1.

Residual powers doctrine refers to those unstated powers of the President not provided for by the
Constitution. It is in line with the power of the President to serve and protect the State and the sovereign
people. Moreover, this doctrine clearly points out the Presidents powers, as the Chief Executive, are not
limited only to those expressly stated in the Constitution.
In the case of Marcos vs. Manglapuz, former President Cory Aquinos order to bar the Marcoses
from returning to the Philippines formed part of her residual powers as the President. Although such
power is not provided for by the Constitution, it was held that she did not act arbitrarily because she such
order is basically based on facts thus, the same was valid and justifisable.
On the other hand, it may seem that such order was violative of the right to return. But then again,
if the residual power was exercised to cease threats to national security and was carried out for the
protection of the Government and the people, it would prevail over the right of the Marcoses to return to
the country.
Yes, it is consistent with the separation of powers under the Constitution because it forms part of
the executive power of the President. It cannot be exercised by the other two branches of the
Government due to the limitations of their powers. Moreover, if it was exercised as part of the Presidents
power to protect the people and suppress threats to the national security, as long as the President acted
on it based on facts, the two branches could not get involved.
2.
In view of such occurrences in Zamboanga City, the President may not do seizure of public and
private franchises and put them under the control of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, considering that
the President is not delegated by the legislature to exercise powers relating to national emergency.
Meaning, the President cannot issue decrees, without the Congress delegation of power to the President,
during national emergency. Decrees ordering said seizure of public and private franchises would
therefore be considered not in force and effect thus, unconstitutional.
In the case of David vs. Arroyo, the Court held that seizure of media franchises and materials and
warrantless arrests as ordered by former President Arroyo through presidential decrees were declared
unconstitutional. It is so because she was not delegated by the Congress to exercise national emergency
powers.
In this case, if the President would order such seizure of public and private franchises and put
them under the control of the AFP, in the absence of the said delegated national emergency powers,
such actions would tantamount to usurpation of powers of the legislature by the executive branch.
3.
Appointments which have to be confirmed by the Commission on Appointments are: (a)
secretaries of different line agencies or departments; (b) ambassadors, consuls, and diplomatic officials;
(c) officers of the armed forces, from colonel to above; and (d) officers whose appointments are provided
for by the Constitution.
The Congress may not provide for other officers whose appointments have to be confirmed by
the Commission on Appointments. What the Congress may do is to provide for other officers whose

appointments the Congress may, by the law, vests in the President alone. Such action would no longer
need such officers to be confirmed by the said commission.
Ad interim appointments refer to those appointments that may only serve the terms of offices
during the recess of the Congress. However, similar to regular appointments, they are permanent in
nature and can exercise same powers and acquire same privileges
Ad interim appointments are not the same as acting appointments. Acting appointments are
basically appointed in cases of vacancy thus, they can hold their offices even the Congress is in session
but not for an indefinite period of time. That is why during the recess of Congress, acting appointments
are replaced by ad interim ones. Also, two months prior to the next presidential election, the President
cannot appoint acting appointments but can appoint ad interim. Otherwise, they are considered midnight
appointments which the Constitution prohibits.
4.
PDAF issue
5.
Mandamus cannot compel the President to appoint a justice of the Supreme Court from among
the nominees in the list submitted by the Judicial Board and Council. It is so because appointing a justice
is part of his discretionary powers thus, mandamus will not lie. Furthermore, such list submitted in is
recommendatory in nature. Hence, if the President did not choose any of those first listed nominees, he
can return such list to the JBC and ask for another list of nominees until such time he has finally chosen
the nominee he firmly considers qualified as one of the justices of the Supreme Court.