THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT (ART.

VII)
QUALIFICATIONS:
1.) Natural-born citizen
2.) Registered voter
3.) Able to read and write
4.) Atleast 40 years of age on the
day of election
5.) Resident of the PH for atleast
10
years
of
immediately
preceding such election
CITIZENSHIP RETENTION AND REACQUISITION ACT OF 2003: Naturalborn citizens who have been, or
intend to be, naturalized in a foreign
country, shall, upon taking the oath of
allegiance prescribed in said law be
deemed to have re-acquired, or shall
retain their Philippine citizenship,
upon taking said oath.
-Those seeking elective or appointive
public office in the Philipppines shall
meet the qualifications for holding
such public office as required by the
Constitution and existing laws and, at
the time of the filing of the certificate
of candidacy, make a personal and
sworn renunciation of any and all
foreign citizenship before any public
officer authorized to administer an
oath.
-It must be noted that, upon taking
said second oath, the citizen ceases
to be a dual citizen.
SUPREME COURT shall be the sole
judge of all contests relating to the
election, returns and qualifications of
the President or VP, and may
promulgate its rules for its purpose.
DUTY OF CONGRESS: to canvass and
to proclaim as elected the person
receiving the highest number of votes

MACALINTAL vs. PET PET as an

illegal and unautorized progeny
of Sec. 4, Article VII of the
Consti.
PET exercises quasijudicial functions

BUAC vs. COMELEC Members

of the SC and of the other
courts established by law shall
not be designated to any
agency
perfomring
quasijudicial functions or admin
functions

TECSON vs. COMELEC SC has

original jurisdiction to decide
presidential and vp election
protests
while
concurrently
acting as an independent
Electoral Tribunal

BOTTOMLINE:
PET
is
an
independent but not separate
from the judicial department.
The adoption of a separate seal,
as well as the change in
nomenclature of the CJ and the
AJ into Chairman and Members
of the Tribunal, respectively,
was designed to highlight the
singularity and exclusivity of
the Tribunals functions as
special eletorate court.

TERM OF PRESI AND VP: 6 years

which shall begin at noon on the 30 th
day of June following the day of the
election
-No Presi shall be eligible fore reelection.
No person who has
succeeded as Presi and has served as
such for more than 4 yrs shall be
qualified for election to the same
office at any time

PORMENTO vs. ESTRADA

Petitioner sought to disqualify

Estrada from participitaing in

the 2010 presidential election.
Prudence dictates that this
Court exercise judicial restraint
where the issue before it has
already
been
mooted
by
subsequent events.
More
importantly, the consitutional
requirement of the existence of
a
case
or
an
actual
controversy for the proper
exercise of the power of judicial
review constrains us to refuse
the allure of making a grand
pronouncement that, in the
end, will amoun to nothing but
a non-binding opinion.

LONZANIDA vs. COMELEC

Petitioner was elected 3x as
mayor but lost in an election
protest and was ousted during
his 3rd term.
However, this
ruling
is
not
necessarily
decisive of the question as it
applies to the term limits of the
Presi and the VP

VICE-PRESIDENT
-eligible for the position of the
member of the Cabinet and when
appointed as such, does not need
confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments
-shall not serve for more than 2
successive terms
-WHEN THERE IS VACANCY: The Presi
shall nominate a VP from among the
MEMBERS OF THE SENATE and the
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES who
shall assume office upon confirmation
by a MAJORITYVOTE of all the
Members of BOTH Houses of Congres
voting SEPARATELY
PRESIDENTIAL SUCCESSION
VP shall become the PRESI:

1.) death
2.) permanent disability
3.) removal
4.) resignatio
-Pag none of the above-mentioned
causes, VP shall only ACT as PRESI.
ESTRADA vs. GMA
-respondents right to succeed him
1.) acknowledged the oath-taking of
respondent as Presi of the Republic
2.) emphasized leaving the Palace,
the seat of the presidency, for the
sake of peace and in order to begin
the healing process of our nation
3.) expressed gratitude to people for
the opportunity to serve them
4.) not shirk from any future
challenge
5.) called on his supporters to join
him in the promotion of a national
spirit of reconciliation and solidarity
OATH OF OFFICE
OATH is not a source of substantive
power but is merely intended to
deepen the sense of responsibility of
the President and ensure a more
conscientious discharge of his office
PERQUISITES AND INHIBITIONS
-Prohibition against the change of
their salary either by reduction or
increase during their term is meant to
prevent
the
legislature
from
weakening
their
fortitude
by
appealing
to
their
avarice
or
corrupting their integrity by operating
on their necessities.

EMOLUMENT profit arising

from office or employment; that
which
is
received
as
compensation for services, or
which is annexed to the

possession of office, as salary,

fees
and
perquisites;
advantage, gain, public or
private; pecuniary in character
(Taxpayers League of Cargon
County vs. McPherson)
-The
spouse
and
relatives
by
consaguinity or affinity within the 4th
civil degree of the President shall not,
during his tenure, be appointed as:
1.)
Members
of
the
Constitutional
Commission
2.) Office of the Ombudsman
3.) Secretaries
4.) Undersecretaries
5.) Chairmen or heads of
bureaus or offices,
including
government-owned
or controlled
corporations and their subsidiaries
CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION vs. THE
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY In relation to
E.O. 248, said E.O actually allows
them to hold multiple offices or
employment in direct contravention
of the express mandate of Sec. 13,
Article VII of the 1987 Constitution
-Ex-officio posts or those required by
the primary functions of the executive
official concerned do not fall within
the definition of any other office
within the contemplation of the
constitutional prohibition.
-Ex-officio posts do not comprise any
other office within the contemplation
of the constitutional prohibition but
are
properly
an
imosition
of
additional duties and functions on
said officials.
-In order to be designated, they must
already be holding positoins in the
offices.
-The additional duties must not only
be closely related to, but must be
required by the officials primary
functions.

-If the functions required to be

performed are merely incidental,
remotely
related,
inconsistent,
incompatible or otherwise alien to the
primary functions would fall under the
purview
of
any
other
office
prohibited by the Constitution.
-The phrase the Members of the
Cabinet, and their deputies or
assistants found in Sec. 13, referred
only to heads of the various executive
departments, their undersecretaries,
and did not extend to other officials
given
the
rank
of
Secretary,
Undersecretary
or
Assistant
Secretary. Hence, in PUBLIC INTEREST
CENTER, INC. vs. ELMA, the Court
opined that the prohibition under
Section 13 did not cover Elma, a
Presidential Assistant with the rank of
Undersecretary
FUNA
vs.
ERMITA

On
the
constitutionality of the designation of
the Undersecretary (for Maritime
Transport) of the Department of
Transportation and Communication as
OIC of the Maritime Industry Authority
(MARINA):
-Respondents failed to demonstrate
clearly that her designation as OIC
was in an ex-officio capacity as
required by the primary functions of
her office as DOTC Undersecretary for
Maritime Transport.
-The 1987 Consti in prohibiting dual
or multiple offices, as well as
incompatible offices, refers to the
holding of the office, and not to the
nature of the appointment or
designation.
-To hold an office means to possess
or occupy the same, or to be in
possession and administration, which
implies nothing less than the actual
discharge of the functions and duties
of the office.

FUNA vs. AGRA

-designation of the respondent as
Acting Sec. of Justice concurrently
with his position of Acting Solicitor
Gen., stressing that it was no
mement that Agras designation (as
Acting Sec. of Justice) was in an
acting or temporary capacity.
-The prohbition against dual or
multiple offices being held by one
official must be construed as to apply
to all appointments or designations,
whether permanent or temporary, for
it is without question that the avowed
objective of Sec. 13 is to prevent the
concentration of powers in the Exec.
Department officials, specifically the
Presi, the VP, the members of the
Cabinet and their deputies and
assistants.

-not EXPRESSLY conferred in the

Consti
-the power of the Government to
withhold information from the public,
the courts, and the Congrees
-the right of the President and highlevel executive branch officers to
withhold information from Congress,
the courts, and ultimately the public
-It covers military,diplomatice and
other national security matters,
which, in the interest of national
security, should not be divulged.
-It includes as well information
between inter-government agences
prior to the conclusion of treaties and
executive agreements, discussions in
closed-door Cabinet meetings, and
matters affecting national security
and public order.

BETOY vs. BOD, NATIONAL POWER

CORPORATION
-Court upheld the validity of a law
providing for the designation (by
Congress) of Members of the Cabinet
as Members of the National Power
Board of Directors (NPB).
-The designation of the members of
the Cabinet to form the NPB does not
violate the prohibition contained in
our Consti as the privatization and
restructuring of the electric power
industry
involves
the
close
coordination and policy determination
of various govt. agencies.

FOUR TYPES (EXECUTIVE PRIVELEGE)

-INFORMERS PRIVELEGE, or the
privelege of the Govt not to disclose
the identity of a person or persons
who furnish information on violations
of law to officers charged with the
enforcement of the law.
-PRESIDENTIAL
COMMUNICATIONS,
applies to the decision-making of the
President, rooted in the constitutional
principle of separation of powers and
the Presidents unique constitutional
role. It applies to documents in their
entirety, and covers final and postdecisional materials as well as predeliberative ones.
ELEMENTS:
1.)
The
protected
communication must relate to a
quintessential and non- delegable
presidentialpower (e.g. power
to
enter into presidential agreements)
2.) The communication must be
authored
or
solicited
and
received by a
close advisor of the
President such as a
Member
of

DESIGNATION

connotes
an
imposition
of
additional
duties,
usually by law, upon a person already
in the public service by virtue of an
earlier appointment.
-does not entail payment of additional
benefits or grant upon the person so
designated the right to claim the
salary attached to the position
EXECUTIVE PRIVELEGE

the Cabinet, or the

President
himself.
3.) It remains a qualified
privelege that
may be overcome
by a showing of adequate
need,
such that the
information sought
likely contains important evidence
and by the unavailability of the
information
elsewhere
by
an
appropriate investigating authority.
-DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVELEGE
covers documents reflecting advisory
opinion,
recommendations
and
deliberations comprising part of a
process by which governmental
decisions and policies are formulated.
-DIPLOMATIC
NEGOTIATIONS
PRIVELEGE which is meant to
encourage
frank
exchange
of
explanatory
ideas
between
the
negotiating parties by shielding such
negotiations from public view
AKBAYAN vs. AQUINO (citing Senate
Select Committee on Presidential
Campaign Activities VS. Nixon)
-The Executive cannot, any more than
the branches of government, invoke a
general confidentiality privelege to
shield its officials and employees
from investigations by the proper
governmental
institutions
into
possible criminal wrongdoing.
-This qualification applies whether the
privelege is being invoked in the
context of a judicial trial or
congressional
investigation
conducted in aid of legislation.
-When Congress exercises its power
of inquiry, the only way for
department
heads
to
exempt
themselves therefrom is by a valid
claim of privelege.
SENATE vs. ERMITA Ermitas letter
heads to the conclusion that the
executive branch, either through the

President or the heads of the offices

authorized under E.0. 464, has made
a determination that the information
required by the Senate is priveleged,
and that, at the time of the writing,
there
has
been
no
contrary
pronouncement from the President.
In fine, an implied claim of privelege
has been made by the executive.
-The Congress must not require the
executive to state the reasons for the
claim with such particularity as to
compel disclosure of the information
which the privelege is meant to
protect. This is a matter of respect to
a
coordinate
and
co-equal
department.
NERI vs. SENATE COMMITTEE ON
ACCOUNTABILITY
OF
PUBLIC
OFFICERS
-Jurisprudence teaches that for the
claim to be properly invoked, there
must be a formal claim of privelege,
lodged
by
the
head
of
the
department which has control over
the matter.
-A formal and proper claim of
executive
privelege
requires
a
precise and certain reason for
preserving their confidentiality.
PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY
ESTRADA vs. DESIERTO
-The cases filed against petitioner
Estrada are criminal in character.
They involve plunder, bribery, and
graft and corruption. By no stretch of
the imagination can these crimes,
especially plunder which carries the
death penalty, be covered by the
alleged mantle of immunity of a nonsitting president.
-Petitioner cannot cite any decision of
this Court licensing the President to
commit criminal acts and wrapping

him with the post-tenure immunity

from liability.
US vs. NIXON, NIXON vs. FITZGERALD,
CLINTON vs. JONES
-The immunity of the President from
civil damages covered only official
acts.
-DOCTRINE
OF
COMMAND
RESPONSIBILITY
Pursuant to it, the Presi, as the
Commander-in-Chief of the AFP can
be held liable for affront against the
petitioners rights to life, liberty and
security as long as substantial
evidence exist to show that he or she
had exhibited involvement in or can
be imputed with knowledge of the
violations, or had failed to exercise

necessary and reasonable diligence in

conducting
the
necessary
investigation required under the
rules.
-Presidential Immunity from Suit
exists only in concurrence with the
presidents incumbency.
DAVID vs. ARROYO
-It is not proper to implead Pres.
Arroyo as respondent. This does not
however mean that the Presi is not
accountable to anyone.
-Like any other official, he remains
accountable to the people but he may
be removed from office only in the
mode provided by law and that is by
impeachment.