100411 2nd hour Pizza talk Borrowing. Of all the powers you need to be aware of, it is this.

That you can borrow but the limitations there are three. The president is the ones that is authorized to borrow, contract or guarantee foreign loans, but on three conditions: It must be with the prior concurrence of the Monetary Board; It must be subject to the limitations as may be provided by law; And in Article 12 Section 21, only in accordance with the rules or guidelines promulgated by the Monetary Authority which is the Banko Sentral ng Pilipinas. So once more three conditions. President can contract or guarantee foreign loans for as long as It is with the prior concurrence of the Monetary Board; This is in fact the reason why they questioned the borrowings that we would have made had lacson not exposed the NBN ZTE deal. That would have been a borrowing without the prior consent of the Monetary Board and that cannot be done. It has to be with the prior concurrence of the monetary board, subject to the guidelines as may be provided by law and always in compliance with the regulations set forth by the Banko Sentral ng Pilipinas. Youve got to remember class that its the president who has power over foreign affairs, which is why the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation is the one that accepts and deports aliens. And this BID is within the Department of Foreign Affairs and therefore within the executive department. Because it is really the president who has the power over foreign affairs. Except that when it comes to treaties. There is a requirement there that this is one must have the concurrence of the Senate. Here.. Sec. 20. Refers to the Borrowing power of the President Sec. 21 is power over foreign affairs It says here when it comes to treaties and international agreements, it can only be valid if it is concurred in by at least 2/3 of all the members of the senate. I will not for now complicate the matter by discussing with you treaty as opposed to international agreements. That one you will hopefully take up in your public international law second second semester of second year.

For now, what is important to remember is that treaty or international agreements are the only ones (dapat two? haha) that only need the concurrence of 2/3 of the Senate. If you look at Section 23. It is in fact a constitutional requirement for the President to have a SONA. Because in Section 23 it says, IT SHALL and therefore the constitution requires the president to address Congress during the opening of its regular session. So your SONA is really a constitutionally mandated exercise or appearance before congress. Why do you think the framers of the Constitution placed that there? Because class if you come to think of it, no one not even the president can tell congress to pass legislation. It is an exercise of a power, and therefore may or may not be exercised. Right? Only in this sense that he may be able to somehow be the moral authority, or have moral authority rather over legislations because here, he can tell what are the priority measures that he wants to be put in place. So somehow this is the Presidents way of having a moral authority over legislations where he recommends priority measures, k? One minute to close the chapter on executive department and so you can move on to the last of the three departments, your judicial department. The first of the judicial department is by looking at its structure and the powers. What is the structure of your courts, you find in section 1. and it says there shall be supreme court which is only 1. and such other lower courts as may be established by law. So it says here, there must be supreme court such other lower courts as may be established by law. If you take note of the word one. It came about because of what happened in the past. Before the 1987 constitution. There was a case that was filed and this litigant, asked all the justices of the Supreme Court to inhibit and so they asked another set of justices to decide upon the case. And it was held that kind of set up is unconstitutional because we only have this one supreme court. But If you can only have 1 supreme court, youve got to understand that this supreme court is required by the constitution to sit in different divisions or en banc. So that If wed speak of Supreme court, youd have 14 Associate Justices and 1 Chief Justice. All in all you have 15, right? These justices can sit en banc. (chika about the EN BANC pronunciation) or in a division of 3, 5, 7. So it was argued, that when you get a case that was decided by a division, Is that not supreme court having many supreme courts. Though we maintain that mythical notion that even if we have supreme court sitting in several divisions, its really just one SC deciding. Its that they say, the decision of the division is the decision of the court. Such that please.. do not think,..you got an unfavorable judgment in the decision that you can go to the SC en banc. Coz thats just not how it works. Your enbanc is not the court in sc. That has to be so, so that you maintain the idea that theres just one sc even if, there are several of them deciding the case on their division.

And thats your controversial provision that your vacancy should be filled within 90 days from occurrence. Ok now let us go to the qualifications of the members of the SC. A member of the SC must be at least 40 years of age. In the practice of law or has served as a judge for at least 15 years. --so 15 years or more as a judge or in the practice of law. Which is why it was asked, when are you in the practice of law? So if you have been teaching for 15 years, can you be, for some truly truly hypothetical question, be appointed as a member of the SC? And why not? Are you saying that teachers are not engaged in the practice of law? (Yas: There is no client attorney relationship) Right. Cayetano vs Monsod.. Monsod is as you know is, not really Mareng Winnie.. but the husband who was the brilliant and the more silent was appointed as Chairman of the Commission on Elections. And the thing is they questioned his appointment because not once did he set foot in court. Although he has had clients, multinational clients whom he had advised in terms of law. Because he did not appear in court, he was not engaged in the practice of law. Cayetano vs Monsod was the occasion for the court to tell us what is meant by the practice of law. Practice of law does not only include or refer rather to appearance in court although that is one aspect of it. But you are engaged in the practice of law when you apply your knowledge of the law. Which is why in your legal ethics later on in your second sem this year, read the dissent of justice Cruz there! If I therefore happen to be dancing with this kumatrona of some sort, and give her advice about the law, then Im engaged in the practice of law? But thats how it was. The modern take then on the practice of la.w, where you are able to apply your knowledge about the law, then you are engaged in the practice of law. Now what about teaching. Now, 2 schools of thought on that one because it has not yet been decided yet. One could say that teaching could be a practice of law because you apply the law. But then the other flipside to it is that if you look at all the instances in the practice of law, you form attorney client relationship there.. thats why there are still authorities that would hold that teaching could not be considered a practice of law because no matter what we say to you, there never ever is an attorney client relationship among us. So which one? Depending on what you want to apply.. Admit that you are in the practice of law and argue with all your might because there is yet no decided case. But if you want to say teaching is a practice of law, then you can bank on the simplistic approach or definition of the practice of law that you find in Cayetano vs. Monsod. But thats not the only requirement. Here oh.. person with proven competence, (yeah right) integrity, probity and independence. And then how are they appointed? They are to be nominated by the Judicial and Bar Council and from the list of the JBC, the president is supposed to choose which is why time was when the JBC submitted a list of nominees over whom Gloria doesnt have a choice or doesnt have any particular preference. So what she did was to tell JBC to come up with a separate list. Because really the president is limited by the list that is submitted by the JBC.

But look this one will be appointed by the Presiden but without need of confirmation from the Commision on Appointments. Because the Constitution does not say so. Lets look at the salary. Fixed by law.. and this one, on the budget on the judiciary. This one ffinds relevance of date. Because you know what happens class, I dont know if you have noticed but there are lots of vacant salas. The thing with vacant salas is that not only the cases there are not held, but when theyre held theyre held with like pairing judges and when theyre paired; your hearing would be like next year because of the many cases and the frequency that he could hold a case. So because of the vacancy, in the past, the salary for that vacant sala they consider as savings. And then these justices because they are savings, would then distribute that as bonuses at the end of the fiscal year. And then Aquino noticed that, and true enough, that there is no motivation class to fill up vacant salas to the detriment of the litigants and the public. Because you know, I can treat this as savings and then to be distributed as a bonus,. That cannot be denied. So what he did was, he decreed that you take that out, put that in a separate fund that you can only get when the position is already filled up. Do you follow? And that is the reason of the Black Monday of the SC especially the SC justices and the SC personnel because they dont want that, they want it to be automatically released for that not to be taken out and kept as a separate fund to be used only and released only when there is an appointee to that position. And I should end at that point. (Sir fred, I cant hear ya but seems hes talking about court decisions). No all three must have to decide. We will take that up when we get to forms of decisions. But for now, keep in mind, that there is a requirement that there must be 3 of them, because already, think of 15. and youre just requiring 3. Right? Salary fixed by law. What are the other privileges? This ones important noh Section 11. The one privilege is what we call, security of tenure. Uhm, please take the time to read section 11. Im giving you 1 minute. (aryt! 1 minute deduction to the transcription!) Finish? Woaah, fast reader! The grant of secrity of tenure actually is an assurance that they can continue to hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of 70. So how then can you remove a justice from office? One is when he reaches 70. Right? You know what happens to them class? They get recycled. Appointed as chair or whatever arent they supposed to retire? Thats one. The other once is that if the assurance there is that they will stay there during good behavior, aw bad behavior? Can be removed. Right? Because the assurance there is that they will stay there during good behavior until they reach the age of 70. Now here is where the semantics will come in.

Last na gyud ni class arun din a mapuno inyung utok. Section 2 last line. No law shall be passed reorganizing the judiciary that undermines security of tenure. Now case in point. Lets say for example, we look at Cebu courts. And they have example only, 10 branches, 10 salas. And because the filing fees are really high. Talk about inexpensive procedure and access to court. Do you know why they raise the filing fees so high? Because the fees are the ones they use for Their increase in salaries.. because their increase in salaries are to be taken from the fees to be paid by litigants. Ang morality dira class bah, nga Im exacting these fees for my own benefit.. but nonetheless.. because the fees are so high. Do you know how much it costs now to file a simple 3 million peso claim? (how much?) you need to pay 82,00 pesos So assume for example, and this is just an example just for the sake of argument that there are no more cases filed kay mahal na kaayo to go to court, so all the 10 salas, they dont have anymore that much number of cases. So what you really really need is just 3. In my example lang bah. And so a law was passed later on, saying, reducing the number of salas in Cebu City from 10 to 3. because thats all thats needed. There are no cases being filed after all. Can that be done? Before 1987, when this was not there, when this was not there. SC said, can you look at security of tenure, and the way it is defined as an assurance for you to continue to hold office Section 11, to continue to hold office during good behavior until the age of 70. It refers therefore to removal. Right? That you cannot be removed. That you can hold office during good behavior until you reach the age of 70. Therefore, when the office is abolished. Security of tenure is not affected. Why? Because security of tenure presupposes that the office is there but the occupant is removed. Kay diba, how is security of tenure defined. The right to continue to hold office during good behavior until you reach the age of 70. So it means that the office is there, but the occupant is removed and thats when it is violated. But when the office is abolished all together, unsa gani ang noun sa abolish class? Abolition. I dont know why I always always see in the papers of my students, abolishment. Its just between us, ayaw lang ko anang mga foreign words like abolishment. Ari lang ta sa abolition. But when the office is abolished. Thats not removal, is it? Because the office is not there anymore. And its only removal if the office is there, but the occupant is removed. Okay? Thats pre 1987. Because subsequently when you have this, section 2, the word used is undermined. And thats very important. Coz while you have not directly violated security of tenure, if you look at it as violated only when you are removed and not when the office is abolished, For that provision to be violated, you need not directly violate security of tenure. It is already violated when you simply undermine. You cannot just substitute that word. There is importance to that. Now you can simply argue.. Before class, can this be done? Without

affecting security of tenure? Definitely! Because you can simply argue that that is not removal because there is no more office to speak of and theres removal presupposing the existence of office and the removal of the occupant. But now, you may already argue that while it may not directly contravene security of tenure, it undermines! Because when you do this, to that the 7 judges of the sala are no longer there! Semantics..uhh..notwithstanding.. so you can argue always that while it does not violate security of tenure it undermines security of tenure and the Constitution states that no law shall be passed reorganizing the judiciary if it undermines security of tenure. See? Some words are important.. uhmm.. they change the implication.. they change the legal consequences. (2:00PM on Saturday! 408)