Presidential Succession
There are a number of sections in the 1987 Constitution which deal with the issue of succession
in the presidency. The first is found under Section 7 of Article VII which states that:
“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 have become
permanently disabled, the Vice-President-elect shall become President.”
This section contemplates various circumstances when the Vice-President merely acts as
President namely when the President-elect fails to qualify or shall not have been chosen.
However, in cases of death or permanent disability of the President, the Vice-president is not
merely an acting president but shall become President.
Section 8 Article VII also contemplates situations wherein the Vice-President becomes President
such as death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of the President. In the
aforementioned cases, the Vice-President shall become the President to serve the unexpired
term.
In order to avert a government crisis whenever the President is unable to discharge his functions,
the 1987 Constitution states the following under Section 11 of Article VII:
“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.
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
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.
If the Congress, within ten days after receipt of the last written declaration, or, if not in session,
within twelve days after it is required to assemble, determines by a two-thirds vote of both Houses,
voting separately, that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,
the Vice-President shall act as the President; otherwise, the President shall continue exercising
the powers and duties of his office.”
An Act Prescribing the Order of Presidential Succession
Republic Act No. 181
Congress of the Philippines
21 June 1947
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress
assembled:
SECTION 1. When neither the President-elect nor the Vice-President-elect shall have qualified,
or in the event of the removal, death, or resignation of both the President and the Vice-President,
or of the inability of both of them to discharge, the powers and duties of the office of President,
the President of the Senate, or if there be none, or in the event of his removal, death, resignation,
or of his inability to act as President, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, or if there be
none, or in the event of his removal, death, resignation, or of his inability to act as President, the
Senator or Representative elected by the Members of the Congress in joint session shall act as
President of the Philippines until the President or President-elect or the Vice-President or Vice-
President-elect shall have qualified, or until their disability shall be removed, or a President shall
have been elected and shall have qualified.
SECTION 2. Commonwealth Act Numbered Sixty-eight and Executive Order Numbered Three
hundred and ninety are repealed.
SECTION 3. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
← Truth Commission is a violation of the equal protection clause
Truth Commission Violates Separation of Powers →
Essential requisites for judicial review
Posted on December 18, 2011by Erineus
Before proceeding to resolve the issue of the constitutionality of Executive Order No. 1, the Court
needs to ascertain whether the requisites for a valid exercise of its power of judicial review
are present.
Like almost all powers conferred by the Constitution, the power of judicial review is subject
to limitations, to wit: (1) there must be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise
of judicial power; (2) the person challenging the act must have the standing to question
the validity of the subject act or issuance; otherwise stated, he must have a personal and
substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as
a result of its enforcement; (3) the question of constitutionality must be raised at the
earliest opportunity; and (4) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the
case.[19]
…
A final word
The issue that seems to take center stage at present is – whether or not the Supreme Court, in
the exercise of its constitutionally mandated power of Judicial Review with respect to recent
initiatives of the legislature and the executive department, is exercising undue interference. Is
the Highest Tribunal, which is expected to be the protector of the Constitution, itself guilty of
violating fundamental tenets like the doctrine of separation of powers? Time and again, this issue
has been addressed by the Court, but it seems that the present political situation calls for it to
once again explain the legal basis of its action lest it continually be accused of being a hindrance
to the nation’s thrust to progress.
The Philippine Supreme Court, according to Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, is
vested with Judicial Power that “includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine
whether or not there has been a grave of abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.”
Furthermore, in Section 4(2) thereof, it is vested with the power of judicial review which is the
power to declare a treaty, international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree,
proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation unconstitutional. This power also
includes the duty to rule on the constitutionality of the application, or operation of presidential
decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations. These provisions,
however, have been fertile grounds of conflict between the Supreme Court, on one hand, and the
two co-equal bodies of government, on the other. Many times the Court has been accused of
asserting superiority over the other departments.
To answer this accusation, the words of Justice Laurel would be a good source of enlightenment,
to wit: “And when the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert
any superiority over the other departments; it does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the
legislature, but only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by the Constitution to
determine conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution and to establish for the parties in
an actual controversy the rights which that instrument secures and guarantees to them.”[107]
Thus, the Court, in exercising its power of judicial review, is not imposing its own will upon a co-
equal body but rather simply making sure that any act of government is done in consonance with
the authorities and rights allocated to it by the Constitution. And, if after said review, the Court
finds no constitutional violations of any sort, then, it has no more authority of proscribing the
actions under review. Otherwise, the Court will not be deterred to pronounce said act as void and
unconstitutional.
It cannot be denied that most government actions are inspired with noble intentions, all geared
towards the betterment of the nation and its people. But then again, it is important to remember
this ethical principle: “The end does not justify the means.” No matter how noble and worthy of
admiration the purpose of an act, but if the means to be employed in accomplishing it is simply
irreconcilable with constitutional parameters, then it cannot still be allowed.[108] The Court cannot
just turn a blind eye and simply let it pass. It will continue to uphold the Constitution and its
enshrined principles.
“The Constitution must ever remain supreme. All must bow to the mandate of this law. Expediency
must not be allowed to sap its strength nor greed for power debase its rectitude.”[109]
Lest it be misunderstood, this is not the death knell for a truth commission as nobly envisioned by
the present administration. Perhaps a revision of the executive issuance so as to include the
earlier past administrations would allow it to pass the test of reasonableness and not be
an affront to the Constitution. Of all the branches of the government, it is the judiciary which is
the most interested in knowing the truth and so it will not allow itself to be a hindrance or obstacle
to its attainment. It must, however, be emphasized that the search for the truth must be within
constitutional bounds for “ours is still a government of laws and not of men.”[110]
WHEREFORE, the petitions are GRANTED. Executive Order No. 1 is hereby declared
UNCONSTITUTIONAL insofar as it is violative of the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
As also prayed for, the respondents are hereby ordered to cease and desist from carrying out the
provisions of Executive Order No. 1.
APPOINTMENTS
In Article VII Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, it’s stated that: “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.” ([Link])
THE DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED POLITICAL AGENCY/ ALTER-EGO Docttrine
Under this doctrine, which recognizes the establishment of a single executive, 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, except in cases
where the Chief Executive is required by the Constitution or law to act in person or the
exigencies of the situation demand that he act personally, the multifarious executive and
administrative functions of the Chief Executive are performed by and through the executive
departments, and the acts of the Secretaries of such departments, performed and promulgated
in the regular course of business, are, unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive,
presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive
under the presidential type of government which we have adopted and considering the
departmental organization established and continued in force by paragraph 1, section 12, Article
VII, of our Constitution, 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, except in cases where the Chief Executive is required by the
Constitution or the law to act in person or the exigencies of the situation demand that he act
personally, the multifarious executive and administrative functions of the Chief Executive are
performed by and through the executive departments, and the acts of the secretaries of such
departments, performed and promulgated in the regular course of business, are, unless
disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive, presumptively the acts of the Chief
Executive.
RULES of COURT
[W]hen a doctrine of this Court is overruled and a different view is adopted, the new doctrine
should be applied prospectively, and should not apply to parties who had relied on the old
doctrine and acted on the faith thereof.
CA under Section 2, Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court. Particularly instructive on this point
is our ruling in Magestrado v. People of the Philippines,[4] thus:
The procedural issue herein basically hinges on the proper remedy
which petitioner should have availed himself of before the Court of Appeals:
an ordinary appeal or a petition for certiorari. Petitioner claims that he
correctly questioned RTC-Branch 83's Order of dismissal of his Petition for
Certiorari in Civil Case No. Q-99-39358 through a Petition for Certiorari before the
Court of Appeals. Private respondent and public respondent People of
the Philippines insist that an ordinary appeal was the proper remedy.
We agree with respondents. We hold that the appellate court did not err in
dismissing petitioner's Petition for Certiorari, pursuant to Rule 41, Section 2 of the
Revised Rules of Court (and not under Rule 44, Section 10, invoked by the Court
of Appeals in its Resolution dated 5 March 2001).
The correct procedural recourse for petitioner was appeal, not only
because RTC-Branch 83 did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in
dismissing petitioner's Petition for Certiorari in Civil Case No. Q-99-39358
but also because RTC-Branch 83's Order of dismissal was a final order from
which petitioners should have appealed in accordance with Section 2, Rule
41 of the Revised Rules of Court.
An order or a judgment is deemed final when it finally disposes of a
pending action, so that nothing more can be done with it in the trial court. In other
words, the order or judgment ends the litigation in the lower court. Au contraire,
an interlocutory order does not dispose of the case completely, but leaves
something to be done as regards the merits of the latter. RTC-Branch 83's Order
dated 14 March 2001 dismissing petitioner's Petition for Certiorari in Civil Case
No. Q-99-39358 finally disposes of the said case and RTC-Branch 83 can do
nothing more with the case.
Under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, an appeal may be taken from a
judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular
matter therein when declared by the Revised Rules of Court to be appealable.
The manner of appealing an RTC judgment or final order is also provided in Rule
41 as follows:
Section 2. Modes of appeal.
(a) Ordinary appeal. The appeal to the Court of Appeals in
cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its
original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with
the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from
and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. No record on
appeal shall be required except in special proceedings and other
cases of multiple or separate appeals where the law or these Rules
so require. In such cases, the record on appeal shall be filed and
served in like manner.
Certiorari generally lies only when there is no appeal nor any other plain,
speedy or adequate remedy available to petitioners. Here, appeal was available.
It was adequate to deal with any question whether of fact or of law, whether of
error of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion or error of judgment which the trial
court might have committed. But petitioners instead filed a special civil action
for certiorari.[5]
BONUS QUESTION
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 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
of habeas corpus 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 of habeas corpus.
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.
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.
Constitutional Safeguards to Insure Independence of the Judiciary
Post under Judicial Department
The following are the constitutional safeguards to maintain judicial independence:
1) The Supreme Court is a constitutional body and cannot be abolished by mere legislation.
2) The members of the Supreme Court cannot be removed except byimpeachment.
3) The Supreme Court cannot be deprived of its minimum jurisdiction prescribed in Section 5, Article
X of the Constitution.
4) The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court cannot be increased by law without its advice and
concurrence.
5) Appointees to the Judiciary are nominated by the Judicial and Bar Council and are not subject to
confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.
6) The Supreme Court has administrative supervision over all lower courts and their personnel.
7) The Supreme Court has exclusive power to discipline Judges of lower courts.
8) The Members of the Judiciary have security of tenure, which cannot be undermined by a law
reorganizing the Judiciary.
9) Members of the Judiciary cannot be designated to any agency performing quasi-Judicial or
administrative functions.
10) The salaries of Members of the Judiciary cannot be decreased during their continuance in office.
11) The Judiciary has fiscal autonomy.
12) The Supreme Court has exclusive power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure.
13) Only the Supreme Court can temporarily assign judges to other stations.
14) It is the Supreme Court who appoints all officials and employees of the Judiciary. (Cruz, Philippine
Political Law, 1995 ed. (pp. 229-31.) Political Law Bar Question 2000
Distinction Pardon Amnesty
As to type of offense Infractions of the peace or private
crimes Public crimes
Grantee An individual Classes of persons
As to the need of Not necessary Necessary
Congress’ concurrence
Act of grantee Distinct acts of The grantee need not
acceptance by the accept
grantee is needed
As to judicial notice Courts don’t take Courts take judicial
judicial notice because notice because it is a
it is a private act of the public act
president. Therefore,
the fact of being
granted pardon must
be proved in court.
As to effect Relieves the offender Abolishes the offense
from the consequences
of the offense
When it may be Only after conviction Before or after conviction
granted by final judgment
