In Padilla vs. Congress of the Philippines, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress is not constitutionally required to convene in joint session following a presidential declaration of martial law or suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, unless it intends to revoke such proclamation.
Padilla vs. Congress of the Philippines [July 25, 2017] Read More »
In Lansang vs. Garcia, the Supreme Court ruled that the judiciary can review the factual basis of the President’s suspension of the writ of habeas corpus to ensure it meets constitutional requirements, affirming the system of checks and balances among government branches.
In Sarmiento vs. Mison, the Supreme Court ruled that the President can appoint the Commissioner of Customs without needing the Commission on Appointments’ approval, as the position is not among those requiring such consent under the Constitution.
In Banda vs. Ermita, the Supreme Court upheld the President’s authority to amend Executive Orders concerning executive agencies, affirming the validity of Executive Order No. 378, which removed the National Printing Office’s exclusive jurisdiction over government printing services. The Court found no violation of employees’ security of tenure.
In Ocampo vs. Medialdea, the Supreme Court upheld President Duterte’s directive to inter former President Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani, ruling it did not violate the Constitution or laws. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the decision.
In Funa vs. Ermita, the Supreme Court ruled that Department of Transportation and Communications Undersecretary Maria Elena Bautista’s concurrent designation as Officer-in-Charge of the Maritime Industry Authority violated the constitutional prohibition against holding multiple government positions, as it was not an ex officio role.
In Macalintal vs. COMELEC, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Overseas Absentee Voting Act, allowing Filipinos abroad to vote without meeting the residency requirement. However, it ruled that only Congress can canvass votes and proclaim winners for President and Vice President, not COMELEC.
In Gonzales vs. Macaraig, the Supreme Court upheld the President’s authority to veto specific provisions in an appropriations bill, including conditions or restrictions, without vetoing the entire bill. This decision affirmed the President’s line-item veto power as a check on legislative appropriations.
The Supreme Court declared the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) unconstitutional due to legislators’ post-enactment involvement in fund allocation, violating the separation of powers. The Court emphasized that only the Executive branch should implement laws, reinforcing the constitutional boundaries between legislative and executive functions.
The Supreme Court invalidated Executive Order No. 464, which required presidential consent for executive officials to attend congressional inquiries. The Court emphasized that such a requirement undermines legislative oversight and the constitutional principle of separation of powers.
