Marcus v.

Manglapus
Facts:
Former President Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed from the presidency via the non- violent
“people power” revolution and was forced into exile. Marcos, in his deathbed, has signified his wish
to return to the Philippines to die. But President Corazon Aquino, considering the dire consequences
to the nation of his return at a time when the stability of government is threatened from various
directions and the economy is just beginning to rise and move forward, has stood firmly on the
decision to bar the return of Marcos and his family. Aquino barred Marcos from returning due to
possible threats & following supervening events:
1. failed Manila Hotel coup in 1986 led by Marcos leaders
2. Channel 7 taken over by rebels & loyalists
3. Plan of Marcoses to return w/ mercenaries aboard a chartered plane of a Lebanese arms
dealer. This is to prove that they can stir trouble from afar
4. Honasan’s failed coup
5. Communist insurgency movements
6. secessionist movements in Mindanao
7. Devastated economy because of 1. accumulated foreign debt 2. plunder of nation by Marcos
& cronies
Marcos filed for a petition of mandamus and prohibition to order the respondents to issue
them their travel documents and prevent the implementation of President Aquino’s decision to bar
Marcos from returning in the Philippines. Petitioner questions Aquino’s power to bar his return in the
country. He also questioned the claim of the President that the decision was made in the interest of
national security, public safety and health. Petitioner also claimed that the President acted outside
her jurisdiction. According to the Marcoses, such act deprives them of their right to life, liberty,
property without due process and equal protection of the laws. They also said that it deprives them
of their right to travel which according to Section 6, Article 3 of the constitution, may only be impaired
by a court order.

Issue:
1. Whether or not, in the exercise of the powers granted by the Constitution, the President may
prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines.
2. Whether or not the President acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction when she determined that the return of the Marcoses to the Philippines
poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare and decided to bar their return.

Decision:
No to both issues. Petition dismissed.
Ratio:
Separation of power dictates that each department has exclusive powers. According to Section
1, Article VII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, “the executive power shall be vested in the President
of the Philippines.” However, it does not define what is meant by “executive power” although in the
same article it touches on exercise of certain powers by the President, i.e., the power of control over
all executive departments, bureaus and offices, the power to execute the laws, the appointing power
to grant reprieves, commutations and pardons… (art VII secfs. 14-23). Although the constitution
outlines tasks of the president, this list is not defined & exclusive. She has residual & discretionary
powers not stated in the Constitution which include the power to protect the general welfare of the
people. She is obliged to protect the people, promote their welfare & advance national interest. (Art.
II, Sec. 4-5 of the Constitution). Residual powers, according to Theodore Roosevelt, dictate that the
President can do anything which is not forbidden in the Constitution (Corwin, supra at 153), inevitable
to vest discretionary powers on the President (Hyman, American President) and that the president
has to maintain peace during times of emergency but also on the day-to-day operation of the State.
The rights Marcoses are invoking are not absolute. They’re flexible depending on the
circumstances. The request of the Marcoses to be allowed to return to the Philippines cannot be
considered in the light solely of the constitutional provisions guaranteeing liberty of abode and the
right to travel, subject to certain exceptions, or of case law which clearly never contemplated
situations even remotely similar to the present one. It must be treated as a matter that is
appropriately addressed to those residual unstated powers of the President which are implicit in and
correlative to the paramount duty residing in that office to safeguard and protect general welfare. In
that context, such request or demand should submit to the exercise of a broader discretion on the
part of the President to determine whether it must be granted or denied. For issue number 2, the
question for the court to determine is whether or not there exist factual basis for the President to
conclude that it was in the national interest to bar the return of the Marcoses in the Philippines. It is
proven that there are factual bases in her decision. The supervening events that happened before
her decision are factual. The President must take preemptive measures for the self-preservation of
the country & protection of the people. She has to uphold the Constitution.

Soliven v. Makasiar
167 SCRA 393 (1988)
FACTS:
Beltran is among the petitioners in this case. He together with others was charged for libel by
the president. Cory herself filed a complaint-affidavit against him and others. Makasiar averred that
Cory cannot file a complaint affidavit because this would defeat her immunity from suit. He grounded
his contention on the principle that apresident cannot be sued. However, if a president would sue
then the president would allow herself to be placed under the court’s jurisdiction and conversely she
would be consenting to be sued back. Also, considering the functions of a president, the president
may not be able to appear in court to be a witness for herself thus she may be liable for contempt.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the President, under the Constitution, may initiate criminal proceedings
against the petitioners through the filing of a complaint-affidavit?

HELD:
The rationale for the grant to the President of the privilege of immunity from suit is to assure
the exercise of Presidential duties and functions free from any hindrance or distraction, considering
that being the Chief Executive of the Government is a job that, aside from requiring all of the office-
holder’s time, also demands undivided attention. But this privilege of immunity from suit, pertains to
the President by virtue of the office and may be invoked only by the holder of the office; not by any
other person in the President’s behalf. Thus, an accused like Beltran et al, in a criminal case in which
the President is complainant cannot raise the presidential privilege as a defense to prevent the case
from proceeding against such accused. Moreover, there is nothing in our laws that would prevent the
President from waiving the privilege. Thus, if so minded the President may shed the protection
afforded by the privilege and submit to the court’s jurisdiction. The choice of whether to exercise the
privilege or to waive it is solely the President’s prerogative. It is a decision that cannot be assumed
and imposed by any other person.

WHEREFORE finding no grave abuse of discretion amounting toexcess or lack of jurisdiction on

the part of the public respondents, the court resolved to DISMISS the petitions.

REVIEW CENTER ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES v.EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA

et al
G.R. No. 180046/ April 2, 2009

FACTS:
On 11 and 12 June 2006, the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) conducted the Nursing
Board Examinations nationwide. In June 2006, licensure applicants wrote the PRC to report that
handwritten copies of two sets of examinations were circulated during the examination period...
among the examinees reviewing at the R.A. Gapuz Review Center and Inress Review Center.

George Cordero, Inress Review Center's President, was then the incumbent President of the
Philippine Nurses Association. On 18 August 2006, the Court of Appeals restrained the PRC from
proceeding with the oath-taking of the successful examinees set on 22 August 2006. Consequently,
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (President Arroyo) replaced all the members of the PRC's Board
of Nursing. President Arroyo also ordered the examinees to re-take the Nursing Board Examinations.

On 8 September 2006, President Arroyo issued EO 566 which authorized the CHED to supervise
the establishment and operation of all review centers and similar entities in the Philippines.

The petitioner, an organization of independent review centers, asked the CHED to "amend, if
not withdraw" the IRR arguing, among other things, that giving permits to... operate a review center
to Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) or consortia of HEIs and professional organizations will
effectively abolish independent review centers.

EO 566- authorized CHED to supervise the establishment and operation of all review centers

In a letter dated 3 January 2007, Chairman Puno wrote petitioner, through its President Jose Antonio
Fudolig, that to suspend the implementation of the IRR would be inconsistent with the mandate of
EO 566.
 On 7 May 2007, the CHED approved the RIRR. On 22 August 2007, petitioner filed before the
CHED a Petition to Clarify/Amend Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations[8] praying for a ruling:

Amending the RIRR by excluding independent review centers from the coverage of the CHED;

Clarifying the meaning of the requirement for existing review centers to tie-up or be integrated
with HEIs, consortium or HEIs and PRC-recognized professional associations with recognized
programs, or in the alternative, to convert into schools; and Revising the rules to make it conform to
Republic Act No. 7722 (RA 7722) [9] limiting the CHED's coverage to public and private institutions of
higher education as well as degree-granting programs in post-secondary educational institutions.
CHED was given the authority to regulate and establish review centers under EO 566. While it may be
true that regulation of review centers is not one of the mandates of CHED under Republic Act 7722,
however, on September 8, 2006, Her Excellency, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, issued Executive
Order No. 566 directing the Commission on Higher Education to regulate the establishment and
operation of review centers and similar entities in the entire country.

With the issuance of the aforesaid Executive Order, the CHED now is the agency that is
mandated to regulate the establishment and operation of all review centers as provided for under
Section 4 of the Executive Order which provides that "No review center or similar... entities shall be
established and/or operate review classes without the favorable expressed indorsement of the CHED
and without the issuance of the necessary permits or authorizations to conduct review classes. x x x"
pertinent provision of the IRR.

Issues:
1. Whether EO 566 is an unconstitutional exercise by the Executive of legislative power as it
expands the CHED's jurisdiction; and

2. Whether the RIRR is an invalid exercise of the Executive's rule-making power.

Ruling:
As head of the Executive Department, the President is the Chief Executive. He represents the
government as a whole and sees to it that all laws are enforced by the officials and employees of his
department. He has control over the executive department, bureaus and offices. This... means that
he has the authority to assume directly the functions of the executive department, bureau and office,
or interfere with the discretion of its officials. Corollary to the power of control, the President also
has the duty of supervising the enforcement of laws for the... maintenance of general peace and
public order. Thus, he is granted administrative power over bureaus and offices under his control to
enable him to discharge his duties effectively.

Administrative power is concerned with the work of applying policies and enforcing orders as
determined by proper governmental organs. It enables the President to fix a uniform standard of
administrative efficiency and check the official conduct of his agents. To this end, he... can issue
administrative orders, rules and regulations.
"Sec. 3. Administrative Orders. - Acts of the President which relate to particular aspects of
governmental operation in pursuance of his duties as administrative head shall be promulgated in
administrative orders."

An administrative order is an ordinance issued by the President which relates to specific aspects in
the administrative operation of government. It must be in harmony with the law and should be for
the sole purpose of implementing the law and carrying out the legislative... policy. x x x.

Since EO 566 is an invalid exercise of legislative power, the RIRR is also an invalid exercise of the
CHED's quasi-legislative power.

Administrative agencies exercise their quasi-legislative or rule-making power through the

promulgation of rules and regulations.[36] The CHED may only exercise its rule-making power within
the confines of its jurisdiction under RA 7722. The RIRR covers... review centers and similar entities
which are neither institutions of higher education nor institutions offering degree-granting programs.

Exercise of Police Power

Police power primarily rests with the legislature although it may be exercised by the President and
administrative boards by virtue of a valid delegation

Here, no delegation of police power exists under RA 7722 authorizing the President... to regulate the
operations of non-degree granting review centers. Republic Act No. 8981 is Not the Appropriate Law

There is no doubt that a principal mandate of the PRC is to preserve the integrity of licensure
examinations. The PRC has the power to adopt measures to preserve the integrity and inviolability of
licensure examinations. However, this power should properly be interpreted to... refer to the conduct
of the examinations

These powers of the PRC have nothing to do at all with the regulation of review centers.

However, this power has nothing to do with the regulation of review centers. The PRC has the power
to bar PRB members from conducting review classes in review centers. However, to... interpret this
power to extend to the power to regulate review centers is clearly an unwarranted interpretation of
RA 8981.

Section 7(y) of RA 8981 giving the PRC the power to perform "such other functions and duties as may
be necessary to carry out the provisions" of RA 8981 does not extend to the regulation of review
centers. There is absolutely nothing in RA 8981 that mentions regulation by the PRC of review centers.

Similarly, the PRC has no mandate to regulate similar entities whose reviewees will not even... take
any licensure examination given by the PRC.
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition and the petition-in-intervention. We DECLARE Executive Order
No. 566 and Commission on Higher Education Memorandum Order No. 30, series of 2007 VOID for
being unconstitutional.

North Cotabato v. GRP

FACTS:
The Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) brought about by the
Government of the republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) as
an aspect of Tripoli Agreement of Peace in 2001 is scheduled to be signed in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
This agreement was petitioned by the Province of North Cotabato for Mandamus and Prohibition
with Prayer for the Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order. The
agreement mentions “Bangsamoro Juridical Entity” (BJE) to which it grants the authority and
jurisdiction over the Ancestral Domain and Ancestral Lands of the Bangsamoro; authority and
jurisdiction over all natural resources within internal waters. The agreement is composed of two local
statutes: the organic act for autonomous region in Muslim Mindanao and the Indigenous People’s
Rights Act (IPRA).

ISSUE:
Whether or not the GRP violated the Constitutional and statutory provisions on public
consultation and the right to information when they negotiated and initiated the MOA-AD and
Whether or not the MOA-AD brought by the GRP and MILF is constitutional

HELD:
GRP violated the Constitutional and statutory provisions on public consultation and the right
to information when they negotiated and initiated the MOA-AD and it are unconstitutional because
it is contrary to law and the provisions of the constitution thereof.

The GRP is required by this law to carry out public consultations on both national and local
levels to build consensus for peace agenda and process and the mobilization and facilitation of
people’s participation in the peace process. MOA-AD states that all provisions thereof which cannot
be reconciled with the present constitution and laws “shall come into force upon signing of a
comprehensive compact and upon effecting the necessary changes to the legal framework.” The
president’s authority is limited to proposing constitutional amendments. She cannot guarantee to
any third party that the required amendments will eventually be put in place nor even be submitted
to a plebiscite. MOA-AD itself presents the need to amend therein.
 Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission

FACTS:
E.O No. 1 establishing the Philippine Truth Commission (PTC) of 2010 was signed by President
Aquino. The said PTC is a mere branch formed under the Office of the President tasked to investigate
reports of graft and corruption committed by third-level public officers and employees, their co-
principals, accomplices and accessories during the previous administration and submit their findings
and recommendations to the President, Congress and the Ombudsman. However, PTC is not a quasi-
judicial body, it cannot adjudicate, arbitrate, resolve, settle or render awards in disputes between
parties. Its job is to investigate, collect and asses evidences gathered and make recommendations. It
has subpoena powers but it has no power to cite people in contempt or even arrest. It cannot
determine for such facts if probable cause exist as to warrant the filing of an information in our courts
of law.

Petitioners contends the Constitutionality of the E.O. on the grounds that. It violates separation
of powers as it arrogates the power of Congress to create a public office and appropriate funds for its
operation;
The provisions of Book III, Chapter 10, Section 31 of the Administrative Code of 1987 cannot legitimize
E.O. No. 1 because the delegated authority of the President to structurally reorganize the Office of
the President to achieve economy, simplicity, and efficiency does not include the power to create an
entirely new office was inexistent like the Truth Commission;
The E.O illegally amended the Constitution when it made the Truth Commission and vesting it the
power duplicating and even exceeding those of the Office of the Ombudsman and the DOJ.
It violates the equal protection clause

ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT the said E.O is unconstitutional.

RULING:
Yes, E.O No. 1 should be struck down as it is violative of the equal protection clause. The Chief
Executive’s power to create the Ad hoc Investigating Committee cannot be doubted. Having been
constitutionally granted full control of the Executive Department, to which respondents belong, the
President has the obligation to ensure that all executive officials and employees faithfully comply
with the law. With AO 298 as mandate, the legality of the investigation is sustained. Such validity is
not affected by the fact that the investigating team and the PCAGC had the same composition, or that
the former used the offices and facilities of the latter in conducting the inquiry.