Case Digest: Lacson-Magallanes Co., Inc. vs. Jose Paño, et. al.

G.R. No. L-27811  ::             27 November 1967            

Sanchez, J.

FACTS:

In 1932, Jose Magallanes was a permittee and actual occupant of a 1,103-hectare pasture land situated in Davao.  On 1953, Magallanes ceded his rights and interests to a portion of the above public land to the plaintiff.  On 1954, the same was officially released from the forest zone as pasture land and declared agricultural land.  On 1955, Jose Paño and nineteen other claimants applied for the purchase of 90 hectares of the released area.  Plaintiff in turn filed its own sales application covering the entire released area.  The Director of Lands, following an investigation of the conflict, rendered a decision on 1956 giving due course to the application of plaintiff corporation.  When the case was elevated to the President of the Philippines, Executive Secretary Juan Pajo, by authority of the president, declared that it would be for public interest that appellants, who are mostly landless farmers, be allocated that portion on which the petitioner have made improvements.

ISSUES:

May the Executive Secretary, acting by authority of the President, reverse a decision of the Director of Lands that had been affirmed by the Executive Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources?

HELD:

YES.  The President’s duty to execute the law and control of all executive departments are of constitutional origin.  Naturally, he controls and directs their acts.  Implicit then is his authority to go over, confirm, modify or reverse the action taken by his department secretaries.  It may also be stated that the right to appeal to the President reposes upon the President’s power of control over the executive departments.  He may delegate to his Executive Secretary acts which the Constitution does not command that he perform in person.  As the Executive Secretary acts by authority of the President, his decision is that of the President’s.  Such decision is to be given full faith and credit by our courts, unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive.

Case Digest: Ferdinand Marcos, et. al. vs. Honorable Raul Manglapus

G.R. No. 88211

15 September 1989

En Banc

FACTS:

After President Marcos was deposed from presidency via the People Power Revolution, he and his family was forced into exile.  Now in his deathbed, the former President has signified his wish to return to the Philippines to die.  But President Aquino, considering the dire consequences on the nation on the return at a time when the stability of the government is threatened from various directions, stood firmly on the decision to bar the return of Mr. Marcos and his family.

ISSUE: 

Whether, in the exercise of the powers granted by the Constitution, the President may prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines insofar as the powers enumerated under scope of the Executive are concerned.

RULING:

Although the 1987 Constitution imposes limitation on the exercise of the specific powers of the President, it maintains intact what is traditionally considered as within the scope of the “executive power.” Corollarily, the powers of the President cannot be said to be limited only to the specific powers enumerated in the Constitution.  Having sword to defend and uphold the Constitution, the President has the obligation under the Constitution to protect the people, promote their welfare and advance the national interest.  It must be borne in mind that the Constitution, aside from being an allocation of power is also a social contract whereby the people have surrendered their sovereign powers to the State for common good.  The State, through the Government, is not precluded from taking pre-emptive action against threats to its existence if, though still nascent, they are perceived as apt to become serious and direct.