ARTICLE VII.
THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
I. Executive Power (Sec. 1)
CASES:
Marcos v. Manglapus, G.R. No. 88211,
September 15, 1989 (Read also the concurring
opinion of CJ Fernan, and the dissenting opinions
of J. Sarmiento & Cruz) – the concept of residual
executive power
Laurel v. Garcia, G.R. No. 92013 July 25, 1990
(read also the concurrence of J. Padilla and
dissent of J. Feliciano)
Province of North Cotabato v. GRP Peace
Panel on Ancestral Domain, G.R. No. 183591,
October 14, 2008 – residual executive power to
conduct peace negotiations with rebel groups
II. Qualifications (Sec. 2)
A. Citizenship – natural-born citizen
CASES:
Fornier v. COMELEC, G. R. No. 161824,
March 3, 2004 (read also the concurrences
and dissents for additional nuances)
Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC, G. R. No.
221697, March 8, 2016
B. Registered voter
C. Literacy requirement – able to read and write
D. Age on election day – at least 40
E. Residence – at least 10 years immediately
preceding election day
CASE: Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC,
supra
III. Election, Canvass & Proclamation (Sec. 4)
A. Election
B. Canvass & proclamation
CASE: Macalintal v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
157013
C. Proclamation of winner
D. The Presidential Electoral Tribunal
CASES:
Tecson v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 161434,
March 3, 2004
Macalintal v. PET, G.R. No. 191618,
November 23, 2010
Santiago v. Ramos, P.E.T. Case No. 001,
February 13, 1996
Legarda v. De Castro, P.E.T. Case No. 001,
March 31, 2005
Poe v. Macapagal-Arroyo, P.E.T. Case No.
002, March 29, 2005
Roxas v. Binay, P.E.T. No. 004, August 16,
2016
IV. Oath of office (Sec. 5)
V. Term of office (Sec. 4)
A. Duration
B. Eligibility for reelection
1. President: no
CASE: Pormento v. Estrada, G.R. No.
191988, August 31, 2010
2. Vice-President: yes; 2 consecutive
terms only
VI. Vacancies and manner of filling it in (Sec. 7, 8 &
10)
A. Possible causes of vacancy
CASE: Estrada v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 146738,
March 2, 2001 (read also the concurring
opinion of J. Mendoza re permanent
incapacity)
B. Effects of vacancy
C. Role of Congress
VII. Temporary incapacity & serious illness of the
President (Sec. 11)
CASE: Estrada v. Arroyo, supra (read also the
concurrence of J. Vitug regarding temporary
incapacity)
VIII. Privileges and inhibitions (Sec. 6 & 13)
CASES:
Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary,
G.R. No. 83896, February 22, 1991
Public Interest Center Inc. v. Elma, G.R. No.
138965, June 30, 2006
Funa v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No.
184740, February 11, 2010
IX. Presidential Immunity
CASES:
Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. No. 146710-15,
March 2, 2001 – no post-tenure immunity from
criminal prosecution
Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982) –
post-tenure absolute immunity from civil
litigation (for acts committed during incumbency)
Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) – no
immunity from civil litigation for pre-tenure acts
X. Specific Powers of the President
A. The Appointing Power (Sec. 16)
1. appointees requiring consent of the
Commission on Appointments
CASE: Sarmiento v. Mison, G.R. No.
79974 December 17, 1987
2. appointees not requiring consent
a. those whose appointments are not
otherwise provided by law
b. those whom the President may be
authorized by law to appoint
CASE: Kida v. Senate, G.R. No.
196271, October 18, 2011
c. those lower-ranked officers whose
appointments Congress may, by
law, vest in the President, in the
courts, or in the heads of
departments, agencies,
commissions, or boards
CASE: Rufino v. Endriga, G.R.
No. 139554, July 21, 2006 –
meaning of “heads”
3. ad interim vs. acting appointments
CASE: Pimentel v. Ermita, G.R. No.
164978, October 13, 2005
4. Steps in the appointment process
CASE:
Velicaria-Garafil v. Office of the
President, G.R. No. 203372, June 16,
2015 (read also the concurring and
dissenting opinion of J. Brion)
Javier v. Reyes, G.R. No. L-39451,
February 20, 1989
5. Midnight appointments (Sec. 15)
CASES:
Aytona v. Castillo, G.R. No. L-19313,
January 19, 1962
Velicaria-Garafil v. Office of the
President, supra (read also the
concurring and dissenting opinion of J.
Brion)
In Re Appointments of Valenzuela
and Vallarta, A.M. No. 98-5-01-SC
November 9, 1998
De Castro v. JBC, G. R. No. 191002,
March 17, 2010 (read also the dissent of
J. Carpio-Morales)
6. Power of removal: implied from the
power of appointment
B. The Power of Control and the Faithful
Execution clause (Sec. 17)
1. The power of control
CASES:
Rufino v. Endriga, supra
Araneta v. Gatmaitan, G.R. Nos. L-
8895, April 30, 1957
Gascon v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 78389,
October 16, 1989
Resident Marine Mammals v. Reyes,
G.R. No. 180771, April 21, 2015 – alter
ego principle not applicable if the
President himself is tasked to act
personally by the Constitution
 a. Restrictive vs. liberal view of the
power of control
CASES:
Lacson v. Roque, G.R. No. L-
6225, January 10, 1953 – restrictive
view
Mondano v. Silvosa, G.R. No. L-
7708, May 30, 1955 – restrictive
view
Ang-Angco v. Castillo, G.R. No. L-
17169, November 30, 1963 –
restrictive view
Lacson-Magallanes Co., Inc. v.
Paño, G.R. No. L-27811, November
17, 1967 – more expansive view
(read also the concurrence of J.
Fernando)
b. Instances when power of
President’s alter ego may be
performed by the President himself
CASES:
Araneta v. Gatmaitan, supra
Chavez v. NHA, G.R. No. 164527,
August 15, 2007
c. Executive Secretary, acting on
President’s behalf, may undo the
action of another Cabinet Secretary
CASES:
Lacson-Magallanes Co., Inc. v.
Paño, supra
Maceda v. Macaraeg, G.R. No.
88291, May 31, 1991
d. Power of control exercised by
Cabinet Members over their
subordinates
CASES:
Noblejas v. Salas, G.R. Nos. L-
31788 and L-31792, September 15,
1975
Jacob v. Puno, G.R. Nos. L-61554-
55, July 31, 1984
De Leon v. Carpio, G.R. No.
85243, October 12, 1989
e. Distinctions between control and
supervision
CASE: Drilon v. Lim, G.R. No.
112497, August 4, 1994
2. The faithful execution clause/take care
clause
CASES:
David v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May
3, 2006
Saguisag v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 212426,
January 12, 2016
Pichay v. Office of the Deputy
Executive Secretary, G.R. No.
196425, July 24, 2012
Biraogo v. Truth Commission, G.R.
No. 192935, December 7, 2010
C. The Military Powers (Sec. 18)
1. Distinctions
2. The Calling out power
CASES:
IBP v. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284,
August 15, 2000
Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary, G.R.
No. 159085, February 3, 2004
David v. Arroyo, supra
Ampatuan v. Puno, G.R. No. 190259,
June 7, 2011
Kulayan v. Tan, G.R. No. 187298, July
3, 2012
3. Martial law & suspension of the privilege
of habeas corpus
CASES:
Lagman v. Executive Secretary, G.R.
No. 231658, July 4, 2017 (read also the
separate opinions)
Padilla v. Congress, G.R. No. 231671,
July 25, 2017
Lagman v. Pimentel, G.R. No. 235935,
February 6, 2018
4. Judicial review
CASES:
Lansang v. Garcia, G.R. No. L-33964,
December 11, 1971
Aquino v. Enrile, G.R. No. L-35546,
September 17, 1974
Garcia-Padilla v. Enrile, G.R. No. L-
61388, April 20, 1983
Fortun v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 190293,
March 20, 2012 (read also the dissent of
J. Carpio)
Lagman v. Executive Secretary, supra
5. Consequences of ML proclamation or
suspension of the privilege of the writ
a. State of martial law
CASE: Olaguer v. Military
Commission No. 34, G.R. No. L-
54558, May 22, 1987 (concurring
opinion of CJ Teehankee)
D. The power of executive clemency (Sec. 19)
1. Types – reprieves, commutations,
pardons, remission of fines and
forfeitures, and amnesty
2. Limitations
CASES:
Llamas v. Orbos, G.R. No. 99031
October 15, 1991
People v. Salle, G.R. No. 103567,
December 4, 1995
3. Evolution of the Philippine laws on
presidential pardon
CASE: People v. Salle, supra
4. Effect of grant of pardon
CASES:
Pelobello v. Palatino, G.R. No. L-
48100, June 20, 1941
Monsanto v. Factoran, G.R. No.
78239, February 9, 1989 (read also the
concurrence of JJ. Padilla and
Feliciano)
Risos-Vidal v. Estrada, G.R. No.
206666, January 21, 2015
5. Effect of violation of clemency
CASES:
Culanag v. Director of Prisons, G.R.
No. L-27206, August 26, 1967
Espuelas v. Provincial Warden of
Bohol, G.R. No. L-13223, May 30, 1960
Torres v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 76872,
July 23, 1987
In Re Wilfredo Sumulong Torres, G.R.
No. 122338, December 29, 1995
6. Grant of amnesty
CASES:
Magdalo Para sa Pagbabago v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 190793, June 19,
2012
Vera v. People, G.R. No. L-18184,
January 31, 1963
7. President’s power of clemency vs.
power of the courts to control the
execution of final decisions
CASE: Echegaray v. Secretary of
Justice, G.R. No. 132601, January 19,
1999
E. The borrowing power (Sec. 20)
F. The diplomatic power (Sec. 21);
also read: Sec. 25, Article XVIII
CASES:
Bayan v. Zamora, G.R. No.
138570, October 10, 2000 (read also the
dissent of J. Puno)
Nicolas v. Romulo, G.R. No. 175888,
February 11, 2009 (read also the dissent of
JJ. Puno and Carpio)
Gonzales v. Hechanova, G.R. No. L-21897,
October 22, 1963
G. The budgetary power (Sec. 22)

H. The informing power (Sec. 23)

I. The presidential pork barrel

CASE: Belgica v. Executive Secretary,
G.R. No. 208566, November 19, 2013

J. Other powers
1. delegated emergency powers [Sec.
23(2), Article VI; also Sec. 17, Article
XII]
CASE: David v Arroyo, supra
2. power to call special session of
Congress at any time (Sec. 15, Article
VI)
3. power to certify urgent bills [Sec. 26(2),
Article VI]
4. power to approve or veto legislation
[Sec. 27(1), Article VI]
CASE: Belgica v. Executive
Secretary, supra – pork barrel system
violates the President’s constitutional
line-item veto power
5. delegated power to fix tariff rates, import
and export quotas, tonnage and
wharfage dues, and other duties or
imposts [Sec. 28(2), Article VI]
6. power to concur in the deputation of
law-enforcement agencies and
government instrumentalities by the
COMELEC during elections [Sec. 2(4),
Article IX-B]
7. power to remove or discipline, upon the
recommendation of the Comelec, any
officer or employee deputized by the
Comelec during elections [Sec. 2(8),
Article IX-C]
8. power to extend beyond three years the
tour of duty of the Chief of Staff of the
AFP [Sec. 5(7), Article XVI]
9. powers implicit in the President’s as
Chief Executive and Commander-in-
Chief powers
CASES:
Province of North Cotabato v. GRP
Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain,
supra – power to conduct peace
negotiations with rebel groups, and to
agree to pursue reforms that would
require new legislation and/or
constitutional amendments
Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary,
supra – power to declare a state of
rebellion