CONSTI LAW - FINALS
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
 Who can be a President?
1. Natural-born citizen
2. Registered voter
3. Able to read and write
4. 40 years of age on the day of the election – higher age
requirement because there is a presumed maturity,
discretion, wisdom and experience in performing tasks
5. resident for at least 10 years
6. TERM – only one for 6 years period
 Oath of the President
The oath taking marks the formal induction of the President
into office. The powers of the President are not limited by
enumeration in the Constitution, the oath of office, more or less,
spells out the powers of the President.
 Privileges and Salary
1. Official Residence
2. Highest salary – not really necessary because all his
expenses are paid as part of his official function.
 Succession
President – Vice President – Senate President – Speaker
of the House – only applies when there is a vacancy
Vacancy:
1. Death
2. Resignation
3. Permanent Disability – requirement of a written
declaration from the cabinet
4. Impeachment with conviction
I. Vacancy before the beginning of the term
 Estrada v. Arroyo
There is move to impeach the President (Estrada) because
of the Jose Belarde Accounts controversy. EDSA II was
formed, General Reyes declared their withdrawal their
support to the President and Vice-President Gloria went to
EDSA, Chief Justice then administered the oath.
Estrada’s contention: he is just temporarily disabled, he just
retreated on his house to prevent violence and he wants his
office back.
Issue: Is Arroyo’s proclamation/assumption of office
unconstitutional because there is no vacancy, no
proclamation of establishing a revolutionary government
coup de’tat), no resolution authorizing the Chief Justice to
administered the oath or even no resignation of Estrada?
Held: Arroyo assumed office because of the implied
resignation of Estrada. The Court based this on the
information communicated, there was a clear intention to
resign of Estrada, the actions as recorded on the diaries of
Angara. That is not enough, they look at the actions of the
Senate issued a resolution recognizing the Presidency of
Arroyo and nominating Guigona as Vice President.
Note: In interpretation of the grounds for a vacancy, the
Supreme Court looks at historical events as operative facts
that cannot be reversed.
 Prohibition of the President
1. Cannot be appointed to other offices
2. Cannot practice his profession
3. Cannot arranged in acts that will constitute conflict of
interest
4. Cannot appointed relatives in any office – to avoid
nepotism
 Prohibition of the alter ego of the President
1. The Constitution provides for an absolute ban, expect
as expressly provided in the Constitution or by law, for
the alter egos of the President to be appointed to other
position in the government, this was a reaction to the
practice during the Martial Law when cabinet
members were holding multiple positions.
 CLU vs. Executive Secretary – exception to prohibition
Executive Order 284 issued by President Aquino which
provides allowing appointed officials to hold not more than
two (2) positions.
Held: The Supreme Court ruled that this is not allowed, if
the President is prohibited as alter egos have also the same
prohibition. In the Executive branch there is only one person
under the Constitution, everyone is acting on behalf of the
President. Expect to those who are designated ex officio
wherein there is no appointment on other post.
Appointment refers to the person, ex officio refers to the
office, thus, whoever occupying that office, automatically is
also ex office of boards, council, commission, etc. This is
allowed because this is germane to the function of the
appointee.
 Cruz v. COA
Issue is the allowances given to lower officials was
disallowed by COA because as representatives of the ex
officio, they just have delegated tasks by the delegate, who
are also not entitled to any compensation, they are not also
allowed to be appointed to another offices.
 NAC v. COA
The ex officio delegated to their staff their tasks under the
National Amnesty Commission which took care of the
application of amnesty and has a lot of paper works. The
Supreme Court ruled that they cannot be given additional
compensation because they are doing anything outside of
their government work, their work in NAC is germane to
their nature of work as their senior official is an ex officio.
Basically, boards and councils who have ex office do not
grant allowances.
Powers and Functions of the President
I. Executive Power – Aritcle VI, Sec I
 Marcos v. Manglapus
The aftermath of the Edsa Revolution. Marcos wanted to
return to the Philippines but President Aquino said no. Right
v. Power, subject for review of the Court.
Held: The right to return is not provided in the Bill of Rights
but it is provided within the Constitution, it is in the
International law. It became part of the law of the land by:
1) the Senate ratified the international covenant on civil and
political rights – by transformation; 2) right to return is
recognized by International Declaration of Human Rights –
customary international law (incorporation).
But this right is not absolute when it affects national security
based on the discretion of the President as the head of the
State.
Marcos’ contention: The power of the President, in relation
to the power of the legislative and judicial department, is
limited to what is expressly provided in the Constitution -
what is not enumerated, is not given to the President.
Held: The power of the President should not be construed
to be limited in the enumeration in the Constitution. The
Court looked at the history, it went beyond the decision of
the Philippine Supreme Court but it went to the decision of
the US Supreme Court. In the examination of the US
jurisprudence, the Court discovered that through time, the
CONSTI LAW - FINALS
President was compelled by the specific situation that he
face to define as to what power he has to exercise as to
address that specific situation – in times of social
disquietude.
The President acted or reacted based on the nature of the crisis
that were encountered, he is the person who is expected to act
and has the greatest flexibility compared to the other branch of
the government. The Court have greater leeway on reviewing the
actions of the President and it recognizes that it will be legally
impractical for them to adopt a construction that will limit the
powers of the President with the enumeration.
1. Executive power is the power to enforce and administer the
laws. In the words of Justice Laurel, “the President is the
Executive of the Government of the Philippines and no
other, and that all executive authority is thus vested in him,”
The basis of the power of the President is in the
Constitution. The oath of office provides his primary
function - faithful execution of laws which ensures that He
is asking in pursuant to aim for the common good. It is the
police power of the State is the power to enact laws and
regulation in order to promote public health, public safety,
public moral etc, - to promote common good, they are
bound together to promote the greatest good for the
greatest number.
2. (Unstated) Residual powers are powers of the President
not expressly provided in an enumeration in the
Constitution. Boundaries cannot be constructed because
what defines what he can really do is actually the exigency
that he has to address especially in times of social
disquietude.
3. Considering the elasticity of boundaries between the
braches of the government, the Court said that as long as
it is not exclusively reserved for the legislative or judicial,
then it be considered something that can be done by the
President. If there will be no law required to address a
problem or no actual case or controversy arises, it is solely
the President who can acted.
4. Test of arbitrariness is the standards in reviewing the
exercise of the power of the President. The President act
with factual basis otherwise he will act arbitrarily. The Court
will not inquire in the veracity of the facts, they only need to
find out is if the decision are based on facts made available
to the President.
 Almario v. Executive Secretary
First argument for the constriction of the Presidential power.
Issue: Whether or not the President abuse her discretion by
granting Presidential awards to persons who were not nominated
by the Joint Board of the National Commission for Culture and
the Arts and Cultural Center of the Philippines.
Held: Although she has the power, she has have provided for the
procedure to be followed for the nomination and by doing so, in
effect limited the exercise of her power to just approve or
disapprove nomination. This is a case of doctrine of auto
limitation.
 DENR v. DENR Region XII Employees
Issue: Objecting to the transfer order of the Secretary of DENR,
for their contention is that he does not have such power of the
organizing department which was vested to the President.
Held: The act of the Secretary was deemed to be the act of the
President for he is his alter ego. Doctrine of qualified political
agency was applied – the act of the alter ego is deemed to be
the act of the President unless revoke, modified or nullified by
the President (power to control).
II. Power to Control
The President’s power to review the acts of the executive
departments.
 Blaquera v. Alcala
The previous regime is that bonuses are automatic and
across the board. But President Ramos issued EO 29 which
provides that the bonuses must be performance-based and
with the approval of the President. The President invoking
his power to control can do this.
 Hutchison Ports v. SBMA
Hutchison Ports won the bidding and was awarded a
contract to construct port of Subic. The President has the
power to approve and to disapprove, the contract was not
yet perfected. The President cannot be compelled to award
the contract based on his power to control.
 NEA v. COA
NEA immediately adjusted the salaries using the savings
and this was disallowed. The board cannot preempt the
President, all of them are just alter egos. The requirements
under the Salaries Standardization law is that there must
approval by the President for the release of the funds.
III. Power to Supervise
The President’s power over the LGU to oversee and to
ensure that they are acting within bounds of the law. LGU enjoys
autonomy under Article X of the Constitution. The President may
cause the filing of a civil, criminal or administrative case against
the LGU if they acted contrary to law.
 Pimentel v. Aguirre
Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) is the share of the local
government in the tax collected by the national government. The
President issued an order withholding 5% of the IRA of LGU in
order to generate savings. The order is invalid because it is
tantamount to the power to control of the President over LGU,
the President cannot do this, and he just have the power to
supervise.
 National Liga ng mga Barangay v. Paredes
There was an election for the Liga, the DILG intervene by
nullifying the election and appoint people they wanted to serve
as officers of the Liga. The Court held that DILG cannot do that
because their intervention is tantamount to the exercise of power
to control.
IV. Power of Appointments
What are included in the power to appoint?
To terminate, promote, transfer, and disciplinary power
over his alter ego.
 Bermudez v. Torres
The President appointed Provincial Prosecutor upon the
recommendation of the Secretary of Department of Justice as
provided by law. Even the President appointed who was not
recommended by the Sec. of DOJ, it is still valid. Ultimately, the
President has the power to appoint, thus, he cannot be required
to accept recommendation. Under the political agency doctrine,
the act of the alter ego is the act of the President, unless it will
exercise his power to control.
 Sarmiento v. Mison
Not all the appointees of the President are subject for
confirmation. Confirmation for some officials is a form of checks
and balances, it is needed to provide for validation for the fitness
and qualification this will ensure that appointees will be the best
and the brightest.
CONSTI LAW - FINALS
Appointees who needs confirmation (Exclusive enumeration):
1. Secretaries/Heads of Line Departments (Admin Code
1987) position of trust and confidence
Note: Not all Cabinet positions are subject for
confirmation – Commissioner of Customs, Executive
Secretary, Chief Presidential Council, CHED Chair,
and Secretary of the Office of Presidential Adviser on
Peace Process.
2. Ambassadors, Public Ministers, and Consuls –
representative of the Philippines to other countries
(Foreign Service Act)
3. AFP – rank cornel, naval captain (PNP-DILG and Coast
Guard-DOTR not included)
4. Appointees to the Commissions in the Constitution –
Commission on Human Rights is not included because
in Article XIII provides that there must be a CHR but it is
not stated who will appoint the Chairman and members.
 Calderon v. Carale
The Congress cannot add on in the enumeration of the
appointees which needs confirmation because the Congress has no
power to amend the requirement provided in the Constitution through
a law.
 Pimentel v. Ermita – Confirmation requirement
Those appointed with an acting capacity – heads of line
departments who were given acting appointments when Congress
was in session and when Congress was not in session – this does not
violate the Constitution because “acting appointment” are temporary
in nature which have a maximum period of one year. They have the
same power and authority of the regular appointee.
Ad-interim appointments must be distinguished from
appointments in an acting capacity. Both of them are effective upon
acceptance. But ad-interim appointments are extended only during a
recess of Congress, whereas acting appointments may be extended
any time there is a vacancy. Moreover ad-interim appointments are
submitted to the Commission on Appointments for confirmation or
rejection; acting appointments are not submitted to the Commission
on Appointments. Acting appointments are a way of temporarily filling
important offices but, if abused, they can also be a way of
circumventing the need for confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments.
 Matibag v. Benipayo
Matibag’s argument is that Benipayo’s appointment was
only ad interim thus he has no power to transfer, this power is only for
regular and permanent appointees. The SC ruled that ad interim
appointee has the same power and authority.
Midnight Appointments or Election Band
The President cannot make an appointment two months before
the election until the end of his term (second Monday of March until
June 30). The rationale is that hiring and appointing such will only be
good until the term of the President and they will only be used for the
purpose of the election/campaign – used of public funds.
 Manalo v. Sistoza
Band is applicable only to the President but not the Local
Government Unit because the appointment made by the Mayors are
not all political – these are plantilia positions in which appointments
should go through a particular procedure and can be rejected by Civil
Service Commission.
 Velicaria-Garafil v. Office of the President
The appointments were dated before the ban, the argument
of the petitioner is that it is that these are not midnight appointments.
According to the SC, the reckoning date is not the date of the
appointment (it is easy to antedate documents) but the date when they
assumed the post. Appointments are not only in papers but it requires
acceptance and the only way to complete the process is when they
actually assumed the post before the start of the ban.
 In re: Valenzuela – appointments in judicial department are part
of the ban because of the fear that new appointed judges will rule
in favor of the President. This was changed in the ruling in the
case of De Castro.
 De Castro v. JBC
Appointments on the Judicial Departments are not part of
the ban or the midnight appointments because under Article VIII
Section 9 which provides that the President has the duty to
appoint members or fill up the vacancy in the judicial department.
It is essential to the administration of justice. The President can
only choose among the nominated of the Judicial Bar Council
which safeguard or prevent him to appoint judges that will favor
him during the election.
Executive Clemency
The power of the President to give:
 Pardon – extinction of principal penalty but there is
crime
 Commutation – substitution of a less penalty imposed
 Reprieve – suspension of the application of the
penalty (death penalty)
 Amnesty – extinction of crime based on act of political
liberality, needs the concurrence of the Congress
 Probation
 Parole – after serving the minimum period of the
penalty, the convict can be released. It can be revoked
if the convict will violate the conditions
 Risos-Vidal v. COMELEC
Absolute Pardon – extinguishes both the principal and
accessory penalty
Conditional Pardon – the convict can be set free but
subject to condition
 Torres v. Gonzales
He was awarded with a conditional pardon but
committed a crime later on. The remedies of the State to this
violation are:
1. The President can revoke the pardon, order for arrest for
the accused will be issued and serve the remainder of the
original sentence. There is no requirement for a hearing
before an arrest because this is an act of liberality, the
conditional pardon is in form of contract.
2. He can be charged with the violation of the conditional
pardon.
3. He can be charged with the new crime that he has
committed.
 In absolute pardon, there should be an express statement on the
extension of the pardon. It should be stated that the principal and
accessory penalties will be totally extinguish. However, if not
explicitly stated but provided for consequences of civil interdiction
and no statement of condition, it is must be intended as an
absolute pardon.
 Cristobal v. Labrador
Even if the person if previously convicted but entitled with a
pardon, he cannot be disqualified for the election because
the person enjoys political and civil rights from the pardon.
 In re: Lantok
He cannot be disbarred due to criminal case of bigamy
against him because he was awarded with a pardon.
CONSTI LAW - FINALS
 Barrioquinto v. Fernandez
Amnesty – extinction of crime based on act of political
liberality, this involves political offenses (rebellion) and needs the
concurrence of the Congress. Even if amnesty supposed to refer
to political offenses, pursuant to Hernandez doctrine/doctrine of
absorption, common crime which are committed with federal or
political objectives are also included in the amnesty.
What can you admit in the amnesty?
The person will not admit liability instead the admission of
the commission of the act is requirement in order to exempt a
person for the criminal liability or any possible prosecution. If a
person is covered by the amnesty and no case was not yet file,
the person cannot be charged. If been charged, the person can
ask for the dismissal of the case. If already serving sentence, the
person can ask for a release pursuant of a writ of habeas corpus.
V. President as Commander in Chief
These are graduated responses which depends on the
gravity of both the internal and external threat.
1. Call out the armed forces to prevent lawless violence
Directing the armed forces to suppress threats.
In times of lawless violence, it is the exercise of law
enforcement function of the AFP. (IBP v. Zamora)
2. Suspension the privilege of writ of habeas corpus
a. There must be an invasion or rebellion
b. Public safety requires the suspension
Writ of Habeas Corpus is an order to justify the
detention of a person by the State or anyone holding on his
custody. There should be a legal grounds for detention: (1)
commission of the crime (2) insanity and (3) contagious
disease.
Condition of the suspension of writ of habeas
corpus: any person arrested or detained shall be judicially
charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released.
It applies only to persons “judicially charged” for rebellion of
offenses inherent in or directly connected with the invasion
or rebellion. This can be reviewed through the act of
Congress, they can revoked or extend and by the Court
through a petition if there is grave abuse of discretion.
3. Proclamation of martial law over the entire Philippines
or any part thereof
a. There must be an invasion or rebellion
b. Public safety requires the proclamation
The concentration of legislative and executive. There
will be two law making bodies. The Constitution provides that
even martial law is declared, the courts are remained to be
opened. This can be reviewed through the act of Congress,
they can revoked or extend and by the Court through a
petition if there is a grave abuse of discretion. The
Constitutional Commission in provided explicitly the role of
the courts based in the ruling in the case of (Aquino v.
Enrile)
Military courts cannot take jurisdiction over civilian
court even martial law is declared because court were
remained open. They have the jurisdiction over civilian who
were involves with offenses under general law. Military
court can only take jurisdiction over offenses under Articles
of War. (Olaquer v. MC)
The accused who were involved in the Oakwood
mutiny can be tried either in the civil or military courts. But
once a court took jurisdiction, the other court will already be
restrained to prevent double jeopardy. (Navales v. Abaya)
Standards to be used in reviewing suspension of
writ of habeas corpus and the proclamation of martial law is
the test of arbitrariness. The President should have factual
basis for the declaration. The Court cannot look at the
veracity of the facts. (Lansang v. Garcia)
The Constitution did not provide for the declaration
of State of rebellion but the actions or options available for
the President in the form of formal proclamation. Even if
there is a declaration of state of rebellion, actions that will
impair civil rights (freedom of speech, press and assembly)
should not be permitted. There can be no suspension of
civil and political rights even martial law was proclaimed.
(Sanlakas v. Exec Secretary)
VI. Emergency Power
It is the exercise of the police power - to enact laws to
promote public health, public safety etc. which can be delegated
to the President. The Congress should enact a law for the
delegation which should provide for the conditions and duration
of the delegated power. One of these powers is the “power to
take over” – take over the administration of public utilities during
national emergency (calamities, economic stability and national
security).
Please read current proclamation on national emergency
VII. Contracting and guaranteeing loans
The President as the Head of the State, does not need prior
approval by the Congress but by the Monetary Board.
Contracting loans means the power of the President to incur debt
in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines. This is important to
fund the GAA apart from the revenue being generated by the
country. The President also has the power to guaranteeing loans
to non-government entities. This is called sovereign guarantee –
this will benefit the economy such as build-operate-transfer
scheme.
Bond conversion and buyback scheme are part of the
power of the President.
Bond conversion - The language of the Constitution is
simple and clear as it is broad. It allows the President to contract
and guarantee foreign loans. It makes no prohibition on the
issuance of certain kinds of loans or distinctions as to which
kinds of debt instruments are more onerous than others. This
Court may not ascribe to the Constitution meanings and
restrictions that would unduly burden the powers of the
President. The plain, clear and unambiguous language of the
Constitution should be construed in a sense that will allow the
full exercise of the power provided therein.
Buyback or pre-termination of debt is a necessary power
which springs from the grant of the foreign borrowing power. It
will not be a violation of the separation of power even payment
is conducting advanced that what is stated in the GAA. The
President is not empowered to borrow money from foreign banks
and governments on the credit of the Republic only to be left
bereft of authority to implement the payment despite
appropriations therefor. In addition, looking at the economic
condition, buyback scheme is good for the country for it can avail
lower interest rate for future debt.
Doctrine of qualified agency - In the matter of contracting
or guaranteeing foreign loans, the repudiation by the President
of the very acts performed in this regard by the alter ego
(Secretary of Finance) will definitely have binding effect. It will be
impractical for the President were to personally exercise every
aspect of the foreign borrowing power, he/she would have to
pause from running the country long enough to focus on a welter
of time-consuming detailed activities — the propriety of
incurring/guaranteeing loans etc. (Constantino v. Cuisia)
CONSTI LAW - FINALS
VIII. Foreign Affairs
The President as head of the state, he is the nation’s
spokesman in foreign relations. This involves negotiating and
entering into treaties and executive agreement. Decisions are in
the exclusive prerogative if the President and The wisdom of
such decision is not for the courts to question. (Vinuya v.
Romulo)
Treaties are formal documents involving political issues or
questions of national policy which are of a more permanent
character which require the ratification or approval of the Senate.
On the other hand, executive agreements embody details
carrying out well-established policies and traditions and involve
implementing agreements of a more or less temporary nature
that becoming binding through mere executive action.
The contention is that VFA is ineffective because applying
the doctrine of reciprocity, US have no done any congressional
act in concurring the VFA which was already done by the
Philippines. The Supreme Court ruled that VFA is valid and
effective because as it is just an implementing rules based on
the Mutual Defense Treaty, thus it is just an executive agreement
on the jurisdiction of courts over cases involving US military
forces and it does not need congressional approval. (Nicolas v.
Romulo)
Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement – involves
agreed location for the prepositioning of military supplies and
equipment for quick response. The argument is that it is
tantamount to the creation of military bases which should be in a
separate treaty and needed to be concurred by the Senate. The
Court ruled that it is merely an executive agreement because it
is consistent in implementing the MDT, locations will be in the
existing military basis and the EDCA is only good for 10 years,
thus, it is temporary in nature. In this case the court went beyond
in the wisdom of the EDCA, according to Justice Carpio, it is
because of the treat of Chinese invasion. (Saguisag v. Ochoa)
Executive agreements cover such subjects as the
inspection of vessels, navigation dues, income tax on shipping
profits, the admission of civil aircraft, customs matters, and
commercial relations generally, international claims, postal
matters, the registration of trade-marks and copyrights, etc. This
is for the reason of practicality which are in need of immediate
response. (Commission of Customs v. East Sea Trading)
Executive agreement can go into situation that there is no
mother treaty but national legislation. Implementing rules under
Madrid protocol (system of international registration) are based
and are consistent with the Intellectual Property Code. (IPAP v.
Ochoa)
The power to regulate entry and deportation is not provided
in the Constitution but is part of the President’s foreign relations
power as the Head of the State through his alter ego. The
rationale is that President being delegate of the power of the
sovereign people in relation to foreign affairs as part of the social
contract. Restriction of entry to the country and deportation can
be done by the President even without a case or trial.
Legislation
1. Address Congress
2. Preparation and submission of the budget
3. Veto-Power
4. Emergency Powers
Immunity from suit
The argument is that if the President is cannot be sued,
he cannot also sue. The Supreme Court ruled that immunity
from suit is a privilege. If the President wishes to waive such
privilege, he may do so. (Beltran v. Macasiar)
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
The Constitution provides for the composition ad
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The creation and
jurisdiction of lower courts are governed by enacted laws of
the congress. If there will be a law that will modify the
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court it has to be concurred first
by the Supreme Court because that’s the requirement of the
Constitution. The rationale is that is to ensure that the
hierarchy of courts will not be disturb by law.
Composition
Supreme Court is composed of the Chief Justice and 14
associate justice. They sit as En banc or by division
composed of 5 justices.
En Banc Cases
All cases shall be decided with the concurrence of the
majority of the members who took part in the deliberations
on the issues in the case.
1. Constitutionality of a treaty, international and executive
agreements, executive orders, presidential decrees,
proclamation, orders, instruction, ordinances and other
regulations.
2. Criminal cases appealed decision imposes death
penalty
3. Cases raising novel issues of law
4. Involving ambassadors and other public ministers and
consuls
5. Cases heard by division where required number of
votes to decide or resolve is not met. (If a judge inhibit
himself because of past association or a member is a
deceased – the court will add a member from other
division to form a special division.)
6. Cases intended to modify or reverse a doctrine or
principle of law laid down by the court.
7. Administrative cases involving dismissal of judges of
lower courts, officer or employee of the judiciary,
disbarment or suspension of more than 1 year and fine
exceeding Php 10,000.00 or both.
8. Test the validity of the proclamation of martial law or
suspension of writ of habeas corpus through a petition
of a citizen.
9. The court sitting as a presidential electoral tribunal
10. Cases assigned to a division which in the opinion of at
least three (3) members merit the attention of the court
sitting en banc, acceptable to the majority of the actual
membership of the court sitting en banc.
11. Cases as the court en banc by majority of its actual
membership may deem of sufficient importance to merit
its attention.
One Supreme Court
When the Supreme Court sits in division, it does not
violate the concept of “one Supreme Court” because the divisions
of the Supreme Court do not diminish its authority. Although it sits
in divisions, it remains and functions as one body. Hence, the
decision of the division may not be appealed to Supreme Court
sitting en banc as it is already a decision of the Supreme Court.
There is only one Supreme Court from whose decision all other
courts should take their bearing.
CONSTI LAW - FINALS

Appointment
The justices and judges are being appointed by the
President from the nominations of the Judicial Bar Council (JBC).

Qualifications
1. Supreme Court
a. Natural born citizens
b. At least 40 years of age
c. 15 years of experience as a judge of a lower
court or practice of law in the Philippines
d. Must be proven with competence, integrity,
probity and independence
2. Court of Appeals
a. Natural born citizen
b. The Congress shall prescribe other
qualifications
c. Must be proven with competence, integrity,
probity and independence
3. Lower Courts
a. Citizen of the Philippines
b. Member of the Philippines Bar
c. Must be proven with competence, integrity,
probity and independence

Prohibition of non-judicial work

Members of the Supreme Court shall not be designated
to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative function.

A petition was filed requesting the members of the

Supreme Court, as a Board of Arbitrators. The Justices of the
Supreme Court could not be constituted into a Board of Arbitrators
for this is a non-judicial work. Judicial power is only exercised by
the Supreme Court, thus, the Supreme Court and its members
should not and cannot be required to exercise any power or to
perform any trust or to assume any duty not pertaining to or
connected with the administering of judicial function. (MERALCO
v. Pasay Transportations Co.)

Salary
The salary of Members of the Judiciary shall be fixed by
law and shall not be deceased during their continuance in office.
However, it may be increased by legislation to take effect at once.
This is not prohibited by the Constitution. The judiciary takes no
part in the passage of law on salary increase, unlike Congress
and Executive. Thus, there can be no conflict of interest.
Moreover, it promotes the independence of the judiciary.