Finals Review - Executive Branch [Cases/Rulings/Doctrines/Law] Flashcards
Explain the Single Executive Doctrine
In Villena v Secretary of Interior:
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.
Explain the Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency:
In Villena v Secretary of Inferior
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.
What are the acts which the President must personally perform, under the law or the Constitution?
Under the Constitution
(1) signing of bill into law;
(2) calling for a special session;
(3) Nomination and appointment of heads of executive department, ambassadors, other public minister and consul etc.
(4) nominate a VP in case of vacancy in the OVP;
(5) Call out the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion, or rebellion;
(6) suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus;
(7) place the Philippines or any part of the country under martial law;
(8) submit a report in Congress in person or in writing concerning martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus;
(9) request for extension of martial law or suspension of privilege of writ of h.c.;
(10) grant amnesty, reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment (sec 19 art viii);
(11) submit a budget to Congress;
(12) address Congress at the opening of its reg. session (SONA)
What is the difference between an “appointment” and a “designation”?
In Funa v Ermita:
Appointment may be defined as the selection, by the authority vested with the power, of an individual who is to exercise the functions of a given office. When completed, usually with its confirmation, the appointment results in security of tenure for the person chosen unless he is replaceable at pleasure because of the nature of his office.
Designation, on the other hand, connotes merely the imposition by law of ADDITIONAL DUTIES on an incumbent official, as where, in the case before us, the Secretary of Tourism is designated Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Philippine Tourism Authority, or where, under the Constitution, three Justices of the Supreme Court are designated by the Chief Justice to sit in the Electoral Tribunal of the Senate or the House of Representatives. It is said that appointment is essentially executive while designation is legislative in nature.
However, where the person is merely designated and not appointed, the implication is that he shall hold the office only in a temporary capacity and may be replaced at will by the appointing authority. In this sense, the designation is considered only an acting or temporary appointment, which does not confer security of tenure on the person named.
What does to “hold any other office” mean under sec 13 art vii CONST?
“holding any other office” means holding an office or performing functions outside and irrelevant of/from the primary functions of one’s existing office
In Funa v Ermita:
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.
Such holding of office pertains to both appointment and designation because the appointee or designate performs the duties and functions of the office.
When will the exercise of an additional office by a member of the President’s official family not be construed as “any other office” prohibited by the Constitution?
In Civil Liberties Union v Exec Sec:
The additional duties or functions must be required by the primary functions of the official concerned, who is to perform the same in an ex-officio capacity as provided by law, without receiving any additional compensation therefor.
Can “alternates” of ex-officio officers who are heads of executive departments be entitled to emoluments if the officer to whom they are alternates for are not?
No, alternates are not entitled to emoluments. In Dela Cruz v COA:
“alternates” of the said officers, ‘whose acts shall be considered the acts of their principals.’ . . . Since the Executive Department Secretaries, as ex-officio members of the NHA Board, are prohibited from receiving “extra (additional) compensation, whether it be in the form of a per diem or an honorarium or an allowance, or some other such euphemism,” it follows that petitioners who sit as their alternates cannot likewise be entitled to receive such compensation. A contrary rule would give petitioners a better right than their principals.
What is the executive power?
In Lacson-Magallanes v. Pano:
While Congress is vested with the power to enact laws, the President executes the laws. The executive power is vested in the President. It is generally defined as the power to enforce and administer the laws. It is the power of carrying the laws into practical operation and enforcing their due observance.
What is the “administrative power” of the President?
Administrative power:
(1) applying policies;
(2) enforcing orders;
Enables the Pres to:
(1) fix uniform standards of administrative efficiency;
(2) check the official conduct of his agents.
In Lacson-Magallanes v Pano:
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 uniform standard of administrative efficiency and check the official conduct of his agents. To this end, he can issue administrative orders and regulations.
What is an administrative order?
In Sec 3 Ch 2 Title I Book III Admin Code of 1987:
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.
In Lacson-Magallanes:
An administrative order is an ordinance issued by the President which relates to specific aspects in the administrative operation of government.
Can the President reorganize the offices and agencies under the executive department?
Yes, the President can reorganize office and agencies under the executive department. In the case of Banda v Ermita:
It is a well-settled principle in jurisprudence that the President has the power to reorganize the offices and agencies in the executive department in line with the President’s constitutionally granted power of control over executive offices and by virtue of previous delegation of the legislative power to reorganize executive offices under existing statutes.
What is the standard by which the President may exercise his/her authority to reorganize the administrative structure of the Office of the President?
The standard is “to achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency.”
Under Banda v Ermita, citing Sec 31 Ch 10 Title III Book III of the Admin Code: The President, subject to the policy in the Executive Office and in order to achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency, shall have continuing authority to reorganize the administrative structure of the Office of the President.
What is the continuing authority of the President to reorganize and redefine functions of the Office of the President as granted by the Administrative Code?
Sec 31 Ch 10 Title III Bk III Admin Code:
(1) restructure the internal organization of the Office of the President Proper, including the immediate offices, the President Assistants/Advisers System and the Common Staff Support System, by abolishing, consolidating or merging units thereof or transferring functions from unit to another;
(2) Transfer any function under the Office of the President to any other Department or Agency as well as transfer functions to the Office of the President from other Departments and Agencies;
(3) Transfer any agency under the Office of the President to any other department or agency as well as transfer agencies to the Office of the President from other Departments or agencies.
What is the definition of “reorganization”, as defined by the Supreme Court?
Reorganization:
(1) reduction of personnel;
(2) consolidation of offices;
(3) abolition of offices;
(4) by reason of economy or redundancy of functions
In Banda v Ermita citing Canonizado v Aguirre:
Reorganization “involves the reduction of personnel, consolidation of offices, or abolition thereof by reason of economy or redundancy of functions.” It takes place where there is an alteration of the existing structure of government offices or units therein, including the lines of control, authority and responsibility between them.
When is there an “invalid abolition” of office or positions?
(1) mere change of nomenclature;
(2) claims of economy are belied by existence of ample funds
In Banda v Ermita citing Dario v Mison:
There is an invalid “abolition” as where there is merely a change of nomenclature of positions, or where claims of economy are belied by the existence of ample funds.
When is an abolition valid?
In Banda v Ermita citing Dario v Mison:
Reorganizations (where abolition is absorbed) in this jurisdiction has been regarded as valid provided they are pursued in good faith.
If the reorganization is done in good faith, the abolition of positions, which results in loss of security of tenure of affected government employees, would be valid.
