Consti Trans Second Exam Coverage Edited

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
ATTY. ROVYNE JUMAO-AS

Intellectual Property of: Andoy, Aspilla, Astillo, Dela Cruz, Faustino, Gido, Miles, Muñoz , Pandita, Pinili
Second Exam Transcriptions say political question what does that mean? Decided by people
to the department who has that exclusive authority to
determine that. So usually they would evade that question on
the ground of political question. Now, its within the realm of let
When the world says, "Give up,"
us say of that executive or the congress, it is not for the judiciary
Hope whispers, "Try it one more time." to dictate upon the congress on what law they would act that’s
~Author Unknown a political question. But now, under the 1987 question we now
have that extended or expanded judicial power. Supreme Court
AUG. 1, 2013 can now determine the validity of action of the president or the
MICHELLE & MARLIE congress. Not to overturn their actions or replace their decision
The coverage of second exam: After the discussion on the as to decision of the Supreme Court but just to determine
preliminaries, we are going to those main departments of the whether or not such department has gravely abuse its discretion
government. Now one distinct feature of our government is the amounting to lack or excess jurisdiction. No again, although we
principle of the separation of powers. It is instituted in fact in the have the principle of powers is neutralized by the principle of
Constitution. When we say separation of powers, each of the check and balance. So it is not absolute independence by each
different departments have exclusive cognizance of the matters department but more of interdependence.
or functions that are inherit in them and supreme of all of this
matters fall within their jurisdiction. In other words, they are What are the three departments?
supposed to have expertise in their own duties. So the essence
of separation of power means that legislation should just belong  Legislative Department
to the congress, the execution of the laws which the congress  Executive Department
legislated should be just belong to the executive department  Judiciary Department
and the determination of whether or not the laws are valid or
the implementation is valid is within the realm or expertise of We start with the LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT on Article VI..
the judiciary . So it suppose to be independent, the idea is that
each is prevented from invading in the domain of others, So Article 6 starts with the statement the legislative power shall
separation of powers. This principle is brought about to prevent be vested in whom? The congress of the Philippines constitutes
the concentration of powers to one department especially if that of two parts – the senate and the house of representatives.
person is capable of tyranny of power and abuse. So, that’s way
we said that the Constitution itself is the instrument which not Actually senators are also congressman technically
only identifies the powers but which distributes it among the because both of them are part of the congress.
different departments for their more safe and effective exercise
so that’s separation of powers. Section 1. The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress
of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of
Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by
the provision on initiative and referendum.
But in reality there is no really absolute separation because we
have that interdependence of powers, separation is not total.
We still need to have the system of check and balance. Because Let’s go back to the principle on who frame the Constitution.
if we leave it to one department to do their work chances are Who are supposed to be the author of the Constitution? The
there be no way of determining whether or not they have abuse people. And since we are republican state meaning
their powers. So corollary to separation of powers is also the representative kind of state, who represents s the people in
principle of check and balance its also in the Constitution. For legislating? Under Sec. 1, Article 6 it is the congress. As you can
example in the enactment of laws, which department does that? see in the dynamics it is the people which have original
The legislative department but after the act of the congress is it legislative authority, the original power to legislate is lodge with
consider to be a law? Not yet. It has to go with the approval of the people because we are a republican state, we elect the
the president. And if the president does not approve of it or representatives who can do that for us then it is the congress. In
vetoes it, is it the end of it? For example the president abuses its other words the legislative power of the congress is merely
authority in approving the law, he does not like it for some DERIVATIVE/ DELEGATED. You can now distinguished original
reason or another. Is that the end of it? There is still a system of legislative power from delegated or derivative legislative power.
checks and balance. The congress can still override the veto. In That is one way of classifying legislative power.
some instances the president could not complete an act without
the participation of congress. For example in entering
international agreements or treaties, it is not complete without
the concurrence of the senate. Another way is ordinary legislation and constituent legislative
power, when you say ordinary it is just enacting ordinary laws
How about the judiciary? Where does it come in? Before but when what is enacted/amended/repealed now involves the
because of this separation of powers, the judiciary cannot Constitution. It is now the exercise of constituent legislative
actually check other departments because of respect to that power. So there you have the classifications of legislative
principle of separation of powers that is until the 1987 powers: ordinary, constituent, original or delegated/derivative.
Constitution. Because under the 1987 Constitution the power of Again, the power of the congress is merely a delegated
judicial review would now include the power to determine if legislative power. The original power belongs into the people
there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess that is why in the last phrase of sections says “except to the
jurisdiction on the part on say of the president or congress. extent reserved to the people by the provision on initiative and
Other than the 1987 Constitution, it’s not really clearly defined referendum.” So what is the extent of legislative power of the
because if the question is raised attacking the validity of an congress? It said to be plenary. When you say plenary and it is
action of say the president or the congress, usually the Supreme granted by the Constitution what is deemed to be legislative
Court will not confront it and will evade the constitutional usage and traditions it is necessarily possessed by congress
question on the ground of political question because when we unless the organic act has lodged it elsewhere. In other words, a
state legislature having plenary law making power has authority
MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^
1
to enact laws over all subjects, any subject whether persons or laws for each of them. Say Mati, a law converting the
things under the territorial jurisdiction of the state. So, municipality of Mati to city, another city, Bislig. So there are 16
legislative power is in authority to make laws and to alter laws laws, all of them has common provisions were in it is stated that
and to repeal laws. All of these comprise legislative power – they are exempted from the income requirement. Who provided
make, alter, repeal. In other words, if one of this is removed, it is for the criteria? Congress. Who enacted these laws exempting
in essence LIMITING LEGISLATIVE POWER. Now again, legislative them from the criteria? Congress. So that is where the argument
power is plenary it’s supposed to be whatever legislative in has been revocate.
character is lodge in the legislature. It can legislate in any subject In the first decision of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court
matter. It has no limit by way of enumeration on what laws to said that the criteria for creating cities is with the local
enact if you browse the Constitution there are no enumerations government code as mandated by the Constitution in other
on what are the laws that congress could enact or could not words to provide for uniformity on determinants on when a
enact except only on some portions and provisions and that only municipality can become a city you should follow one law that is
the Constitution can limit that legislative power. the local government code in this case, as amended by the
income requirement from 20 million to 100 million. The
So plenary, to better understand plenary power let us look at the exemption therefore cannot be located somewhere else except
cases of league of cities. in the local government code as amended. If at all it was the
intention of the congress to exempt, to provide for exemptions
Did you attempt to somehow attempt to read those cases that will be applicable to future situations contingent to some
because I think you’re curious about these cases because you conditions it should be placed in the local government code and
heard I bet of those municipalities turned into cities and then its amendment now congress therefore cannot enact a law
went back to being municipalities and became city again and disregarding the criteria of the local government code because
finally they became cities ultimately. What happen in these the Constitution says it should just comply with the
cases? The case was originally cited in 2008. In 2009, there was a requirements of the local government code. That is why, the
motion for reconsideration the motion was resolved changing cityhood bills or laws as far as that section is concerned that
the decision of the Supreme Court in 2008. Something happen, they are exempted from the 100 million area is concern is
there was a second motion for reconsideration through invalid because it is now provided for an exemption which is not
technicality they were able to somehow re-file or re-submit the found in the local government code. So motion for
same matters, what supposedly the general rule is that motion reconsideration, dun parin ang argument nila.
for reconsiderations are allowed with the Supreme Court if and
only if that is allowed, the general rule is only one motion for By 2009 the Supreme Court said ah we are mistaken so the
reconsideration is allowed. Let us not go to the technicalities of cityhood laws are no different fr0m the amendatory law of the
it. You can appreciate it in your second year. But just go to the local government code. Since the power of the congress is
constitutional issue, so: plenary meaning the enact laws or any subject matter it has no
limits therefore as to what subject matter to enact . So based on
2008 - decision invalid cityhood laws the discussion that the congress power legislation is plenary, this
2009 - reversed the decision valid cityhood laws is the local government code, this is the amendment of the local
2010 - reversed the decision go back to 2008 invalid cityhood government code the cityhood bills are also the amendment to
laws the amendment of the local government code. That is the
2011 - reversed again go back to 2009 decision valid cityhood decision of the Supreme Court, another motion.
laws
And ultimately the last decision, the Supreme Court said that the In 2010, wrong again the Supreme Court said that the congress
cityhood laws are valid. exceeded and abused its law making powers rendering the
cityhood laws void for being violative of the Constitution.
What is the essence of all these decisions? The Supreme Court is Because we said congress power is plenary except as to the
focusing on the extent of legislative power of the congress to limitations provided in the Constitution. Plenary means that
what extent a congress can enact a law and then enact another congress cannot enact laws that can limit its power but the
law violating the law that it enacted earlier would it still be limits can be found in the Constitution. What would be the
valid? What happened to this case? Under the Constitution in limits? There would be substantive limits so there would be
the creation of municipalities and cities, they should be some provisions that would limit it. For example, under bill of
governed by the local government code that’s under the 1987 rights there are lots of limits there. Congress cannot enact laws
Constitution Article 10, right? So the congress enacted the local establishing religion or giving titles kings or queens or whatever.
government code in 1991 that suppose to be the governing law So, this our substantive limits which are found in the
pursuant to the Constitution on when it comes to the creation of Constitution itself. Another kind of limit is procedural. How a bill
cities or conversion of municipalities to cities. Now under the becomes a law. So these are the only limits. In other words, in
local government code, there are three determinants to decide this case since it is the Constitution which provided for that limit
whether or not a municipality is ready to be converted as a city. the congress abused its authority. That was the 2010 decision.
What are these? But in 2011, the ultimate and final decision of the Supreme
Land, population and income. Court said because the power of congress is plenary, it is not an
abused of discretion.
Under the local government code the income requirement is
only 20 million so you can apply for cityhood. There are several “The enactment of the Cityhood Laws is an exercise by
applicants for the bills who are pending. Around 2001, congress Congress of its legislative power. The grant of
enacted a law amending the income requirement form 20 legislative power to Congress is broad, general, and
million to 100 million. After the enactment, 16 cityhood bills comprehensive. Without doubt, the LGC is a creation of
were filed and approved but the problem with these Congress through its law-making powers. When
municipalities they did not qualify as to income requirement, Congress enacted the LGC in 1991, it provided for
they did not reach the 100 million mark. But how did they quantifiable indicators of economic viability for the
become cities? In the creation or conversion, there are specific creation of local government units—income,
1
population, and land area. Congress deemed it fit to In other words, in the GSIS act, it is safe to say that that
modify the income requirement with respect to the provision cannot be amended by following certain conditions.
conversion of municipalities into component cities What’s the condition? There has to be a law expressly and
when it enacted R.A. No. 9009, imposing an amount of specifically amending that section so an act amending Section 33
P100 million, computed only from locally-generated of PD 1126. So that’s the requirement of this law. The LGC
sources. However, Congress deemed it wiser to exempt according to GSIS is not that law, because that law is a general
respondent municipalities from such a belatedly removal of the tax exemption whether or not you are a GSIS, SSS
imposed modified income requirement in order to or sino ka pa man. It is a general statement so that is the GSIS is
uphold its higher calling of putting flesh and blood to arguing that the removal of tax exemption of the LGC is invalid
the very intent and thrust of the LGC, which is or not following the provision of the GSIS act. Is it correct?
countryside development and autonomy, especially
accounting for these municipalities as engines for RULING: The Supreme Court said that provision is in effect
economic growth in their respective provinces.” providing for a mode of repeal. It is dictation upon the next
congress even the same congress on how to repeal that law or
However I am not comfortable with the decision of the Supreme enact that law. So, it is ultimately a limitation of the legislative
Court. Because the idea of the local government code in the power of congress. Again, the power of the congress is plenary,
basis of creation of cities is again to provide the uniformity in it will violate that principle if this congress will provide a mode
standards in creating cities, creating municipalities and of repeal or will limit the power or the next congress or even
converting municipalities to cities. In fact it is the Constitution the same congress.
which provided that it is just be the basis. What will prevent
congress later on to disregard the provisions of the Local
Government Code? Citing this decision its power is plenary Case: Kida vs. Senate
although it amended the Local Government Code it is not
prevented from disregarding its provisions. The reality is that Kida vs Senate
and that is also the reality of practice there will always be
politics and I hope you’re ready with that because time will FACTS:
come you will be disappointed. So this is one decision that will We‘ll zero in on plenary power. RA 9054 is an act governing
only history will judge flip flopping on the part of the Supreme ARMM. Now, in that law, there is a provision that states
Court. But who will determine grave abuse of discretion of the that any amendment to that law would require a vote of 2/3 of the
Supreme Court? Yan ngayon ang million dollar question. But Congress. Is the provision valid?
since we are now studying law, might as well study how
Under the Constitution, Congress cannot amend a law, or repeal a
Supreme Court decides cases. That is just how the principle of
law with only a vote of majority, provided that there
plenary power/ legislative power of congress is applied by the is a quorum. In fact, it is majority of the quorum. So it is the
Supreme Court in this case para makalusot sila. Siguro. There are simple majority is required to amend a law. But what do we have
some personalities involve. If you read the background, then here? Now, RA 9054 is stating that in case of amendment, the voting
Mendoza who self professed that most of the Supreme Court required is 2/3. The SC called it the super-majority. Is this
Justices are his students. I might as well use that power when provision valid, if you relate is the plenary power of Congress?
you become Supreme Court Justices. (lol!)
No. Why? It is limiting the plenary authority. It is providing for
Corollary to that plenary power, the congress cannot pass another requirement not provided in the Constitution.
irrepealable laws. What do you mean by that? Congress will
Ordinarily, Congress can amend law with only a majority vote. So if
enact a law today providing the provisions that this law cannot you connect it with the Constitution, RA 9054 is amending
be repealed. Why is that not allowed? Because it will limit the the Constitution. While the Constitution says 2/3, it is requiring 2/3
power of the next congress. Now if it limits, it is suppose to be vote. So it is in a way amending the Constitution via ordinary
plenary then it cannot enact laws touching that subject matter legislation. So, it is unConstitutional.
then it is limitation to that matter. So if it is limiting the power
then it is ultimately amending the Constitution when it says that Another corollary to that principle of plenary. So the first principle is
it supposed to be plenary. The effect will be a reduction or that Congress cannot make irrepealable laws. The second is that the
limitation of the legislative power of the Congress which Congress cannot delegate its legislative authority. So the principle
of non-delegabilty of legislative authority.
suppose to be plenary.
Why can‘t it be delegated?
Case: City of Davao vs. RTC Reasons: (1) separation of powers, (2) principle of delegata potestas
non potes delegari (what has been delegated
City of Davao vs RTC cannot be further delegated).
FACTS: We have the GSIS act provides for tax exemptions However, legislative authority can be delegated to (1) president in
provided by the GSIS. Thereafter, so GSIS act is enacted by the emergency, (2) people through initiative and referendum, as
congress. By the 1991, congress enacted the LGC. Under LGC, mandated by the Constitution.
the congress moved the tax exemptions enjoyed by the Also, through time and immemorial practice the delegation to the
corporations such as the GSIS. Now, the GSIS is arguing that the Local Sanggunian has been considered as permissible
delegation. Now, who authorized the Local Sanggunian to enact
portion is an amendment of a particular provision of a GSIS act
ordinances? Congress through the LGC.
which says that this provision on tax exemption cannot be There is what we call the power of subordinate legislation. This is
amended unless not the power of delegating legislation. But
(1) that Section 33 be expressly and categorically delegating subordinate legislation.
repealed by law; and (2) that a provision be enacted to What is the distinction to the power to make law and law-execution?
substitute the declared policy of exemption from any What is delegated to the administrative bodies or the executive
and all taxes as an essential factor for the department is merely to supplement it or to provide for
solvency of the GSIS fund. the details of its implementation. The power to subordinate
legislation therefore, allows supplementary legislation, which is to
fill
1
up the details of the law. Or contingent legislation, which is that

brings the law into actual operation.
It is not the actual law-making authority that is being delegated but Example, under the Constitution the president can exercise tariff
the authority to fill up the details and to determine powers and can enact laws pertaining to it. He can also enact
the assistance of tax, which are all rule-making authority and not laws pertaining to emergency powers. It is the Constitution
law-making authority.
which provided with these exceptions. It is the Constitution
which delegated the legislative authority also don’t forget the
The law involve is the second organic act creating the ARMM.
people through initiative and referendum. For me it is not
They were arguing the validity of the postponement of the
delegation, it is original legislative authority.
election in 2011 so it could coincide with the local and national
election in 2013. Now, there was a provision in this law creating Now, you know that LGU through the Sanggunian can enact laws
the ARMM which provides that any amendment to this law can right? The laws are called ordinances.
only be done via super majority vote; the required vote is 2/3.
Under the Constitution, the congress cannot act, amend or Is this a delegation of legislative authority? Yes. This is exactly
repeal laws requiring only majority votes provided that there is what they are doing. They are enacting laws on local matters. Is
quorum. This law provides that it no longer is majority vote but this delegation allowed or provided in the Constitution? It is not.
2/3 votes – they call it super majority vote. [aw.haha] The Constitution did not provide but owing to time and
immemorial practice and acceptance, the delegation of
ISSUE: Is this provision valid? How can you attack the invalidity legislative authority to local government unit s could enact laws
of this provision, based on the plenary legislative power? on local matters is a permissible kind of delegation. The basis is
not the Constitution but to time and immemorial practice. That’
RULING: It is essentially limiting the power of the congress. why, what congress enacted that the LGC and their provided
When the Constitution states that it can already enact, repeal or that the local government units can enact laws and it was not
amend laws by majority vote, this law is requiring 2/3 votes objected on the ground of unconstitutionality or invalid
which now requires a limitation of that plenary power. You see if delegation of legislative power because it was already accepted
you draw a line directly with this law connecting it directly to the through time and immemorial practice. The delegation is
Constitution it is now essentially amending the Constitution contained in the Local Government Code and not in the
because it only requires a majority provided that there is a Constitution.
quorum. It also limits the legislative power of the congress which
is supposed to be plenary.
How about delegation to the executive department? Isn’t it that

Another corollary to that principle that legislative power is the executive department, let us say the department of health
plenary is the principle of non delegability of legislative power. and etc. isn’t it that they have issuances? And when you read
So what the first corollary since the legislative is plenary them they are like laws. Is this delegation of legislative
congress cannot enact irrepealable laws or laws which limit or authority? Now, there is a technical line there. It is not purely
provide a mode for repeal or amendment of law. The other legislative power that has been delegated to them but rule
corollary is that it cannot be further delegated, principle of non making power. This is called power of subordinate legislation.
delegability of legislative power. Congress is not actually delegating to them the authority to
enact laws but to fill up the details of a statute, you call that
Now congress alone can make laws and congress may not supplementary legislation. And you know that in the form of
delegate its law making powers. What’s the first reason? implementing rules and regulations. Another purpose is to leave
Because we believe in the principle of separation of powers. to another body the business of ascertaining the facts necessary
Enactment of laws is with congress, implementation is with the to bring the law into actual operation that is called contingent
executive department, determination of validity is with the legislation. That is to determine some facts or state of things
judiciary. Why would we establish or even institutionalized that upon which the enforcement of law depends. So Congress may
separation of powers when we just allow say executive to enact enact a law saying that the increase of fare would be dependent
laws, it cannot be delegated! It would be a breach of the on this fund and if this happen it will now be increased, what
Constitution if congress would give up its legislative power and you can see there is not really enactment of laws but
allow other departments to exercise its power. Another implementation of laws. That’s why, what is given to the other
reason/rational for that is the principle delegata potestas non department s is not legislative authority or law making authority
potest delegari (Latin) states that ‘no delegated powers can be but rule making authority so that they can enact
further delegated’. That is based on an ethical principle that supplementary legislations or contingent legislations.
such delegated power constitutes not only a right but a duty to
be performed the delegate through instrumentality of his own
judgment and not through the intervening mind of another. The
people are the original legislative authority and it delegated that This is because the power of subordinate legislation is allowed
authority to the congress. It would be unethical on the part of because of the increasing complexities of the task of the
the congress if it would further delegate that power to another. government and growing ability of the legislator to cope directly
So here, what type of power that is prohibited to be delegated with the demand of time. For example, they would like to enact
are those strictly legislative power because we will see later on on laws involving on computers, I don’t think that they are
that there are some aspects of that sub powers which can be expert in that field. So what will happen now? They will enact a
delegated. What cannot be delegated are purely legislative law providing for that subject matter, how can they be affected
powers meaning that the authority to determine on what law to and etc. and the other details will be provided by a certain
enact, the subject matter of it, when would be effective, the department in the executive branch and that is allowed. What
authority to make a complete law. But if you look at the the other is dong is simply providing for the details. The true
Constitution, there are provisions which allow some other distinction is between the delegations of power to make the law
authorities to enact laws and this is permissible delegation. which necessary involves discretion on what it shall be, as to its
Why? Because this is the Constitution itself which delegated the execution to be exercised under and in pursuance to a law. Now,
law making authority to another. the delegation of power to make the law cannot be allowed. But
1
the discretion as to its execution how it be implemented is extend this prior to absolute phasing out, so it was extended to 2
allowed. That is how far subordinate legislation. more years. Now it has been argued that the law is invalid for
there is no sufficient law for the secretary to base his discretion
Example, Congress enacted the VAT reform act, now there is a whether or not to extend the allowance of commercial blood
provision there that the president upon the recommendation of banks.
the secretary finance shall be effective on January 1, 2006
raised the value added tax to 12% after any of the following And the Supreme Court said that policies stated in the law itself
votations has been satisfied. The VAT reform act provides for a is standard, the policy is safe blood for the public and based on
10% increase in the vat but there is a provision which grants the supply and demand. This, according to SC, is sufficient standard
president to increase it to 12% upon the recommendation of the for the secretary to exercise his discretion WON to extend
secretary xxx. The objection was the law in unconstitutional as it before fully phasing out blood banks.
constitutes abandonment by the congress of its exclusive
authority o fix tax rates and then there is undue delegation to
the president because it is now the president who will exercise Tatad vs secretary, this is the deregulation of downstream oil
discretion on whether or not to increase it to 12%. Is there an industry. Before, students of Ateneo are marching along the
invalid delegation authority? Now we said that in the Freedom Park, shouting “deregulate the oil!!” Now, the oil
subordinate power of legislation, the congress can delegate into industry is very much free to dictate the price of oil in the
the other department what kind of legislation? Supplementary market, they are now shouting “regulate the oil!!” This was in
legislations and contingent legislations. So what kind of 1997, uy college pa ako nun, some of classmates joined the rally
legislation we have here? If you observe the law is already there kasi around 95. So here, a law was enacted mandating the
it’s about VAT. What is the subject of the VAT? The rate? It is department of energy, upon the approval of the president, to
already there. In fact, there is an effectivity date. The president implement full deregulation of downstream oil industry not later
has no discretion whether or not to increase it or just remain it than March 1997. The law sets the standard for the department
to 10%. The only required by the president is to determine the to find the deregulation as far as practicable, as the oil and other
existence of certain conditions which are also stated already in petroleum products are declining in the world market, and that
the law after any if the following conditions have been satisfied: the price of dollar to peso is stable. What you have here is a law
1.xxx 2.xxx [not necessary to include all about GDP] It is just granting the department of energy upon the approval of the
delegating the power of existence of this contingencies , it is not president, to implement full deregulation. In other words, it
actually delegation of legislative power but contingent does not directly say that oil industry is already deregulated. So
legislation. the full deregulation will be implemented by the executive
department. So the standards are also provided: as far as
So the issue here is not delegation of legislative power it is practicable when the prices of crude oil are declining in the
simply a delegation of ascertainment of facts upon which world market and the peso to dollar is stable. Now the
enforcement in the administration of the increase rate under the petitioners say that these are not clear standards, these are
law is contingent the operation of the 12% rate is in fact already vague. What do you mean by as far as practicable? And when
determine by the congress is to be effective on January 1, 2006. would you say that the market is declining? When would you say
So here, there is no undue delegation of undue power but only that the peso to dollar is stable? So that is the argument of the
of the discretion as to the execution of laws. So you read further petitioners. In other words, they are as saying that this is an
KMU vs, Garcia Jr., Echegaray vs. Secretary, that’s for invalid delegation of authority to the department of energy and
permissible delegation. the president.
And the SC said that the argument is a stubborn submission. As

far as practicable has clear meaning in the dictionary, it means
AUG 2 when it is permissible or capable of being performed, possible to
KIRSTIN & CHARITY practice or perform. Declining, of course, is when the prices are
going down. Stable means that it is established. So the SC said
that these terms have definite meanings and are sufficient
…This is when the judge imprisons the accused for such case, or
standards. Besides, the secretary and the president is not even
years, he is performing a legislative function because he is
given the full discretion WON to fully deregulate the industry.
legislating as to what proper penalty, proper period of
Why? It provides for a deadline, not later than mar 1997. The
imprisonment would be merited to the accused. This is an
deregulation given to them is only to advance the deregulation
invalid delegation of legislative authority. Supposed to be, when
should these conditions exist. So it is a valid delegation of rule-
Congress enacts a law, or penalizes an act, then it should file for
making authority.
the minimum and the maximum period of imprisonment and the
judge can exercise his discretion based only on the standards I forgot to discuss to you review center versus executive
that are given by law. secretary.
In Beltran vs Secretary Review Center vs Ermita
Beltran vs Secretary
FACTS: This involves review centers for nurses. Sometime in
2006, the board was marred by leakage. There is an allegation
It is about the phasing out of commercial blood banks because
which was proven to be true. Unfortunately, it came from
Statistics would show that commercial blood banks are unsafe.
review centers where one of the owners is a member of the
People, because of his need for money, and regardless of his
board of nursing. Yung kay Gapuz. So the leakage was traced to
health, would sell his blood. Diba? In that case, the Congress
be from one of his review centers. And among other members of
found it as the policy of the state to just disallow commercial
the board of nursing, so he is not alone. Because of that, that is a
blood banks and recognize only public blood banks. Blood banks
slap on the face of PGMA. So she issued an EO mandating CHED
that are voluntarily sourced, so hindi yung pinagbibili na blood.
to check review centers. CHED was created pursuant to a law.
So, in this case, the phasing out of boodbanks would be within 2
The jurisdiction is to govern higher education. Now what about
years. But the secretary of health is given discretion to further
1
review centers? addict or drug-free, you can run for senate or any public office
for that matter. Yehey!!!)
ISSUE: Can the president through an executive order expand the
power of CHED?
Section 4. The term of office of the Senators shall be six years
RULING: The EO is actually expanding the jurisdiction from and shall commence, unless otherwise provided by law, at noon
higher education (or colleges) to include review centers. SC said on the thirtieth day of June next following their election. No
you cannot include review centers to the jurisdiction of higher Senator shall serve for more than two consecutive terms.
education because review centers do not grant diplomas. There Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall
is no checking of attendance, there are no exams given, there is not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his
therefore no determination whether the reviewer has passed or service for the full term of which he was elected.
failed. A person is not eve required to take reviews before he is
allowed to take the exam. On other words, this is not a part of
education system, much less, higher education. The term is 6 years. And if you observe, all terms of office
commence at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following
their election. It is applicable to all public officers. When they
So, how can you object to the action of Arroyo? If you’re talking increase term of 6 years, like he resigned, it should not be
about invalid delegation of legislative authority, then the considered as an interruption of the term. Therefore the
objection would be usurpation of legislative authority. She is not following term, say that is his second term, can he still run if say
performing an act which is supposedly an exclusive function of he resigned after 2 years of service? No. voluntary renunciation
the legislative body. So here, there is no basis for here executive shall not be considered as an interruption of term. Now suppose
order. What we said about the powers of subordinate legislation we have elections every 3 years because we observe staggered
is that the administrative (?) bodies can make issuances but terms, under the constitution, in the transitory provision, the
these must comply with an existing law. in this case, there is no first elect senators, meaning the first half of the senators, they
law granting the president and CHED to regulate review centers. would serve for 6 years, the second half would serve for 3 years.
So the act is invalid. And every 3 years, we will elect the second half to compose the
full senate, so it is staggered in term. That is why, if your second
Let’s go to section 2: term ended this time, and there would be an election 3 years
after, do u have to wait for 6 years before you are allowed to
Section 2. The Senate shall be composed of twenty-four Senators run? No. you only have to wait 3 years.
who shall be elected at large by the qualified voters of the
Philippines, as may be provided by law. Now there’s a question on WON the senate is a continuing body.
Why is it relevant? In one case, Arnault vs Nazareno:
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator unless he is a natural- Arnault vs Nazareno

born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is
at least thirty-five years of age, able to read and write, a FACTS: Nazareno was the sergeant of arms. This happened in
registered voter, and a resident of the Philippines for not less 1950, so it is under the 1935 Constitution. Under this consti,
than two years immediately preceding the day of the election. although we have the same set, they are divided into 3 sets. Full
term would be 4 years and every 2 years, there will be an
election. They are also observing staggering terms. Every 2
So we are now studying each house of the Congress. SO let’s years, the one set is replaced. Sa atin, half-half lang. Sa kanila,
start with the Senate. the one set is replaced. So everytime, 2 terms would remain. In
this case of Arnault, in this particular set of senators, they cited
Senate is composed of just 24 people. They are elected by Arnault for contempt and imprisoned him until he would
through national election. It is from national and not parochial disclose in a legislative inquiry. There would be an election come
perspective. So the requirements are: he must be a natural-born May 18, 1950. Arnault contends that after May 18, 1950, that
citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at set of senators loses jurisdiction. So they cannot cite him for
least thirty-five years of age, able to read and write, a registered contempt because they are a new set of senators.
voter, and a resident of the Philippines for not less than two
years immediately preceding the day of the election. ISSUE: WON the senate is a continuing body.
In Pimentel vs Comelec RULING: If it is, then the terms are continuing. If not, then the
term ends in 1950. The SC said that only one court is replaced,
Pimentel vs Comelec
and everytime, the 2/3 remain, then senate would be
considered as a continuing body. Its orders are not considered
FACTS: Comelec issued a resolution wherein it was provided that
terminated at the end of the term of 1/3 of the set. Therefore,
all candidates, both in the national and local government shall
there is no merit to the contention of Arnault that he should be
undergo a mandatory drug test. So this Pimentel is candidate for
set free. The order still remains and still continues. The SC
senator, he is the one questioning the validity of the law.
further said that had it been the house of representatives that
incarcerated him or ordered him detained, by the end of the
ISSUE: Is this constitutional?
term, then it would be a new set of congressmen. Therefore, his
order of contempt would terminate as of the end of the term of
Ruling: So under section 2, it has been provided what should be
the House of Rep.
the requirements. The Congress is expanding the qualifications
Now fast forward to the case of Garcillano vs House of
provided by the constitution, is this unconstitutional? Is it
representatives, this is the hello garci scandal. Based on this
exclusive? SC said yes, because if you add further qualifications
(Arnault) discussion, nakalusot si garcillano. Based on legislative
that would lead to a person being disqualified, then you are
inquiry, it was terminated. This time, the SC said that under the
enlarging the limits provided for by the constitution. (So, drug
1987 constitution, is no longer a continuing body because every
1
time we elect a new set, how many would be left? One half. number of membership in the house of representative. Why did
Under the constitution, the senate can conduct legislation if I say increase? Because based on its membership; how they are
there is quorum. One half is not a quorum. Therefore, everytime apportion; as we would see later on, there is no way that it could
the term ends, senate is no longer a continuing body. Under the decrease. Because the overall consideration is usually
new procedures, unfinished businesses shall terminate upon the population.
end of the term of the congress. What may be taken are those
which would be taken for the first time, so back to zero ang mga Who shall be elected? So we are talking about membership
unfinished businesses. So SC is mindful to state the case of Neri which shall be elected from legislative districts apportion among
vs Senate that to be clear, the senate as an institution is a provinces, cities with metropolitan in accordance with their
continuing body. We established them under the 1935 respective inhabitants ad on the basis of a uniform and
constitution. So it is continuing as an institution but not as to its progressive ratio – as you can see that is based from population -
day to day process. It does not bind the acts of the prior senate based on the number of their inhabitants on the basis of
and the new set of senate. uniform and progressive ration. So it is easier to conclude that it
is more likely to increase than to decrees. And those who as
League of Cities, we have 4 cases under this. The argument is provided by a law shall be elected through a partylist system
that the Congress in its entirety is not a continuing body. This is have registered national, regional and sectoral partylist or
relevant because it was during the 11 th congress where organization. Inside this provisional law you can see that there
deliberations were made WON to make these municipalities as are further composition of the house of representatives. It
cities. There were 57 of them and only 34 were converted to consist of district representatives and partylist representatives
cities. There is 20 plus not converted. Now under the 12 th
congress, new set na naman. There was a new deliberation but Diagram of membership in the congress
the session ended. On the 13 th congress, a law was enacted
exempting them but there was no deliberation as to why. So
they used the deliberation done on the 11th and 12th congress.
SC said it is not a continuing body so the deliberation prior to the

session cannot bind the acts of this current congress to the prior
congress. But with the later decision of the SC overturning itself,
it said the WON it is a continuing body is already irrelevant. SC
said that when we try to understand is vague, we go back to the
deliberations of the Congress in order to understand the
meaning of the Congress. So that was the statement of SC. But
for me, since the deliberation did not happen when the law was
enacted, then it could not explain the reason behind the
exemption. And the principle remains, opinion ng mga past
congress does not bind the current members. So it is not a
continuing body in so far as the day- to-day business is
concerned but as an institution it is a continuing body. It is the
same congress which enacts laws.
A.
District Representatives
- Those representing a legislative district
AUG. 7, 2013
CHA & ZAR Q: 1.)How is a legislative district apportion?
2.)where can you get a legislative district?
Zar We know that Local Government Units consist of provinces,

cities, municipalities. A legislative district is NOT a local
Last time we were talking about the composition of congress. government unit. Its a district entitled to one representative
in the congress.
There are 2 compositions:
Now as to rules on apportionment:
1. House of the Senate
a. There are 24 members First Rule
2. House of representatives under par. 1 of section 5:
“each of the apportion among provinces, cities and
Section 5 metropolitan Manila area in accordance with their respective
(1) The house of representative shall be composed of inhabitants and on the basis of uniform and progressive ratio.”
not more than 250 members unless otherwise
fixed by law. You have an idea therefore that a province is entitled to a
district, a city is entitled to a district. A legislative district
therefore form out of provinces, cities, and metropolitan area.
Atty. Jumao-as Each legislative district – (under paragraph 3) shall comprise as
This gives you an idea that initially when the constitution took far as practicable contiguous, compact and adjacent territory.
effect the house of representative has a composition of 250 For example in the province - if a province is to be apportion as
members, initial composition. Can it decrease? Can it increase? one legislative district its members are usually municipalities and
The answer to both question is YES. It can be increased because component cities, if there are two legislative districts in one
it is provided in the constitution, “otherwise fixed by law” – province your divide into two - the members should be at least
meaning that the congress is given the authority to increase the contiguous, compact and adjacent. (In other words if you are
1
one district you cannot be formed from municipality A from the The reapportionment of legislative districts can be done
southern end portion and municipality x from other extreme end, through a special law (that law is the charter of the new city). As
they are very far from each other.) Reason is one, they might thus worded in the constitution (it did not preclude the congress
have different interest or concerns, unlike when all are compact. from increasing its membership by passing a law other than a
The basic intent of the law however is to prevent that practice general reapportionment law), as worded in the constitution
of “gerrymandering”. Gerrymandering - is a practice of “the membership in the congress in 250 unless otherwise fixed
apportioning legislative district out of separate portions of by law” it did not say that only one law can increase the general
territory for the purpose of favoring a candidate. reapportionment of this legislative districts. So in enacting the
charter of Makati it is that law that increases the number of
Second Rule legislative districts. Now to hold that reapportionment can only
“each city with a population of at least 250,000 for each be made by a general apportionment law with a review upon
province shall have at least 1 representative” the legislative districts allotted to which LGU nationwide - would
create an inequitable situation wherein a new city or province
Now you have an idea that for each city a requirement of 250,00 created by congress will be denied legislative representation for
on its population is needed to be entitles to one legislative an indeterminate period of time. Why? if you say that is only
district. For provinces however you cannot seek 250,00 through a general apportionment law (and we say it’s not every
population. 3 years, we have to wait for the return of the census and after
the deadline is within 3 years pa talaga) it means that a newly
In Davao city alone although it is one city it has 3 districts. This is created city will have to wait for that general apportionment in
based on the apportionment based on the number of respective order to be entitled or represented in the congress. This
inhabitants - within 3 years following the census that’s in the last situation will deprive the people, the new city or province a
paragraph of section 5 the congress shall make a particle of their sovereignty. Sovereignty cannot be made of any
reapportionment of the legislative districts based on the subtraction, it is indivisible it must be forever whole or it is not
standards provided in this section. sovereignty.
- What the last rule is saying it’s not every three years,
it’s within 3 years after the return of every census. 2nd Contention
Congress is mandated to make a reapportionment of in this case the supreme court limited the application of the
district to check for - maybe there are some 250,00 population requirement only as to the initial creation of
constituents that are deprived of district legislative districts. In other words if a city has attained that
representatives. And this may be a result of growth in 250,00 it is now entitled to a legislative district, in fact it does
population or movement in population. So to regularly not therefore mean for additional legislative districts there
check on the sufficiency of the number of legislative should be another 250,000 in the population. The constitution
district. Or whether or not there is a need to increase is not worded as such, for every 250,000 there should be 1
the legislative districts. Congress is mandated to legislative district. In fact in the ordinance appended in the
regularly enact a general law of reapportionment of constitution its provided there that a city which has a
legislative district that’s when they have to increase the population more than 250,000 is entitled to at least one district
number of legislative districts nationwide. representative, not discounting the fact that it could have more
than one because the proviso says at least one. So again as to
In the case of: the 250,000 requirement under the constitution is only for the
initial creation of the legislative district for a city. As to the
additional legislative district it does not need to attain the
Mariano vs COMELEC (1995) 250,000 requirement. So even granting with the population of
Facts: Makati, its more than 250,000 its legislative district may still
This involves the enactment of the city charter of Makati. This increase since it has met the minimum population requirement
charter converted the component city of Makati into a highly of 250,000. The constitution has an ordinance appended to it
urbanized city. Along with that conversion is an increase in its which provides that the city’s population has increase to more
legislative districts. From one district to two districts and divided than 250,000 should be entitled to one congressional
the barangays within the city between this two legislative representative.
districts. The case was filed because petitioner is objecting to the
creation of a new district. His contention is that: You have that case of
1st an increase of legislative district can be done only through the
general reapportionment law(last par. Of section 5), it cannot be Aldaba vs COMELEC (2010)
done through a special law. Facts:
In other words they have to wait for the general It involves the city of Malolos. Mololos city as of 2007 has a
reapportionment law - Now in this case the charter of Makati population of around 223,000. Now it has a projection based on
city was that law increasing - is a special law. the annual growth rate of its population that by 2010 it will have
2nd they are contending that the increase in the legislative a population of 254,000 more or less (there was an issue
district in unconstitutional - because as of that time the whether or not that document is valid because the projection
population of Makati was just around 450,00. Under the was only made by the regional director of NSO - but that’s
constitution each city with a population of 250,00 is entitled to beside the point). The supreme court said, whether actual or
one legislative district of congressional representative. projected population the issue is - does Malolos city have the
In other words it was the petitioners idea that since the other population of 250,000 and is it entitled to have its own
district did not reach the 250,00 mark then it is not entitled to a legislative district in time for the may 2010 election. This is
legislative district. relevant because they said that by 2010 they will have a
Is he correct? population of 254,000 and they would want to elect their
representative by May 2010.
Ruling:
The supreme court said; Ruling:
as to the 1st contention The supreme court said that a city that has attain a population
1
of 250,000 is entitled to a legislative district only in the requirement but only to its initial legislative district.
immediately following election. In short, the city must first
attain the 250,000 and then after you are entitled to
congressional representation. Let’s go to the second composition of congressional
What’s the problem with this case? We have a projection of representatives. That is the Partylist representatives.
250,000 let’s just say that projection is allowed. 250,000 for the Partylist Representative
entire 2010 in other words that’s the projection for the entire Section 5:
year, the election is gonna be much earlier, not even half of the (1) The house of representatives shall be composed of xxx,
year it’s on May of 2010 - therefore it cannot be concluded that and those who, as provided by law , shall be elected
by May 2010 they have already attained the 250,000 population. through a party-list system of registered national,
So a city entitled to a representation only when it had attain the regional, and sectoral parties or organization.
250,000.
The second paragraph of section 5 is also relevant to party-
You have that case of list representatives in where that it provides for the ratio of
district representatives as to party-list representatives in
Aquino vs COMELEC the entire membership of the House of Representatives.
This clarifies what we said earlier about the requirement of The party-list representative shall constitute the 20 percent
250,000 in the population to be entitled to a district of the total number of representatives including those
representative or to be apportion a legislative district. What do under the party-list. So you are going to do some math
you mean by the provision the constitution that each city with a under this provision.
population of at least 250,000 or each province shall have at
least one representative? Since the constitution mandate the congress to enact a law
Facts: implementing the party-list system, congress enacted
You have this case of a law enacted increasing the legislative republic act 7941 - providing for the “election of the party-
districts of the province of Camarines Sur, (compared to Mariano list representatives with the party-list system and
case -Mariano involves a city, now in this case of Aquino vs appropriating funds therefore”. This was enacted in 1995,
COMELEC involves a province). Now from 4 legislative districts the constitution took effect in 1987 the implementing law
the law increase it into 5 legislative districts. - The alleged reason was enacted 8 years later. We are now in 2013 and still we
for that is to accommodate Datu Macapagal Arroyo, because he are in dilemma of what a party-list system really is in the
is intending to win not run to win one legislative district of that Philippines, because if you observe the Supreme Court have
province, he cannot be accommodated because there are been changing its interpretation of the provisions of the
already political main runners in the district so the solution gawa constitution and the law on what really is a party-list system
ng isang legislative district. - in the Philippines. Who is allowed to participate, how is it to
Now based on that alleged sinister objective PiNoy with Lobredo be computed. So from 1987-2013 - I hope we are now
filed this case questioning the validity of that particular district. starting to establish what should be the interpretation of
Why? When it increase the number of legislative districts in this party-list system. What is party-list system in the Philippines
province of Camarines Sur, four of the districts have reached the based on deliberation of the constitutional commission
250,000 population requirement some even reached more than particularly those that were given out by its main
400,000 but one district, worst the 1st district pa talaga turned proponents – the main proponent of the part-list system to
out to have a population of 176,000. In other words hindi be written out in the constitution – commissioner Munsod –
umabot ng 250,000 now it is the contention of PiNoy that each his idea is that the party-list system would open up the
legislative district must be supported by at least 250,000 in its system, the political system to a pluralistic society through a
population in order to be qualified to have a district multi-party system. His idea is to have a multi part system in
representative, same in cases of newly created provinces. That the congress. Now this cannot be done because usually only
was of his contention that for every legislative district there major political parties would dominate the election. We are
must be a population of 250,000 . not like the US where they only have 2 parties, here we are
encouraging multi-parties. But more often than not it’s just
Ruling: 2 or 3 parties that are buying for the position. Now that was
The provision of the constitution draws a plain and clear his introductory speech, to open up the political system to a
distinction between an entitlement of a city of a district in one pluralistic society through a multi-party system. We are
hand and an entitlement of a province to a district on the other. opening up the system and we would like very much for the
For when a province is entitled to a at least a representative sectors also to be there, that was his speech. Now the idea
with nothing mentioned about population a city must first was that for legislative districts to constitution is only
meet a population the minimum is 250,000 in order to be requiring a constituent of 250,000, there are parties which
similarly entitled. The use by subject provision of a comma; regularly participate in legislative district election but
that’s statutory construction. Therefore the constitution regularly places in the 3rd or 4th place hindi talaga sila maka
requires the 250,000 minimum population only for a city to be abot ng 1st or 2nd but if you take all their votes- nationwide
entitled to a representative but not so for province. If there’s a votes, you would see that some of this parties have
newly created province regardless of population it is entitled to constituency of not just 250,000 but more than that. Some
one legislative district, as to a city not all cities are entitled to a will have 500,000 votes taken together nationwide. Some
congressional representative. Why? Because the constitution millions of vote. So if a person is entitled to represent
require that it has attain at least a minimum of 250,000 250,000 constituents why not another persons or another
population. But if you compare Mariano and Aquino - when party representing this 500,000 or more constituents. But
talking about additional legislative district both are the same - this cannot be done through legislative district election
in that in both the ruling is that for additional legislative district because as I’ve said it’s been dominated by some parties. So
there is no need to comply with the 250,000 requirement in the the idea is again to open up the system para maramin ang
population - same sila, what is the distinction is the emphasis makasali. That’s the idea of munsod ha –I’m talking about
that when it comes to a province there is no population the idea of munsod the proponent. So based on that the
requirement - when it comes to cities there is a population party-list is supposed to be intended to democratize
1
political power by giving political parties that cannot win in and communities, elderly, women, youth veterans, overseas
a legislative district election, a chance to win seats in the workers and professionals. So while the nomination here, is not
House of Representatives. That’s the basic idea. Now under exclusive, it gives us, a clear idea that the clear intent of the law
the part-list system the voter elect two representatives in not all sectors can be represented under the party list system. So
the house. One for his legislative district, and another for it only refers to the marginalized and underrepresented.
his or her party-list group or organization of choice. What Therefore, it cannot include bankers, industrialist or sugar-
would that organization be? planters. While business smuggles and mega rich only in the
Philippines the Supreme Court will use, ano yun? ano yun last
CHA time? Supermajority? Now here Mega rich… are numerically
speaking are telling minority they are marginalized now
What would that organization be? Now, should it be a sector? underrepresented or start reality that their economic sprout
The deliberation actually revolved around sector. That is why engenders political power, MORE AWESOME on their numerical
nagkalito-lito ang interpretation ng supreme court. Anyway, ah… (katawa ang class kay gi-emphasize ang more awesome wan a ko
I forgot the term but ah…. Modern times will have multifaceted kasabot). In other words, if your party AKO BISAYA, anopa yung
persons like for example a person can be both a farmer and a mga ano, AKO BICOLANO, mostly with ako.. because initially.
lawyer. So, he you cannot say that he is, can he say that he
represents a farmer or would he be under the law, not a farmer Do you ever wonder why the names of the parties always start
but a lawyer? So the idea is that, it would that be up to that with an A? Because initially the listing in the ballot is in
person to determine whether he is a farmer or a lawyer or alphabetical order, kaya in 2013 as you observed hindi na
farmer-doctor, fisherman-doctor. So, that’s why, open that alphabetical (Kasi lahat ng A.. ako titser, ako student, ako intsik
system, it’s up to that person to choose his party or group okay. na sunod). So, if you say the sector is representing one particular
Now, as I’ve said, there has been a problem on the cultural group like the tagalogs, it cannot be said that they are
interpretation on this party list system. When congress enacted marginalized and under this interpretation, they cannot
RA 7941, it also initiated there the policy of enacting the law. But participate in the party-list system.
policy as stated, would be that the party list system is a social
justice tool designed not only to give more law to the great Q: Corollary to that, may political parties participate in the party-
masses of our people but thus in line, but also to be enable them list elections?
to become veritable lawmakers of such empowered to
participate the relocated enactment of laws designed to better A:Yes! That is decided in the case of Ang Bagong Bayani vs.
them with the intents to make the marginalized and COMELEC 359 S 698 (2002). Why? It is provided in Section 5,
underrepresented not merely passive recipients of the state Article 6 of the 1987 Constitution –
nevertheless but active participants in a mainstream of
representative democracy that as that’s the policy as describe in
Section 5. (1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of
the case of Ang Bagong Bayani vs. COMELEC decided in 2001. So,
not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise
relatively the case it’s a social justice tool for those who have
fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts
less in life. To give them more in law not just become recipients
apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan
of the law but to become lawmakers themselves. The policy is in
Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective
good cover the marginalized and the underrepresented. That’s
inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio,
the policy. As understood by the supreme court in the 2001 case
and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a
of Ang Bagong Bayani vs. Comelec, so who may participate in the
party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral
party list election? So that’s a hundred dollar question! Pertinent
parties or organizations.
to this question are the following cases, we discuss this issue on
who may participate this would be the cases you have to
remember. Ang Bagong Bayani decided in 2001, Banat case It mentioned parties. Now, even the proponents stated that the
decided in 2009 and more recent case of Ang Atong Paglaum in purpose of the party is to open up the system to political parties
2013. The latter case was decided just as in time for the 2013 in order to give a chance to parties *** to win a seat in the
election. Congress. Also under the law, R.A. 7941, it also defined what a
party is. A party that can participate in the party-list election - A
party means either a political party or a sectoral party or a
Who may participate in the party list election? Let’s talk about
coalition of parties. In other words, a political party can
the 2001 case first. That’s the first case that the Supreme Court
participate in the party-list election. A political party is also
interpreted the constitution vis-à-vis or on who may participate.
defined under the aforestated law - (c) A political party refers to
That this is the interpretation of the SC, the intention of the
an organized group of citizens advocating an ideology or
Constitution is clear to give genuine power to the people not
platform, principles and policies for the general conduct of
only to give more law to those who have less in life but more so
government and which, as the most immediate means of
by making them to become the lawmakers themselves so
securing their adoption, regularly nominates and supports
consistent to this system. The policy implementing though may
certain of its leaders and members as candidates for public
repeal is likewise clear that they may call Filipino citizens
office.
belonging to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors or
organizations and parties to become members of the house of
the representatives. For the language of that it is clear that it But there is a big BUT there, that political parties may participate
must be according to its clusters. As far as the Supreme Court is in the party-list election does not mean that any political party
concern, at the time the language of the law is clear. So or any organization or group for that matter may do so. Why,
precluded the party list system is only available to the this is the same case that interpreted that the party list system
marginalized and the underrepresented. So who would be that as to be one which is available only to the marginalized and
those marginalized and underrepresented? They would refer to under represented. So if you are a political party, you must
sectors as defined in Section 5 of that law. Section 5 provides for belong to the marginalized or under represented, which is
registration, any organized group may register, etc. etc., the last impossible to achieve. So this interpretation already disqualifies
sentence has a proviso, provided that the sector shall include political parties. Now this interpretation is further stretched by
the labor, peasant, fisher folk, urban poor, indigenous culture Banat vs. COMELEC(2009).
1
REPUBLIC ACT No. 7941 So as to the question on WON major political parties may
participate in the party-list election, the answer is Yes! But they
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE ELECTION OF PARTY-LIST cannot yet participate.
REPRESENTATIVES THROUGH THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM, AND
APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR Q: May major political parties participate?
Section 3. Definition of Terms. (a) The party-list system is a A: Yes, through their sectoral wings, BUT they are still
mechanism of proportional representation in the election of disqualified and not allowed to participate.
representatives to the House of Representatives from national,
regional and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions Now we have another ruling, decided on 2013. The
thereof registered with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC).
case of…
Component parties or organizations of a coalition may
participate independently provided the coalition of which they
Atong Paglaum vs. COMELEC G.R. 203766, April 2, 2013
form part does not participate in the party-list system.
The political parties here want to participate in the

(b) A party means either a political party or a sectoral party or a
party list election. They are contending that the interpretation of
coalition of parties.
the SC is really wrong that the party-list system is limited only to
those representing the marginalized and the under-represented.
(c) A political party refers to an organized group of citizens So they filed this case – Atong Paglaum decided on April 2,
advocating an ideology or platform, principles and policies for 2013. It’s shocking the most, because this time the SC is saying
the general conduct of government and which, as the most that it’s not limited only to the marginalized and the under-
immediate means of securing their adoption, regularly represented, anyone may participate in the party-list election. If
nominates and supports certain of its leaders and members as you have a copy of the case, the first ¼ pages of the cases would
candidates for public office. Xxx constitute the title of the case, because it is actually a
consolidation of 50+petitions. The SC consolidated it in one
Banat vs. COMELEC 586 S 211(2009) decision, because the question is who can participate in the
party list election.
8 years later (from the case earlier case discussed), in the case of
Banat vs. COMELEC, the court held that yes political parties may The SC overturned its earlier 2001 decision, it is now saying, that
participate in the party list election. If you read RA 7941 and the clear intent and express wording of the party-list structure,
Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution, it states that major under Section 5 of Article 6 of the Constitution, cannot be
political parties are allowed to participate. Now in the present disputed. The party-list system is not only for sectoral parties.
case, major political parties were allowed to establish coalitions Let us read Section 5 paragraph 1 again. It states that there shall
with sectoral organizations for political purposes. There should be a party-list system of …
not be a problem if for example the liberal party participates in
the party-list election through Kabataang Liberal ng Pilipinas. xxx national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations or
Now the major polical parties can just organize or affiliate with coalitions thereof registered with the Commission on Elections
other sectoral organizations. (COMELEC). xxx
In other words, if you are a political party, you can participate in Based on that, the party list system under the Constitution is
the party-list election but through your sectoral wing. You have composed of three different groups – the national parties or
to establish your own sectoral wing, that wing must represent organizations, regional parties or organizations and sectoral
the marginalized and the under represented. BUT, by a vote of 8 parties or organizations. It did not say registered national and
to 7, the SC decided to continue the ruling in Veterans, regional sectoral parties organization. It cannot be interpreted to
disallowing major political parties from participating in the party mean, national sectoral party or regional sectoral party because
list elections directly or indirectly. each word is separated by a comma that is a basic statutory
construction. So in other words, a national party is different
from a regional party and from a sectoral party or organization.
National Liberal Parties or organizations are different from

In veterans, the SC held that since it is provided by law that for Sectoral Parties or organizations. National parties or
the first 3 consecutive terms the first *** major political parties organizations need not be organized along sectoral lines and
are disqualified or not allowed to participate, that is in view of need not represent any particular sectors because they are
the fact that they regularly dominate the election and to give different from each other. If you are a national party, you need
other political parties a time to cope with this major political not represent a sector because there is a different category for
parties binawalan muna sila for that particular election in 1998. sectoral parties. Basic and simple interpretation of the
But the SC continued the disallowance by vote of 8 to 7, Constitution would really come to the conclusion that the party-
disallowing major political parties from participating in the party list system is not only for sectoral parties or the marginalized or
list elections directly or indirectly. Meaning even if they form the under-represented; the economically marginalized and
sectoral wings, they are still not allowed yet to participate. Now under-represented at that.
this is compounded with the fact that the COMELEC did not
accredit the sectoral wings of major political parties so they
were not allowed to participate in the party-list election. The law itself, RA 7941 does not require, national and regional
parties or organization to represent the marginalized and under-
represented sectors. Why? Isn’t it that the law provides for
definitions of political and sectoral parties. They are defined
1
under different paragraphs. Since they have different definitions,

they are separate and distinct from each other. Under Section
3(b) of that law a party is either “a political party or a sectoral
party or a coalition of parties.” So then, a party that is allowed to
participate in the party-list election, can refer to a political or a
sectoral party. It does not mean a political sectoral party.
Under Section 3( c) of RA 7941,,
c) A political party refers to an organized group of citizens

advocating an ideology or platform, principles and policies for
the general conduct of government xxx
A political party is different from a sectoral party. That is

because a sectoral party are those whose principle advocacy
which pertains to special interest and concerns of their sector.
Political party has its own ideology or platform, principles and
policies. While sectoral are those which has advocacies
pertaining to their special interests and concerns of their sector.
Under the party-list system therefore, an ideology based or

cause-oriented political party is clearly different from a sectoral
party. A political party need not be an organized as a sectoral
party and need not represent a particular sector. There is no
requirement in the law that a national or regional political party
must represent a marginalized and under-represented sector. It
is sufficient that the political party is consists of citizens which
advocate the same ideology or platform or the same governance
principles and policies regardless of economic status as citizens.
The economic status is not supposed to be the qualifying factor

for a group whether it be a party or organization to participate in
the party-list election. So, ideology based and cause oriented
political parties may now participate. For example in this case of
Atong Paglaum, although the ultimate decision of the SC that it’s
changing the rules and the interpretation, it remanded all the
applications to the COMELEC based on the new criteria. So, wala
pa decision as to each case, WON they are allowed to
participate. But what’s the *** for me, for example [Green
Cross?] is a party advocating environmental protection; the
COMELEC disqualified it because it does not represent any
sector which is true. What does it represent? The mammal
sector or the reptile sector? It is an advocacy group. Now based
on the prior interpretation of the SC, the COMELEC did not
abuse its discretion, because under the prior interpretation of
the SC, it does not represent a marginalized or under
represented sector. It is an advocacy group. But under the new
interpretation, it may now be allowed.
So, if you say, ma’am I will form my own political party. We are
for the - we go back to the American style.. that is the ideology,
can you participate as a political party? The answer yes! There is
no need to represent a particular sector. In fact when you say a
sector of professionals, you cannot say that they are under-
represented and marginalized. So a group of professionals can
already participate (as a political party??). Now I’m thinking, the
IBP of the Philippines can now participate in the party-list
election. Diba? It is a group of professionals. So next election,
expect not only some 100+ applications, but siguro aabot yan ng
500 because of this new ruling.
So the next meeting, the SC will finally answer the question –

WON a major political party may participate in the party-list
election! **yehey! :D
1
are marginalized will facilitate the entry of the marginalized in

the party list system. The SC is consistent with the policy that is
AUG. 8, 2013 now understood with regards party list. We have now therefore
JAY & LANIE the new parameters, this is now the summary in determining
whether or not a party, group or organisation will be allowed in
the party list system. Recall that prior to this decision, only those
In Ang Paglaum, a party need not be a sectoral party. It is now representing the marginalized and underrepresented are
available to national, regional, or sectoral parties. So it opened allowed to participate and political parties they can participate
up now the party list system to everyone who is interested. In on a condition. These will be now the new parameters.
that case, the SC said that this recognition that the national,
regional and sectoral parties need not be marginalized and 1) Three different groups may participate in the party
underrepresented which allows small ideology based and cause list system:
oriented parties wealthy funds to have chance to be in the
House of Representatives. At the same time it is still true that a) National parties/organizations;
marginalized and underrepresented can still participate. It is still
for them. So the SC in fact said that this interpretation b) Regional parties/organization; and
harmonised the constitution and the law which has discrepancy
with the understanding of both. This will give rise for multiparty c) Sectoral parties / orgnisations.
system for those marginalized and underrepresented, both
In other words, the party list system is not exclusive to
economic and ideological status to have the opportunity to send
sectoral parties only. But it is open also to national
their own members in the House of Representatives. This
parties and regional parties.
interpretation, ito, at least the SC is aware of the realities noh! It
said, this interpretation will also make the party list system 2) With regard to national parties or regional parties,
honest and transparent to prevent well off parties to they do not need to organise a long sectoral lines. They
masquerade in wallowing poverty, destitution while riding in don’t need to represent any marginalised and
SUVs in attending sessions in congress. No need to pretend na underrepresented sector. It is sufficient that they
because everyone can now participate. The idea again is to open qualify as a party as defined by RA 7941 – a group
up the system especially those parties which rank 3rd or 4th in the which ideology, etc...Political parties can participate in
district legislative election. So I was thinking that we form our party list elections to participate provided they register
own party… under the party list system and do not field candidates
in legislative district elections. Because that is
Based on the 2013 decision, the party list system is now open for
supposed to be the idea of the system. What about
all regardless if you are marginalized economically or
other parties which fielded candidates in the legislative
ideologically. Even group of professionals may also participate.
district elections. Whether major or not, if they have
Perhaps IBP will also have its candidates. Matatalino naman sila
fielded in the legislative district elections, it can
kaya pick up kaagad yan. May political parties participate in
participate only through their sectoral wings – it has to
party list election? Earlier diba we said yes and no. It is unsure, it
separately register under the party list system which
is uncertain but the reality is the SC disallowed political parties
will treated as an independent party link to a political
from participating. The SC disallows political parties to
party through a coalition. Clear, If they fielded
participate. More or less in the case of Paglaum, the SC now is
legislative district representatives, (tama ba? Tama ba
much clearer. First, Major political parties are those who fill
ang pinagsasabi ko? – laugh si Ma’am) they can
representative in the legislative district elections. Major political
participate but only through their sectoral wings. And
parties therefore cannot participate in party list election since
each sectoral wings will have its own constitution and
they neither lack well defined political constituencies nor
laws which it can register independently. Sectoral
represent marginalised and underrepresented sectors. They
party/Organizations may either be marginalized or
cannot qualify under these requirements. Thus, the national or
under represented or lacking well defined political
regional parties under the party list system are necessary those
constituencies. If you say sectoral party it does not
that do not belong to major political parties. These automatically
mean that you have to be marginalized or under
serves the national and regional parties under the party list
represented because there are groups defined in the
system to those who lack well defined political constituencies
law such as women, the elderly or professionals who
giving them the opportunity to have members in the House of
are not necessarily marginalized or under represented
Representatives. If you are therefore, major political party and
yet they are included in the enumeration in the law as
you are fielding candidates in the legislative district election, you
who will be considered as sectoral parties. They are
cannot now participate in the party list election. Why? The idea
qualified because they are those who are lacking
of the party list is to give chance to those marginalized parties
political constituencies. Professional for example is one
who consistently ranks 3rd, 4th, 5th in the legislative district
recognized in the law but they are not necessarily
elections but will have such number of constituencies that they
marginalized or under representative. They are not
will get such number of votes in the national level. So to
disqualified because under the new interpretation,
participate in party list elections, a major political party that
they can be that sector which lack well defined political
fields candidates in legislative district elections must organise
constituencies.
sectorally like labor peasant, fisher folk, urban poor,
professionals, etc. that can register under the party list system. A majority of the members of sectoral parties or
Major political parties can only participate only through their organization that represent the marginalized must
sectoral wings. In other words, major political parties cannot belong to the marginalized under the sectoral party
directly participate in the party list system. Why? Because they they represent. The SC said that what is only required
already have fielded candidates in the legislative district is only a majority of the membership of the
elections. But they can still participate indirectly through their marginalized or underrepresented sector. E.g. if you
sectoral wings. The participation of major political parties are a member of the fisherfolk, at least a majority of
through their sectoral wings whose majority of their members the membes are fisherman. The nominees of these
1
sectors whthere you represent the NMUs either must

belong to their respective sectors who must have a
track record of advancing the interest of their
respective sectors. . so connect that with first
sentence, it means that if this is a fisherfolk sector and I
am lawyer but I have a track record of advocating for
the interest of the fisherman I can be member of that
sector. I did not become myself a fisherwoman. The SC
said that atleast if I don’t belong to that sector but a
majority belongs to that sector. There will be now
members who are not necessarily fisherman
themselves. This is now good for the likes of arroyo and
esperon, because they need not necessarily have to
have experience to be a janitor or security guards to be
able to represent that sector as long as they have a
track record of advocacy for their respective sector.
The nominess of tha national and regional
party/organization must be bonifide members – the
parties are not disqualified because their candidates
are qualified provided that they have this one nominee
who is qualified. This is the problem before because
when the candidate is disqualified the COMELEC will
automatically disqualify the party itself. Now the SC is
saying that once a candidate is disqualified, when there
are 5 nominees, the party is not disqualified when one
of the candidates are not disqualified. At least this
question is now answered.
Now we have Ang ladlad (please read the case). This

case is good in discussing the equal protection clause.
The separation of the church and state actually. We
know that this is an organization of men and women
who calls themselves LGBTs. When they applied,
COMELEC denied the application on the grounds: bible
or quran or that it is not among the sectors
enumerated in section 5 RA 7941. Palusot na lng ng SC
because even in the earlier case of Ang Bagong Bayani
2001, the enumeration of sectors is not exclusive.
Nagjoke na si mam diri citing the meaning of the party

list names registered in COMELEC.
1
AUG 9 HOLIDAY In veterans and banat, 2% entitled to 1 seat- same.
AUG. 14, 2013 The additional seat:

JETRO & DANIELLE
In veterans for example, 52 seats are available. Only 17 seat
were qualified. How about additional seat? The SC said here you
ART 6 paragraph 2 consider proportional representation. The SC interpreted this as
the vote of the 2nd party in proportion to the first party.
Section 5 - the party-list representatives shall constitute 20% of Meaning, if the 1st party has 50% more of the votes of the 2 nd,
the total number of representatives including those under the the seats of the 2nd party should not equal to the 1 st party. The
party list. SC look for way that the result could not equal to the seats of
the 1st. there can be no equal seat for the 1 st and 2nd party.
The allocation of party list is 20% of the total number of seats in Meaning the seats for the 3rd, 4th, 5th is always much lower.
the house. We discussed how the 20% is solve using simple
mathematical equation. The problem now is now that we have For example, I have 20% votes – 1 st party. I am entitled to 3
the 20%, how do we allocate them? Who shall be considered as seats, the 2nd party has 8%, but because of the 3 seat limits, how
nominees? Who shall be considered to be given seats? many seats has the 2nd party? 3 seats because of the 3 seat
limit. The SC interpreted if you have 2% - 1 seat , 4% - 2 seats ,
The prevailing law is RA 7941. Under sec 11, the congress 6% - 3 seats. If you have 8% - just 3 seats because the maximum
provides: is 3 seats. The SC did not like that. If you read veterans, there
are 2 applications:
“the parties, organizations and coalitions receiving at least two
percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list system shall 1st - computation for the 1st party
be entitled to one seat each provided that those garnering more
than two percent ( 2%) of the votes shall be entitled to 2nd - a new formula for the rest of the parties
additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes
provided finally that each party, organization, or coalition shall For example, 1st ranking has 3 seats
be entitled to not more than three 3 seats”
2nd ranking- 5% - the result would always be lower.
So how do we put this in actual application?
In that case, only those with 2% and higher are entitled to a
In the case of VETERANS, the decision is iterated in CIBAC. seat. When it comes to additional seat, the additional seats are
BANAT somehow change the decision in veterans. But in all computed in relation to the total votes of 1 st ranking. How many
these cases, the SC is one in saying that there 4 inviolable % is your vote in relation to my vote?
parameters when we allocate seats:
Something is wrong with the computation. The law provides
st
1 , the 20% allocation – the combined number of all party-list that it would be the percentage of the a party list votes gathered
congressmen shall not exceed 20% of the total membership of in relation to the total number of votes cast in the election.
the house of representatives including those elected under the
party list. What does it mean?
Is it mandatory? Its been decided in veterans that it is not BAGONG BAYANI VS COMELEC
mandatory . it is only a ceiling. Further, in the case of Banat still
its not mandatory. What it means is that PARTY LIST 152 parties participated but after the election, it was resolved by
REPRESENTATIVES cannot be more than 20% of the members of comelec that only 46 were qualified. If we include all the votes
the house of representatives. including all those disqualified, they were around 15M votes
total. If you remove the disqualified, there are only 6M votes.
2nd, the two percent threshold – only those parties garnering a Now if we solve the percentage:
minimum of two percent of the total valid votes cast for the What do we mean total votes cast? The SC said that only those
party-list system are “qualified” to have a seat in the house of votes cast under the qualified parties. Only the 6M votes.
representatives. Going back to Veterans, if that was the formula it would be easy
to deduced that only very would qualify to those seats.
In veterans and banat, they are one in interpreting those parties 1. Only those garnering 2% and up
which obtained at least 2% are entitled to 1 seat each and that is 2. Only those 2% - 1 seat , 4%- 2 seats , 6%- 3 seats for
also true in the case of banat. All 2% percent or more are first party – entitled to additional seats
entitled to at least 1 additional seat. But in the case of veterans, 3. How about the 2nd ranking? It depends how much is
the SC clarifies it that this entitlement means only a guaranteed your vote in proportion to the 1st party.
seat. Now after that the 3rd parameter – the 3 seat limit.
In the case of Banat, the SC simplified the formula.
3rd, the three seat limit-each qualified party regardless of the What is the difference?
number of votes it actually obtained, is entitled to a maximum of 1. They rank the parties
three seats, that is one “qualifying “ and two additional seats. 2. Those 2% parties are guaranteed 1 seat
3. The additional seat:
4th, proportional representation- the additional seats which a
qualified party is entitled to shall be computed “in proportion
The SC said the 2nd portion of the law which says
to their total number of votes”.
provided that those garnering more than 2% if votes
So proportional representation would mean the additional seats. shall be entitled to additional seat in proportion to the
The additional seats is computed in proportion to this total total number of votes: this time the SC declared this
number of votes. Dito nagkaiba ang VETERANS AND BANAT. portion is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
1
This PORTION means that only those 2% and up are What is the purpose of the law? Why is residency required?
entitled to additional votes. The SC said if we stick to
that interpretation, then there is no way we could fill Because the person needs to be familiar with district. He needs
the 20% of the seats. Sayang din. The SC held it to be familiar with the needs of the community, its residential,
unconstitutional. the difficulties of the residents. We don’t want a stranger to rule
to the district.
On the part of the voters, a person seeking an elective office has

This time, the SC considered everyone in the additional seat. As to be for 1 year in that place. Why? He still has to assess
to those 2% and up, they will get this percentage in relation to whether or not he is qualified or not.
the total number of votes. Same pa rin. But you multiply it with
the no. of remaining seats. Since residency is synonymous with domicile, how do we apply
it?
In veterans, ilan ang percentage ko in relation sa boto ng 1 st
party and seats ng 1st party. In the case of Imelda marcos:
In banat, ang percentage in relation to the remaining seats. ROMUALDEZ v COMELEC
55-17 = 38 remaining available seats FACTS: Imelda came to Tolosa, Leyte when she was 8 yrs old. She
established it as her domicile. She studied there up to college.
So if I have 5%- what is 5% of the 38 remaining seats? Later she transferred to manila. Around in the 60’s, she was with
her husband marcos who was the president of the phils that
So review: time. If we reckon it from the time she stayed in Toloso, it was
only 14 yrs. Then EDSA revolution, she was exiled the she came
1. All 2% and up have 1 guaranteed seat back to manila. She even ran for president actually and stated
2. As to the additional seat, everyone is a candidate. For she was a resident in san juan. Prior to that, there documents
2% and up, their percentage in relation to the no of she was a resident of some place. In aug 4 1994, she came back
seats remaining. to tolosa, leyte. Then election on May 1995, counting from aug
to may, it is less than 1 yr.
So what happens if after there are still seats available?
The SC said the 20% allocation is not mandatory but its not ISSUE: W/N she was able to comply with the residency
prohibited. They said after giving the 2% guaranteed and requirement.
additional seats, the additional seats is not limited to the 2%. So
even if you have % lower than 2, don’t lose hope. You might RULING: The SC said YES. She has established her domicile long
still get a seat depending in the ranking until all seats are filled ago in TOLOSA, leyte. She has not exhibited any acts
up because the original computation in veterans did not qualify abandoning her domicile. Although she transferred in manila,
them. The conclusion in Banat, the limit of 2% is not used in she has to stay there because of her husband. If one has to
solving the additional seat. abandon one’s domicile, there should be actual physical
presence ( animus manendi) and ( animus non-revertendi) acts
showing that you are abandoning your old domicile. In her case,
although she was in manila, she has been regularly going back to
Is the 2% threshold constitutional? tolosa. Most of her projects benefit her kababayan in tolosa. In
fact the SC observed, she has establish her political machinery in
Yes as to the guaranteed seat but not to the additional seat. tolosa. These are acts which show she has not abandon tolosa.
But when she rean for president, she stated her residence was
Is the 3 seat limit constitutional? ( both in banat and veterans) manila. She is not also disqualified because it was also her
residence.
Yes it is constitutional. We need to have a limit otherwise it will
defeat the purpose of preventing a party in dominating the party
list. In the case of Butch Aquino...
Lets go to SEC 6
AQUINO vs COMELEC
Sec 6 talks about the qualifications of the members of the house
of representatives: FACTS: He intended to run in the 2 nd newly created district of
Makati. He filed his cert of candidacy. The aquinos are known to
No person shall be a member of the house of representatives be domiciles of Tarlac. How did he intend to prove his residency
unless he is a natural born citizen of the Philippines and on the in Makati? He rented a condo. He was saying his rent was for a
day of the election, is at least 25 yrs of age, able to read and year.
write and except that party-list representatives, a registered
voter in the district in which he shall be elected and a resident ISSUE: W/N he complied with residency requirement.
thereof for a period of not less than one year immediately
preceding the day of the election. RULING: The SC noticed although you have a lease contract, that
is not a proof that you intended to make Makati your residence
Residency and registered voter are not required of party list much less prove that you have abandon your domicile of origin.
nominees. Aquino said no one can possibly comply the residency
requirement since the district was newly created. The SC said
Lets go to RESIDENCY that argument cannot hold water. Although it was a new
district, the physical territory has been existing for years.
Residency is synonymous with domicile.
1
Another case... in the law. It is enough that the nominee belongs to the
marginalized and underrepresented sectors , that is if the
DOMINO VS COMELEC nominee represents the fisher folk, he or she must be a fisher
Domino ran and won as a representative in Sarangani in 1988 folk himself. If he represents the senior citizens, he or she must
election. It was shown that on june 1997 he was a registered be a senior citizen.
voter in quezon city but in may 1998, he ran in sarangani.
What’s his proof of residency in sarangani? His lease of contract In ATONG PAGLAUM VS COMELEC
dated January 27, 1997. Aside from that, he has not shown any
acts that he has abandon his domicile in quezon city. A lease The SC qualified this decision regarding who are qualified as
contract alone is not sufficient to prove the 1 year residency nor nominees?
proof of abandoning his domicile of origin.
The nominees of sectoral organization that represents the
marginalized and underrepresented; for those who represent
must either belong to their representative sector, kung fisher
In the case of
folk ka, fisher folk represent mo, farmer ka farmer ang represent
mo OR must have a track record of advocacy for their respective
FERNANDEZ VS HRET
sectors.
FACTS: Fernandez used to be an SP member and vice governor in
laguna. His prior certificate of candidacy declared he was a
Meaning, you need not be a farmer or fisher folk
resident of pagsanjan belonging to the fourth district. Now he’s yourself. They must be bona fide member of these
running for the 1st district. His cert of candidacy already parties. This time, anybody can participate in the party
indicated sta. rosa as his residency. He showed his lease contract list election not only coming from the marginalized and
in sta. rosa. underrepresented but also group of political parties. If
you are representing a political party, you only need to
ISSUE: Did he comply the residency requirement?
be a bona fide member of that party.
RULING: The SC ruled in favor of Fernandez. Why?
SECTION 7 . The members of the house of representatives shall
What is the problem in the Aquino case? They also showed the
be elected for a term of three years which shall begin unless
lease contract but there was no showing of any acts that they
otherwise provided by law, at noon on the 3oth day of june next
have abandon their old domicile and there was no physical acts
following their election.
of presence in the new place. In the case at bar, Fernandez has
shown physical acts of presence. Although he purchased also
No member of the house of representatives shall serve for more
properties in sta rosa but there was no property requirement. A
than 3 consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office
person doesn’t have to purchase a property in the place to prove
for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption
residency since you will be adding another qualification and this
in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was
would be unconstitutional. The SC said here that the lease of
elected.
contract would suffice since Fernandez had long established his
attachment to the place. He has businesses in the place. He has
purchased properties in sta rosa. The children are also studying Sec 7 talks about term –years of service.
in sta rosa for 2 years already.
What is the difference between term and tenure?
Term is the period which the official is entitled to hold office.

We were talking about the residency requirement of a district Term is provided by law. Tenure is the actual period the official
representative. In the case of party list representatives, its not held the office. This maybe reduced by death, resignation or
the same. We refer to RA 7941; removal. Term can only be changed by amending the
constitution.
Qualifications of party list member
Under the omnibus election code, there was this provision ( was
1. He’s a natural-born citizen – meaning it has already been amended) “ that elected official
2. Registered voter running for office is considered ipso facto resigned the moment
3. Has to be a residence of the Philippines for a period of he filed his certificate of candidacy”
1 year
4. Able to read and write In the case of
5. A bona fide member of the party at least 90 days
before the date of election DIMAPORO v COMELEC
The difference is that he has to be a residence of the Philippines He is a congressman. When he filed his cert of candidacy of
unlike in representatives, a residence of the district and has to governor, he was considered ipso facto resigned from congress.
be a member of the party he or she seeks to represent. He challenged this provision saying congress is reducing the term
of the official in congress which is a constitutional provision
In the case of BANAT VS COMELEC
which can be amended thru amending the constitution,
Who are qualified nominees? The ruling was only those therefore its unconstitutional.
representing the marginalized and under represented. The
question is do the nominees has also to be marginalized and The SC said said its not unconstitutional since what is shortened
underrepresented? here is not his term but his tenure. Thru his voluntary act of filing
a cert of candidacy shortens his tenure.
The SC said the need not nominee not be wallowing in poverty,
destitution or infirmity since there is no financial status required
1
BUT I said WAS coz this has already been amended.

Only the APPOINTED OFFICIALS are considered ipso
facto resigned the moment they file their certificate of RA 7166
candidacy.
Section 4. Postponement, Failure of Election and Special
AUG. 15, 2013 Elections. - The postponement, declaration of failure of election
MICHELLE & MARLIE and the calling of special elections as provided in Sections 5, 6
AUG. 16, 2013 HOLIDAY – moved to AUG. 15, 2013 and 7 of the Omnibus Election Code shall be decided by the
Commission sitting en banc by a majority vote of its members.
The causes for the declaration of a failure of election may occur
Section 8. Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election before or after the casting of votes or on the day of the election.
of the Senators and the Members of the House of
Representatives shall be held on the second Monday of May. In case a permanent vacancy shall occur in the Senate or House
of Representatives at least one (1) year before the expiration of
the term, the Commission shall call and hold a special election to
Can it be changed? Unless otherwise provided by law. So it can
fill the vacancy not earlier than sixty (60) days nor longer than
be changed without amending the Constitution.
ninety (90) days after the occurrence of the vacancy. However, in
case of such vacancy in the Senate, the special election shall be
Section 9. In case of vacancy in the Senate or in the House of held simultaneously with the succeeding regular election.
Representatives, a special election may be called to fill such
vacancy in the manner prescribed by law, but the Senator or
Q: How is the Special Election called in case of vacancy?
Member of the House of Representatives thus elected shall serve
only for the unexpired term. A: 1. there must be a vacancy which is permanent in nature.
Vacancy must occur in the Senate or in the House of
So in case of vacancy, the vacancy is filled by calling a special Representative at least one year before the expiration of the
election. There is no such thing as appointment in case of term.
vacancy.
2. The senate or HR shall issue a resolution if it is in session or an
Q: Now is the calling of special election mandatory? official communication by the Senate President or the Speaker of
the House if it is not in session, certifying the vacancy and calling
A: No! Because it says there “may be called” and “in the manner of the Special election.
prescribed by law.” So there must be a law prescribing the
manner of special election. Q: What is the role of the COMELEC?
Q: Is there a law treating special elections in case of vacancy? A: The COMELEC shall schedule and hold the Special Election,
provided that in case of vacancy in the HR, the special elections
A: Yes! We have Sec. 1 & 2 of RA 6645 amended by Sec. 4 of RA shall be held within 60-90 days from the occurrence of the
7166. vacancy. In case of the senate, the election shall be held
simultaneously with the General Election because we have
RA 6645: election for the senate every 3 years.
Section 1. In case a vacancy arises in the Senate at least This holding of Special Election which is the function of
eighteen (18) months or in the House of Representatives at least the COMELEC, will be accompanied with a notice
(1) year before the next regular election for Members of stating the offices to be voted for. Meaning the
Congress, the Commission on Elections, upon receipt of a COMELEC will give notice to the voters that they are
resolution of the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the voting to fill a vacancy.
case may be, certifying to the existence of such vacancy and
calling for a special election, shall hold a special election to fill Tolentino vs. Comelec, 420 S 438
such vacancy.f Congress is in recess, an official communication Fact: We know that PGMA came into power pursuant to
on the existence of the vacancy and call for a special election by succession. She was formerly the VP and so she vacated the
the President of the Senate or by the Speaker of the House of office of the VP. Under the Constitution, she will nominate the
Representatives, as the case may be, shall be sufficient for such VP among members of the Congress. She nominated Senator
purpose. The Senator or Member of the House of Guingona. He took his oath of office and as a result there was a
Representatives thus elected shall serve only for the unexpired vacancy in the Senate. Following the procedure, the Senate
term. issued a Resolution certifying the existence of vacancy and
directing the COMELEC to hold a special election. The vacancy
Section 2. The Commission on Elections shall fix the date of the occurred sometime in Feb. 2001 and there was to be a regular
special election, which shall not be earlier than forty-five (45) election in May 2001.
days not later than ninety (90) days from the date of such The resolution of the Senate actually provided that the 13 th in
resolution or communication, stating among other things the rank in the senatorial race shall replace Guingona. But the
office or offices to be voted for: provided, however, that if within problem there is that when the COMELEC called the
the said period a general election is scheduled to be held, the election, there was no notice to the voters that the 13 th placer
special election shall be held simultaneously with such general will be the replacement of Guingona and shall serve his
election. unexpired term.
Issue: Does this vitiate the proceedings of the election of the 13 th

in rank because COMELEC didn’t send out a notice that the
public shall be voting for the replacement of Guingona. Does this
1
nullify the election of the replacement? But what happened in the following case:
Ruling: No! Because there was already a law which provides that Ligot vs. Mathay, 56 S 823
in case of vacancy in the Senate, the election to fill up the
vacancy shall be held simultaneously with the General Election. Facts: Ligot here is a member of the House. This case is in
Provision of the law therefor is already a general notice to all the relation to the case of PHILCONSA v. Mathay where the Court
voters that if there is certified vacancy, the voters will be voting held that the salary increase shall take effect only on December
for the replacement on the next regular election despite the 30, 1969. Incidentally, this is also the date of the expiration of
failure of COMELEC to give out notice. Therefor the the term of Ligot. Ligot filed a claim for retirement pay under CA
proclamation of the 13th in rank as Senator is still valid. 186 and claims that his retirement pay should be based on the
already increased salary rate.
Issue: WON the retirement benefit of Ligot should be computed

Section 10. Thesalaries of Senators and Members of based on the increased salary rate.
the House of Representatives shall be determined
by law. No increase in said compensation shall take Ruling: To allow Ligot to avail of the retirement benefit based on
effect until after the expiration of the full term of all the increased salary rate would be a subtle way of increasing his
the Members of the Senate and the House of compensation during his term and achieving indirectly what he
could not obtain directly. Ligot’s claim thus cannot be sustained.
Representatives approving such increase.
PHILCONSA vs. Mathay, 18 S 300 Again, for retirement benefits, it must be based on the salary
rate which is in effect during his term and not the increased
Facts: In this case, Mathay here is the Auditor of Congressmen salary rate of the subsequent term. So they cannot increase their
and this case revolves around the increase of salary in Congress. salaries during their term. They cannot enjoy the increase during
There is a provision in the Constitution which serves as a their term. They have to wait for 9 years, and that is if they are
deterrent for congressmen who will enact a law to increase the re-elected during that time.
salary of the members of the Senate and HR. The deterrent is
very simple; the effectivity of the salary increase should only Q: Why are there a lot of citizens aspiring for the position of
take effect after the expiration of the term of all the members of Senator and Congressman?
the Senate and the HR who actually enacted such law. The main
reason for such law is to prevent satisfaction of the self-serving A: Because what is prohibited only in the Constitution is the
interest of the Senators and the Congressmen who enacts said Salary Increase. What about allowances? Mind you, allowances
law. are included in the prohibition of the prior constitutions, but in
The petitioner’s main contention is that the members of the 1987, the said prohibition was deleted. There is no legal limit as
house which enacted said law has already finished their terms to the effectivity and amount of allowances. In the words of Fr.
and so, the increase in salary should already be effected. Bernas, the limit is only moral, Kung kaya ng konsensiya mo!
Issue: Won an increase in the salary of the members of the HR Q: How about deduction of Salary? Should it take effect before
should already be granted. the expiration of the full term of everyone?
A: NO! If there is deduction, it could immediately take effect the

Ruling: No. The provision in the Constitution does not only refer
following day, but [I] doubt if there would be congressmen who
to the term of the members of the House but also as to the
would do that!
members of the Senate which enacted the said law.
Section 11. A Senator or Member of the House of

When you say the expiration of the term of the members of the Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable by not more
Senate and the HR, this means the expiration of the terms of than six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the
both Senators and members of HR. In this case, the term of Congress is in session.
office of the HR is 4 years while for the Senators is 6 years. On
the 4th year, does it mean, that the congressmen can already No Member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other
avail of the increase by virtue of a law previously passed or place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any
should it wait for the expiration of the Senator’s term which is committee thereof.
on the 6th year. The SC held that there should still be a waiting
period of 2 years.
We have two kinds of parliamentary immunities in Section 11.
The object of the law is to at least provide a legal bar to the The first is the Privilege from arrest and the second is privilege of
legislators leading from the natural temptation to increase their speech and debate.
salaries. Because if they want to increase it, they still have to
For privilege from arrests, the said immunity is available only for
wait for the expiration of all of their terms (more often than not,
Senator and members of the House provided that the offense is
the ones who enacted said law will not be able to enjoy the said
punishable of not more than 6 years imprisonment and the
increase as they are already outgoing). For example, we just had
other requirement that the Congress is in session.
the May 2013 election by 2016 the terms of the Congressman
will expire. By 2016 also, the term of half of the Senators will Q: Now what do you mean by session?
also expire. Does that mean that for example, if they enact a law
increasing their salary, should it take effect on June 30, 2016? A: Session does not refer to the day to day meetings of the
No! because there is still the other half of senators who were Congress. It refers to the entire period from the initial convening
incumbents when the law was enacted. So you still have to wait until its final adjournment.
until 2019 before you can benefit from the increase.
1
The idea is that the members of the Congress should be free Issue: Is Trillanes entitled to *** in order to attend Senate
from any harassment of arrests arising from minor offenses. As sessions.
public officers, they are really targets for complaints whether
founded or not. To prevent such kinds of harassment which is in Q: What’s the difference in the circumstance of Trillanes and
a way preventing them or make them hesitant to go to their Jalosjos?
sessions, it is constitutionally provided that they have this A: Jalosjos was already convicted while Trillanes’ case is still
privilege from arrests. pending before the RTC. But the court stated that it is
impractical to draw a line between convicted prisoners and
Q: Is it necessary that they really attend the session? Kung nasa those whose cases are still pending.
bahay lang sila can they be arrested?
Trillanes’ contention is that because his case is still pending, he is
A: It is not necessary that they attend the session. The still entitled to the presumption of innocence. If he is innocent,
idea is that they can go to the session anytime that they then he should be allowed to attend sessions. But the SC held
want to, without fear of being arrested. that there should be no difference in the treatment of detainees
waiting for their trial and those who are there because of
Martinez vs. Morfe, 44 S 22 conviction.
Under the 1935 Constitution, privilege from arrests is only Ruling: SC held that Trillanes should not be allowed to enjoy
available for civil arrests. What do you mean by Civil Arrests? exemptions. It is impractical to draw a line between convicted
Siguro maybe for contempt. But the bottomline under the 1935 prisoners and those whose cases are still pending before the
Constitution, they can be arrested for felony, unlike the 1987 court. Though they do not forfeit their constitutional rights,
constitution as long as the felony is punishable by not more than upon detention, whether under preventive detention or serving
6 years [they are privileged from arrests]. It seems that sentence, they [prisoners] have limited rights and cannot
jurisprudence in Martinez is not carried over to the 1987 practice their profession, and hold office either elective or
Constitution. appointive (among other limitations).
In Martinez, the SC do not want to create a separate class of
legislators or citizens with special treatments. If you are a
violator of the law you should be arrested! It seems that this If you look at Section 11 the other way around, the privilege of
jurisprudence is not carried in the 1987 constitution. They are arrest if it can be claimed, it can be claimed whether or not you
indeed a special class as they are privileged from arrest. are convicted or your case is still pending. In other words, after
the expiration of your term, if there is already conviction,
magtago kana! But then we are only talking about minor
offenses, those punishable of not more than 6 years.
People vs. Jalosjos, 324 S 689
The next parliamentary immunity is the privilege of speech and
In this case, Jalosjos was a member of the HR confined at the debate.
National Penitentiary while his convictions for 2 counts of
statutory rape and 6 counts of acts of lasciviousness are pending No Member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other
appeal. He filed a motion that he be allowed to fully discharge place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any
his duties as a congressman including attendance to legislative committee thereof.
sessions.
The privilege is only as to speech and debate. What is the nature
What are the offenses? 2 counts of statutory rape and 6 counts
of this speech and debate? This refers to the utterances made by
of acts of lasciviousness. He is already convicted and is already
congressman in the performance of their official functions such
serving sentence. He was convicted of a non-bailable offense,
as speeches delivered., Statements made, votes cast in the halls
can he be exempted? Can he be allowed to attend legislative
of congress while the same is in session, as well as bills
sessions?
introduced in congress whether the same is in session or not and
other acts performed by congressman either inside or outside
NO! He has been convicted of an offense punishable by ***
the premises of Congress in the official discharge of their duties
penalty. Clearly he is not entitled to the parliamentary immunity.
as members of Congress and Congressional committees duly
It was never the intention of the 1987 Consti, to shield a
authorized to perform such functions at the time of the
member of the Congress from the consequence of his
performance of the act in question.
wrongdoings. To allow him to attend is to broaden the privilege
provided in the 1987 constitution.
The privilege of speech and debate refer only to utterances,
speeches delivered, statements made, votes cast during session.
Q: What’s the difference between the case of Jalosjos
and Trillanes? Q: How about when they are not in session? Can they still claim
the privilege?
Trillanes vs. Pimentel Sr., 556 S 471
A: Yes! Provided the same was made in the performance of their
Facts: In the present case, Trillanes was charged with *** filed official function as such legislator. The essential *** The action
before the RTC of Makati. Nearing 4 years of detention, he won involved must be a legislative action!
a seat in the senate. Before the commencement of his term, he
filed before the RTC of Makati an Omnibus Motion for leave of Q: What is a legislative action?
court. Trillanes moved to be allowed to attend sessions.
Notwithstanding the decision in Jalosjos, why is Trillanes A: refers to something deliberative - while you are deliberating
persistent that his motion may be granted? and communicative in nature by which members participate in
1
committee and house proceedings in consideration of a

proposed legislation or *** which the constitution places in the constitutional violation. The members of the Congress can
jurisdiction of the legislature. As long as the Congressman or suspend their co-members for serious disorderly conduct or
Senator performs a function which is legislative in nature, these behaviour. This section therefore means, that although exempt
speeches, utterances, acts that are communicative in nature from civil actions and prosecutions for their words uttered in
would be privileged from any complaint or litigation or case for Congress, the members of the Congress may nonetheless be
that matter. But the necessary element is that these were question in Congress itself. Observe that they cannot be
performed while in the conduct of his official function. questioned in any other place other than Congress. This is
supposed to be a guarantee of freedom of expression for every
Q: Is it necessary that the Congress be in session? legislator.
A: No! because they are legislators all through their

term. Iba ang objective ng privilege from arrest sa
privilege of speech and debate. The idea of the Q: How far can a legislator assume that his freedom of
expression is guaranteed?
latter is that they are free to express whatever they
want because this is necessitated by their function.
How can they become legislators when they are not A: We have the case of Pobre vs. Defensor
allowed to express Santiago, 597 S 1
Pobre vs. Defensor Santiago, 597 S 1

Jimenez vs. Cabangbang, 17 S 876
In this case we know that Miriam Santiago, was ***[vying?] for a

This involves publication. A member of the house published an
seat in the SC. When the JBC announced that only the third
open letter to the president of the Philippines. There were
members of the SC would qualify for consideration as Chief
derogatory remarks, imputations in this publication, imputation
Justice in replacement of Panganiban. Sen. Santiago, was not an
of plans of a coup de tat against the President. Several military
incumbent member of the SC, but was an applicant for the
officers were named in this publication and so a complaint was
position, delivered a privileged speech in the senate. So eto na
filed against this Congressman. When the publication was made
yon.
Congress was not in session.
x x x I am not angry. I am irate. I am foaming in the

Q: IS the fact that the Congress was not in session relevant?
mouth. I am homicidal. I am suicidal. I am humiliated,
debased, degraded. And I am not only that, I feel like
A: No! As said earlier, the privilege of speech and debate apply throwing up to be living my middle years in a country of
regardless if the Congress is in session or not. this nature. I am nauseated. I spit on the face of Chief
Justice Artemio Panganiban and his cohorts in the
What is relevant is that when the publication was made, it was Supreme Court, I am no longer interested in the
not made pursuant to a regular and normal function of a position [of Chief Justice] if I was to be surrounded by
Congressman. A congressman does not normally perform idiots. I would rather be in another environment but
functions such as publication nor does it relate to any of his not in the Supreme Court of idiots x x x.
other function as such legislator.
Miriam Santiago is also a lawyer, the question is, can she be
Thus the SC held that this publication does not belong to the disbarred?
category of speech and debate that are immune from any
liability. Q: Can she be disciplined by the SC itself which governs the law
profession.
The privilege however is not absolute. If you read the last
sentence – “No Member shall be questioned nor be held liable in A: No! this is part of parliamentary immunity of speech and
any other place for any speech or debate.” Meaning there is a debate but the SC said that:
place where they could be held liable.
Indeed, her privilege speech is not actionable criminally
Q: WHERE can they be held liable? or in a disciplinary proceeding under the Rules of Court.
It is felt, however, that this could not be the last word
A: In the congress itself. They can be held liable by on the matter. Xxx
their peers. They may be questioned by Congress
itself. Example is the case of Osmena vs. Pendatun. We, however, would be remiss in our duty if we let the
Senator’s offensive and disrespectful language that
definitely tended to denigrate the institution pass by. It
Osmena vs. Pendatun, 109 S 863
is imperative on our part to re-instill in Senator/Atty.
Santiago her duty to respect courts of justice, especially
Here Osmena made a privilege speech, making serious this Tribunal, and remind her anew that the
imputations of bribery against the President. So the supporters parliamentary non-accountability thus granted to
of the president filed a complaint and demanded that Osmena members of Congress is not to protect them against
produce evidence or documents to support his imputations prosecutions for their own benefit, but to enable them,
against the President. When Osmena was not able to produce as the people’s representatives, to perform the
any support, a complaint was filed and he was disciplined by his functions of their office without fear of being made
peers. Would that be allowed? Yes! There is here no responsible before the courts or other forums outside
1
The first sentence refers to what we call an incompatible office.

the congressional hall. This is any office in the government which may not be held by
the legislator during his tenure in the Congress without forfeiting
his seat. What if the congressman or senator would really want
to take the position? He may but the consequence is forfeiture
of his seat because it is incompatible. It is incompatible if it is
If you can recall, there is another case involving Tulfo, with 1) legislative department and 2) the executive department.
questioning before the Court the Constitutionality of It violates the separation of powers. What is not allowed is the
Checkpoints. When the Court held that checkpoints are simultaneous holding of executive and legislative positions. To
constitutional where they can conduct warrantless search and prevent him to owe loyalty to another department, the
seizures and warrantless arrests and Tulfo published an article constitution instituted barrier called incompatible office.
calling the SC “sangkatutak na bobo” and he was cited for
contempt. If it can be shown that the other office is just an extension of the
legislative office, meaning, he is taking it in his ex-officio
In sum, that is why many seek the position of senators and capacity, then there is no incompatibility. Example, the chairman
congressmen. Not because of the salary because salary increases on education for both houses whose ex-officio function is board
would take effect only after 9 years, but because of these of regents of state universities, that’s part of their legislative
immunities! First is the immunity from arrests for offenses function so there is no incompatibility.
punishable with imprisonment of not more than 6 years while
the Congress is in Session and Second is the parliamentary The second sentence refers to a forbidden office. What is the
immunity privilege of speech and debate whether on the difference?
Congress is in session. But it does not matter anyway, because in
the Philippines if you are like Trillanes, has been arrested, Incompatible Forbidden
prosecuted for coup de tat for a crime against the Security of the
State, it does not matter, you still get elected as Senator. Even if Refers existing offices Created during the
you are Sanchez, already convicted of rape or like Jalosjos, even term of the office or
if they are in prison cell, they can still get elected! Worst, even if the emoluments
you are the former President notwithstanding a lot of pending increased during the
criminal cases it does not matter. Even if you are in jail, you can term
still move for a house arrest because you are of course the
Wala nagprovide Cannot hold the
former president of the Philippines. Do not worry because you
office regardless
can still get elected in the Congress and may become the
whether he wants
Speaker of the house. So only in the Philippines! :3
to forfeit his seat in
congress or not
*if he continues
AUG. 21, 2013 despite this, he is
KIRSTIN & CHARITY-HOLIDAY, removed as a
instead AUG. 17, 2013 member of the
[Saturday Make up Class] legislative
department
*remedy: wait until
August 17 (Make-up class) the end of his term
Bai Charity Pandita
SECTION 12. All Members of the Senate and the House of

Representatives shall, upon assumption of office, make a full SECTION 14. No Senator or Member of the House of
disclosure of their financial and business interests. They shall Representatives may personally appear as counsel before any
notify the House concerned of a potential conflict of interest court of justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-
that may arise from the filing of a proposed legislation of judicial and other administrative bodies. Neither shall he,
which they are authors. directly or indirectly, be interested financially in any contract
with, or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the
Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality
Take note that what is required in the case of public interest is thereof, including any government-owned or controlled
only disclosure of conflict of interest. It does not necessarily corporation, or its subsidiary, during his term of office. He shall
mean that the legislator is only prevented from filing the not intervene in any matter before any office of the
proposed legislation as long as he discloses a potential conflict of Government for his pecuniary benefit or where he may be
interest. called upon to act on account of his office.
SECTION 13. No Senator or Member of the House of

Representatives may hold any other office or employment in This section provides for certain prohibitions. Foremost is the
the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality prohibition for legislators who are also lawyers. There is no
thereof, including government-owned or controlled prohibition for a legislator to practice his profession but he
corporations or their subsidiaries, during his term without cannot personally appear as counsel. The idea being is that his
forfeiting his seat. Neither shall he be appointed to any office mere presence would influence the tribunal. Only the personal
which may have been created or the emoluments thereof appearance is prohibited but not the practice. The reset of this
increased during the term for which he was elected. section refers to other conflicts of interest.
1
In Puyat vs De guzman, involved here are assembly men (now nays on any question shall, at the request of one-fifth of the
called Congress men). He appeared as counsel in SEC. but what Members present, be entered in the Journal.
he did after is he bought 10 shares from the stocks and
subsequently elected as Director (you only need one stock to Each House shall also keep a Record of its proceedings.
qualify). As director, he filed a motion to intervene in the case
contending that he is the rightful director. This time, he is no (5) Neither House during the sessions of the Congress shall,
longer a counsel but a party litigant. SC said that under normal without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three
circumstances, a director may intervene in a trial involving his days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses
interest in a corporation but SC saw that the circumstance shall be sitting.
involved here points to the design of the case so that this
assembly man could circumvent the constitutional prohibition. Refers to the internal procedures.
Reasons: 1) there was very few number of stocks. 2) Stocks were Take note that when they elect their head, the president and
bought after courts conviction. In this case, SC said that it can be speaker of the house, the required number is majority.
likened to doing indirectly what the constitution prohibits. So he Paragraph 2 states A majority of each House shall constitute a
was not allowed to participate. quorum to do business. In other words, it is not necessary that
everyone is present. But the smaller number may compel the
Liban vs Gordon absent members in such manner as the house may provide.
Gordon is the chairman of Phil Natl Red Cross (PNRC). Being a
senator as well, the issue is WON his position is incompatible Avelino vs Cuenco
with his position as chairman. When you review the nature of Talks about quorum, in relation to election of senate president.
PNRC, it was established pursuant to international agreement How many senators are there? 24. In this case, one senator is in
and that in fact they cater to the wounded, or victims of war the states, the other is in the hospital. We have two factions
regardless of the loyalty of the victim (whether rebel or for here, the avelino and cuenco faction. Cuenco has 12 senators
government). They are neutral. SC said that it was created and avelino has 11. So there were several manipulations, like in
pursuant to an international law but it does not take any fund the morning they were present but was absent in the afternoon.
from the government and its officers are private although there They even walked out. Now we must remember that the
are some representatives from the government. So SC said that election of the SP is under the absolute discretion of the senate,
NLRC is a private institution. Thus, there is no incompatibility on they can replace him anytime. Hence, the court may not
the 2 positions of Gordon. intervene due to separation of power. It is political case.
However, SC decided to take jurisdiction because of the issue on
SECTION 15. The Congress shall convene once every year on the the making of a quorum. The contention is that quorum should
fourth Monday of July for its regular session, unless a different be 13, half of the senators plus one. But SC said that ”majority”
date is fixed by law, and shall continue to be in session for such should not be based on the fixed number of all the members but
number of days as it may determine until thirty days before the on ACTUAL members or incumbents who are not incapacitated
opening of its next regular session, exclusive of Saturdays, to discharge their duties by death, incapacity or absence of
Sundays, and legal holidays. The President may call a special jurisdiction of the house or for other causes which made the
session at any time. attendance impossible.
What is the duration in a given of year? Depends upon the Take note that if there are members who are absent, they
congress, sila na lang magsabot2. But under the constitution, cannot form a quorum. The house concerned may perform
there is a mandatory recess or adjournment before the opening compulsory processes such as arresting the absent member so
the regular session. that they can have quorum. If after performing compulsory
process and member cannot be compelled, then he is excluded
Now special session, it may be called anytime. If we talk about from the total membership which constitutes quorum. If one
parliamentary immunity from arrest and we said this is relevant dies, the basis of computation is not 24 but 23. If one is abroad,
WON the congress is in session, we are talking about this a warrant of arrest is useless because he is beyond the
session. From the beginning of the fourth Monday of July up to jurisdiction of the senate so he is included. If one is in the
its adjournment whether voluntary or not. hospital, he may be compelled to attend. Under these
SECTION 16. (1) The Senate shall elect its President and the circumstances, the quorum is based on 23 and majority is 23 + 1,
House of Representatives its Speaker, by a majority vote of all so it should be 12. Therefore, Cuenco’s election is valid.
its respective Members. Side note: On the issue of RH Bill, iniiwasan nila ito na issue.
They said majority will be based on the total number of senators
Each House shall choose such other officers as it may deem because they don’t want to make an issue of the quorum. They
necessary. are confident that the bill will be passed even if based on the
total and not on the actual.
(2) A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do
business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day Paragraph 3:
and may compel the attendance of absent Members in such
manner, and under such penalties, as such House may provide. They can make internal rules and procedures, they may punish
and suspend and even expel. But expulsion is only for 60 days
(3) Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, and needs 2/3 of all the members. “All” means absolute
punish its Members for disorderly behavior, and, with the majority, if no “all” then only simple majority.
concurrence of two-thirds of all its Members, suspend or expel Example: if there are only 13 members. What is the majority
a Member. A penalty of suspension, when imposed, shall not required?
exceed sixty days. Absolute Simple
(4) Each House shall keep a Journal of its proceedings, and 12+1 = 13 6+1 = 7
from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as
may, in its judgment, affect national security; and the yeas and
1
Supreme court cannot allege violation of internal rules and He can show evidence that the law was
procedure because this is political question based on separation passed beyond that date. Congress stopped
of powers. So if there is violation, the jurisdiction if within the the clock, so based on the journal, it was
House or Congress itself. passed on the day when there was still a
session. But he contested that he can show
Arroyo vs Devenecia evidence to prove otherwise. So issue here is
which should be given weight, his evidence
As practice, the speaker of the house asks if there is an objection and witnesses or the journal. SC said that the
to the passing of a bill. In this case, one person raised his journal is an official legislative act. Based on
objection. Now Arroyo was not listening that time and said, separation of powers, they are to be given
“what is it, Mr. Speaker?” there being no objection, the report is credence and weight as against evidence or
now approved and ratified and was later on enacted into a law. witnesses which are left to a memory of a
Arroyo questioned the validity of the law based on this instance, person and sometimes lost by death or some
according to him; there was a violation of internal rules. SC said interpretation. Memory is not reliable as
this is a political question. against the journal in determining the acts of
the legislative. There can be no case to case
Santiago vs Sandiganbayan review of what really transpired. The SC
cannot say to Congress na, “huy you lied!”
This is about the disciplinary authority of the Congress. If the because it is the collective act of the Congress
congress suspends one of its members, can the suspended itself. So as to extraneous evidences, the
member go to the court? NO. If say, your suspension is 90 days, journal has more weight.
this time you may go to court on the ground of grave abuse of
discretion because the discretion of the congress is to suspend 2) Enrolled Bill
you up to 60 days. So if it is exceeds, it is equivalent to  Another record of the official legislative acts.
jurisdiction.  What happens if there are conflicting documents,
ie journal vs enrolled bill?
In this case, Santiago was commissioner of ___ and deportation  Definition:
(CID) before she was senator. During this time, graft and  After an enrolled bill has passed each house,
corruption case was filed against her in relation to her act of the senate president and the speaker of the
allowing some aliens to stay without proper documents. Under house will sign on it and it will then be
3019 (Anti-graft and corrupt practices), a public officer charged certified by the secretary of each house
of this may be preventively suspended automatically for 90 days. before it is passed to the president for
Santiago questioned this on the ground that it is only the House approval. It is considered enrolled because it
of Senate which can suspend her. SC said that contention has no is already a certification as to its due
merit because the suspension is based on law because she was execution and as to its content. So if there are
charged of violation of 3019. Under that law, she is covered by questions as to the versions between that of
the automatic preventive suspension. She was not suspended the lower house and the senate, the ultimate
because she was disciplined but because she violated said law. and conclusive document is the enrolled bill
She is not to be treated differently as other officers charged with because it contains the certification of the
the same case. The jurisdiction of the House is only as to leaders of each house. The president, on his
discipline. This jurisdiction is not exclusive because there may be part, cannot just approve any document
other laws which may impose suspension. unless there is an assurance that the entire
congress agreed on such act. There must be a
Paragraph 4: certification from each house.
You have two documents here:  Enrolled Bill Doctrine:
1) Journal – Mandated by the constitution. It is a record of  Journal vs Enrolled Bill – Enrolled Bill is give a
what was done and passed in the legislative assembly. higher weight
This is useful for recording of the proceedings and also  In Casco vs Gimenez:
for the interpretations of the law. It is like the minutes He was charged of possessing ___
of what transpired in the Congress. It informs the formaldehyde (?!?!?!). it is the end product of
people of what their representatives have been doing. combination of urea and formaldehyde, in
It is the aggregated account of the daily proceedings. layman’s term, resin. His contention is that it
2) Record – this is the word for word transcript of the is not the intention of the congress to pass
lecture. SO KAYO, KUNG MAGTRANSCRIBE KAYO.. I- urea and formaldehyde because based on the
EDIT NYO NAMAN! (Hahahaha. Si maam na gyud) journal, they extended the bill to individual
ingredients of the end product. However, in
Purpose: the final bill it was only the end product. So
1) Journal issue is which one should prevail? Supreme
 To ensure the publicity of the proceeding and the Court said that it should be the enrolled bill.
legislation and also the corresponding The journal is just the record and it can be
responsibility of the members of their subject to change, errors, etc. But the bill, it
constituents. has been certified by both houses. This is
 Provide proof of what actually transcribed in the illustration of the enrolled bill theory.
meeting.
 In US vs Pons: (2nd part – wohoooooooo!!! Hapit na gayud matangtang akong
 The defendant was questioning the validity of dalunggan sa kataas ani. Aw, OA lang.)
a law on which he was charged. According to
him, the law is invalid because it was passed SECTION 17. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall
when the congress was in compulsory recess. each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of
1
all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications Fernandez vs HRET
of their respective Members. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be But what if Comelec already passed a favorable decision on
composed of nine Members, three of whom shall be Justices of qualification and eventually won and elected as member of the
the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and Congress, can you still file a case before the HRET on his
the remaining six shall be Members of the Senate or the House qualification? YES. The COMELEC decision is not res judicata
of Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be chosen on because the final jurisdiction is still with HRET. There will be no
the basis of proportional representation from the political forum shopping.
parties and the parties or organizations registered under the
party-list system represented therein. The senior Justice in the Abayon vs HRET and Palaypayon vs HRET
Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman. (Cha: Maam discussed sabay, pareho lang man gud ata ang
ruling)
What if it involves a nominee of the party-list representative? In
Ordinarily COMELEC has jurisdiction over election returns and this case, they are questioning the qualifications of Palparan in
other issues. Under the 1987 constitution, with regard to returns representing the victims of CAFGUS and the security guards
and qualification of the members of the house of given that there was an allegation that it was Palparan who
representatives and the senate, it should be under the sole committed violation of human rights against these people. In
jurisdiction of their respective electoral tribunal. Each house will Abayon, it was a question on the qualification of the nominee
have their own electoral tribunal or HRET for congress and SET “Aangat Tayo” because it does not represent the marginalized
for senate. If you look at its composition, it is not solely and the underrepresented. The nominee is the wife of an
legislative members because there are also those from the incumbent Congressman, so surely, she cannot be marginalized.
judiciary. There are nine from each house plus 3 from the The allegation is that Palparan and Abayon cannot be
judiciary. So it is ultimately a different body from legislative body questioned before the HRET because they were not the one
and it does not function to enact laws. Rather, it is created to elected but the party. So instead, it should be addressed to the
address questions on election returns and qualifications of party which nominated them because they were nominated
members of each house. Under this provision, emphasis is on pursuant to the party’s rule. The issue is WON the contention is
the word sole judge. Meaning, it has sole jurisdiction. It is a body correct. No, SET has jurisdiction and this was confirmed by the
independent from the legislative body. SC. Take note that in the constitutional point of view, it is the
party list representative who is elected and not just the party.
When is jurisdiction under comelec and when HRET/SET? But under the constitution, the election is pursuant to a party-
The defining line is the time of proclamation. Once winning list. Even if we vote for a party, it is in reality a vote for a
candidate has been proclaimed, has taken his oath and assumed nominee. It is the representative who becomes the congressman
office, then he is already a member of the house. COMELEC and not the party. It is he who performs the responsibilities and
loses jurisdiction and it is now transferred to the respective receives the same salaries and emoluments as a Congressman.
electoral tribunal. When he sits as a member of the House of Representatives, he is
no different from a district representative. Therefore, because
Barbers vs COMELEC they are members, then SET/HRET has jurisdiction.
Koko Pimentel restrained the proclamation of Barbers and filed
a complaint to SC to prevent COMELEC in conducting further Lokin vs Comelec
canvassing. He filed to SC because he was also questioning the This involves the nominees of the same party, CIBAC. Lokim was
COMELEC proceeding. SC however did not issue a grant for his the second nominee but was replaced. After the election, CIBAC
prayer for TRO. As a result, Barbers was proclaimed as winner. got 2 seats. Lokim contends the COMELEC proceeding which
Issue: can Pimentel file a motion for reconsideration to SC? No. withdrew his nomination and substituted someone else in his
upon proclamation of Barbers, the SC already lost its jurisdiction place. Further alleged is that COMELEC has no more jurisdiction
to question the validity of the procedure. The jurisdiction is because it is now with SET. Issue: is the contention correct? Yes.
transferred to SET. This involves only one party and not 2 parties. This is not about
election returns and qualifications but rather on the rightful
Viazons vs COMELEC nominee for the position. Therefore, the jurisdiction is within
Election returns where questioned and it was initiated prior to the party and COMELEC.
the proclamation. In above case, there was no TRO so it resulted
to proclamation. Same case here, COMELEC also lost its Tolentino vs Comelec
jurisdiction. This is about Arroyo rising to power through succession. The
object of the case is to first annul the special election. The
Guerrero vs COMELEC petition was praying that whoever will win and take the 13 th
There is question on the validity of the election proceeding place should not be proclaimed. It happened na ang naproclaim
specifically on the certificate of candidacy. These cases usually ay si Honasan. There was a contention that from the moment
takes very long before it can be decided. Even if it can be Honasan was proclaimed, the jurisdiction is transferred from SC
resolved prior to declaration, motion of reconsideration is still to SET. Is this correct? No. if you look closely at the petition, its
allowed and then if unfavorable, there can still be a remedy of focus is more on the annulment of the special election. This
appeal or certiorari proceeding. So the process is very long even issue is not within the jurisdiction of the SET but SC. Collateral na
if resolved on time by COMELEC. Even in such cases, once the lang yung kay Honasan being the 13th placer. His number of
winner has been proclaimed and the case is still pending, it will votes are not being questioned but once the special election is
automatically be terminated because COMELEC will lose its annulled, of course, it means he will not be proclaimed as a
jurisdiction. The jurisdiction is now with HRET. So the case on senator.
COC shall be filed anew to HRET. Lazatin vs HRET
When it comes to rules of procedure or quo warranto protest
Pimentel vs COMELEC when it comes to members of the senate, it must be based on
Same with case of Barbers. This time it is between Koko and the rules of procedures of each house and no longer on the
Migz Zubiri. omnibus election code. This code was enacted under the Marcos
regime and if you read it, the jurisdiction of election and
1
qualification issues is still with COMELEC which is not true dissatisfaction of the management of nacionalista, several of
anymore under the 1987 constitution. them formed alliance with LP and called them the allied
majority. So mas marami na sila ngayon kaysa nacionalista.
Abbas vs SET Issue: is it proper to reorganize? NO. Sc said that the allied
We have 24 senators, dba? 22 of them in this case are majority is just a temporary alliance. It has not been shown
respondents to a disqualification case filed before the SET. Even those who formed this alliance has resigned from LP or
if you file a motion of inhibition, the number of members nacionalista. So this is just a temporary partnership.
necessary for SET will not be satisfied, sino na ngayon ang uupo
sa SET?? So it was proposed that the 3 justices will have Daza vs Singson
authority to do business, meaning they will be considered as The parties in the House who have winning candidates are Lakas
quorum, and therefore, they can now decide on the case. Is this Pambansa, PDP-Laban, LDP, LP, KBL (Marcos). Seats were
constitutional? NO. SC said that it is a different body, its appropriated based on their members. It happened that LDP was
composition is 1/3 judiciary and 2/3 political (member of the reorganized. The president of LDP was Noynoy Aquino and the
legislative department). This is the constitutional mandate and chairman is the senate president. Because of this, the
you cannot just take away the power of the political members. membership swelled to 159. Tingnan mo tong mga Pilipino, kung
What is now the remedy? None. The only remedy is saan madaming pera dun sila. Issue: is it proper to reorganize
unconstitutional (electoral tribunal without legislative members) COA because of change in size in political parties? YES. SC said
but SC said that we just have to put our trust and confidence that even if it is considered as a “young” party but the heads are
with the judiciary members that they will render justice and the President of the Philippines and the Senate President. So it is
equity. So salig na lang. Hehe. already established. In this case, they have also formally
resigned from their former parties and formed LDP. It should be
Bondoc vs Pineda bonafide change in party.
This is about membership based on proportional representation.
So depende kung ilang ang members nyo, then you can send a Guingona vs Gonzales
representative to the Electoral Tribunal. Congressman Camasura When they solved for the seats for COA, LDP got 7.5, NPC 2.5,
(?) was a member of Cojuangco’s LET (?) and he admitted that Lakas 1.5, and LP 0.5. So what do you do with the 0.5? It was all
he voted for Bondoc when it turned out that the canvassing rounded up 8, 2, 1 and 1, respectively. But this is not within the
results really point towardsBondoc. So si Cojuangco nagalit and constitutional mandate because it adds more or less to the
the rest of the LET and removed Camasura from LET. So since proportional representation. So what is the principle? If it is 0.5
hindi na sya member ng LET, hindi na din sya pwede maging then it cannot be considered as 1 whole. So the proper
member ng HRET, right? He was removed for party disloyalty proportion should be 7, 2, 1, and 0 respectively. But now the
and conduct of grave behavior. Then HRET changed its problem is that the total is only 10. The next question is that,
membership. Can they do that? No. SC said that going back to isn’t it that the constitution mandates 12 seats? SC said that it is
the principle that HRET is an independent body, those who are not mandatory and is not necessary to fill the 12 seats. Between
members of the tribunal should enjoy security of tenure because the mandate of proportional representation of parties and the
they are expected to be non-partisan as judges. They should be mandate of 12 members, the former is given more weight
removed only for cause. Party disloyalty is not a valid cause because it will violate the entire provision if you insist in filling
because it has not been shown that Camasura resigned from LET the 12 seats and in the process violating the proportional
and joined another party. It was just a move to remove him para representation mandate. But there was a motion for
hindi makuha yung boto para madeclare si Bondoc na winner. reconsideration filed where they showed the legislative history
because there was a practice in Congress where they form
SECTION 18. There shall be a Commission on Appointments coalitions and share seats with other parties, sometimes, seats
consisting of the President of the Senate, as ex officio are given to parties even if they only have one member. But SC
Chairman, twelve Senators, and twelve Members of the House said practice, no matter how long observed, is not tantamount
of Representatives, elected by each House on the basis of to validity which is otherwise an unconstitutional act. It just so
proportional representation from the political parties or happened that those practices never reached SC because
organizations registered under the party-list system nobody complained. But this time SC said that the proportional
represented therein. The Chairman of the Commission shall not representation must be observed because under the same
vote, except in case of a tie. The Commission shall act on all provision, only a majority is needed to for COA to function, if
appointments submitted to it within thirty session days of the there is 12 members, majority is 7.
Congress from their submission. The Commission shall rule by a
majority vote of all the Members. Pimentel vs HRET
It is the first time that they had a party list representative. They
If you look at composition, there are 12 members each house are questioning the reorganization of COA because they content
and the chairman is the President of the senate. The that their party list was not considered. SC said that how can
composition is based on the proportional representation of the they be considered when they did not even nominate?
political parties, so the more members you have as a member,
the more you have seat in the COA. It may be necessary to have SECTION 19. The Electoral Tribunals and the Commission on
reorganization of COA because in the Philippines, unlike USA Appointments shall be constituted within thirty days after the
which has only 2 parties and membership is for life, tapok-tapok Senate and the House of Representatives shall have been
ang style like kung sino mayaman doon ka. Most politicians organized with the election of the President and the Speaker.
would associate themselves with Pnoy. This regular change of The Commission on Appointments shall meet only while the
affiliations, there is a need to reorganize COA because seats are Congress is in session, at the call of its Chairman or a majority
based on proportional representation. of all its Members, to discharge such powers and functions as
are herein conferred upon it.
Cunanan vs Tan
72 were nacionalista parties, 29 LP, 1 independent. Based on The COA should meet only when the Congress is in session.
their computation of proportional representation, 8 seats would
be for nacionalista and 4 seats for LP. But because of the
1
AUG 22 CHA & ZAR

What is the difference between the powers of the Congress to
Sections 21 and 22, the power of legislative inquiries. investigate compared to the other bodies?
This power must be in aid of legislation and it
Under Section 21 can order a person to be in contempt as what was
discussed in the case of Arnault vs. Nazareno. Jean
Provided that the Senate and the Council of
Arnault was cited in contempt because of his refusal to
Representatives or any of its respective committees to conduct
answer one question when this legislative investigation
inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly
is ongoing. He refused to answer about the alleged
published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing
corruption in the purchase of one overprice property.
in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.
The specific question was, “Who received the money?”
By his refusal to answer, he was cited in contempt.
Section 21, briefly - is the right or authority of the
Thus, he questioned the power of the Senate to
Congress to conduct inquiries or investigations in aid of
continually order his imprisonment notwithstanding
legislation.
that its senate had already adjourned. Other than that,
It is important to know that under Section 21 not only his basic concern was whether or not he can be
the Senate or House of Representatives as separate houses mandated to appear in court for the legislative inquiry
given such right but also its respective committees. Therefore, and what was the nature of the Congress’ power. The
whatever powers inherent or in relation to that right that the Supreme Court discussed the nature of legislative
Senate per se or the House of Representatives as it is can also investigation, that notwithstanding that Congress can
exercise by its respective committees. compel one, that it is mandatory, inherent, that this is
part of power of legislation, this may only be
In the case of Arnault vs. Nazareno, this authority to exercised subject to certain limitations provided by the
conduct investigations or inquiries in aid of legislation is Constitution.
incidental to the legislative function as to be implied; incidental, What were the limitations?
meaning this is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the
legislative function. Take away the authority to inquire and ask Under Section 21.
for information you also take away the power to legislate
 First, the inquiry must be in aid of legislation.
because the Congress can only legislate when there is available
This would distinguish the inquiry or
information. More often than not, information is not readily
investigation conducted by other
available and you have to summon someone to be the resource
departments of the government.
speaker. Without this information, the Congress cannot
effectively legislate.  Second, it must be in accordance with the
duly established rules of procedure.
Why did the Supreme Court say that this is so inherent and  Third, that the rights of persons appearing in
interrelated or interrelated with the power to legislate so as to or affected by such inquiries shall be
be implied? respected.
The case of Arnault vs. Nazareno, was decided a. What do you mean by in aid of legislation?
under the 1935 Constitution which is silent about this
power, but the Supreme Court confirmed that this They can inquire for the purpose of legislating
power to conduct inquiries is the very part or nature of – it does not necessarily mean that after the
the power of legislation. The power of inquiry involves investigation that there is the product investigation – it
the power or the process to enforce it which means could be that they are satisfied that there is no need to
that the attendance to this legislative inquiry is amend the law or enact a law that they propose to be
mandatory otherwise you will be obstructing the enacted – so in other words, it does not necessarily
Congress from exercising its legislative power. result to a legislation – it is not therefore a valid ground
for objection that after the inquiry there was no
How this is made possible? product legislation, because that is only an inquiry in
The Congress can exercise compulsory aid for possible legislation. Now, the inquiry to be
processes such like the issuance of a subpoena. If you within the jurisdiction of the legislative body must be
do not want to attend, you can be ordered in contempt material or necessary to the exercise of its power to
or one can be ordered for an arrest, if they want you to legislate vested by the Constitution.
appear in congress. So, it can also exercise compulsory
processes to ensure that this power of legislative What would be the subject for inquiry?
inquiry is exercise. Appearance before the legislative Since the legislative power is plenary the
body whether in the legislative house itself, or before a subject of inquiry must also be plenary. It is broad and
committee is mandatory that was under the 1935 can inquire to any matter as long as it is intended in aid
Philippine Constitution. But as you can see, in Section of legislation, but there is no general authority to
21 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, what was expose private affairs of individuals without
implicit before has now made express under the 1987 justification in terms of functions of Congress so for the
constitution, actually it started in the 1973 Philippine sake of exposing that would not be in aid of legislation
Constitution. Where the legislative body does not itself nor is the Congress is a trial agency, or an
possess the required information, recourse must be implementing or a law enforcement agency. They must
made to others who have it. Usually, this cannot be not lost sight in the purpose of investigation. The field
done by a mere request. If you look at the nature of of inquiry has a wider range, which means that it must
investigation, if that is only made through request be coextensive with the range of legislative power.
there would be no one to attend like for example the
Napoles Scam.
1
In Arnault vs. Nazareno, when the question purchase a lot in General Santos City owned by Atty.
was asked “Who received the money?” he refused to Flaviano. The Senate in their investigation found out
answer and his justification was that it has no relation that it is overpriced. This investigation has an intended
to a law or a legislation; it is not in aid of legislation. legislation unlike in the case of Bengzon vs. Senate. The
Therefore, the issue is that is it necessary to study each intended legislation is to determine how they can
question propounded to the resource person and protect the interest of the AFP retirees through an
determined if it is in aid of legislation? The Supreme enactment of the Law. Flaviano applied in the Regional
Court said no, as long as it is material to the matter Trial Court a Temporary Restraining Order against the
under investigation, and the matter of investigation at Senate Committee to cease from further conducting
that time (referring to Arnault case) is the operation of the inquiry; an RTC ordering a main department of the
the government. This is the legitimate and proper government. This RTC which is under the judicial
subjects of legislation for investigation so that department was encroaching upon the power of the
whatever question is asked as long as it is not violating legislative department from conducting or performing
the right under self-incrimination, then one should its function as provided in the Constitution – there is
answer the question. Each question need not be obviously here an encroachment of the separation of
scrutinized whether it is in relation to a particular power. A case was filed against Judge Majaducon, in
legislation, as long as the question is material to the his defense he cited the case of Bengzon vs. Senate
subject matter under investigation. that once the investigation is already in the other body,
it shall be deemed as an encroachment on the part of
What if there is another investigation pending before the Congress if it continues with the investigation.
another government body? Would it bar the congress Ruling:
from further conducting the inquiry in aid of The Supreme Court ruled that this Bengzon
legislation? case was different from the present case. In Bengzon
case; fist - the subject of inquiry is not in aid of
For example In the case of Bengzon vs. Senate legislation, the subject inquiry is a possible violationof
Facts: law which is within the jurisdiction of a body other than
An inquiry was conducted into the allege sale the Congress and further in this case there was yet no
of the equity of Ben Romualdez. This all about graft and case pending in the Court. The case against Flaviano
corruption. The inquiry was an offshoot to Enrile’s regarding that lot was pending before the office of the
privilege speech urging the Senate to look into the Ombudsman which acts as a prosecutor - it is still
possible violation Section 5 of Republic Act No. 3019 receiving complaints and determining the probable
otherwise known as “The Anti-Graft and Corrupt cause to file that criminal case, there is yet therefore a
Practices Act”. – That is the purpose of the criminal case. In this case since no court had acquired
investigation, to look for possible violation of law. The jurisdiction over the matter then there is no
Senate conducted an investigation for the said possible encroachment in the context of Senate vs. Bengzon
violation of law. case which stated that it would be an encroachment in
Issue: the jurisdiction of this court. However, there was no
Is the inquiry proper? pending case in the court yet, it is still in the
Ruling: Ombudsman. Therefore, the cited case was not
The Supreme Court said looking into the speech of applicable.
Enrile and the purpose of that inquiry. There appears In the case of Standard Charter vs.
to be no intended legislation. – what was the purpose? Committee, this rests the issue about encroachment.
To look into possible violation of law is not part of the
authority of the Congress. Who has the authority to do Facts:
that? It is the other department particularly the The Senate Committee on Banking conducts a
executive department under the Department of Justice legislative investigation in relation to selling of
(DOJ), and then the definition is with the judiciary. unregistered foreign securities for possible
There was an orbiter in that case wherein the Supreme amendments of existing banking laws to prevent the
Court said “besides the issue sought to be investigated occurrence of similar problem in the future. In the
by the committee is one over which the jurisdiction had whereas clause of the resolution calling for legislative
been acquired by the Sandiganbayan because of the investigation, there is an acknowledgement that the
pending case of Romualdez in that court. It seemed securities regulation code seems to be inadequate to
that the Supreme Court is saying that if there is already govern and regulate such transactions in selling of
a pending case the Congress can no longer proceed unregistered foreign securities in the country. There
with the inquiry. For the respondent to prove and was an observation that the Securities and Exchange
inquire in the same justiciable controversy which was Commission (SEC) and the BangkoSentralngPilipinas
already in the Sandiganbayan to be an encroachment (BSP) have an inadequate regulatory intervention. – so
into the exclusive domain of judicial jurisdiction that this is clearly an investigation in aid of legislation - This
have much earlier setting. – this is merely an orbiter as involves millions of money and high profile
we will see later on personalities buying securities outside the country.
Through this fact, an objection can be expected. The
In the case of Senate Blue Ribbon vs. bank officers refused to attend the investigation
Majaducon claiming that there were already civil and criminal
Facts: cases pending in the Court involving the same issues
THE Senate conducted an inquiry in the using the case of Bengzon vs. Senate.
alleged mismanagement of the funds and investment Ruling:
portfolio of the Armed Forces retirement and The Supreme Court said that the argument
separation benefits system. They say that in aid of pay, using Bengzon is misplaced. Why? The main issue in
through this separation of benefits system they that case is the determination or the finding that the
1
investigation was not in aid of legislation. The purpose penalty and if it is a civil case, there is a judgment or an
is not towards legislation but the determination of award of damages.
violation of law which is not the function of the What about inquiries conducted before the Congress?
Congress it may be corollary to that function but The purpose is different; it is again in aid of
ultimately the result of that inquiry is not to penalized legislation although it is not necessary that there is
but to enact or amend a law in relation to its legislative actual legislation as a result. Therefore, according to
function. – But in this case of Standard it is clearly in the Supreme Court these two investigations can
aid of legislation. proceed simultaneously. One should not be a bar to
What about the pendency of the cases? the other.
The supreme court said that the mere filing of Argument: It will pre-empt the decision of the judge in
a criminal and an administrative complaint before the court. Will it really pre-empt the decision of the judge?
court or a quasi-judicial body should not automatically - No, because it will not lead to the determination if
bar the conduct of legislative investigation otherwise it who was guilty or not. In fact, those who are invited
would be extremely easy to subvert any intended are not called as respondents or defendants but
inquiry by Congress through the convenient ploy of resource persons.
instituting a criminal or administrative complaint.
Surely, the exercise of sovereign legislative authority, <JUMP – Exemptions next meeting>
of which the power of legislative inquiry is an essential
component, cannot be made subordinate to a criminal Limits under the Constitution in the exercise of the
or an administrative investigation. It is now clear that Congress’ power:
the pendency of criminal case/ administrative
investigations -The pendency of these cases should not  First, it must be in aid of legislation.
automatically bar the Congress from continuing its  Second, it must be conducted pursuant to
investigation. the duly published rules of the House
This was further clarified in the case of concerned.
Romero vs. Sen. Jinggoy E. Estrada.
You have that case of Garcillano vs. House of
Facts:
Representatives, citing the case of Neri vs. Senate. It
The investigation is about the use of Overseas
was the House of Representatives which first
Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) funds
conducted the “Hello Garci” investigation in aid of
investing it to the Smokey Mountain Project. Is it in
legislation. Senate as well wants to conduct their own
relation to the function of OWWA? The Senate
investigation and they did start the inquiry. On June 30,
conducted an investigation and the possible liability of
2007 there was an election of new set of Senators
President Ramos for plunder but the inquiry was also in
coming. Garcillano claims that there were no duly
aid of legislation. Here, the company which is supposed
published rules of the Senate regarding rights of person
to be the resource speaker was invited and they
invited for legislative inquiry. The Supreme Court asked
refused to attend contending that the subject matter of
the Senate about these duly published rules for the
the legislative inquiry is sub-judice.
proceedings. The Senate answered that it had
What do sub-judice means? - Once there is already a
published its rules in 1995 and in 2006. Take note that
pending case with regards to a particular subject you
by June 30, 2007 there was a new set of Senators – at
do not talk about it in public. This rule is more
least half of them, to assume office. The questions are
applicable to parties and the professional responsibility
did they publish their rules anew? What was the
of lawyers. The merits of the case must not be tackled
essence of publication? For due process. If the person
in public while the trial of the case is ongoing; it is an
is to be investigated or is to be under inquiry, due
ethical consideration – thus may be because you
process will dictate that at least he is apprise of the
already swayed sentiments of the public and the judge
rules or his rights , it gives the person a notice of what
will decide in another way its more on public policy.
to expect and whether they may be liable in that
The same argument is present, whether or not if there
investigation. The publication is required because this
is already a pending case the Congress is now
is in relation to constructive notice. At least there
precluded to continue the investigation.
must be constructive notice that there are these rules
Ruling:
of procedure.
The Supreme Court said no, citing the Standard
Chartered vs. Senate Committee case. It further What do you mean by duly published rules of
explains that legislative investigation in aid of procedure in relation to the Senate?
legislation and court proceedings has different
purposes. Courts conduct hearings or like a judicative Facts will show that they have published it in
procedure to settle actual controversies through 2006. Is this still considered duly published rules? The
applicable laws arising between litigants involving Supreme Court look at the rules and did not find any
demandable rights. On the other hand, inquiries in aid provisions or sections which states that the same rules
of legislation are undertaken as rules to enable the would apply after each change of set or by the end of
legislative body to gather information and to legislate the terms of the Senators. On the contrary, the
wisely and effectively, albeit the inquiry need not Supreme Court found in the rules of unfinished
result in any potential legislation. Therefore, the two business that those matters or proceedings pending
investigations conducted by the Congress and the shall terminate upon the expiration of one Congress.
Courts respectively have different purposes and This was the time that the Supreme Court discussed
ultimate results. When it comes to the court that the Senate under the 1987 Philippine
investigation it would be a determination of rights and Constitution is no longer a continuing body with
the result would be a judgment which between the regards to its day-to-day business. Since there are
parties has preferred rights or if it is a criminal case the now new sets of members, they cannot proceed with
question would be, who is liable with corresponding the actions or activities of the prior Congress. In fact
1
the rules would say that whatever matters pending Court said that the right against self-incrimination can
they are considered to be terminated upon the only be claimed once the question is asked because
expiration of one Congress. you will never know if that particular question is
incriminatory unless it was asked.Therefore, these
What do you mean by one Congress? rights cannot be invoked if there is no attendance to
the investigation. During your attendance if you were
That is that 3 term – you cannot consider the asked incriminatory questions you may refuse to
6 term because on the next 3 years the composition answer and even claim for the said rights. Clients
would now be different. – actually in the rules it said involve in this case bring their lawyers in every
that it may be taken by the succeeding congress as if legislative investigation not for any appearance but to
present for the first time – the phrase “duly published fully understand and how to claim forthese three
rules of procedure” therefore requires the senate of rights. The bottom-line is attendance to an inquiry is
every congress to publish its rules and procedure mandatory.
governing inquiries in aid of legislation -Because every
senate is distinct from the one before it or after it.
Can the Supreme Court consider the prior rules? AUG. 23, 2013
JAY & LANIE
No, it cannot because even those rules
provide the absence of provision that it is applicable
until amended. The Supreme Court suggested that
even this would be the rules of procedure for inquiries Section 21. The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of
in aid of legislation and this would be amended by the its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of
new set of officers that would be the continuing rules. legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of
But since there was no such provisions and based also procedure. The rights of persons appearing in, or affected by,
in the internal rules of the Senate, this rule is deemed such inquiries shall be respected.
terminated and the investigation which commenced
prior to the new set of the 2007 Senators, this Because information is needed in the exercise of the power of
investigation is also deemed terminated. In other legislation, although this is such an immense power and
words, without publishing the rules of procedures the appearance is mandatory, Section 21 also provides for its
subject hearing in aid of legislation conducted by the limitations – that the inquiry must be in aid of legislation so in
14th Senate are therefore procedurally infirmed. the case of _____ the SC invalidated the proceedings on the
ground that the inquiry was done not in aid of legislation, but
The Supreme Court is strict about these duly something akin to a criminal investigation.
published rules because it is a constitutional
requirement. In this case Garcillano was freed. The We also studied other cases to answer whether or not the
rights of person appearing in or affected by such pendency of other cases in other bodies would preclude the
inquiry shall be respected. Congress to continue its investigation. In the case of Senate vs.
Bengson the SC said that it is precluded from continuing,
What rights can you claim however this was clarified in the later cases particularly standard
charter vs. senate and the case against Senator Estrada. So the
Usually those found in the bill of rights, right latest jurisprudence would be that the pendency of cases
against self-incrimination, right to due process and whether criminal, civil or administrative would not bar Congress
right to privacy can be claimed from continuing in its investigation. In the case of Estrada it has
been clarified that the purposes of these investigations are
In re: Sabio, this is an investigation on the
distinct and separate.
mismanagement or anomalies incurred by the
Philippines Overseas Telecommunications Corporations So the first requirement is that it must be in aid of legislation,
(POTC), Philippine Communications Satellite second that its conduct be in accordance with duly published
Corporation (PHILCOMSAT) and PHILCOMSAT Holdings rules of procedure. The lack of duly published rules of procedure
Corporation (PHC). They refused to attend invoking the would also invalidate the proceedings such as in the case of
right to privacy. Garcia wherein the 15th Senate failed to publish the rules of
procedure for the investigation or inquiry.
Can a person invoke his right to privacy?
Finally, the rights of persons affected should be respected. The
According to the Supreme Court before
rights are usually found in the Bill of rights, such as right to
invoking that right there must be a reasonable
privacy, against self-incrimination, and right to due process.
expectation of privacy. Since they are called in an
investigation respecting their positions and functions as Q: If it’s mandatory, is it applicable to all? If anyone called by
board of directors of these Government-Owned and Congress cannot refuse to attend, because of the nature of the
Controlled Corporations with regards to their public power, are there persons exempted from this power?
functions there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
So, they cannot claim right to privacy. So maybe if it A: because of separation of powers, necessarily exempted from
was Vicky Belo, Hayden Kho or Chito Miranda, (wala pa this are the executive and judicial departments.
and kay wally ani na time..haha)may claim some sort of
right to privacy and the Senate will limit its questions When you say the executive department there is only one
only on matters that would be for public interest. person representing the executive department and that is the
Another right to contemplate is right against self- president so in other words the president cannot be called to
incrimination, they also claim for this right upon their testify in the Congress; nor can they call the Chief Justice or SC
refusal to attend the Senate hearing, and the Supreme Justices. This is in due respect to separation of powers.
1
We have that case of Senate vs. Ermita: i. Senior officials of executive departments who in the judgment
of the department heads are covered by the executive privilege;
The question in that case is WON department heads and officials
under the executive department are covered by Section 21?
ii. Generals and flag officers of the Armed Forces of the
When we say the president is exempted from attending, it is
Philippines and such other officers who in the judgment of the
mainly because of the separation of powers, but it is also
Chief of Staff are covered by the executive privilege;
because of the doctrine of executive privilege. Now in this case
of Senate vs. Ermita, there was an investigation or inquiry
regarding several transactions involving the president herself, iii. Philippine National Police (PNP) officers with rank of chief
particularly the Northrail project, the massive electoral fraud superintendent or higher and such other officers who in the
during the presidential elections and the **** thing, basta it judgment of the Chief of the PNP are covered by the executive
includes several transactions and contracts involving the privilege;
president. So there were several subpoenas sent out to different
departments and administrative officers. In response thereto, iv. Senior national security officials who in the judgment of the
the president issued EO 464, particularly Section 2 and 3: National Security Adviser are covered by the executive privilege;
and
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 464
v. Such other officers as may be determined by the President.
ENSURING OBSERVANCE OF THE PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF
POWERS, ADHERENCE TO THE RULE ON EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE SECTION 3. Appearance of Other Public Officials Before
AND RESPECT FOR THE RIGHTS OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS Congress. - All public officials enumerated in Section 2 (b) hereof
APPEARING IN LEGISLATIVE INQUIRIES IN AID OF LEGISLATION shall secure prior consent of the President prior to appearing
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES before either House of Congress to ensure the observance of the
principle of separation of powers, adherence to the rule on
executive privilege and respect for the rights of public officials
SECTION 2. Nature, Scope and Coverage of Executive Privilege. -
appearing in inquiries in aid of legislation.
(a) Nature and Scope. - The rule of confidentiality based on

executive privilege is fundamental to the operation of EO 464 provides that all department heads and officers
government and rooted in the separation of powers under the enumerated in Section 2 including AFP officials and even those
Constitution (Almonte vs. Vasquez, G.R. No. 95367, 23 May under them who in the belief of the heads are covered by
1995). Further, Republic Act No. 6713 or the Code of Conduct executive privilege, cannot and should not attend legislative
and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees provides inquiries without the consent of the President. In other words,
that public officials and employees shall not use or divulge the president is claiming executive privilege for all of these
confidential or classified information officially known to them by officers and that the officers enumerated are covered by the
reason of their office and not made available to the public to executive privilege.
prejudice the public interest.
The first principle mentioned earlier is that executive privilege
can only be claimed by the president.
Executive privilege covers all confidential or classified
information between the President and the public officers Q: Does the executive privilege cover officials under the
covered by this executive order, including: executive department?
i. Conversations and correspondence between the President and Q: What is executive privilege?
the public official covered by this executive order (Almonte vs.
Vasquez G.R. No. 95367, 23 May 1995; Chavez v. Public Estates A: The executive privilege is the power of the government to
Authority, G.R. No. 133250, 9 July 2002); withhold information from the public, the courts and the
congress. It is also the *** of the president and high level
executive branch officers to withhold information from the
ii. Military, diplomatic and other national security matters which
courts, congress and ultimately the public. So even when the
in the interest of national security should not be divulged
inquiry is in aid of legislation, it is still a recognized exemption to
(Almonte vs. Vasquez, G.R. No. 95367, 23 May 1995; Chavez v.
the power of inquiry, the exemption falling under the *** of
Presidential Commission on Good Government, G.R. No.
Executive privilege. But when you say executive privilege it
130716, 9 December 1998).
covers at least different distinct kinds of information based on
jurisprudence.
iii. Information between inter-government agencies prior to the
conclusion of treaties and executive agreements (Chavez v. Q: What are kinds of information covered by executive privilege?
Presidential Commission on Good Government, G.R. No.
130716, 9 December 1998); A: Generally it is recognized in relation to certain types of
sensitive information involving matters affecting national
iv. Discussion in close-door Cabinet meetings (Chavez v. security or those rooted under the separation of powers, such as
Presidential Commission on Good Government, G.R. No. presidential conversations, correspondence, closed door cabinet
130716, 9 December 1998); meetings and internal deliberations.
Using US jurisprudence, there are three types of information

v. Matters affecting national security and public order (Chavez v.
that may be covered by the executive privilege. First are those
Public Estates Authority, G.R. No. 133250, 9 July 2002).
state secrets privilege on the ground that such information is in
such nature that its disclosure would subvert crucial military or
(b) Who are covered. - The following are covered by this diplomatic objectives. Second types of info are those under
executive order: informer’s privilege. Here, it is the privilege of the government
1
not to disclose the identity of the persons, who furnished If we relate that to the power of the Congress to conduct
information of violations of law to officers charged with the legislative inquiry, in relation to the fact that it is part of the
enforcement of such law. Last type is Generally privileged or power to legislate and it is mandatory for any person who are
internal deliberations attached intra-governmental documents called to appear before it, to appear, the General Rule therefore
reflecting advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations is disclosure rather than secrecy. The claim of privilege is that
which are part of the process towards governmental decisions secrecy, so it is an exception rather than the General Rule. As an
and policies when they are formulated. exception, it must be properly claimed. EO464 particularly
Section 3, is therefore invalid. It is invalid for the president to
Now, when these three types of information are enumerated, it declare that these executive personnel or officers are covered by
only means that these kinds of info may be asserted as part of the executive privilege.
executive privilege, it does not necessarily mean that it would be
considered privileged at all times. No person is covered by executive privilege! What is covered by
the executive privilege is information!
For the determination of the validity of the claim, the question
must be asked WON the info falls within the three types, and Now we have the case of Neri vs. Senate.
then won they should be honoured under the particular
proceedings, because the proceedings maybe a court This involves the ZTE Deal, the broadband network deal
proceeding, or a congressional proceeding or just plain involving the ZTE Corporation of china. Now, there were a lot of
disclosure to the public. A clear principle therefore is that anomalies in that transaction and accusations involving high
Executive privilege is recognized only in relation only to certain ranking officials including comelec commissioner Abalos. There
types of information, but to claim the privilege, the validity of were rumors that he was bribed 200million. So there was a
the claim would depend on the ground invoked to justify it and public clamour for investigation of this transaction. If the
the context upon which it is made. Chairman of the Comelec received 200million, how much did the
president receive?
Example, you say this information is covered by executive
privilege; the executive must explain why it is covered - because Now an investigation (inquiry) was conducted in the Congress in
no. 1 this information involves diplomatic ties, so this is part of aid of legislation. During investigation, one department head
state secret privilege. But other than that you must explain why which was called to testify was Neri. He appeared before the
on how will it affect diplomatic ties. So what is clear in this Senate and in fact answered all the questions except for 3
principle is that executive privilege is not attached to the particular questions which he refused to answer.
executive officials. The claim of privilege is in relation to the
information not in relation to the officials. What it is saying is What are these questions?
that, the fact that one is an executive officer does not
WON PGMA followed up the NBN Project;
necessarily mean that he can claim executive privilege. The
WON she directed him to prioritize it; and
privilege attaches to classes of information rather than to classes
WON she directed him to approve it. Necessarily these are
of information.
personal communications between the president being the
Now, look at EO 464. The president in that EO identified certain president and the department executive official in the person of
persons, officers under her department and summarily claimed Neri. Neri was a NEDA Chairman? So there was this conversation
that they are covered by the privilege. What is the flaw that can between the president and Neri and he was asked by Congress
be readily seen there? The executive privilege is attached to the to divulge information out of this conversation, so he claimed
person without specifying what information they are holding executive privilege. How did he claim executive privilege? It is
that would be covered by that privilege. Again Executive through a letter by Executive Secretary Ermita (the executive
privilege is in relation to the type of information not to the type secretary is the little president, the representative of the
of person. So in this case, the SC that EO464 particularly Section president) So when the Executive Secretary writes this kind of
3 which identified these executive officers as covered by the letter, it is in representation of the office of the President. In that
executive privilege is therefore invalid. When the president letter he is claiming executive privilege on the information
claims the executive privilege, it must be asserted and justifiable asked. The context in which the executive privilege is being
grounds must be presented. The SC also *** that the disclosure invoked is that the information sought to be disclosed might
required is not necessarily to the point that you have to disclose impair or diplomatic and economic relations with the people’s
the information so that the Congress would believe that it is a republic of China.
valid claim of executive privilege. It is not necessary that you
have to divulge the information just to justify the claim. What is Q: is the information covered by executive privilege?
necessary is the nature of the information would be specified. So
A: This information is in the form of presidential communication
as decided in this case, the claim of privilege being an exception
privilege. Words uttered by the president, so this would pertain
from an obligation to disclose information must therefore be
to communications or documents and other materials that
clearly asserted - what type of information is that and on what
reflect presidential decision making and deliberations that the
ground you are claiming the executive privilege. There must be a
president believes should remain confidential.
formal claim of privilege launched by the head of the
department which has control over the matter after actual
Now based on jurisprudence also, the SC in the present case
consideration of that ***. The court or the congress, whoever
enumerated the elements of presidential communications
requires the information, must determine whether the
privilege.
circumstances are appropriate for the claim of privilege without
forcing the disclosure of the very thing that the privilege is Q: What kind of presidential communications would be covered
designed to protect. Again, the claim of privilege must be clearly by the privilege?
stated with grounds, with such particularity, but as not to
compel the disclosure of information which the privilege is A: 1. the protected communication must relate to a
meant to protect. quintessential and non-delegable presidential power. This
quintessential and non-delegable presidential power would
1
include powers such as commander in chief powers or the Can he do that?

power of appointment or power to remove and would include
the authority to receive ambassadors and other public officials Yes he can because he is the department head directly under the
to diplomatic powers. president and he writes the letter in behalf and for the
president. He also specified the claim and justified it as the
2. The communication must be authored or received or solicited information required would affect diplomatic relations with
and received by a close adviser of the president or the president China and the SC said that that is sufficient. There is no need for
himself. In other words if the president uttered confidential the president to divulge the communication that transpired
information to say a security guard, then he would not be because that would negate the purpose of giving the privilege.
covered by the claim of privilege because it would not be
something in confidence. It would be presumed that it is not Okay, we are still talking about WON there are persons who can
something in confidence he not being a close adviser of the claim exemptions from attending ***(legislative inquiries?).
president.
We have the case of Gudani vs. Senga(2006).
3. the presidential communications privilege remains a qualified
privilege that may be overcome by showing an adequate need of These are cases in relation to allegations of massive electoral
the information such that the info sought likely contains fraud allegedly committed by the president during the
important evidence and by the unavailability of the info presidential race between PGMA and FPJ. There was an
elsewhere *** by *** investigating authority. This is only a allegation of cheating.
qualified privilege that can be overcome by pressing need for
disclosure. Now there were military officials, because the military at that
time were used in far flung areas in the electoral process. There
Now let us look at the type of information being sought by were high ranking military officials who were called to testify
Congress from Neri. against the president. So they were called to attend a legislative
inquiry. The president prohibited them from attending but they
Did the president follow up the NBN project? nonetheless attended and testified. They were subjected to
court martial or military court proceedings. Is that proper?
Did the president tell you to prioritize it?
Q: Can the president prevent the members of the military from
Did the president direct you to approve it? attending legislative inquiry? Can we use Senate vs. Ermita
Ruling? If we use Senate vs. Ermita ruling, then the answer
The SC scrutinizing the info required concluded that first the info
would be no because the claim should be in relation to the
sought forms part of the quintessential and non delegable
communication and not to the person.
power. The power to negotiate treaties! Second it is a
communication received by Neri who is a close adviser of the
A: But in this case, the SC held that Yes! The president can
president and third the information sought, the qualified
prevent the military from attending legislative
privilege is not overcome by the need of the information. In
inquiry/investigation. It could not be based on the claim of
other words, the Congress can still enact the law that it desires
executive privilege, because then, the ruling in Senate vs. Ermita
to enact regardless of WON they have this info that they ask of
would be applicable. But it would be based on the President’s
Neri.
power as the commander in chief of the military!
Would it matter if the president directed Neri to prioritize it or
to approve it? Regardless because unlike court proceedings Isn’t it that under military discipline, military personnel are
where you have to reconstruct the past event so you could come required to obey and not to question? This is part of military
up with a present decision, when it comes to enactment of law, discipline.
what is required only is you predict the future and then you
enact a policy addressing that problem. It is up to the congress The SC held that:
to determine what would be politically advisable under the Critical to military discipline is obeisance to the military
circumstances. In other words, the info is not necessary for chain of command. Willful disobedience of a superior
Congress to come up with the intended legislation. The qualified officer is punishable by court-martial under Article 65 of
privilege of presidential communication has not been overcome the Articles of War “An individual soldier is not free to
by the need of the Congress to obtain the information. ignore the lawful orders or duties assigned by his
Therefore the SC held that the info withheld by Neri is a immediate superiors. For there would be an end of all
presidential communication privilege covered by the Executive discipline if the seaman and marines on board a ship of
privilege, therefore he cannot be compelled to testify. Actually war [or soldiers deployed in the field], on a distant service,
he was cited for contempt and ordered arrested because he were permitted to
refused to divulge the info. But in the case, it is improper for the act upon their own opinion of their rights
Senate to compel such kind of info the same being covered by [or their opinion of the President’s intent], and to throw
the Executive privilege. off the authority of the commander whenever they
supposed it to be unlawfully exercised.”
Now as to the question, diba in Senate vs. Ermita, one of the
rulings is that since this privilege is merely an exemption, it
must be asserted and must be claimed and there must be a They have no right to question the orders of their superiors!
proper justification for the claim of the privilege. That’s part of military discipline. The exigencies of military
discipline and the chain of command mandate that the
So the next question is - was it properly invoked and justified? president’s ability to control individual members of the armed
forces be accorded with utmost respect. When military officer
In the case of Neri vs. Senate, the SC held that the letter of the therefore is torn between the order of the president not to
Executive Secretary is sufficient because there was an express attend the legislative inquiry and the order of Congress to before
claim of executive privilege. it, what should be the obvious course of action of that military
1
personnel? To obey the president because the president is his ISUUE: Is that provision valid?
commander in chief!
RULING: The SC held No! it is an extension to a constitutional
But in this case, it is *** because they already testified. But in provision, and that law, providing for the exemption cannot
the event, that a military be torn between two lovers, he should overcome or supersede the constitutional mandate. A mere
choose the president. What would happen then if the president provision of law, cannot pose a limitation to the broad powers of
will prohibit the military personnel to attend while the Congress Congress in the absence of any constitutional basis. That
insists that he should attend because info is really necessary? IN provision of law therefore is valid!
this case it would be ill advised to interfere for the Congress to
interfere with the commander in chief power of the president,
but it would be similarly detrimental for the president to unduly No person should be exempted from attending the legislative
hamper the Congress in the exercise of its power. So we have inquiry, there you can see or grasp of how immense this power
now an impasse, diba? Nagkabanggan na ang dalawang is (legislative power of inquiry). Kakambal siya ng power to
department. legislate. Take that power away and the Congress cannot
legislate and there would be obstruction to the exercise of the
Q: What would then be the remedy? power of the Congress. So the provision is unconstitutional
because it hampers the conduct of legislative inquiry. Also the
A: The SC now proposes that if Congress really insists that a SC goes on that it also violates the nature of public office being a
certain person appear before the Congress for legislative inquiry, public trust. In that essence, no person can be validly exempted
it may bring the matter before the Courts and the Court will from appearing, based on the doctrine of public office being a
determine the propriety of the attendance or non-attendance of public trust.
the military personnel.
Q: Does the court have power over the two departments? Section 22. The heads of departments may, upon their own
initiative, with the consent of the President, or upon the request
A: No! It does not mean that the SC is superior over these two of either House, as the rules of each House shall provide, appear
departments. Only that in our structure in the Constitution, it is before and be heard by such House on any matter pertaining to
the SC which determines the bickering claim of rights, then the their departments. Written questions shall be submitted to the
SC is tasked to determine such questions. President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of
Representatives at least three days before their scheduled
Q: If the SC says that the Military personnel should attend, can it appearance. Interpellations shall not be limited to written
mandate the president to allow that military personnel? Yes! questions, but may cover matters related thereto. When the
security of the State or the public interest so requires and the
A: It is the constitutional duty of the president to implement the President so states in writing, the appearance shall be conducted
laws of the republic of the Philippines and under the civil code, in executive session.
decisions of the SC forms part of the legal system. In line with
that principle, the president has no choice but to obey. So that is
Section 22 is another appearance before the Congress, either
the remedy provided by the SC.
house. But section 22 is different from section 21, section 21
So in Gudani vs. Senga(2006), we learned several things. First being appearance in a legislative inquiry, while section 22 is
the president can prevent the military personnel from attending appearance during question hour. Section 21 is applicable to all,
a legislative inquiry notwithstanding that it is mandatory, not and that is for the purpose of aid of legislation. Section 22 is
based on the claim of executive privilege but based on applicable only to the heads of the departments of the executive
commander in chief powers. Next if a military is torn between department; the purpose is only in the pursuit of the Congress
the president’s order of prohibition and the Congress’ order of oversight function. The Congress merely seeks to be informed on
attendance, he should choose the president. Third, if there is an how the department heads implement the statutes which it has
impasse between the two powers, the president and the issued. That is merely for information of how the departments
Congress, then the remedy will be with the SC. are performing their functions based on the laws that the
Congress has issued. So this is merely for oversight function and
In In re Sabio, not the power to enact laws.
In re: Sabio Now Section 21, appearance before the Congress is mandatory.
Section 22 is merely by invitation, in fact it can go the other way
FACTS: There is an investigation of certain anomalies involving around. It may be that the department head seeks to have an
the Philippine Holdings Corporation, Philippine Overseas *** and audience with the Congress or the Congress wants to seek
PHILCOMSAT. Now among those invited to appear before the audience with the department head.
Congress is the Chairman of PCGG Chairman Sabio. Now in the
Under Section 21 because it is in aid of legislation, appearance is
law particularly the EO enacted by President Corazon Aquino,
mandatory, therefore the consent of the president is immaterial
under the law creating the PCGG there was a provision which
when it is the department head who is being called, unless there
says that no member or staff in the Commission shall be
is a claim of executive privilege. Under Section 22, the consent
required to testify or produce evidence in any judicial, legislative
of the president is required because the function to oversee
or administrative proceeding concerning matters within its
whether or not the department heads are performing their
official cognizance. The apparent purpose is to ensure is that the
functions is with the chief executive/the president, it is the
PCGG’s task would be unhampered. What is the provision
function of the president and sometimes the Congress wants to
essentially saying? No member or staff of the Commission shall
help, that is a question hour. It is more mandatory when it’s the
be required to testify, what does that mean? There’s immunity
president consents rather than when the Congress calls the
to appear and to testify. In other words they are exempted from
department head.
attending any proceeding, divulge information and that would
include legislative inquiries. Q: Section 1 of EO 464 in relation to the case of Senate vs.
Ermita, requires also the consent of the president for
1
department heads to appear before the Congress in relation to law. So what do we mean therefore by the meaning MUST
Section 22 of Article 6 of the 1987 Constitution, is this valid? ORIGINATE IN THE HR?
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 464 What the Constitution merely require is that the initiative must
come from the HR. In this case, the first filing must be that of
the HR, it would be the act of filing the bill that would initiate
ENSURING OBSERVANCE OF THE PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF
the legislative process. Meaning if the HR will not initiate the
POWERS, ADHERENCE TO THE RULE ON EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
filing of such bill, the Senate on its own cannot propose a VAT
AND RESPECT FOR THE RIGHTS OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS
bill, it does not mean that the law itself will be the version of
APPEARING IN LEGISLATIVE INQUIRIES IN AID OF LEGISLATION
the HR just because it must originate in the HR. Because under
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Section 24, Senate has the power to concur and propose
amendment. In that legislative process it would be such after
SECTION 1. Appearance by Heads of Departments Before taking the considerations of the proposals of each house, it may
Congress. - In accordance with Article VI, Section 22 of the undergo extensive changes, to the point it may not resemble
Constitution and to implement the Constitutional provisions on either versions of the house. Because the theory is the HR is
the separation of powers between co-equal branches of the much closer to the people and they are more familiar with the
government, all heads of departments of the Executive Branch of needs and the burden that the public can take. So if they think
the government shall secure the consent of the President prior to that it is not yet right time to pass a bill affecting taxation then in
appearing before either House of Congress. that case the Senate can do nothing about it, they have to wait
for the house to initiate the legislative process. It is the bill that
When the security of the State or the public interest so requires must originate not the law.
and the President so states in writing, the appearance shall only
be conducted in executive session. In the case of ABAKADA v. Exec. Secretary
A: The SC held yes, in fact that is the provision of Section 22. ABAKADA vs Executive Secretary
When it comes to a question hour, in the exercise of the
Congress’ oversight function, appearance of dep’t heads can The HR proposed to amend only the VAT portion in the Internal
only be made upon the consent of the President. So that is the Revenue Code. The IRC contains several taxation provisions like
distinction of Section 21 and Section 22. income tax. The Senate received the House Bill, they filed also
their proposed amendment but this time they included not only
the VAT provisions but also amended certain other portions of
the Internal Revenue Code. The question is can they do that?
AUG. 28, 2013 What is the extent of the concurrence or proposal of the
JETRO & DANIELLE Senate? Can they touch provisions which the HR did not include
in the bill? Under Section 24 there is no limitation or prohibition
as to the extent of the amendments the Senate may propose for
Art VI Sec. 24. All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills as long as the Bill originated in the House of Representatives. In
authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of local application, other words what the Court is saying is that let us just look at
and private bills shall originate exclusively in the HR, but the the date of the passing of the bill. If it was passed by the House
Senate may propose or concur with the amendments. before the Senate, it is now immaterial to what extent the
Either house can propose a bill because each house is co-equal in Senate may propose amendments to the subject matter because
their powers. Senate has the power to concur or propose amendments that is
introduced by the House.
Section 24 deals with money bills and must originate in

the HR. But this is an exception to the general rule that bills may Alvarez v. Guingona
originate in either House. It must originate in the HR because HR
is much closer to the people and is more acquainted with the In this case it’s about the conversion of a municipality to a
needs of the people. The Senate is National in scope hence it component city. This is an example of a bill of local application.
must originate in the HR. Under Sec. 24 it must originate in the HR. The House filed its
own House Bill.
Money bills include those appropriation bills that set What is the complication in this case?
aside funds for some public purposes, revenue and tariff bills, House filed its bill on April 18, 1993, the Senate filed its version
bills authorizing the increase of public debt and etc. May 19, 1993, the problem is the House forwarded its bill and
What do you mean by MUST ORIGINATE? Senate received the version on January 28, 1994. In other words
the Senate before receiving the version of the House already
In the case of Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance: made its own version.
Must the Senate wait for the version of the House? Did the
It was about the VAT law, now the HR passed its own bill under Senate violate the provision of Section 24?
the VAT law and subsequently the Senate passed its own It does not preclude the Senate from filing its version ahead so
version. But in the end, after the conference committee resolved long as the bill originated in the HR as mandated by Sec. 24 and
the differences between the House and the Senate, ultimately holds in abeyance further action after its receipt from the House.
when the law was passed it was mostly the version of the Senate So stand by ang kanilang version. In fact in this case, upon
which became the law. Now Senator Tolentino in that case receipt a month after conducted its public hearing by the
questions the validity of the passage of the law and his arguing Senate. The important factor is the date of the filing of the
that it did not originate in the HR given the fact that the final law proposal. It means it can file its own version totally different
was admitted by the Chairman of the Senate panel that it was from the House.
mostly the version of the Senate which was approved in the final
1
Issue: Is this provision the one I mentioned earlier a rider or is it

Section 26 (1). Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace germane to the subject of the law? Did this provision violate
only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof. Section 26?
It mandates that every bill shall embrace only one subject which Ruling: According to the SC, it is germane to the subject. A law
shall be expressed in the title itself. One subject, One title rule. may contain several provisions no matter how diverse they may
This is mandatory to the point that it is essential to the validity be for as long as they are not inconsistent with the general
of the legislation. subject, somehow there is a relation. In the words of the
Supreme Court what is the relation of deleting that provision of
Q: Why? ipso facto resignation to the Fair Elections Act? Isn’t it that the
A: Because the Constitution does not require congress to read law is about fair elections act? That the provision is talking about
during its deliberation the entire text of the bill, they are just that the elective officials are no longer deemed ipso facto
required to at least read the title. So by reading the title, they resigned the moment they filed their COC. How is it related to
are already notified of what it contains. Fair Elections Act?
The SC said that the legislators here considered Sec 67 is a form
One subject per title is required: of harassment or discrimination that had to be done away with,
(1) to prevent hodgepodge or log rolling legislation – To give somehow the SC found a way to make that provision valid.
notice. Hodegepodge means messy, unruly, disorganized;
(2) to prevent surprise or fraud upon the legislature by means of
provisions in case of which the titles give no means of PJA v. Prado
information which might be overlooked; and
(3) for the people to be fairly apprise – that is general notice. FACTS: This is about creating the Philippine Postal Corporation
which repeals certain other laws, Sec 35 which is an express
When you say that the subject must be expressed in the title, repeal of other existing laws, now it was contended that the title
the Constitution does not require that the title must be an index itself that this is an act creating Philippine Postal Authority
of the provisions contained in that law that each of the chapter repealing blah blah blah..It was contended that the title itself
must be placed in the title. What is required is that the general must express that that law is expressly repealing another law
subject matter is there and all the provisions are germane to the without that express provision in the title the law is invalid or
general subject matter and is not calculated to mislead the that repeal is invalid, now the SC ruled that there is no need to
legislature or the people. There is no need that the title is an put that into title, the title need not be an index besides repeal
index of all the provisions in that law. The test of sufficiency of of the law is not the subject matter of that law but is the effect
the title is whether or not it is misleading. of that law.
In Guzman v. COMELEC Whether or not that the Congress will provide that express
repeal, the effect would be the same because it would be
inconsistent with an existing law so it would be an implied
repeal. It would be more of an effect rather than a subject
GUZMAN vs COMELEC matter that must be written in the title of that law.

Involve is the Voters Registration Act of 1996 Garcia v. Mata
An act for the general registration of voters, adopting a system
of registration, prescribing the procedures thereof and This is a General Appropriation Law, what is an appropriation
authorizing the operational funds therefore. Here comes the law? It set aside money for the appropriation of the Government
provision of that law Section 24 provides for the reassignment of but there is a provision of that law, it provides for the status of
Election Officers, regular reassignment, every 4 years they must the officers of the military that in case where there is no
be reassigned to another Congressional district. It was argued emergency, no officer of the reserved officer of the AFP may be
that this Section 24 is a rider. A rider means provision not called to an active tour of duty of more than 2 yrs. It pertains to
germane to the subject matter of the law, it is supposed not to the status of reserved military personnel. So here you can see, a
be there. The title now violates the One Subject One Title Rule. law setting aside funds for the operations of the Government
Is it a correct contention? The main subject of the law is to and there is a provision on the status of military personnel.
secure the integrity of registration, that provision is germane to Clearly you can see that that provision has no relation to the
the subject matter of the law, and therefore not a rider. general subject matter, it is not providing for the funds but it is
providing for a status which should be legislated in another law
and not in incorporated in the General Appropriations Bill.
Fariňas v. Exec. Secretary
What you have here therefore is a RIDER, a provision that is not
Facts: This involves Fair Elections Act, it mostly relates to the germane to or related to the subject matter.
regulation of Media and the use of Media during election
campaign, however, there is a provision there which provides a Lidasan v. Comelec
repeal of Sec 67 of the Omnibus Election Code that section
provides for the ipso facto resignation of elective officials when The law is an Act creating the municipality of Dianaton in the
they file their certificate of candidacy, the Fair elections act Province of Lanao del Sur. That it is the title. At a glance the title
repealed that provision meaning that when elective officials file would only affect the province of Lanao del Sur.
their COC they are no longer considered as ipso facto resigned.
Now let’s look at at the title, An act to enhance the holding of What is the complication in this case?
free, orderly, honest and peaceful credible elections through fair This is one example that the title is misleading because it seems
election practices. that the municipality will be created out of the barrios or
1
municipalities of Lanao del Sur because it only mentions the

province of Lanao del Sur therefore any legislator or the public
will presume that it would only affect the province of Lanao del
Sur but the provisions however provide that this new
municipality of Dianaton will have members of barrios in certain
municipalities not only in Lanao del Sur but also two
municipalities in Cotabato. So it did not apprise public coming
from cotabato even the legislator representative of Cotabato
that their province would be affected. So in this case, this is one
clear example of that the title is misleading, therefore, it violated
the rule, that the subject must be expressed in the title that is
the essence of Sec 26. So here, The title did not inform the
members of Congress as to the full impact of the law, it did not
apprise the people in the towns of buldon, parang cotabato and
in the province of Cotabato itself that part of its territory is taken
away from it. It kept the public in the dark as to the towns and
provinces actually affected by the bill.
Now we have an example of a violation of Section 26.

1
the Constitution, there is no remedy provided, so the remedy is

AUG. 29, 2013 extra-Constitutional. It is provided by the Congress itself,
MICHELLE & MARLIE pursuant to its *** to promulgate its own rules of procedure. So
No class based on its rules, they created the conference committee. The
AUG. 30, 2013 purpose of the conference committee is to settle, recognize or
MICHELLE & MARLIE harmonize differences between disagreeing provisions of the
house and the Senate. Conference committee is therefore is a
mechanism pursuant to the rules of the Congress for
Section 26 paragraph (2) of Article VI provides: compromising differences between senate and the house
versions.
(2) No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it
PGA vs. Prado, Philippine Secretary of Finance and Abakada
has passed three readings on separate days, and printed copies
thereof in its final form have been distributed to its Members
What then is the extent or the limit of the jurisdiction of
three days before its passage, except when the President
Conference Committee? If you look at these cases, PGA vs.
certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a
Prado, Tolentino, Abakada, members of the Senate or the House
public calamity or emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no
are questioning the validity of a particular law based on alleged
amendment thereto shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall
violations of the Conference Committee. There was an allegation
be taken immediately thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered
that Section 35 which repealed the *** privileges of certain
in the Journal.
offices was not given a subject of disagreement between the
house and the Senate. It was also alleged that the conference
Tolentino vs. Secretary committee is supposed to reconcile on the differences. Section
35 was never in fact mentioned in both versions of the Senate
Now remember in the case of Tolentino vs. Secretary, Senator and the House of Representatives. So allegedly they were
Tolentino in his Motion for Reconsideration, contended that the insertions made by the Conference Committee before their
VAT Law is invalid because it violated the 3 readings on separate approval. Also in Tolentino there were allegations that there
days rule under Section 26 par. 2 of Article VI. According to were some provisions in the VAT Law were also surreptitiously
Tolentino the said law did not pass 3 readings on separate days. inserted by the conference committee, these provisions were
It appears however and it was not disputed that then President never discussed by either the HR or the Senate. Also in Abakada
Ramos certified to the necessity of the enactment of such law. vs. Executive Secretary, they also allege that the conference
committee introduced changes or deleted provisions in the
Q: What is the effect of the president’s certification when under House and Senate Bills irregularly.
Section 26(2) provides “except when President certifies to the
necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity Q: So what is now the extent of the power of a conference
or emergency” what is the effect? is the 3 readings on 3 committee?
separate days still required?
If we outline it, it is from the either house as the proponent and
A: in the present case, when the president certifies the urgency then forwarded to another house for further amendments or
of the bill, the certification will dispense with the requirement of proposals and then of course there will be differences so they
printing and of reading on separate days. So if there is a meet up by using the conference committee, bicameral,
certification of the necessity of immediate enactment to meet a members coming from each house.
public calamity or emergency, it will dispense of the printing and
of reading on separate days but there will still be 3 readings, it is Usually the problem is, they question certain acts of the
just that the 3 readings will be done on the same day. conference committee more often that act of inserting
provisions. So what is now the extent of the jurisdiction of a
Now the last paragraph of Section 26(2) states that “Upon the conference committee? What is the extent or limit of its
last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall be allowed, jurisdiction?
and the vote thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter, and
the yeas and nays entered in the Journal.” A: First it has to be underscored that the jurisdiction of the
conference committee is determined by the Congress, we said
So if we imagine the procedure of the passage of a law, under that this is not a constitutional provision; the creation of a
Section 27, a bill would originate either from the House of conference committee is not pursuant to the Constitution but
Representatives or the Senate and then from where it originated pursuant to the internal rules of the Congress so it is determined
it is forwarded to another Chamber for its concurrence with by the Congress itself. Under the Congressional rules of
amendment or further proposal of amendment. Ideally it would procedure, conference committees are supposedly to be not
end there and it will be forwarded to the President for approval. expected to make any material change or alterations either by
That is the ideal set-up. But in reality, that is not the case. Either deleting provisions to which both houses have already agreed,
house can propose amendments to the proposal of the other they already agreed on it and then the onference committee
house. Most of the time, there would be bickering versions of would delete it, or inserting new provisions. However as
the particular law or subject matter. How would they reconcile mentioned earlier, it would difficult to dictate upon or to limit
differences in the proposals or versions of the houses? Under the jurisdiction of the conference committee would be difficult
the internal rules, rules of procedure of either house, to answer to enforce this provision that their jurisdiction will be limited.
that problem, they created in each house conference Usually, by the mere fact that from one house to another there
committees. So this conference committee is created pursuant are already proposed amendments and to reconcile them by
to the power of Congress and each house to adopt or prescribe that mere fact, a third version will come out. Sometimes, just to
its own internal rules of procedure. This is in response to a reconcile the provisions, they will add another provision. So the
problem that is not addressed by any constitutional provision, result will be a third version, from the first version form the
where the two houses of the Congress find themselves in proponent and then the second and then the third version. The
disagreement with regard to changes or amendments third version shall be considered an amendment in the nature of
introduced by the other house in legislating a bill. If you browse a substitute; the only requirement would be that the third
1
version be germane to the subject of the House and the Senate it is as mentioned or stated in Tolentino vs. Secretary, if a
Bills. In Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance, the SC emphasized change is desired by practice of the bicameral conference
that to be sure not in the rules of either house limits a committee, it must be sought in the Congress, since this
conference committee to a consideration of conflicting question is not covered by any constitutional provision but only
provisions. So impliedly, because there is no limit, there is no an internal rule of each house. So why would the SC even deal
prohibition on adding new provisions. It is common place and with that conference committee on how they implement their
we mean it is a practice in Congress that Conference committee own rules. As to the disregard of rules, like for example in the
reports include new matters which though germane may have case of Tolentino vs. Secretary wherein it was alleged that the
not been committed to the committee. conference committee did not comply with the rule that each
change or amendment should be specifically stated in its report
The court recognize as stated in PGA vs. Philippine secretary, the and the proposal made by the conference committee, the SC
long standing legislative practice of giving conference committee said that in the violation of the said rules, the court is not the
ample latitude for compromising the differences. So as therefore best judge but the Congress itself. The SC is not the proper
to the allegation in PGA that the law is invalid because the forum for the enforcement of these internal rules, the SC has
conference committee introduced provisions even if they were been consistent in ruling that parliamentary rules are indeed
never a subject of disagreement of both houses would not hold procedural and its observance, the courts has no concern. The
water. Again the SC held that, it has been authorized/recognized concern of the SC are those procedural requirements found in
as a practice in the Congress. Then the conference committee the Constitution. As to the compliance of internal rules, the SC
has this ample latitude of deleting or inserting provisions. has no concern over it.
In Tolentino also, the SC held that it is within the power of the Going back therefore, can the conference committee after
conference committee to include in its report an entirely new reconciling the versions of the Senate and the house, insert new
provision that is not found either in the house bill or the senate provisions? Yes! can it include provisions not mentioned in
bill as long as it is germane to the subject of the bills before the either versions? Yes! can it delete provisions? Yes! why? It has
committee. So if you allege that these provisions are not found ample latitude. Why? Because its report is still subject to the
in my version or in the version of the other house, then that approval of both houses. It is not true that it is a third house.
would not hold water, because it is within the power of the Why is its act valid? Because it is pursuant to its internal rules. If
conference committee to include entirely new provisions. there are violations to the internal rules, it would be the
Congress who is the proper judge for these violations. Finally the
In ***,mentioned in the case of Abakada, the allegations were enrolled bill doctrine. When there is a certification that this bill
that the Congress created two sets of bicameral conference has been duly enacted and the provisions of this bill are those
committee, so after this first conference committee failed to that are approved by both houses, the SC cannot do anything
reconcile the versions of the two houses, there was another anymore. There is already that certification by the Senate
conference committee that was created. Another allegation is President and the speaker of the house.
that the conference committees lacked records of its
proceedings and so there is a violation of the rules of both Q: Another question, must the conference committee report,
houses. There is *** of the provisions in the compromised bill made to undergo three readings?
submitted by the bicameral conference committee. Of all these
allegations, the SC held that it is between the powers of the Diba when you go to the first house, three readings, the other
conference committee. The law is not invalid just because of house, three readings. Reconcile. Must it undergo another set of
that. Why? three readings?
First, the conference committee report would still be subject to A: In the case of Tolentino, the SC held no! There is no
the approval of both houses. So the allegation that the reason for requiring that the conference committee report must
conference committee would not be a third house, therefore have undergone three readings because after reconciling, there
unconstitutional, is also without merit. It is not a third house would be return to each house and then they will vote on it
because its report is subject to the approval of both houses. whether they approve or disapprove it.
As to that approval, another reason why the SC will not further Q: When it is returned to either house, must it undergo three
scratch the surface of that question as to the power of the readings all over again pursuant to Section 26(2)?
conference committee is the enrolled bill doctrine. Once the bill
is enrolled, meaning it has the certification of the Senate A: SC held No! Because if that is allowed there would be no end
president and the Speaker of the house, by the appearance of to negotiations, since each house may seek modifications of the
their signature thereon, it is now the bill, the enrolled bill is now compromised bill.
conclusive to the courts, the public and even to the president,
conclusive not only to its provisions, that they were indeed the Q: What would happen now therefore?
provisions approved by both houses, but also as to its due
A: The nature of the bill therefore requires that it be acted upon
enactment. So based on the enrolled bill doctrine, the SC did not
by each house in a take it or leave it basis.
find the need to discuss further the validity of the action of the
conference committees, because it is now the speaker of the
After reconciliation by the conference committee, return to each
house and the senate president who certify the due enactment
house and then take it or leave it. Approve or disapprove
of these bills. Even if there is an allegation that it did not
because what would be the other alternative? That is maybe to
undergo three readings on separate days. That allegation as
create another bilateral committee to further hone the
against the certification of the senate president and the speaker
provisions in the particular bill. But the SC is saying that maybe
of the house, the SC give due respect to the heads of the
the result would still be a compromised bill that may not be
Congress, will give credit to the certification as against the
satisfying to both houses. So there would be no end to the
allegation.
compromising of the provisions of the bill. So the SC is saying
that is no need to undergo three readings as the same is only
Another reason is of course the internal rules. The basis of
conference committee is the internal rules of both houses, so if
1
required for bills introduced to either house for the first time First it can become a law if approved by the President.
and not to the conference committee report.
Next it can become a law if pursuant to the last sentence, after
The report that will be subject for approval will be in the nature the receipt of the President, he failed to act upon it (either
of a take it or leave it scenario. No need to undergo three approve or disapprove) within 30 days from receipt. It is a bill
readings. becoming a law by inaction of the President.
Q: does it violate the no amendment rule? I am referring to the Last way, in case the President would veto the law, the Congress
last paragraph of Section 26(2) “Upon the last reading of a bill, can override the veto. But it is very difficult to override a veto, as
no amendment thereto shall be allowed, and the vote thereon it would be returned individually to each house. First to the
shall be taken immediately thereafter, and house which originally proposed the bill, they must obtain an
the yeas and nays entered in the Journal.” Does the conference absolute 2/3, meaning 2/3 of all members, not just a quorum!
committee violate the no amendment rule? Even if they get the 2/3 votes, it would still require another 2/3
votes of all the members of the other house. So if they really
A: SC held No! In abakada vs. Executive Secretary, using the want to override this veto, they must have power in numbers.
ruling of Tolentino vs. Executive Secretary, the SC quoted that
Article 6, section26(2) must be construed only to refer to bills *** vs. Marto
which were introduced for the first time in either house of
Congress, not to the conference committee report. Thus the no Congress here enacted a law, there is a provision there, Section
amendment rule refers only to the procedure to be followed by 6 that is supposed to be reorganization of the gov’t. Section 6
each with regards to bills initiated in the respective houses provides that it would be the president who will provide for the
before the bill is transmitted to the other house for its reorganization plan and submit it to congress, and the latter
concurrence or amendment. To construe such provision in such shall approve or disapprove the reorganization plan of the gov’t.
a way to proscribe any changes to a bill after one house has Now if the Congress adjourns without acting on the
voted on it, would lead to absurdity. Why? After three readings reorganization plan of the President, the reorganization plan is
there can be no amendment? Meaning the other house can no deemed approved. There was a ?problem? in this case because
longer introduce or propose amendments through the bill as the reorganization plan included granting judicial and quasi-
originally proposed by the other house. So that would lead to judicial powers to regional offices. Is this valid?
absurdity. The no amendment rule, must therefore be construed
only to refer to the first or the bills initiated in each of the said A: the SC held that the process in the enactment of a law as
respective houses because this would mean (to construe provided in the Constitution is this way – it would be the
otherwise?), the other house of the congress would be deprived Congress who will propose the law and the president shall
of the power to amend or introduce changes in the bill. approve the law. However in the present case, it is the president
who proposes the law and it will be approved by the congress.
Section 26(2) cannot be taken to mean that the introduction of The SC said that there is a reversal of the democratic process. If
amendments by the bicameral congress is prohibited. Going this is tolerated, it will come to a point wherein there would be
back to the decision, that the bicameral congress committee has total abdication of congressional powers to legislate, either
ample latitude in prescribing conditions to reconcile or even because they are weak or because they are indifferent. So this
introduce amendments to both bills of the house and the would be a dangerous precedent if allowed by the SC.
senate.
Under our Constitution, it is the Congress who makes the law
Passage of a law under Section 27: and it is the President who approves it, not the other way
around. So the provision is invalid.
Section 27. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it Q: When does a law become effective? What is the basic
becomes a law, be presented to the President. If he approves requirement for its effectivity?
the same he shall sign it; otherwise, he shall veto it and return
the same with his objections to the House where it originated, A: In the case of Tanada vs. Tuvera, it is publication.
which shall enter the objections at large in its Journal and
proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two- Under the Civil Code, laws shall take effect after 15 days, after
thirds of all the Members of such House shall agree to pass the their publication in the OG, and in Tanada vs. Tuvera, it included
bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other newspapers of General circulation and the OG, unless it is
House by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if otherwise provided. Now it was then argued that it may be
approved by two-thirds of all the Members of that House, it provided that publication is no longer required. Is this the right
shall become a law. In all such cases, the votes of each House interpretation? Article 2 must be construed to refer to the
shall be determined by yeas or nays, and the names of the number of days for its effectivity. For its effectivity, it cannot go
Members voting for or against shall be entered in its Journal. without publication. Publication is a necessity; it is an essence of
The President shall communicate his veto of any bill to the due process. Especially if you relate that again to the provision
House where it originated within thirty days after the date of which says ignorance of the law excuses no one from
receipt thereof, otherwise, it shall become a law as if he had compliance therewith, publication therefore would be a
signed it. constructive notice. Whether you have read it or not, there is a
constructive notice of the existence of such law.
(2) The President shall have the power to veto any particular
item or items in an appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill, but the Q: Let us go to the veto power of the President. What is the
veto shall not affect the item or items to which he does not extent of the President’s veto power?
object.
A: Take note, that when the enrolled bill is forwarded to the
President, the legislative process is already over. The president’s
Section 27 prescribes how a bill becomes a law. We now have action now would be only to approve or disapprove. Therefore
the enrolled bill, how is it then becomes a law? It may become a
law in any of the three ways.
1
the general rule when it comes to veto, is the president must veto because the Constitution only allows him to veto the
veto all or none at all. item,not the provision.
Q: The president must veto the entire bill or approve it. Why is Bolinao vs. Valencia
that so?
Here there is also an appropriation bill, there is an appropriation
A: the president is not the legislative department. He has no for the Philippine Broadcasting Service. For the operation of the
authority to delete some provisions, add some to his liking or PBS an amount of P300,000 was set aside. There is a provision
delete some words and insert words that he prefers. In that under this, that no amount appropriated for television, should
case, he would then be acting as the legislative department. So be used in the operations of television stations in Luzon and in
the general rule would be, the president must veto all or none at any part of the Philippines where there are television stations.
all. Meaning the 300k for the operation of PBS would only be for use
in areas where there are no television stations. The problem in
Q: is there an exception to such General Rule. this case is that the president vetoed that portion that no
amount would be used in areas where there are television
A: Under paragraph 2 of Section 27: stations without touching the 300k item.
(2) The President shall have the power to veto any particular Here, it came about that PBS set up stations in an area where
item or items in an appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill, but the there are already existing television stations. Question is that
veto shall not affect the item or items to which he does not allowed? Ultimately, is the veto of the president valid and the
object. result would be that the provision is no longer existing and so it
is allowed (the setting up in an area where there are already
existing television stations). Or is the veto invalid?
These are all money bills. In this case, the veto shall not affect
the item or items to which he does not object. As we can see here the veto is on a provision and under the
constitution it is invalid. So what is the result? If the veto is
Q: Why is there such an exception when it comes to
unconstitutional, then it follows that the same has no effect
appropriation, revenue or tariff bills?
whatsoever and the restriction of the appropriation bill
A: These are again money bills. The government needs money therefore remains.
for its daily operation. So if the rule would be that the president
Item Veto as against a veto on provision, is it clear?
should veto all or none at all and the president has no money, he
will approve the said money bill even if there are provisions Going back to the General rule, the president is only allowed to
there which would have been vetoed, which to him are veto all or none at all. The exceptions are revenue, tariff and
undesirable parts. appropriation bills where the president can veto items only but
not provisions, otherwise it would be *** of the legislative
In that case, the constitution gave the president the leeway to
department.
veto items; it is called an item veto as distinguished from a veto
of a provision. Now there is also exception to the exception. We are talking
about appropriation bills, revenue and tariff bills. Another
Q: what is an item?
exception is provided in the case of
A: an item is by itself an appropriation. It is a sum of money
PCA vs. Enriquez
provided in an appropriation bill. Have you seen an
appropriation bill? I think you can imagine an appropriation bill, In the present case, the SC held that the president may veto
for the operation of the government – e.g. executive provisions that are constitutionally inappropriate for an
department – for the DOH 10billion, under that the congress appropriation bill. In this case, they may be singled out and
would provide conditions for how this 10 billion will be spent. vetoed even if they are not considered as items. This is the
These conditions would be considered as provisions. The item doctrine of an inappropriate provision. Any provision or
would be the 10billion for the Department. condition in an appropriation bill which in the judgment of the
President, violates the constitution maybe vetoed separately
Q: if the president is allowed to veto, what is he allowed to
from the entire bill without need to veto the appropriation
veto?
which they are attached, without need to veto the item.
A: In the abovestated example, that item of 10 billion for DOH.
Para hindi malito, in the case of appropriation bills, the president
Bengson vs. Drilon can veto items not provisions. Now there is an expansion to this
rule. The president may veto provisions, but only if the
In the present case, there is an appropriation bill containing an provisions are considered as inappropriate provisions, meaning
item for General Fund Adjustment 500,000 for the use of the SC. they are constitutionally inappropriate, they violate the
Now this general fund adjustment is supposed to be subject to a constitution. So in this case, they are considered as ***
condition for its use. Like, for the payment of the pensions of items and the president may veto it. This is a judge made rule, it
retired judges, after the decision of the SC. There is a condition expands the item veto power of the president when it comes to
for its use. Now the president in this case vetoed the provision, appropriation, revenue and tariff bills.
the condition for its use but did not touch the 500,000 item.
Example of an inappropriate provision, in PCA vs. Enriquez there
Again that general fund adjustment of 500,000 is the item and is a provision there - use of fund: the appropriation authorized
the condition for its use or conditions or systems placed by herein shall be used for the payment for the principal and
Congress for its use are considered as provisions. In the present interest of foreign investment indebtedness provided that any
case, the president vetoed the provision; hence it is an invalid payment in excess of the amount herein appropriated, shall be
subject to the approval of the president of the philippines with
1
the concurrence of Congress. Any payment in excess of the in the law itself. It is not for the congress to approve or
amount herein appropriated, so this provision we are talking disapprove the IRR, otherwise it would be encroaching on the
about is an amount other than which is appropriated in an power of the executive department to implement the law. Gusto
appropriation bill. This amount in excess of the amount herein nila pakialaman ang pag implement ng rules and regulations.
appropriated is an inexistent amount. If it is the intention of the
Congress, it may be contained in another legislation. So this Q: Who has the authority in our system to say that the IRR is
would refer to an item not found in the appropriation bill. This is valid or invalid?
an inappropriate condition. A payment in excess of the amount
herein appropriated, this term refers to an abstract amount, but A: it is the supreme court! So this legislative veto therefore is
it is considered in an appropriation bill, so this is inappropriate. unconstitutional because the Congress is now acting or
The amount here actually is 86 billion in payment of the performing the powers which are properly placed by the
indebtedness, but it authorized the president to pay in excess of constitution in the SC. That is the case of Abakada vs. Purisima.
86 billion, that is not allowed! Payment out of the treasury can
only be made pursuant to legislation or a law, so this is an
inappropriate provision!
Other kinds of inappropriate provisions as enumerated in PCA

vs. Enriq uez would be:
1. Provision that does not relate to any particular item like what
we mentioned earlier - Funds other than that what is provided in
the appropriation.
2. provisions which extends its operation beyond an item in the

appropriation
3. Unconstitutional provisions
4. provisions intended to amend laws
Q: Why are these provisions not proper in an appropriation bill?
A: because an inappropriation bill is only for setting aside a sum

of money for a certain purpose, not to amend another law.
Q: Why, what would be the proper way?
A: to amend the law in a proper separate legislation.
So in this case in PCA vs. Enriquez, so here there is a provision

for the compensation of CAFGUs, it shall be used for
compensation, including payment of separation benefits, not
exceeding 1 year subsistence allowance who have been
deactivated in 1994. There is no law deactivating the CAFGUS. In
short it is the appropriation bill which deactivated the CAFGU
and it is not appropriate in an appropriation bill. So the veto is
allowed to veto it even if it is not an item. In the present case
however, it was not the president who discovered the said
provision but the SC, it nonetheless invalidated the said
provision in its decision.
Q: is there such a thing as legislative veto?
e.g. A statutory provision requiring the president or

administrative agency to present the proposed Implementing
rules and regulations of a law to Congress which by itself or
through a committee formed retains the right or power to
approve or disapprove such IRR before they take effect.
Q: Can the congress provide in the law that the IRR to be

promulgated by the executive dept or administrative agency still
needs the approval of the congress?
What we have here is a legislative veto. Is this constitutionally

allowed?
A: SC held no! in the diagram of our operation, especially when

it comes to enactment and implementation of laws, it is the
Congress who should enact laws and the executive dept who
implements it by promulgation of implementing the rules and
regulations. The IRRs has the effect of law as if they are written
1
Sec. 25 (3) The procedure in approving appropriations for the

SEPT. 4, 2013 Congress shall strictly follow the procedure for approving
CHA & ZAR appropriations for other departments and agencies.
So there should be no special procedure for the

Constitutional Law 1 appropriation in the congress. The congress therefore cannot
September 4, 2013 use a procedure different from other departments and agencies
of the government.
Zar
Sec. 25 (4) A special appropriations bill shall specify the
Power of Appropriation (Section 25 and 29) purpose for which it is intended, and shall be supported by
funds actually available as certified by the National Treasurer,
Sec. 29 (1) No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in or to be raised by a corresponding revenue proposed therein.
pursuance of an appropriation made by law.
Par. 4 talks about special appropriations - meaning
It simply means therefore that only congress can appropriations not found in the general appropriations law. For
authorize the expenditure of public funds. Public funds may be special appropriations law, it must be supported by
spent only pursuant to law and its congress that enacts laws, certification that funds are available, if not they must be
therefore it is congress that holds power of the “first”. released by corresponding revenue proposal.
The power of the “first” includes not only the power to Sec. 25 (5) No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of
specify the money allowed to be spend but also the power to appropriations; however, the President, the President of the
specify the conditions for spending. - For the purposes of the use Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief
of that money. It is therefore a very immense power because Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional
the government cannot operate without public funds, and it Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment any item
cannot use the funds without authorization from congress. in the general appropriations law for their respective offices
However immense it may be the constitution still has from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.
provided limits to the exercise of this power;
The first limit, you already met it under Sec. 24 when it This is a prohibition of the transfer of funds – juggling
comes to all appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills of funds – in fact if you use money that is appropriated for one
authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of local application, purpose for another purpose that is criminally sanctioned, that is
and private bills shall originate exclusively in the House of Technical Malversation.
Representatives. However the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker
of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the
Now under Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions
Sec. 25 (1) The Congress may not increase the appropriations may be authorized to augment any item from the general
recommended by the President for the operation of the appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in
Government as specified in the budget. The form, content, and other items of their respective appropriations.
manner of preparation of the budget shall be prescribed by The constitution however provides some leeway to
law. these heads of departments - The officers mentioned are
actually heads of the 3 great departments and the heads of
“The congress is the guardian of public treasure.” – Fr. Bernas constitutional commission.
 What privilege are they given?
The Congress in paragraph (1) may not increase the - The congress may by law authorize them to transfer
appropriations recommended by the President - budgeting founds in their departments; the transfer is only for
starts with the president proposing a budget - it will be augmenting an item they cannot transfer founds to
authorized by congress. The budget proposal cannot be use it in an inexistent item. And you only get the
increased by congress – this is to prevent big budget deficits funds from savings of another item.
Sec. 25 (2) No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the Juggling in general is prohibited - transferring in a certain
general appropriations bill unless it relates specifically to some department may be authorized pursuant to law, that’s the first
particular appropriation therein. requirement.
This talks about inappropriate provisions in an In the case of PCA vs. Enriquez;
appropriations bill. When we were talking about power of veto
of the president – we said that when it comes to appropriations There were 2 questionable provisions in the general
bill he can only veto items not provisions but he may veto appropriations law of 1994
provisions if these are inappropriate provisions, so this is it,
paragraph 2 - Provisions that does not relate specifically to some “a member of congress may realign his allocation for
particular appropriation therein. It is a rider. operational expenses to any other expense category provided
the total of the said allocation is not extended” (provision cited)
Recall What’s wrong?
Garcia vs Mata that provision in the appropriations bill of 1956- Transfer of funds by any member of congress. Under the
1967 wherein it has provided for the reactivation of reserved constitution only the speaker of the house is allowed to do the
military officers. This has no place in an appropriations bill transfer.
because it does not relate to any appropriation – this is an
example of an inappropriate provision that may be vetoed by “The chief of staff of AFP is authorized subject to the approval
the president because this is in fact unconstitutional. of the secretary of the national defense, to use savings in
1
appropriations provided therein, to augment the pension fund directions. Not for the unofficial quick count and the Supreme
being manage by the AFP retirement separation benefit system Court noted that when you say in fact unofficial, it’s not
as provided by law”(provision cited) sanctioned by the government. Then Comelec if that is allowed,
What’s wrong? Comelec will be allowed to spend again money or something
The law authorized a chief of staff of AFP subject to the approval that is not usable. Unofficial quick count diba?! For what
of the secretary of national defense, under the constitution it is purpose? So it is now a case of using public funds without
the president. appropriations. It is actually technical proceeding.
In Demetria vs Alba But can they cite the authority under the Constitution to transfer
funds, say si Chairman Abalos, can he use that reasoning?
“the president shall have the authority to transfer any funds What’s your answer? No. 1, the transfer must be pursuant to
appropriated for the different department, bureaus , offices and law. In this case, there is in fact a certification by the Senate
agency of the executive department which are included in the President that they had not issued a law authorizing the
general appropriations act or approved upon its enactment.” Comelec Chairman to transfer funds. No. 2, if at all, there is that
(provision cited) authority, what is the extent of that authority? In transferring
What wrong? funds, used the funds to augment, here in this case, the alter for
The president is authorized to indiscriminately transfer funds there was no item for unofficial quick count machines. Diba? So
without regard if the fund is for augmentation or the funds it was an inexistent item to fund. So it is also not allowed under
would be coming from savings. It is important to remember that the Constitution besides if you are to allow transfer of funds,
in transferring of funds it is only for augmenting and it must saan mo kukunin? From savings. Natira nay un eh, hindi na
come from savings. savings. Anong term nga yan? Tawag niyan? Sa atin pang
shopping nalang yun, pambili ng bigas. So its not savings
Sec. 25 (6) Discretionary funds appropriated for particular because it has, they have after spend all the budget. So it’s that
officials shall be disbursed only for public purposes to be instance wherein the Comelec is intending to lose public money
supported by appropriate vouchers and subject to such for something that is not authorized by law. So from one palpak
guidelines as may be prescribed by law. to another palpak. Palpak na Comelec.
It is not unconstitutional to grant the president and

even members of congress discretionary funds. provided there is 2nd paragraph, Section 29 – no public money or property shall
a guideline. be appropriated, applied, paid or employed directly or
indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church,
Sec. 25 (7) If, by the end of any fiscal year, the Congress shall denominations, secretarian institution or system of religion, or
have failed to pass the general appropriations bill for the of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or
ensuing fiscal year, the general appropriations law for the dignitary as such except when such preiest, preacher, minister
preceding fiscal year shall be deemed re-enacted and shall or dignitarian is assigned to the armed forces or to any penal
remain in force and effect until the general appropriations bill institution or government orphanage or leprosarium.
is passed by the Congress.
-in case the congress fails to pass the appropriations bill the Simply, public money or public funds cannot be used for
government cannot be crippled because par. 7 provides for the religious purposes. Take note of the exception. Not all
automatic re-enactment of the appropriations law of the prior governmental activity with the use of public funds that is related
year, no need for further acts. to some activity that has religious tint would violate this
provision of the constitution and the separation of church and
CHARIZ state. in other words, as long as the main purpose of the law is
SECTION 29 (par. 1) not for religious purposes when they authorize the tending of
money then it cannot be invalidated by the mere contention
Okay! Section 29, par. 1 – No money shall be paid out of the that it violates the principle of separation of church and state or
Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law. it violates article 29 (2) as long as the main purpose of the
tending of money or the use of money is not for religious
But the example would be Brillantes vs. Comelec. In that case, purposes even though at a collateral the activity will have some
Comelec was given certain amount or fund for the automation religious tint. Very practical example, kuha tayo ng budget sa
of elections. So the fund appropriated pursuant to law, office bili tayo ng decoration sa christmas, belen, di ba? So it is
appropriation law. Meron silang… the problem was, during that not unconstitutional actually. It is something that that is more of
time under the reign of Comelec Abalos, they were contracting a socio- cultural activity rather than a religious activity.
here and there and everywhere without clear study of what the
contract would be, how the funds or sevice would be provided, We take that with the case of garces vs. estenzo. In
etc. etc. The point that they paid out that payment, payment for that case the only problem is that who should be given the right
further services only to be declared invalid by the Supreme to contend the statue of a saint. estatwa ni san vicente ferrer
Court. So the fund for automated election was depleted. To the pinag-agawan ng parish priest at ng layman. So who has the
point that they could no longer implement the automation of rightful contention of the STATUE? The statue was i think around
election for the next election that time. Favour is remaining php 400.00. What’s the problem in this case? This particular
fund, what they thought of the millions and millions of pesos na barangay will be celebrating its fiesta. When you say fiesta it’s a
nabigay na sa smartmaic kung sino pa sila. So merong natira, commemoration of of a saint di ba? A saint being in relation of
they thought of contracting again, this time since hindi na, they that to the catholic practice. The local government issued a
cannot pay for the entire automation they will be paying for a resolution authorizing the solicitation of funds and they will use
machine that we provide for unofficial quick count. Quick count it to buy a statue of a patron saint. on the fiesta celebration they
nalang! Is that allowed? One of the contentions there is that the will lend the statue from one house to another until during the
spending of the fund is unconstitutional because there is no fiesta it will reach the church. The problem is after the
appropriations made by law for that purpose. The law is only the celebration the priest refuse to give back. Te is claiming that it is
appropriations law that time is only for the automation owned by the church. Ironically, he is claiming violation of
1
church and state principle. Sabi nya it violates because he is What if an offensive war is on going? What can the president
claiming that he is using public funds for religious purposes. The do?
sc said it is not even an issue of separation of chirch and state. If
you look at the facts the funds that were used to buy the statue Of course the president can fight coz his authority includes to
is from solicitation. So they came from private pockets not from serve and protect the people and the country but this does not
public funds. On that score alone, wrong na yung contention. mean that it comes with the power to declare an existence of
But other than that the sc said there is nothing unconstitutional war.
about celebrating fiesta. There is also nothing unconstitutional
about procuring anything in relation to that celebration even Whats the relevance? Why the congress has this power?
procuring the statue. Why? In this case you cannot say
To ensure the deployment of the resources of the government.
separation of church and state because celebration of fiesta is
more of a socio- cultural activity of the filipinos. It would way
Paragraph 2
way back in time and memorial is engraved in our culture. So
relate that with fiesta; relate that with declaring the end of 2. In times of war or other national emergency, the
ramadan as holiday. So there is socio- cultural activity that congress may, by law, authorize the president for a
cannot be declared a religious activity where the state cannot limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may
participate. When it comes to fiestas it’s not really religious but prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to
more on cultural. carry out a declared national policy. Unless sooner
withdrawn by resolution of the congress, such powers
Another case is the case of aglipay vs. ruiz. Aglipay as shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof.
you know was the founder of the Philippine independent
church. the Philippines is going to be the venue for an It provides that in case of war or national emergency, the
international Eucharistic celebration which is the _ of the family congress may delegate upon the president emergency power.
church meaning that several dignitaries, several delegates Whats the extent? Any power even the power to legislate. This
coming from other countries representing the catholic religion would be one of the valid delegation of the president pursuant
would be coming over because this would be their convention. to the grant of emergency powers by the congress. The power is
Now, running on the petition the congress enacted a law so immense, thus the constitution put some limits to the grant
authorizing the use of public money for the printing of a stamp. of emergency powers to the president:
As to_ of the catholic church so violation of the church and state
principle. is the contention correct? Again as we mentioned 1. Must be pursuant to law – a law must be enacted
earlier as long as the law or enactment the primary purpose is 2. It can be given only to a limited period
not for religious purpose then it will not violate the - Upon the next adjournment of the congress, the
constitutional principle. In this case the purpose is not to power shall automatically ceased.
support the catholic church but to raise revenue pamaligya ng - Now the withdrawal, if the congress sees it as fit
stamp and to promote the Philippines,. In fact it was contended to withdraw the emergency powers, will it need to
here that the stamp instead of a chalice was changed to a map enact a law for withdrawal?
of the Philippines. so the focus here is the venue in the No, only a resolution is needed to withdraw the
Philippines rather than the catholic religion. So not all power.
governmental activity of public use of funds with religious tint 3. The power is subject to restrictions as congress may
are violative of constitutional provision in fact the sc said that provide
the law is valid because the basic purpose of the law is to raise
revenue not to support that activity. In fact if you will repeat and In the case of DAVID VS ARROYO
you look at it in an objective way what the government did here
is to maki-ride on ay may happening dito mangwarta ta di ba? - It was at this time, Arroyo declared a state of
That’s how simple it is. It’s not even religious tint. So they just emergency. Does she have this power?
rode with the activity to raise revenue and to promote the
Philippines as the place of the activity. Yes, the act is valid. What she us declaring is merely stating an
existing condition. The current condition of the country. It is
only a statement of fact. She is not precluded to state an
SEPT. 5, 2013
emergency. Example also is declaring the state of calamity or
JAY & LANIE – No class
state of rebellion. It has no legal implication in the constitution.
SEPT. 6, 2013
Can she exercise emergency powers?
JETRO & DANIELLE
No, coz under the constitution , only congress can grant her
emergency powers. The power to declare state of emergency is
different in exercising emergency powers.
SEPTEMBER 6 - JETRO AND DANIELLE
Now, lets jump to sec 28. – power of taxation
SEC 23 -
1. The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The
1. The congress by a vote of two-thirds of both houses in congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation.
joint session assembled, voting separately shall have
So power of taxation is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
the sole power to declare the existence of state of war.
congress, to some extent to local legislative bodies. They are
The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national also granted delegated legislative authority pursuant to the local
policy. Under the constitution, the power is vested in the government code to raise its own revenue.
congress, there is a greater number of vote required which 2/3
2. The congress may, by law, authorize the president to
of both houses in joint sessions assembled voting separately.
fix within specified limits, and subject to such
limitations and restrictions as it may impose, tariff
1
rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage The tariff and custom codes authorizing the PRES to prohibit any
dues and other duties or imposts within the framework commodity under EO 226- OMNIBUS INVESTMENT CODE and
of the national development program of the SAFEGUARD MEASURES ACT. The bottomline as we can see
government. there is already a continuing authority of the pres to ban
importation products.
The basic principle is that power of taxation is n the realm of
congress but under paragraph 2, there are certain types of Why is there an issue? Because previously it was only congress
imposition which the congress may delegate to the president. who has authority to ban import goods.
This imposition may refer to impositions upon importation of
goods into the philiipines. You have that power to impose tariff Paragraph 3
dues, tariff rates, import and export quotas, other duties to
imposed. This is therefore an exception to the valid delegation
of legislative power.
3. Charitable institutions, churches and parsonages or
The basic premise therefore is although taxation is exclusive to convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non profit
congress as to foreign importations, this can be delegated to the cemeteries and all lands, buildings, and improvements
president. actually directly and exclusively used for religious,
charitable and educational purposes shall be exempt
SOUTHERN WING VS CEMENT from taxation.
The SC explained this provision has basic postulates. This case Is it true that the business of religion, education is good
tackles the safeguard measures act. You have read about the business? ( laughs)
World trade organization and the GATT ( general appropriation
on tariff and trade) . what is the effect of that? the importation Its not entirely true. Under the constitution, its not the
of other goods to our country is treated equally with our local institution that is exempted but the lands, buildings and other
goods. We agreed to that. The problem is with the influx of improvements which are mandatory directly used for
imported goods, the problem of the govt was to protect the educational, religious or charitable purposes in other words,
local goods. The congress enacted safeguard measures act only real estate taxation is exempted under the constitution.
wherein the president thru DTI cannot imposed importation
What is the reasons granting them?
dues. The SC explained the basic postulates of paragraph 2- sec
28
In honing or promoting the morality, spiritual needs of the
country are basically governmental function. These institutions
-it is the congress which authorizes the president to impose tariff
are helping the government so to some extent it lifts the burden
dues, import and export dues. The authority cannot come from
of the government. They given the benefit of exempted from
the national economic development or the world trade
real estate taxation.
organization. Even if we agree to the WTO, it needs
congressional enactment.
LUNG CENTER Vs QUEZON CITY
2. the authority granted to the president must be pursuant to a
Lung center is a non stock – non profit entity. It’s a health
law. It cant be an inherent power of the president. It cannot
service entity. This was established during the time when TB is
arise from executive orders.
prevalent. The hospital stands on a 12 hectare lot. The hospital
is in the middle while the other lot is rented to a private
3. only the specified limits and further to restrictions provided
individual with business. The ground floor houses the canteed
by congress.
and the clinics of doctors who rented those clinics. The hospital
If the congress would stipulate that there are importations of generates income from these rents. They were assessed for real
corn, then the president cant do anything about it even if the is property tax of the local assessor of quezon city. They question
pressured by the corn industry. that they are exempted from taxation. Now it argued its
character as a charitable constitution remains since the income
It was an issue here that the president will exercise his power derived from the rents are use for the hospital.
thru his alter egos as for example the department secretaries
like the sec of finance in imposing import duties. This SMA The SC said there is no argument as to that matter. The issue is
provides by the provision it will be the DTI or tariff commission the land and the building exempt from taxation?
that will determine. There is a clash now in who will act as the
The SC said what the constitution exempts are only those
alter ego of the pres? We said in the onset, it’s the congress
portion which are directly used fro charitable purposes. In this
who delegates this power. In this case, the SC SAID it is the DTI
case, only those portions of the building used for charitable
who acts as an agent of congress in acting this power. The
purposes are exempted.
president cannot say that we will not believe the DTI since this
restriction is already in the law in this case.
This provision is strictly applied. Only those areas which are
directly used for religious, charitable and educational purposes.
EXECUTIVE VS SOUTHWING
4. No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed
The Pres Arroyo issued executive order banning certain vehicles
without the concurrence of a majority of all the
for importation. The issues is whether or not the president has
members of the congress.
the authority to ban certain goods or parts for importation for it
seems there was issuance from the congress granting the pres to
The congress cannot grant tax exemption without authority by
ban those goods. In order for the pres to exercise his power
law. What is the required vote? An absolute majority is
there must be a law. So the SC surveyed the current laws and
required. Is is constitutionally enshrined.
concluded that there are 3 laws that grants the pres to ban
these importation goods. It’s a general grant: CHAVEZ VS PCGG
1
The PCGG is tasked of to look and investigate the ill-gotten Basically, it prohibits creation of private corporation pursuant to
wealth of the MARCOSES. This authority granted to the PCGG a law. It prescribes that private corporation shall be created to
includes the authority to enter into compromise agreement with Philippine corporation code. The congress may create
the marcoses. One of the agreement is that they surrender all government own-controlled corporations by creating a charter.
their ill-gotten wealth and will be subject to tax exemption. The reason for the prohibition is in giving special treatment to
private corporations because it would be a violation of equal
Is this stipulation valid? protection clause.
Its not valid because only the congress can grant tax exemption. LIBAN VS COMELEC
If so granted , it must be in pursuant to law. And if pursuant to
law it must be approved by concurrence of the majority by Gordon was a senator holding the chairmanship of PNRC. There
congress. The PCGG has no authority to grant tax exemption. was the issue on incompatibility of office. The SC ruled here
there was no violation here because PNRC is a private corp.
SEC 3O - prohibited measures there was a portion of the decision that PNRC was created
pursuant to a presidential decree and was a violation of the
At the onset, we said that congress exercises plenary legislative constitutional prohibition. The existence of PNRC was declared
power. The constitution provides the limits to this power. invalid and its has now to incorporate pursuant to corporation
Among this limits are found in SEC 30 AND 31. code as a private corp. the SC made that decision even if PNRC
was not a party to the case and drastically affected PNRC.
SEC 30- no law shall be passed increasing the appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme court as provided in this constitution PNRC has been existing for more than 60 years helping Filipinos.
without its advice and concurrence. All of a sudden its valid existence was denied by government.
PNRC filed a motion for intervention and reconsideration. It
Question? Can the congress increase the appellate jurisdiction
argued that its creation was not a violation. The SC reconsidered
of the court?
its decision. It surveyed the history and creation of PNRC. The
SC recognized PNRC was created by law is private corp. its
Yes if the SC will give its advise and concurrence. The purpose of
creation did not violate the constitution. Why?
this provision is to avoid unnecessary burdensome the SC with
this appellate jurisdiction. Under art 8 of the constitution , the
It was created by the government in compliance to the GENEVA
power, functions and jurisdiction of the SC are already
convention. Other states were already putting up their own red
enumerated. This can be expanded by congress but only with
crosses. This institution renders public service. Charitable
the advice and concurrence of the SC.
services voluntary at that not funded by the government. Funds
come from donors and PNRC is internationally acknowledged as
LEPANTO VS ?
a neutral independent institution. In times of war, this RED cross
The issue is the validity of the appellate jurisdiction from the personnel are protected at all cost whether you are the enemy
decisions of the board of investments because the omnibus or the territory being attacked. It has been a partner of the govt
investment code provides that the decision from this board are and international communities. There is none like its type. The
final but they can be raised to the SC by certiorari. The omnibus SC said PNRC is “sui generis”- a class of its own. Its creation was
investment code was promulgated on july 17, 1987. By then, not a violation because it is not among the private corp
the 1987 constitution was effective. Under sec 30, art 6, the prohibited being created pursuant to law. The SC acknowledged
supreme court said that congress did not obtain the SC’s advice its mistake here in this decision.
much less its concurrence. Therefore, where will you appeal its
“A little more persistence, a little more effort, and what
decisions?
seemed hopeless failure may turn to glorious success.”
You appeal it to the court of appeals.
-Elbert Hubbard
FABIAN VS DESIERTO
In this case, questioning the appellate jurisdiction of the SC as

provided with the OMBUDSMAN ACT. The ombudsman act
provides that decisions of the ombudsman are final but they can
be appealed to the SC via certiorari. This provision has already
been invalidated by the SC because it was a violation of sec 30.
So , decisions in administrative cases from the OMBUDSMAN
can only be appealed with the COURT of Appeals.
SEC 31 - No law granting a title of royalty or nobility shall be

enacted.
I don’t know why this is written here. (laughs)
There is another prohibited measure under ART 12 , SEC 16

which provides:
-the congress shall not, except by general law, provide for the
formation, organization or regulation of private corporations.
Government –owned or controlled corporations may be created
or established by special charters in the interest of the common
good and subject to the test of economic viability.

Consti Trans Second Exam Coverage Edited

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consti Trans Second Exam Coverage Edited

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consti Trans Second Exam Coverage Edited

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

ATTY. ROVYNE JUMAO-AS

MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^

up the details of the law. Or contingent legislation, which is that

How about delegation to the executive department? Isn’t it that

And the SC said that the argument is a stubborn submission. As

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator unless he is a natural- Arnault vs Nazareno

SC said it is not a continuing body so the deliberation prior to the

Zar We know that Local Government Units consist of provinces,

The political parties here want to participate in the

National Liberal Parties or organizations are different from

under different paragraphs. Since they have different definitions,

Under Section 3( c) of RA 7941,,

c) A political party refers to an organized group of citizens

A political party is different from a sectoral party. That is

Under the party-list system therefore, an ideology based or

The economic status is not supposed to be the qualifying factor

So the next meeting, the SC will finally answer the question –

MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^

are marginalized will facilitate the entry of the marginalized in

sectors whthere you represent the NMUs either must

Now we have Ang ladlad (please read the case). This

Nagjoke na si mam diri citing the meaning of the party

MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^

AUG 9 HOLIDAY In veterans and banat, 2% entitled to 1 seat- same.

AUG. 14, 2013 The additional seat:

MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^

On the part of the voters, a person seeking an elective office has

In banat, ang percentage in relation to the remaining seats. ROMUALDEZ v COMELEC

MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^

Term is the period which the official is entitled to hold office.

BUT I said WAS coz this has already been amended.

Issue: Does this vitiate the proceedings of the election of the 13 th

Issue: WON the retirement benefit of Ligot should be computed

A: NO! If there is deduction, it could immediately take effect the

Section 11. A Senator or Member of the House of

committee and house proceedings in consideration of a

A: No! because they are legislators all through their

Pobre vs. Defensor Santiago, 597 S 1

In this case we know that Miriam Santiago, was ***[vying?] for a

x x x I am not angry. I am irate. I am foaming in the

The first sentence refers to what we call an incompatible office.

SECTION 12. All Members of the Senate and the House of

SECTION 13. No Senator or Member of the House of

MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^

AUG 22 CHA & ZAR

(a) Nature and Scope. - The rule of confidentiality based on

Using US jurisprudence, there are three types of information

include powers such as commander in chief powers or the Can he do that?

MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^

Section 24 deals with money bills and must originate in

MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^

Issue: Is this provision the one I mentioned earlier a rider or is it

municipalities of Lanao del Sur because it only mentions the

Now we have an example of a violation of Section 26.

MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^

the Constitution, there is no remedy provided, so the remedy is

MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^

Other kinds of inappropriate provisions as enumerated in PCA