1. Yes.

The President may reject the shortlist of Justices or Judges submitted by

the JBC if he dislikes the roster of nominees submitted to him. What he cannot do is ask

the JBC to come up with a new list of nominees.

A petition for mandamus however cannot compel the JBC to include a particular

nominee in the list submitted. A petition for mandamus will only work if there is a

ministerial duty on the part of the government.

The JBC is an independent body which can promulgate its own rules for the

selection process. The nature of its power is discretionary. The court through a petition

for mandamus cannot compel the JBC to act on a matter that is constitutionally

mandated to be subject to its own discretion.

The court only has administrative supervision over the JBC. The only remedy

that may be availed in this instance is a petition for review on certiorari. This is to

determine whether or not the JBC in the exercise of his duty committed a grave abuse

of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

2. No. Under the Philippine Constitution, the President may exercise emergency

powers. However, unlike his commander-in-chief powers, emergency powers are not

inherent in the executive because they are by their nature legislative. For the President

to be able to exercise emergency power, such as the power to take over public or

private utilities and business, there must be a valid delegation of legislative branch via a

law which is complete by itself and has safeguards or standards which will define the

extent to which the President can exercise such powers. Furthermore, emergency
powers can only be invoked in instances where there is a national emergency such as

natural calamities.

The President, via an EO alone cannot exercise emergency powers for that

would be tantamount to a usurpation of legislative power.

4. No. The President may not appoint a chairperson of COA in an acting capacity

even in view of the death of the incumbent chairperson.

Acting appointments are those appointments that do not enjoy the security of

tenure. They may be removed anytime at the pleasure of the appointing authority. Given

that by their very nature they are temporary and their tenure depends on the whims of

the appointing authority, they are susceptible to influence from the appointing authority.

Appointment in an acting capacity is not allowing in the COA because the

independence of the commission may be compromised. The possibility of situations

where the acting appointee may be compelled to do favors for the appointing authority

which will taint the independence of the commission from external influence.

5. No, that would be tantamount to a legislative veto, an oversight function not

allowed in our Constitution because it will be a usurpation of the executive power by the

legislative.

The Constitution has stated that the legislative branch has powers of oversight.

This is a post enactment measure which is granted to oversee whether the laws are

faithfully enacted. However, congressional oversight is only limited to monitoring and

investigating (legislative inquiries). They cannot directly interfere in the implementation

of laws. If DEM rules require prior approval from a joint oversight congressional

committee that would be as if the oversight committee is the one promulgating the rules.

There will be a violation of the doctrine of separation of powers insofar as the legislative

directly performs executive functions.