04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly [69] Section 1, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution simply reads: Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines. [70] Section 17, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution reads: Section 17. The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. [71] In Marcos v. Manglapus (258 Phil. 491, 501-502 [1989]), the Court pointed out the inaccuracy of this generalization of executive power: “It would not be accurate, however, to state that "executive power" is the power to enforce the laws, for the President is head of state as well as head of government and whatever powers in here in such positions pertain to the office unless the Constitution itself withholds it. Furthermore, the Constitution itself provides that the execution of the laws is only one of the powers of the President. It also grants the President other powers that do not involve the execution of any provision of law, e.g., his power over the country's foreign relations.” [72] Ople v. Torres, 354 Phil. 948, 967 (1998). [73] CONSTITUTION, Article VII, Section 5. [74] See David Strauss, 15 Cardozo L. Rev. 113, October, 1993, Presidential Interpretation of the Constitution. For instance, in 1997, President Ramos issued an administrative order that provides, among others, for the withholding of an amount equivalent to 10% of the internal revenue allotment to local government units, pending the assessment and evaluation by the Development Budget Coordinating Committee of the emerging fiscal situation. Given the express provision of Section 6, Article X of the 1987 Constitution, mandating the automatic release of the internal revenue allotment to local government units, the President justified the issuance of the administrative order on the basis of the temporary nature of the withholding. While the Court did not agree with the President, this is a jurisprudential illustration of the President’s power of executive interpretation (Pimentel v. Aguirre, G.R. No. 132988, July 19, 2000, 336 SCRA 208). [75] Marcos v. Manglapus, supra note 71. See also Section 1, Article VII of the Constitution which provides: “The executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines.” [76] See Geofrey Miller, The President’s Power of Interpretation: Implications of a Unified Theory of Constitutional Law. [77] For instance, in Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora (392 Phil. 627 [2000]), we deferred to the President’s “full discretionary power to determine the necessity of calling out the armed forces,” by reason of the petitioner’s failure to discharge the “heavy burden” of showing that the President’s decision (necessarily interpreting the phrase “whenever it becomes necessary” under Section 18 of Article VII) is “totally bereft of factual basis.” In this situation, the presidential power of executive interpretation is at its broadest. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/60717 64/75