limitations as in executive privilege.
RATIONALE: Our ruling that the President could, as a general rule, require military officers to seek presidential approval before appearing before Congress is based foremost on the notion that a contrary rule unduly diminishes the prerogatives of the President as commander-in-chief. Congress holds significant control over the armed forces in matters such as budget appropriations and the approval of higher-rank promotions, yet it is on the President that the Constitution vests the title as commander-in- chief and all the prerogatives and functions appertaining to the position. Again, the exigencies of military discipline and the chain of command mandate that the Presidents ability to control the individual members of the armed forces be accorded the utmost respect. Where a military officer is torn between obeying the President and obeying the Senate, the Court will without hesitation affirm that the officer has to choose the President. After all, the Constitution prescribes that it is the President, and not the Senate, who is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
Remedy is judicial relief
At the same time, the refusal of the President to allow members of the military to appear before Congress is still subject to judicial relief. The Constitution itself recognizes as one of the legislatures functions is the conduct of inquiries in aid of legislation. Inasmuch as it is ill-advised for Congress to interfere with the Presidents power as commander-in-chief, it is similarly detrimental for the President to unduly interfere with Congresss right to conduct legislative inquiries. The impasse did not come to pass in this petition, since petitioners testified anyway despite the presidential prohibition. Yet the Court is aware that with its pronouncement today that the President has the right to require prior consent from members of the armed forces, the clash may soon loom or actualize.
We believe and hold that our constitutional and legal order sanctions a modality by which members of the military may be compelled to attend legislative inquiries even if the President desires otherwise, a modality which does not offend the Chief Executives prerogatives as commander-in-chief. The remedy lies with the courts.
The fact that the executive branch is an equal, coordinate branch of government to the legislative creates a wrinkle to any basic rule that persons summoned to testify before Congress must do so. There is considerable interplay between the legislative and executive branches, informed by due deference and respect as to their various constitutional functions. Reciprocal courtesy idealizes this relationship; hence, it is only as a last resort that one branch seeks to compel the other to a particular mode of behavior. The judiciary, the third coordinate branch of government, does not enjoy a similar dynamic with either the legislative or executive branches. Whatever weakness inheres on judicial power due to its inability to originate national policies and legislation, such is balanced by the fact that it is the branch empowered by the Constitution to compel obeisance to its rulings by the other branches of government.
SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS ERMITA APRIL 20, 2006 G.R. NO. 169777 Nature of the Case: These are six consolidated cases docketed as following:
G.R. No. 169777 = Senate of the Philippines vs. Eduardo Ermita G.R. No. 169659 = Bayan Muna vs. Eduardo Ermita G.R. No. 169660 = Francisco Chavez vs. Eduardo Ermita G.R. No. 169667 = Alternative Law Groups vs. Eduardo Ermita G.R. No. 169834 = PDP Laban vs. Eduardo Ermita G.R. No. 171246 = Jose Anselmo Cadiz v. Eduardo Ermita
FACTS: These consolidated cases are petitions for certiorari stating that the President has abused her power by issuing Executive Order No. 464 dated September 28, 2005. Petitioners herein pray that such order be declared as null and void for being unconstitutional. In the exercise of its legislative power, the Senate of the Philippines through its various Committees conducts inquiries and investigations in aid of legislation which call for attendance of officials and employees of the executive department, bureaus, and offices including those employed in the Government Owned and Controlled Corporations, the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine National Police (PNP).
On September 21 - 23, 2005 the Committee of the Senate issued invitations to various officials of the Executive Department for them to appear on September 29, 2005 as resource speakers in a public hearing on the railway project of North Luzon Railways Corporation with the China National Machinery Group. Such railway project is called the North Railway Project.
The Senate issued invitations on several AFP officials for them to attend as resource persons in a public hearing scheduled on Sept. 28, 2005 for the privilege speech of the following senators: Sen. Aquilino Pimentel, Jr., Sen. Jinggoy Estrada, Sen. Rodolfo Biazon, Sen. Jamby Madrigal, Sen. Biazon. Also invited to the hearing was the AFP Chief of Staff, General Generoso Senga who by letter dated September 28, 2005 requested for its postponement due to a pressing operational situation that demands his utmost attention.
On September 28, 2005 Senate Franklin Drilon received from Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita a letter respectfully requesting for the postponement of the hearing to which various executive officials have been invited in order for said officials to study and prepare for various issues so they can better enlighten the Senate Committee on its investigation.
Senate Pres. Drilon however was unable to grant such request because it was sent belatedly and all preparations are complete within that week. He also received a letter from NorthRail project President Jose L. Cortes Jr. requesting that the hearing of the NorthRail project be postponed or cancelled until a copy of the report of UP Law Center on contract agreements related to the project had been secured.
On Sept. 28, 2005, the President issued Executive Order # 464 entitled Ensuring Observance of Principle of Separation of Powers, Adherence to Rule on Executive Privilege and Respect for Rights of Public Officials Appearing in Legislative Inquiries in Aid of Legislation under the Constitution and for other Purposes", which states that all heads of the executive branch shall secure the consent of the President prior to appearing before either house of the Congress; public officials may not divulge confidential classified information officially known to them by reason of their office and not made available to the public to prejudice the public interest and that executive matters shall only be conducted in executive session.
On September 28, Sen. Pres. Franklin Drilon received from Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita a copy of E.O. 464 and that executive officials invited were not able to attend because they failed to secure the required consent from the President.
On October 3, 2005, three petitions docketed as G.R. No. 169659 (Bayan Muna vs. Eduardo Ermita), 169660 (Francisco Chavez vs. Eduardo Ermita) and 169667 (Alternative Law Groups vs. Eduardo Ermita) were filed before the court also challenging the constitutionality of E.O. 464.
In G.R. No. 169659 Bayan Muna v. Eduardo Ermita, partylist Bayan Muna and HR members Satur Ocampo, Crispin Beltran, Rafael Mariano, Liza Maza, Joel Virador and Teodoro Casino, COURAGE = organization of Govt employees and CODAL (Counsels for Defense of Liberties) pray that E.O. 464 be declared unconstitutional and that Executive Sec. Eduardo Ermita be prohibited from imposing sanctions on officials who appear before Congress due to congressional summons. They also contend that E.O. 464 infringes on their rights and impedes them to fulfil their respective obligations.
In G.R. No. 169660 Francisco Chavez vs. Eduardo Ermita, Francisco Chavez claims that his constitutional rights as a citizen and taxpayer and law practicioner are affected by the enforcement of E.O. 464 thus he prays that such order be declared null and unconstitutional.
In G.R. No. 169667 Alternative Law Groups vs. Eduardo Ermita, ALG claims that the group has legal standing to institute the petition to enforce its constitutional right to information on matters of public concern.
On October 11, 2005, Senate of the Philippines alleging that it has a vital interest in the resolution of the issue of validity in E.O. 464, claims that it prohibits the valid exercise of the Senates powers and functions and conceals information of great public interest and concern.
On October 14, 2005, PDP- Laban a registered political party w/ members elected in the Congress filed a similar petition.
ISSUE: 1. Whether respondents committed grave abuse of discretion in executing E.O. 464. 2. Whether E.O. 464 violates the following provisions of the Constitution: Art. II Sec. 28, Art. III Sec. 4, Art. III Sec. 7, Art. VI Sec. I, Art. VI, Sec. 21, Art. VI Sec. 22, Article XI sec. 1 and Art. XIII sec. 16. 3. Whether E.O. 464 contravenes the power of inquiry vested in the Congress. 4. Whether E.O. 464 violates the right of the people to information on matters of public concern.
HELD: E.O. 464 to the extent that it bars the appearance of executive officials before the Congress, deprives the Congress of the information in the possession of these officials. The power of inquiry, a power vested in the Congress, is expressly recognized in Sec. 21 of Article VI because, according to the Court, a legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation intended to affect or change; thus, making it an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function.
However, even when the inquiry is in aid of legislation, there are still recognized exemptions to the power of inquiry which exemptions fall under the rubric of executive privilege.
The executive privilege, whether asserted against Congress, the courts, or the public; is recognized only in relation to certain types of information of a sensitive character. Executive privilege per se is not meant to cover up embarrassing information. It is a relative concept, the validity of its assertion to a great extent depends upon the political situation of the country.
AMPATUAN VS PUNO JUNE 7, 2011
FACTS: On 24 Nov. 2009, the day after the Maguindanao Massacre, then Pres. Arroyo issuedProclamation 1946, placing the Provinces of Maguindanao and Sultan Kudarat and the City of Cotabato under a state ofemergency. She directed the AFP and the PNP to undertake such measures as may be allowed by the Constitution and by law to prevent and suppress all incidents of lawless violence in the named places.
Three days later, she also issued AO 273 transferring supervision of the ARMM from the Office of the President to the DILG. She subsequently issued AO 273-A, which amended the former AO (the term transfer used in AO 273 was amended to delegate, referring to the supervision of the ARMM by the DILG).
Claiming that the Presidents issuances encroached on the ARMMs autonomy, petitioners Datu Zaldy Uy Ampatuan, Ansaruddin Adiong, and Regie Sahali-Generale, all ARMM officials, filed this petition for prohibition under Rule 65. The alleged that the Presidents proclamation and orders encroached on the ARMMs autonomy as these issuances empowered the DILG Secretary to take over ARMMs operations and to seize the regional governments powers. They also claimed that the President had no factual basis for declaring a state ofemergency, especially in the Province of Sultan Kudarat and the City of Cotabato, where no critical violent incidents occurred. The deployment of troops and the taking over of the ARMM constitutes an invalid exercise of the Presidentsemergency powers. Petitioners asked that Proclamation 1946 as well as AOs 273 and 273-A be declared unconstitutional.
ISSUE:
1. Whether Proclamation 1946 and AOs 273 and 273-A violate the principle of local autonomy under Sec. 16 Art. X of the Constitution and Sec. 1 Art. V of RA 9054 (The Expanded ARMM Act) 2. Whether or not President Arroyo invalidly exercised emergency powers when she called out the AFP and the PNP to prevent and suppress all incidents of lawless violence in Maguindanao, Sultan Kudarat, and Cotabato City 3. Whether or not the President had factual bases for her actions
HELD:
1. NO. The DILG Secretary did not take over control of the powers of the ARMM. After law enforcement agents took the respondent Governor of ARMM into custody for alleged complicity in the Maguindanao Massacre, the ARMM Vice- Governor, petitioner Adiong, assumed the vacated post on 10 Dec. 2009 pursuant to the rule on succession found in Sec. 12 Art.VII of RA 9054. In turn, Acting Governor Adiong named the then Speaker of the ARMM Regional Assembly, petitioner SahaliGenerale, Acting ARMM Vice-Governor. The DILG Secretary therefore did not take over the administration or the operations of the ARMM.
2. The deployment is not by itself an exercise of emergency powers as understood under Section 23 (2), Article VI of the Constitution, which provides:
SECTION 23. x x x (2) In times of war or other nationalemergency, the Congress may, by law, authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof.
The President did not proclaim a national emergency, only a state of emergency in the three places mentioned. And she did not act pursuant to any law enacted by Congress that authorized her to exercise extraordinary powers. The calling out of the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence in such places is a power that the Constitution directly vests in the President. She did not need a congressional authority to exercise the same.
3. The Presidents call on the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence springs from the power vested in her under Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution, which provides:
Section 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of allarmed 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. x x x
While it is true that the Court may inquire into the factual bases for the Presidents exercise of the above power, it would generally defer to her judgment on the matter. As the Court acknowledged in Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Hon. Zamora, it is clearly to the President that the Constitution entrusts the determination of the need for calling out the armed forces to prevent and suppress lawless violence. Unless it is shown that such determination was attended by grave abuse of discretion, the Court will accord respect to the Presidents judgment. Thus, the Court said:
If the petitioner fails, by way of proof, to support the assertion that the President acted without factual basis, then this Court cannot undertake an independent investigation beyond the pleadings. The factual necessity of calling out the armed forces is not easily quantifiable and cannot be objectively established since matters considered for satisfying the same is a combination of several factors which are not always accessible to the courts. Besides the absence of textual standards that the court may use to judge necessity, information necessary to arrive at such judgment might also prove unmanageable for the courts. Certain pertinent information might be difficult to verify, or wholly unavailable to the courts. In many instances, the evidence upon which the President might decide that there is a need to call out the armed forces may be of a nature not constituting technical proof.
On the other hand, the President, as Commander-in-Chief has a vast intelligence network to gather information, some of which may be classified as highly confidential or affecting the security of the state. In the exercise of the power to call, on- the-spot decisions may be imperatively necessary in emergency situations to avert great loss of human lives and mass destruction of property. Indeed, the decision to call out the military to prevent or suppress lawless violence must be done swiftly and decisively if it were to have any effect at all. x x x.
Here, petitioners failed to show that the declaration of a state of emergency in the Provinces of Maguindanao, Sultan Kudarat and Cotabato City, as well as the Presidents exercise of the calling out power had no factual basis. They simply alleged that, since not all areas under the ARMM were placed under a state of emergency, it follows that the takeover of the entire ARMM by the DILG Secretary had no basis too.
The imminence of violence and anarchy at the time the President issued Proclamation 1946 was too grave to ignore and she had to act to prevent further bloodshed and hostilities in the places mentioned. Progress reports also indicated that there was movement in these places of both high-powered firearms and armed men sympathetic to the two clans. Thus, to pacify the peoples fears and stabilize the situation, the President had to take preventive action. She called out the armed forces to control the proliferation of loose firearms and dismantle the armed groups that continuously threatened the peace and security in the affected places.
Since petitioners are not able to demonstrate that the proclamation of state of emergency in the subject places and the calling out of the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence there have clearly no factual bases, the Court must respect the Presidents actions.