Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 278 views

    PHILCONSA Vs Gimenez 15 SCRA 479

    Uploaded by

    Patty Perez
    Republic Act 3836 provided retirement benefits for members of Congress that took effect upon the law's approval, violating the constitutional provision requiring any increase in emoluments to take effect after the full term of the approving members expires. The law also did not provide equal protection by not extending similar benefits to other elected officials. Finally, the title of the bill violated the single subject rule by embracing more than one topic not expressed in the title. The Supreme Court ruled the title void and declared the retirement provisions for members of Congress null and void.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    PHILCONSA Vs Gimenez 15 SCRA 479

    Uploaded by

    Patty Perez
    278 views2 pages
    Republic Act 3836 provided retirement benefits for members of Congress that took effect upon the law's approval, violating the constitutional provision requiring any increase in emoluments to take effect after the full term of the approving members expires. The law also did not provide equal protection by not extending similar benefits to other elected officials. Finally, the title of the bill violated the single subject rule by embracing more than one topic not expressed in the title. The Supreme Court ruled the title void and declared the retirement provisions for members of Congress null and void.

    Original Title

    PHILCONSA vs Gimenez 15 SCRA 479

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Republic Act 3836 provided retirement benefits for members of Congress that took effect upon the law's approval, violating the constitutional provision requiring any increase in emoluments to take effect after the full term of the approving members expires. The law also did not provide equal protection by not extending similar benefits to other elected officials. Finally, the title of the bill violated the single subject rule by embracing more than one topic not expressed in the title. The Supreme Court ruled the title void and declared the retirement provisions for members of Congress null and void.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    278 views2 pages

    PHILCONSA Vs Gimenez 15 SCRA 479

    Uploaded by

    Patty Perez
    Republic Act 3836 provided retirement benefits for members of Congress that took effect upon the law's approval, violating the constitutional provision requiring any increase in emoluments to take effect after the full term of the approving members expires. The law also did not provide equal protection by not extending similar benefits to other elected officials. Finally, the title of the bill violated the single subject rule by embracing more than one topic not expressed in the title. The Supreme Court ruled the title void and declared the retirement provisions for members of Congress null and void.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    PHILCONSA vs.

    Gimenez
    15 SCRA 479
    December 18, 1965
    Ponente: Justice Regala

    Facts:

    The Philippine Constitution Association Inc. (PHILCONSA) questioned the


    validity of Republic Act 3836; Increase in emoluments of members of the
    Congress, that provides for the retirement benefits for members of the Congress which,
    in effect, are increases in the emoluments of Senators and Members of the House of
    Representatives, to take effect upon the approval of the Act, which was on June 22,
    1963, whereas the said Act is in contrary to Section 14, Article VI of the Constitution
    that states that:

    “The Senators and the Members of the House of


    Representatives shall, unless otherwise provided by law,
    receive an annual compensation of seven thousand two
    hundred pesos each, including per diems and other
    emoluments or allowances, and exclusive only of travelling
    expenses to and from their respective districts in the case of
    Members of the House of Representatives and to and from
    their places of residence in the case of Senators, when
    attending sessions of the Congress. No increase in said
    compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of the
    full term of all the Members of the Senate and of the House of
    Representatives approving such increase. Until otherwise
    provided by law, the President of the Senate and the Speaker
    of the House of Representatives shall each receive an annual
    compensation of sixteen thousand pesos.”

    Issues:

    Whether or not R.A. 3836 complied with the constitutional provisions of:

    1. Prohibition as to the increase in the salaries of Members or Congress – In the


    Republic Act 3836, the retirement benefits is in effect upon the approval of such,
    whereas contrary to Section 14, Article VI of the Constitution that emoluments shall only
    take effect “after the expiration of the full term of the Members of the Senate and of the
    House of Representatives approving such increase.”
    2. The equal protection clause – While the said law provides for the retirement
    benefits of the Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives, who are
    elective officials, the same cannot be said for other elective officials in the Philippines
    such as governors of the provinces, members of the provincial boards, and those of the
    municipalities and chartered cities.

    3. The title of the bill not embracing more than one subject – It violates the
    mandatory requirement under Paragraph 1, Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution
    that states that : “No bill which may be enacted into law shall embrace more than one
    subject which shall be expressed in the title of the bill.”

    HELD:

    The court concluded that the title of said Republic Act 3836 is void as it is not
    germane to the subject matter and is a violation of the aforementioned Paragraph 1,
    Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution.

    Republic Act No. 3836 declared null and void in so far as it refers to retirement of
    members of Congress and the elected officials thereof.

    You might also like