Consti1 2nd Exam Manre

Consti 1 2nd Exam TSN Compilation1-Manresa
Constitution class Comelec, however, denied the petition of local initiative on the
Recording of August 3, 2019 ground that its subject is merely a resolution. Naghimo mo karon ug
[16:20] local initiative to pass a form of local legislation pero inyo gusto
maapektuhan is not an ordinance but a mere resolution of the
IV. Legislative Department Sanggunian. They are two different things. According to Comelec,
this is not the way to cancel out or repeal the resolution. A
What is the function of the legislative department? resolution, according to the Comelec, cannot be the subject of a
local initiative, only an ordinance – because an ordinance is a local
Article VI, Sec. 1. The legislative power shall be vested in the law. A resolution, on the other hand, is only a sentiment if a local
Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a government unit. Therefore, gi-deny sa Comelec ang petition.
House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the
people by the provision on initiative and referendum. Is this resolution the proper subject of an initiative? Naa bay
distinction in the Constitution and existing laws na kini lang pwede
What is legislative power? maging subject of a local initiative?
It is the power of competence of the legislative to propose, enact,
amend, modify, abrogate or review laws vested in the Congress of The Court said this resolution is a proper subject of an initiative. In
the Philippine, which is composed of the Senate and a House of this case, the Court said there are two types of legislative power:
Representatives, also vested in the people by express provision on original and derivative. Original legislative power is possessed by the
initiative or referendum. sovereign people, while derivative legislative power is delegated by
the people to the legislative bodies (Congress, local government
As we discussed before on original and derivative legislative power, units). And the Constitution recognizes original legislative power; it
our representatives enjoy derivative legislative power. The original gives the people, through initiative or referendum, to exercise said
power comes from the people. That is why maka exercise ta sa original legislative power. Ang Colemec, since sila man ang mag
atoang legislative power under initiative or referendum. effect sa initiative or referendum, it is empowered to administer all
laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an initiative and
How do we characterize legislative power? referendum. What laws have been enacted to give life to the original
legislative power of the people? RA 6735 as well as the Local
General rule: It is full, generally without limits. Government Code.
Exception: Naa siyay limits. General rule is plenary siya, but with Again, is this resolution the proper subject of an initiative? The Court
limitations. said yes. An initiative for a resolution is in fact allowed by the
Constitution. Why? Article VI, Section 32 on initiative.
A. Who may exercise legislative power
Article VI, Section 32
Who can exercise legislative power? The Congress shall, as early as possible, provide for a system of
initiative and referendum, and the exceptions therefrom, whereby
1. Congress the people can directly propose and enact laws or approve or reject
Under the same provision, it is Congress composed of the Senate any act or law or part thereof passed by the Congress or local
and HOR. Legislative power can also be exercised by our local legislative body after the registration of a petition therefor signed by
government officials. at least ten per centum of the total number of registered voters, of
which every legislative district must be represented by at least three
2. Regional/Local legislative power per centum of the registered voters thereof.
Local legislative power, original legislative power can be exercised
because it is allowed in the Constitution. The word “act” must encompass not only laws but also other acts,
which include resolutions. An initiative for a resolution is even
3. People’s initiative on statutes allowed in RA 6735 and the Local Government Code. Laws do not
Also, the people through initiative and referendum. limit the application of local initiatives to ordinances but to all
subjects and all matters, which are within the legal power of the
a. Initiative and referendum Sanggunian to enact.
We have a law, RA 6735, which we already discussed as the law
allowing people to exercise the power of initiative and referendum. SBMA VS. COMELEC
There is a petition to nullify the Comelec’s ruling denying the plea of
Now, there is also a law giving people the power to legislate – the citizens and residents of the local government unit to stop the
Local Government Code, which has provisions on initiative and initiative and referendum. SBMA of Morong. RA 7227 created the
referendum. Subic Economic Zone and it also created that authority to implement
GARCIA VS. COMELEC the declared national policies of this law. The Sangguniang Bayan of
The Sangguniang Bayan of Morong, Bataan passed a resolution to Morong, Bataan passed Pambayang Kapasyahan Bilang 10, Serye
include the municipality of Bataan as part of the Subic Special 1993, expressing therein its absolute concurrence, as required by
Economic Zone. Garcia et al. filed a petition for the Sangguniang said Sec. 12 of RA 7227, to join the Subic Special Economic Zone. On
Bayan of Morong to annul that resolution. However, the Sanggunian September 5, 1993, the Sangguniang Bayan of Morong
did not do anyting so Garcia et al. resorted to their power of submitted this Pambayang Kapasyahan to the Office of the
initiative under the Local Government Code. They started to solicit President. The residents of this locality filed a petition in the
the required number of signatures to repeal that resolution. Nakuha Sangguniang Bayan to annul the Pambayang Kapasyahan. The
na nila ang signatures needed to exercise the power of initiative, sila Sangguniang Bayan acted upon the petition by promulgating
mismo nag himo sa balaud para ma repeal ang resolution. The another Pambayang Kapasyahan, requesting Congress to amend
1|Page
certain provisions in RA 7227. However, the residents were not
satisfied with the Sangguniang Bayan, so they availed of their power What should the Comelec do here since an initiative is involved?
of initiative and referendum. The Comelec, however, denied their The Comelec is tasked to supervise an initiative more closely, its
petition on the ground that the subject of petition was a mere authority thereon extending not only to the counting and canvassing
Pambayang Kapasyahan. Same as in Garcia vs. Comelec, resolution of votes but also to seeing to it that the matter or act submitted to
lang. But as decided by the Court Garcia vs. Comelec, pwede maging the people is in the proper form and language so it may be easily
subject of an initiative ang resolution. understood and voted upon by the electorate.
Since nag ingon ang Court na pwede siya maging subject of an So, again, sa initiative, nag propose ug balaud of electorate. The
initiative, gi-direct sa Supreme Court ang Comelec to act on the Court tasked the Comelec to effect an initiative so that the people
initiative. Comelec, therefore, issued a resolution calendaring a not a an read this proposed legislation and would approve or reject it. Ang
local initiative, but a local referendum. Nidiretso sa Supreme Court, referendum, on the other hand, naa nay proposed legislation from
consistent with the Garcia vs. Comelec case. Sige, imo ning initiative the local government unit, but for some reason they want it to be
vis a vis this initiative of the people. Instead of arranging for an approved or rejected by the people way of referendum. So different
initiative, ang gihimo sa Comelec was it arranged for a referendum. sila, different and source and process.
Tama ba ang gihimo sa Comelec (a referendum to annul that The Court emphasized here that when it is a petition for initiative,
Pambayang Kapasyahan)? The Court said no. While original mas closely siya dapat gina-monitor sa Comelec as compared to a
legislative powers give to the people by way of initiative or referendum.
referendum, these two things are different from each other.
So, unsa ang mali na gihimo sa Comelec diri? It required an initiative
Initiative is the power of the people to propose amendments in the but Comelec effected a referendum. These two things are different.
Constitution or to propose and enact legislations through an election The processes are also different. So dapat initiative ang gibuhat, dili
called for the purpose. referendum.
There are three (3) systems of initiative, namely:
a.1. Initiative on the Constitution which refers to a petition SANTIAGO VS. COMELEC
proposing amendments to the Constitution; This case involved the Deflin petition to remove the term limits of all
a.2. Initiative on statutes which refers to a petition proposing to government officials. This is allegedly an amendment to the
enact a national legislation; and Constitution. For example, Congressmen have 3 terms, and dili na ka
th
a.3. Initiative on local legislation which refers to a petition proposing pwede mudagan for a 4 term. Pwede ka mudagan in the mean time
to enact a regional, provincial, city, municipal, or barangay law, as Mayor, Barangay Captain, etc. Afterwards, you can run for
resolution or ordinance Congress again. For Senators, 2 terms lang, then rest, before they
On the other hand, a referendum is the power of the electorate to can run again. Local government officials also, naay 3 term limit.
approve or reject a legislation through an election called for the They wanted to remove that in the Constitution because they
purpose. It may be of two classes, namely: wanted to perpetuate their rule forever. Gusto nila forever, wala nay
c.1. Referendum on statutes which refers to a petition to approve or limit. So, in this petition by Delfin, ang ilang gihimo is nag adto sa
reject an act or law, or part thereof, passed by Congress; and Comelec, “o pag signature campaign mo Comelec because we want
c.2 Referendum on local law which refers to a petition to approve or to remove these term limits.” And ang Comelec pud, “okay, mag
reject a law, resolution or ordinance enacted by regional assemblies hold na mi ug signature campaign.” Then gi-challenge karon ilang
and local legislative bodies. initiative on the provision in the Constitution to remove the term
“Initiative as the "power of the people to propose bills and laws.” In limits on the ground that there is no proper law to effect the system
other words, sa initiative, naay buhaton na balaud ang people. “And of initiative on the Constitution. Another argument was that the
to enact or reject them at the polls independent of the legislative petition filed before the Comelec was not petition envisioned in RA
assembly." Wala nag act of local government legislative unit; ang 6735.
people themselves ang maghimo sa law. And subject it to the
process of the Comelec. So the first issue: Is there a law allowing for an initiative on the
Constitution?
On the other hand, he explains that referendum "is the right Yes, there is a law – RA 6735. But unfortunately, it is not sufficient. It
reserved to the people to adopt or reject any act or measure which was only inserted in that law as mere afterthought, para naay
has been passed by a legislative body and which in most cases would compliance. The provisions of that law are really not enough to
without action on the part of electors become a law.” So ang effect this petition for initiative sa Constitution. Walay mechanism,
referendum is naa nay law na gihimo sa local government legislative walay context of the petition, etc. Kulang ang balaud. In other
unit and ipakita lang sa mga tao, whether they approve or reject it. words, as of today, wala tay balaud in effect for this petition for
revision on the Constitution.
So these two things are different. But what the Comelec did was to
effect a referendum instead of an initiative. When do we resort to Second issue: the propriety of the petition filed
an initiative? When the law-making body fails or refuses to enact the The Court said that, in any case, this petition must already:
law, ordinance, resolution or act that they desire or because they  contain the proposed amendment to the Constitution as a
want to amend or modify one already existing. When is a whole, and also
referendum resorted to? When the law-making body submits to the  the signatures required (12% and 3% -- dapat mapakita sa
registered voters of its territorial jurisdiction, for approval or Comelec before Comelec can act on it).
rejection, any ordinance or resolution, which is duly enacted or
approved by such law-making authority. In other words, initiative is Ang ilang gipakita lang is the petition, wala ang signatures. It’s not
entirely the work of the electorate; electorate is begun and accepted the job of the Comelec to do the signature campaign. So insufficient
to [28:52] by the law-making body. ang petition itself to warrant the action of the Comelec.
2|Page
What are the laws that allow us to recognize our initiative?
LAMBINO ET AL. VS. COMELEC RA 6735 and the Local Government Code (RA 7160)
There was an initiative to change the structure of the government Na-una ang RA 6735 and then there were several amendments to it
from presidential to parliamentary. They got the signatures, but under the Local Government Code or local legislation. “Initiative and
again the Court said here that they failed to comply with the basic referendum are the means by which the sovereign people exercise
requirement in the Constitution for a people’s initiative. The petition their legislative power.”
does not comply with
Now, ang ilang gigamit na petition is petition for local legislation
Article 17, Section 2 of the Constitution to effect this initiative. under the Local Government Code. But there is a limitation, among
others. What is that limitation under the Local Government Code, as
pointed out by the Comelec? The proposed ordinance was beyond
Article 17, Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise the powers of the Sanggunian Panglunsod. Under the Local
be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition Government Code, Section 124, the “initiative shall extend only to
of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered subjects or matters which are within the legal powers of
voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at the Sanggunian to enact." Mao na ang limitation. To effect a local
least three per centum of the registered voters therein. No legislation through initiative, dapat ifollow ang procedure the Local
amendment under this section shall be authorized within five years Government Code along with the limitations.
following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once
every five years thereafter. Now, if mag propose ka ug local legislation, dili pwede na mulapas
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of siya sa power sa Local Sanggunian to enact in the first place. Dili ka
this right. pwede mubuhat ug anything beyond, for example, mag himo ka ug
national office or another district, which are beyond the power of
Why? Ang ilang gibutang lang sa petition is ang proposed the local legislative unit. Here, this petition proposes the creation of
amendment. Dapat ila nang gipakita sa ilang petition, as should be a sectoral council. They will stand as the people’s representatives,
given also to the people before they effected a signature campaign, and there will be an appropriation of P200 million. The Court said,
ang tibook Constitution as amended para makita sa mga tao nga there are four reasons why this is beyond the power of the
mao diay ni ang effect sa gusto na amendments. Wala nila ni Sanggunian to enact:
nahimo, so the petition itself is insufficient and therefore fatal to
their cause. (A) The creation of a separate local legislative body is ultra vires
Under the LGC, the sectoral representatives shall be limited to three
What else? Under the Constitution, the people are only allowed to members, coming from enumerated/identified sectors. Nothing in
effect an initiative to amend it not revise it. Here, the proposal is not the LGC allows the creation of another local legislative body that will
for an amendment but for a revision of the Constitution, an enact, approve, or reject local laws. So, dili siya allowed under the
overhaul. I-change nila from presidential to parliamentary, a basic LGC. Dili pud ka pwede maghimo ug ordinance nga beyond that law.
principle to the Constitution. Mausab atong executive department.
So it’s a revision of the whole instrument, which is not allowed in (B) The sectoral council VMPP's proposed function overlaps with
petition by initiative. the Local Development Council
MARMETO VS. COMELEC (C) The LGC requires local government funds and monies to be
This talks about the power of the people to enact a local law. spent solely for public purposes, and provides transparency and
Marmeto et al. wanted to create a body a separate sectoral council accountability measures to ensure this end
and to receive an appropriation of P200 million. Why did they avail The 200 million will be subject to the spending by the MPP, which is
of this ordinance to create a new council? Because the local a private organization. Dili sila public office, which is not allowed as a
legislative unit was not amenable to the creation of this sectoral rule because local government funds are solely for public purposes.
council. So they instituted a petition for initiative. The Comelec
dismissed their petition for a local initiative on the ground that it is Did the Court agree with the Comelec’s argument that it did not
not within the power of the Sanggunian to enact. Another reason of have the budget for an initiative?
the Comelec was that there was lack of budgetary allocation. Walay Considering that the Comelec is duty bound to act upon petitions for
kwarta sa Comelec to effect this initiative. initiative and referendum, it cannot excuse itself from doing so on
the excuse that it does not have money. Mangita siya ug pama-agi to
The Court discussed here what an initiative is. It is an instrument of comply with that; naa siyay mga savings or approprations for that,
direct democracy whereby the citizens directly propose and legislate pwede niya na gamiton; not allowed na i-deny niya ang petition on
laws. So for example, akoa lang pud ning submission ha, tung ingon the ground that wala siyay budget to effect the initiative. On that
ni Duterete na mag linog sa SONA and mag open ang earth and ground, mali ang Comelec.
patay sila tanan. What happens? Pwede mag revolution. Or if we are
still civilized, we can avail of initiative for special election to elect The Court agreed with the Comelec that it cannot effect this local
people into government. Anyway, that is just a thought because we initiative because it was beyond the power of the Sanggunian to
have this legislative power by way of initiative. enact. It cannot be enacted by the people through initiative – that is
“As it is the citizens themselves who legislate the laws, direct a limitation to the LGC.
legislation through initiative (along with referendum) is considered
as an exercise of original legislative power, as opposed to that of Please remove number 4 (The President under the martial law rule
derivative legislative power, which has been delegated by the or in a revolutionary government). This is a separate topic.
sovereign people to legislative bodies such as the Congress.” That is
how it is recognized in the Constitution. The President under the martial law rule under the 1987
Constitution cannot exercise legislative power. Sa una, wala ana na
3|Page
prohibition. In fact, in olden times, mao ni ginabuhat sa mga
emperor – mag martial law para mag enact. Even Marcos, thinking And what is the extent of the review powers of the Supreme Court in
he is an emperor, nag himo ug mga legislation under martial law. relation to martial law? Only if there is sufficient factual basis. So
Under the 1987 Constitution, wala nay ana nga effect. The fact that daghag discussion diri as to what the proper vehicle should be
the President enacts martial law does not enable him to enact laws. pursued, certiorari ba or mere complaint of petition, it's that the
rule discussed in the executive department. But for our purposes,
August 7, 2010 under the 1987 Consitution, reviewable na ang declaration of
IV. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus by the Supreme Court to determine if there is factual basis.
A. Who may exercise legislative power Now, what else? The purpose of this article in the Constitution
1. Congress relating to martial law is to provide additional safeguards against
2. Regional/Local legislative power possible abuse by the president of the exercise of extraordinary
powers.
So last meeting we finished citizenship. Let's start with our
discussion of the legislative department. We discussed who can So what are the controls given in the Constitution is that the
exercise legislative power, congress, regional and local legislative Supreme Court can review this declaration? What else? Naa puy role
units, atong mga sanggunians, and also, we, the people, through ang congress within a certain period after the president is required
initiative. And we discussed already that law RA 6735 and the cases to submit a report, congress can convene whether or not to stop or
related to such law and such exercise of power. to extend martial law, etcetera, or if the congress decides to stop it,
that cannot be set aside by the president. Now, the purpose of the
controls in the Constitution is to curtail the extent of the powers of
4. The President under a martial law rule or in a revolutionary the president. The most important objective of Article 7 in the
government executive department Section 18 on martial law, is the curtailment
of the extent of the powers of the commander in chief, the flagrant.
Now, there is this uncontentious issue, does the president have the
legislative power to make martial law? That is why I asked you to Article 7 Section 18
delete the number four in the syllabus because the president under The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of
1987 Constitution does not have such legislative power. He cannot the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out
legislate even if he declares martial law. That is being removed and such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion
na-instutionalizenkaron under this Constitution na wala na siya'y or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety
power. Wala gi-include saiyang powers ang paghimo og mga balaod requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend
during martial law to prevent the abuses that happened in the the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or
previous regime. So anyway, let us discuss now of the cases here any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the
para ma-appreciate nato ang extent sa powers sa president during proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the
martial law. And also what controls have been laid down in the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person
Constitution to prevent the abuse of such powers. or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote
of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session,
Lagman vs. Medialdea (2017) may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall
We have Lagman vs. Medialdea. This is the first case that dealt with not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President,
the constitutionality of the declaration of president Duterte of the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or
martial law, Proclamation 216, declared the state of martial law and suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the
suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the whole of invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.
Mindanao for the reason that we were besieged by these terrorists,
so 60-day period of martial law. And of course, gi-challenge ang The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours
declaration by the president by several lawmakers, taxpayers, following such proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance
etcetera on the ground that walay factual basis ang martial law. with its rules without need of a call.
Now, we will discuss this case more extensively in the executive
department. But for our purposes, we will discuss unsa ang The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed
relationship sa legislative department vis-à-vis the president in the by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation
martial law. of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision
Unsa ba ang, naa bay interplay, naa bay relationship ang legislative thereon within thirty days from its filing.
department with the president when he declares martial law? In this
case, gi-challenge kung tama ba, valid ba ang declaration. Now, the A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the
court discussed the safeguards kung unsa ang naa karon sa 1987 Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or
Constitution to prevent what happened in the Marcos legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction
administration. The purpose of this martial law, kaning provision, on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are
and the limitations placed in the Constitution relating to this power able to function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ
is to constitutionalize the pre-Marcos martial law ruling, kato nga of habeas corpus.
time, nag lay down ang Supreme Court og jurisprudence na the issue
on martial law, whether or not it can be decided by the court, it's a The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall
justiciable question. Later on man gud gi-reverse na siya na ruling by apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses
the Supreme Court. But this Constitution, the 1987 Constitution, it inherent in, or directly connected with, invasion.
reverted to that rule, that this declaration can be subject to the
review, can be reviewed by the Supreme Court.
4|Page
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, whether or not to stop or to extend martial law. We can see that in
any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged Article 7 Section 18, congress voting jointly by a vote of at least a
within three days, otherwise he shall be released. majority of its members in a regular and special session. So both
houses mag-combine sila and they will both vote jointly on that
Why? Learning from history, the flagrant abuse of that power of the issue, whether or not to revoke that proclamation or to extend it.
commander in chief by Mr. Marcos caused the imposition of martial Now does that provision mandate, does it obligate the congress to
law for more than eight years and suspension of the privilege of the at all times mag joint session sila to rule on this issue? The court said
writ even after the lifting of martial law in 1981. Historically, martial that no, and by the language of this provision the congress is only
law was instituted or declared by rulers to impose military rule. And required to vote jointly to revoke the president's proclamation of
among others, naay mga kingdoms or empires before na naga vest martial law or to extend it.
pud sa emperor or kung kinsa tong nag declare atong martial law, og
legislative powers. Learning from that, Mr. Marcos adopted that Ang gina mention lang diri is that congress can, should vote jointly if
practice. And nagpasa siyag mga presidential decrees to the force they want to revoke or to extend martial law or to the suspension of
and effect of law. But under the 1987 Constitution, that can no the privilege of the writ. Walay requirement in the constitution nga
longer be done even if there's martial, that does not suspend the at all times dapat mag vote sila, mag joint session sila to vote on this
operation of the Constitution. It does not stop the operation of the issue. So the congress' duty to vote jointly explicitly applies only to
bill of rights, all of these still have to be observed and maintained. the situation when it revokes the president's proclamation, martial
Now the new constitution provides that those powers can be law, or it extends the safe, the plain language of this provision does
exercised, the martial law powers can only be exercised in two not support the argument that it is obligatory for congress to
cases, when there is invasion or rebellion and when public safety convene in a joint session following the president's proclamation of
demands it. And only for a period not exceeding sixty days, unless it martial law.
is allowed, ang extension niya is allowed by congress.
What about the manner by which they effected the extension of the
What really happens during martial law? Why is it so scary? During martial law? Separate resolutions done by the houses of congress.
martial law, the president can issue decrees to the extent that it can Nagpasa sila’g resolution supporting the extension of martial law.
command the executive department and the armed forces. But Kani pud isa ka house nagpasa pud supporting the extension. The
insofar as decrees have the force and effect of law that are binding court said that issue deals with the rules and procedure, are the
the people, that can't be done. During martial law, the president, process by which congress adopts its resolutions. So that is not
they have the powers of commanders, commanding general in the something that the court can touch as a rule. In any case for the
peter of war but not legislative power. In actual war, there is a fact relevant issue here, there is no obligation on the part of congress to
fighting, and so the president has the authority to command it's convene in a joint session. Because as the provision on revocation
forces to effect the strategy, to quell that conflict. under Article 7 Section 18 did not even come into operation in this
case because two houses already agree, issued separate resolutions
A state of martial law is peculiar because the president at such a in favor of the extension in accordance with the respective rules of
time exercises police power which is normally a function of the procedure expressing support for president Duterte's Proclamation
legislature. In particular, the president exercises police power to the No. 216. So that provision does not mandate or require congress at
military's assistance to ensure public safety and a place where all times pag mag declare siya to convene in a joint session and vote.
government agencies are unable to cope with the condition of
neocality. So during martial law pwede ma-tap ni president ang Lagman vs. Pimentel III
armed forces. They are supposedly separate from the civilian police, Now in Lagman vs. Pimentel, a 2018 case which deals with the
pero pwede niya ipang deploy sa mga lugar na dili na makaya sa second extension of martial law. Ang first extension, happened on
police og control. In fact, it has been stated in the opinion of Justice July 18, 2017 when the president requested congress to extend the
Mendoza in David vs. Macapagal-Arroyo that under a valid effectivity of Proclamation No. 216. And so, congress adopted a
declaration of martial law, the president may order the arrest and resolution of both houses extending Proclamation No. 216 until
seizures without judicial warrants, ban public assemblies, and take December 31, 2017, that's the first extension. Now the second
over media agencies and impress censorship. But again, they have to extension happened sa later part na, December 2017. Nag request si
respect, they have to uphold the rule that the bill of rights, the rights president to have it extended from January 1, 2018 to December 31,
all enumerated in that article, still, are in force and effect. 2018.
Worthy to note however, that the above-cited acts of the president And congress again adopted on December 13, 2017 resolution of
being performed do not give him an unbridled discretion to infringe both houses No. 4 extending the period of martial law from January
upon the rights of civilians during martial law. Because martial law 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018. So mao tong martial law last year,
does not suspend the operation of the constitution, neither than it extended for the second time. Now it is argued that this extension is
supplant the operation of civil courts or legislative assemblies. So unconstitutional for several reasons.
even if the president declares martial law, the legislative department
is still operational, the judiciary is still operational. It cannot, what, First, the effectivity of martial law under the constitution should only
encroach on these powers under the guise of that declaration under be limited to sixty days and kung naa may extension, dapat dili
the 1987 Constitution. So again, the president does not have mulapas anang sixty days because naa didto sa provision, clear.
legislative powers during martial law under the 1987 Constitution.
And number two, the extension lacked sufficient factual basis. First,
Padilla vs. Congress is the extension valid? The court that said yes. Who has the power to
Padilla vs. Congress, we discussed this case before. Ang issue here is approve the extension of martial law? It is congress, when approved
that should congress hold a joint session? Is there a mandate in the by congress the extension of the proclamation or suspension
constitution requiring congress that every time the president becomes a joint and legislative and executive act or collective
declares a martial law, it should convene in a joint session to vote on judgment between the president and congress.
5|Page
congress voting jointly and by vote of at least majority of its
Now, it is questioned, the manner by which congress approved the members can revoke the suspension or proclamation. The president
extension of martial law. Resolution of both houses, is that cannot set aside that revocation. The president cannot, by himself,
compliant with the provision of the constitution that dapat joint extend the proclamation or suspension. He must ask for congress'
session? The court said that the manner in which congress approval upon such initiative or request from the president.
deliberated on the president's request for extension is not subject to Congress voting jointly may extend the proclamation. So in other
judicial review. Why? The constitution grants congress the right to words, naay relationship ang president og ang congress to protect us
promulgate its own rules to govern its proceedings. And therefore from the abuse of the exercise of this power.
the court cannot review the rules promulgated by congress in the
absence of any constitutional violation. Being matters of procedure, Not only that, even the Supreme Court has a role, tanawon niya in
their observance are of no concern to the courts. That's how the an appropriate proceeding whether or not there is a factual basis or
court resolved the issue and the manner by which the congress the proclamation, and later on, the extension. But the Supreme
adopted these resolutions to extend martial law. We cannot rule on Court may review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the
that because that is a matter of rules of procedure of congress which proclamation. The Supreme Court must promulgate its decision
we cannot rule on. That is exclusively within their prerogative. In any within thirty days from the filing of the appropriate proceeding.
case, it is a resolution of both houses, the House of Representatives
and Senate both resolved to extend it. Martial law does not suspend the operation of the constitution. So
kung unsa ang provision sa constitution naa dira, they are intact,
Now, congress also has the power to extend and determine, not only they are not abrogated. Among other things, the bill of rights
to extend the period, to extend the declaration, the effects of the remains effective under the state of martial law. Martial law does
declaration of martial law, but also to determine the period within not supplant the functioning of civil courts or legislative assemblies
which this martial law is to be effective. Ang requirement lang, to authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and
however, is that the invasion or rebellion must persist and that agencies over civilians where civil courts aren't able to function. So
public safety requries it. there are so many safeguards in the constitution as well as in
jurisprudence to avert abuses in the exercise of this power. One of
The provision, however, is silent as to how many times congress, which is that the president cannot exercise legislative powers during
upon the initiative of the president may extend the proclamation of martial law.
martial law. But does that silence mean that dili na pwede ma-
extend as many times as congress wants it to be extended? Lagman vs. Medialdea (2019)
However, such silence should not be construed as a flaw or defiency Now, another case, 2019 case, Lagman vs. Medialdea. The third
in the provision. Why? Section 18 Article 7 is clear that the only extension of martial law, the martial law we are now experiencing.
limitation to the exercise, the congressional authority to extend that Nag request na pud si president to extend it. Probably, next year
proclamation is that it should be upon the president's initiative, it mapa-extend na pud na. So gi-challenge na pud ang third extension,
should be grounded on the persistence of the invasion or rebellion, because the Senate and the House of Representatives in the joint
and the demands of public safety, and that it is subject to the court's session adopted Resolution No. 6, the entire twelve, declaring a
review of the suffiiciency of its factual basis. So in other words, in state of martial law and suspending the privilege of the writ of
the provision, there is no prohibition there naga ingon that congress habeas corpus in the whole of Mindanao for another period of one
can only extend it so many times. It is silent, but it does not mean year from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 3019.
that congress cannot extend it as much times that it wants, provided
that the requirements in the provision are present. Dapat si Ang argument against the validity of this extension is that this third
president, upon his initiative ang extension, and that the invasion or extension is no longer called for. Wala na, na pulbos na ang Maute
rebellion would persist, and that public safety requires it. diba, wala nay nabilin. What is there to declare martial law for? The
original proclamation, the 60-day martial law became official
Is there a fixed period for the extension? Is it limited to sixty days? because of the deaths of the leaders of the Abu Sayyaf group and
No, because the provision is clear, for a period to be determined by the Maute brothers, etcetera. And kato pung limitation on the
congress. So congress determines kung unsa kadugay. period of sixty days, dapat daw, again, if they want to extend martial
law, it's limited to sixty days dili pwede one year.
And the second issue, does the president have sufficient factual
basis to extend martial law? And the court here agreed with the Is the third extension valid? Yes, because we are still in the state of
arguments in support of the extension of martial law. Why? Because martial law. Now, there is an argument here raised by several
asa diay mag rely ang court ana sa data? Mu-rely ra man gud sila people, petitioners, that there are alleged violations or human rights
kung unsa ang ihatag sailaha by the executive department. So kung violations during the effectivity of the martial law. And therefore,
makita nila that the president determined that there is factual basis, because of these human rights violations, gina abuse sa military ang
the court is not required to go to the ground, muadto didto mag ilang powers. And therefore, that there should be ground to cancel,
unsa ba, mag purong-purong para tanawon naa ba jud? Is there a to revoke martial law. Is that a ground to revoke martial law under
need, etcera? The constitution requires two factual basis for the the constitution? What does martial law not do? It does not suspend
extension of martial law: the invasion or rebellion persists; and fundamental civil rights of individuals, as the bill of rights enshrined
public safety requires the extension. in the constitution remain effective. Civil courts and legislative
bodies remain open. While it is recognized that in the declaration of
Now ang importante diri that we need to take note of kay kaning martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
enumerations sa Supreme Court sa mga safeguards in the corpus, the power is given to official's task with its implementation,
constitution to prevent abuse of this power, daghan kaayo. are susceptible to abuses, these instances have already been taken
President's proclamation or suspension shall be valid for only sixty into consideration with the pertinent provisions on martial law when
days. Within 48 hours on the proclamation, the president must the constitution were drafted. Naa na daw, in other words,
submit a report in person or in writing to congress. And then, safeguards. Dili man jud nato maiwasan, there is a probability man
6|Page
jud that when the president declares martial law, those who would Second type of representative: elected through a party-list system
implement that would abuse their powers. But the court said that's of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or
not enough to cause the revocation of martial law because naa puy organizations.
safeguards na nabutang sa atong constitution. Where did the They represent the marginalized and underrepresented sectors.
Supreme Court get the safeguards? Citing its previous decision, (2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per
katong gi-enumerate sa Supreme Court. Plus, nag add siya, naa puy centum of the total number of representatives including those
mga balaod, laws that protect our human rights during martial law, under the party list. For three consecutive terms after the
RA 7438, RA 9327, RA 9745, Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data, and ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by
selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor,
So in other words, the court is saying that we are amply protected indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other
by the constitution and by laws. And it's not enough for you to allege sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector.
that there are violations of human rights during the implementation (3) Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable,
of martial law to effect its revocation. Because at the end of the day, contiguous, compact, and adjacent territory. Each city with a
we contend with the provision. How can congress revoke it one of population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province,
the reasons of which is that there is no more factual basis for its shall have at least one representative.
continued operation. Who can create cities and provinces?
Congress. Only the Congress can increase its own representation.
Okay so those are the cases. Mubalik na pud ta aning mga kasuha in
the executive department in another lens, lahi na pud na issues
atong i-deal with. But for our purposes here, it is (inaudible) Section 6. No person shall be a Member of the House of
legislative department, we learned, we now know that the president Representatives unless he is
must not exercise legislative powers during martial law. The 1. natural-born citizen of the Philippines and,
constitution has laid down several safeguards to protect us from 2. on the day of the election, is at least twenty-five years of
abuses. age
3. able to read and write, and, except the party-list
Okay, now let's go to the composition, qualification and terms of representatives,
office of our congressmen, our favorite congressmen. Now, what is 4. a registered voter in the district in which he shall be
the composition of congress? It's composed of two houses, House of elected, and
Representatives and the Senate. Now, who are our senators, asa 5. a resident thereof for a period of not less than one year
nato makita ang provision on senators. It's in Section 2, the senate immediately preceding the day of the election.
shall be composed of twenty four senators who shall be elected at What is their term limit?
large nationwide by the qualified voters of the Philippines as been Section 7. The Members of the House of Representatives shall be
provided by law. So we have twenty-four brilliant senators in the elected for a term of three years which shall begin, unless otherwise
senate voted by us. provided by law, at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following
their election. No Member of the House of Representatives shall
Section 3, no person shall be a senator unless he is. So kaning serve for more than three consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation
Section 3 naga enumerate sa mga fundamental, basic requirements, of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an
requisites that this senator must possess before he or she can be a interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for
senator. which he was elected.
The party-list system is important because it is a social tool
Term of office designed not only to give more law to those people who are less in
life, but also enable them to be lawmakers of themselves, power to
Section 4. The term of office of the Senators shall be six years and participate directly in the enactment of law to benefit them.
shall commence, unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on the How are they elected?
thirtieth day of June next following their election. No Senator shall Section 8. Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election of
serve for more than two consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation the Senators and the Members of the House of Representatives shall
of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an be held on the second Monday of May.
interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term of which
he was elected. Section 9. In case of vacancy in the Senate or in the House of
Representatives, a special election may be called to fill such vacancy
Is voluntary renunciation considered as an interruption? in the manner prescribed by law, but the Senator or Member of the
House of Representatives thus elected shall serve only for the
NO. It is presumed that his/her voluntary renunciation is made unexpired term.
precisely to circumvent his/her full term limitation. Leave of office
MUST be involuntary. TOLENTINO VS. COMELEC
Shortly after her succession to the Presidency in January 2001,
House of Representatives President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo nominated then Senator
Section 5. (1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of Guingona as Vice-President. Congress confirmed the nomination of
not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise Senator Guingona who took his oath as Vice-President on 9 February
fixed by law, 2001.
First type of representative: elected from legislative districts Following Senator Guingona’s confirmation, the Senate passed
apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Resolution No. 84 certifying to the existence of a vacancy in the
Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective Senate. Resolution No. 84 called on COMELEC to fill the vacancy
inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio. through a special election to be held simultaneously with the regular
7|Page
elections on May 2001. Twelve Senators, with a 6-year term each, he resumed performing the functions of his office and finished his
were due to be elected in that election. Resolution No. 84 further term.
provided that the "Senatorial candidate garnering the 13th highest In the 2007 election, Asilo filed his certificate of candidacy for the
number of votes shall serve only for the unexpired term of former same position. The petitioners sought to deny due course to Asilo’s
Senator Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr., which ends on 30 June 2004. certificate of candidacy or to cancel it on the ground that he had
Now, the validity of this election was challenged because there was been elected and had served for three terms; his candidacy for a
failure on the part of the COMELEC to notify the electorate of the fourth term therefore violated the three-term limit rule.
position to be filled. Wala na inform ang electorate na 13 diay ka Is preventive suspension an interruption that removes the
senators ang I vote. There was also failure to require senatorial prohibition imposed in the three term limit?
candidates to indicate in their COC kung asa sila mudagan(regular or NO. What is required is severance from office. Not mere suspension,
special seat). but matanggal jud dapat ka from office. To be exact, loss of title that
Issue: Is the election here to fill the 3-year term of the vacant renders the three-term limit rule inapplicable.
senate seat validly held? As worded, the constitutional provision fixes the term of a local
Held: YES. The court said that even if there is a lapse here by the elective office and limits an elective official’s stay in office to no
COMELEC(the notice is MANDATORY), wala tay mahimo, because to more than three consecutive terms.
do so would disenfranchise those who voted for Honasan. There was
no notice here admittedly, but it did not invalidate the results of the The word "term" in a legal sense means a fixed and definite period
election. In other words, the will of the people prevailed in this case. of time which the law describes that an officer may hold an office.
Now, we go to cases that deal with the qualifications of our elective
officials. Two requisites for the application of the disqualification:
1. that the official concerned has been elected for three consecutive
SABILI VS. COMELEC terms in the same local government post; and
When petitioner filed his COC for mayor of Lipa City for the 2010 2. that he has fully served three consecutive terms
elections, he stated therein that he had been a resident of the city
for two (2) years and eight (8) months. Kung mawala ang isa dira, meaning na interrupt imong term. You
Private respondent Librea, contested Sabili’s COC and alleged that have to prove that you were fully removed from office.
petitioner made material misrepresentations and likewise failed to
comply with the one-year residency requirement under Section 39 TALAGA VS. COMELEC
of the Local Government Code. Allegedly, petitioner falsely declared Ramon Talaga filed his COC for the position of Mayor of Lucena City
under oath in his COC that he had already been a resident of Lipa to be contested in the scheduled May 10, 2010 national and local
City for two years and eight months prior to the local elections. elections. Ramon, the official candidate of the Lakas-Kampi-CMD,
Librea presented tax declarations proving that the Lipa City property declared in his CoC that he was eligible for the office he was seeking
of Sabili was owned by his common-law wife, and that it should have to be elected to.
been owned by Sabili as positive proof of his intent to reside in the Castillo filed with the COMELEC a petition denominated as In the
area. Dapat man gud if you want to stay in that area, dapat Matter of the Petition to Deny Due Course to or Cancel Certificate of
nayanimus manendi and animus non revertendi. You must intend Candidacy of Ramon Y. Talaga, Jr. as Mayor for Having Already
to stay there and not to go back to your previous resident. Served Three (3) Consecutive Terms as a City Mayor of Lucena.
Is the argument of Librea valid? Barbara Ruby filed her own CoC for Mayor of Lucena City in
NO. Property or ownership is not among the qualifications required substitution of Ramon, attaching thereto the Certificate of
of candidates for local election. Rather, it is a candidate’s residence Nomination and Acceptance issued by Lakas-Kampi-CMD, the party
in a locality through actual residence in whatever capacity. that had nominated Ramon.
In the more recent case of Mitra v. Commission on Elections, the Is the substitution valid?
court reversed the COMELEC ruling that a candidate’s sparsely
furnished, leased room on the mezzanine of a feedmill could not be NO. Considering that a cancelled CoC does not give rise to a valid
considered as his residence for the purpose of complying with the candidacy, there can be no valid substitution. It should be clear, too,
residency requirement of Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code. that a candidate who does not file a valid CoC may not be validly
It is not required that a candidate should have his own house in substituted, because a person without a valid CoC is not considered
order to establish his residence or domicile in a place. It is enough a candidate in much the same way as any person who has not filed a
that he should live in the locality, even in a rented house or that of CoC is not at all a candidate.
a friend or relative. What is of central concern then is that
petitioner identified and established a place in Lipa City where he When can there be a valid substitution?
intended to live in and return to for an indefinite period of time.
In the event that a candidate is disqualified to run for a public office,
The law does not require a person to be in his home twenty-four or dies, or withdraws his CoC before the elections, Section 77 of the
(24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week, to fulfill the residency Omnibus Election Code provides the option of substitution.
requirement. Therefore, Sabili is QUALIFIED.
QUINTO VS. COMELEC
ALDOVINO VS. COMELEC Any person holding a public appointive office or position, including
The respondent Asilo was elected councilor of Lucena City for three active members of the armed forces, and officers and employees in
consecutive terms. In September 2005 or during his 2004-2007 term government-owned or controlled corporations, shall be
of office, the Sandiganbayan preventively suspended him for 90 days considered ipso facto resigned from his/her office and must vacate
in relation with a criminal case he then faced. The Court, however, the same at the start of the day of the filing of his/her certificate of
subsequently lifted the Sandiganbayan’s suspension order; hence, candidacy.
8|Page
The reason why this was declared unconstitutional in the first Quinto But in the meantime, after complying with those requirements, he
case was because of the equal protection clause. still used his foreign passport for several times.
However, the equal protection of the law clause in the Constitution Issue:Effects of the use of foreign passport
is not absolute, but is subject to reasonable classification. If the The use of foreign passport after renouncing ones citizenship is a
groupings are characterized by substantial distinctions that make positive and voluntary act of representation as to ones nationality
real differences, one class may be treated and regulated differently and citizenship. It does not divest Filipino citizenship regained by
from the other. repatriation, here a Filipino, but it recants the oath of renunciation
In this case, the court held that there is a valid and substantial required to qualify for an elective position. It negates the 2nd
distinction between appointive and elective officials. requirement which then necessitates, if one wants to run for public
office, to effect that 2nd requirement which is to execute a sworn
Elective officials occupy their office by virtue of the mandate of the renunciation of all foreign citizenship.
electorate and they are elected to serve for a definite term and
remove them under stringent provisions. They are supposed to Maquiling lost his qualification through his continued use of his
engage in partisan political activity. foreign passport, he used his passport 4 times and that action runs
counter to the affidavit of renunciation he had earlier executed.
Appointive officials hold their office by appointment, and their term
of office is indefinite. Held: The Court emphasized that the renunciation of a foreign
They also cannot participate in partisan political activity. citizenship is not a hollow oath that can simply be professed at
anytime only to be violated the next day. It is an absolute and
Considering that there are substantial distinctions between these perpetual renunciation of the foreign citizenship.
two classes, the Court said that we can validly treat one class
differently than the other. He did not lose his Filipino citizenship as an effect of his use of
foreign passport. What he lost was only that 2nd requirement of
MITRA VS. COMELEC personal sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship.
In the COMELEC’s view, the Maligaya Feedmill building could not
have been Mitra’s residence because it is cold and utterly devoid of In terms of qualifications
any indication of Mitra’s personality and that it lacks loving attention Because Maquiling voluntarily sought naturalization in a foreign
and details inherent in every home to make it one’s residence. country, he is deemed to have dual allegiance. He took an oath in
The court said that the dwelling where a person permanently the US, so RA 9225 requires him not only to take an oath but also to
intends to return to and to remain. His or her capacity or inclination personally renounce all foreign citizenship. On the other hand, the
to decorate the place, or the lack of it, is immaterial. SC qualified that if you are a dual citizen not by positive act but by
operation of law, what is needed is only to take the oath and you
will be qualified to run for public office
Requirements for elective officials
Maquiling v COMELEC (MR)
Asistio v Aguirre It was proved that Maquiling used his foreign passport 6 times. SC
Residence is synonymous with domicile which imports not only an held that Maquiling did comply with the oath, he did comply with
intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in that the sworn renunciation but his subsequent use of his foreign
place, coupled with conduct indicative of such intention. It denotes a passport effectively negated that 2nd requirement which in order
fixed permanent residence where, when absent for business or for him to run for public office, he must execute a sworn
pleasure, or for like reasons, one intends to return. renunciation again.
How is domicile lost?/ How to effect successfully a change in Caballero v COMELEC

domicile? (To comply with the residency requirement) Residency requirement
To successfully effect a transfer, one must demonstrate: Facts: Caballero, natural born Filipino sought naturalization in
(1) an actual removal or change of domicile; Canada, came back to the Philippines and wanted to run for public
(2) a bona fide/good faith intention of abandoning the former place office, availed RA 9225 and effected an oath.
of residence and establishing a new one; and
(3) acts which correspond with that purpose Caballero’s argument is that, when he availed of the provisions of RA
9225 to reacquire his Filipino citizenship it is deemed to have
There must be animus manendi (intent to stay) coupled with animus included his residency. That his stay in the Philippines, when he
non revertendi (no intent to return to previous residence). The came back, restored his resident status.
purpose to remain in or at the domicile of choice must be for an
indefinite period of time; the change of residence must be Held: The Court said that does not follow because RA 9225 does not
voluntary; and the residence at the place chosen for the new even require you to be a resident of the Philippines for a so and so
domicile must be actual. period. In other words, this law does not have anything to do with
his residency. In other words, it is not automatic that when you
Maquiling v COMELEC reacquire or retain your Filipino citizenship under RA 9225, you are
Facts: Maquiling, a natural born Filipino naturalized in America, also restored to your residency. You have to prove again that you
wanted to go back to the Philippines to run for public office. He meet the required residency requirement for you to be able to run
reacquired his Filipino citizenship by way of RA 9225. Then he for public office. Again, it is not automatic.
complied with the requirements, he took an oath of allegiance and
executed a personal sworn renunciation of his foreign citizenship. Chiong v Senate (Factual case, not included in the coverage)
9|Page
Facts: RA 9369 was signed into law amending RA 8436, it created the 1. When a permanent vacancy occurs in an elective position and the
advisory council and the technical evaluation committee to assist official merely assumed the position pursuant to the rules on
the COMELEC. succession under the LGC, then his service for the unexpired portion
of the term of the replaced official cannot be treated as one full
Argument against the validity of this law is that AC & Tech are term as contemplated under the subject constitutional and statutory
incompatible with the functioning COMELEC because they are provision that service cannot be counted in the application of any
allowed to dictate upon the COMELEC with regard to technology to term limit. If the official runs again for the same position he held
be applied to the Automated Election System (AES). They are prior to his assumption of the higher office, then his succession to
beholden to whatever this advisory council and technical evaluation said position is by operation of law and is considered an involuntary
committee would recommend. severance or interruption.
Issue: Is this law unconstitutional for that reason? 2. An elective official, who has served for three consecutive terms
and who did not seek the elective position for what could be his
Held: No. Careful examination of the provisions reveal that the AC fourth term, but later won in a recall election, had an interruption in
and TEC’s functions are merely advisory and recommendatory in the continuity of the official’s service. For, he had become in the
nature. They do not control the actuation of the COMELEC vis-a-vis interim, i.e., from the end of the 3rd term up to the recall election, a
the Automated Election System (AES). Their opinion are private citizen.
recommendatory which may or may not be adopted by the
COMELEC. These were created to aid the COMELEC in fulfilling its 3. The abolition of an elective local office due to the conversion of a
mandate and authority to use an effective AES for a free, orderly, municipality to a city does not, by itself, work to interrupt the
honest, peaceful, credible and informed elections. incumbent official’s continuity of service.
SYNCHRONIZED TERMS OF OFFICE 4. Preventive suspension is not a term-interrupting event as the

Aldovino v COMELEC elective officer’s continued stay and entitlement to the office remain
Held: Preventive suspension is not a way or ground by which the unaffected during the period of suspension, although he is barred
three-term limit may be interrupted. Temporary inability or from exercising the functions of his office during this period
temporary disqualification to exercise the function of an elective (Aldovino, Jr.).
post should not be considered an effective interruption of the term
because it does not involve the lost of title to office or atleast an 5. When a candidate is proclaimed as winner for an elective position
effective break from holding office. You are simply barred from and assumes office, his term is interrupted when he loses in an
exercising the functions of your office for a reason provided by law. election protest and is ousted from office, thus disenabling him from
serving what would otherwise be the unexpired portion of his term
What is the required inerruption? of office had the protest been dismissed (Lonzanida and Dizon). The
An interruption occurs when the term is broken because the office break or interruption need not be for a full term of three years or for
holder lost the right to hold on to his office and cannot be equated the major part of the 3-year term; an interruption for any length of
to the failure to render office. It must be lost of title and not failure time, provided the cause is involuntary, is sufficient to break the
to render office, temporarily. continuity of service.
Abundo v COMELEC 6. When an official is defeated in an election protest and said

Facts: Abundo vied for a position of municipal mayor in Catanduanes decision becomes final after said official had served the full term for
for three terms. In his 4th term, he ran again. During his 2nd term, said office, then his loss in the election contest does not constitute
he assumed the position of mayor as there was a permanent an interruption since he has managed to serve the term from start
vacancy, while he was vice mayor pursuant to the rules of Local to finish. His full service, despite the defeat, should be counted in
Government Code. the application of term limits because the nullification of his
proclamation came after the expiration of the term.
In the 2004 elections, the municipal board of canvassers initially
proclaimed as winner, Torres who performed the functions of Naval v COMELEC
mayor. Abundo protested his election and eventually, Abundo was Facts: Naval ran 3 times for the 2nd district. Later on, there was a
declared as winner. Torres was removed and Abundo held the office law passed which reapportioned the legislative districts in this
as mayor for the remaining period. In his 4th run in the same office, locality. The 3rd district comprised 80% of the 2nd district. He ran
it was contested because it is said to be a violation of the 3 term for the 4th term in the 3rd district and he won.
limit.
Held: The same people who voted Naval for the three terms are the
Issue: Is the 3 term limit applicable to Abundo? same people who voted him for this 3rd district.
Held: No, because that second term was not a full three year term. The rationale behind reapportionment is the constitutional
Consequently, since the legally contemplated full term for local requirement to achieve equality of representation among the
elected officials is 3 years. It cannot be said that Abundo fully served districts. It is with this mindset that the Court should consider
the 2nd term. He served his second term because he won in an Naval’s argument that he had new set of constituents that elected
electoral protest. He served as mayor for the remaining period that him to office to be invalid. Such argument defeats the purpose of
was left after the winning candidate was disqualified. representation because he is still representing the same set of
people for the forth time.
Prevailing jurisprudence on issues affecting consecutiveness of terms
and/or involuntary interruption, viz: DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVES AND QUESTIONS OF APPORTIONMENT
Tobias v Abalos
10 | P a g e
Facts: the residents of Mandaluyong assailed the constitutionality of legislative districts may still be increased since it met the minimum
this law converting the Municipality of Mandaluyong into a Highly population requirement of 250,000.
Urbanized City (HUC). Because of this conversion, the necessity to
have a separate representative arise. Sema vs. COMELEC
This involves the creation of municipalities in the ARMM. There is a
Prior to this law, Mandaluyong and San Juan belong to only one law (R.A. 9054) which created the ARMM Regional Assembly. Under
legislative district but because of this law there is now separate R.A. 9054, ARMM is allowed to create barangays and municipalities.
representation.
Question: Can the ARMM Regional Assembly create provinces and
Issue: The new law was challenged which created Mandaluyong as cities?
HUC and in effect created this new representation for several
reasons: (1) that the division of San Juan and Mandaluyong into Answer: Although the ARMM Regional Assembly is has the power to
separate congressional districts of the assailed law has resulted in an create barangays and municipalities under R.A. 9054, it does not
increase in the composition of the House of Representatives beyond have the power to create provinces and cities. The SC held that only
that provided in Article VI, Sec. 5(1) of the Constitution. Congress can create provinces and cities because the creation of
provinces and cities necessarily includes the creation of legislative
Held: A reading of the applicable provision, Article VI, Section 5(1), districts, a power only Congress can exercise under Section 5, Article
shows that the present limit of 250 members is not absolute. The VI of the Constitution and Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to
Constitution clearly provides that the House of Representatives shall the Constitution. The ARMM Regional Assembly cannot create a
be composed of not more than 250 members, "unless otherwise province without a legislative district because the Constitution
provided by law." The inescapable import of the latter clause is that mandates that every province shall have a legislative district.
the present composition of Congress may be increased, if Congress Moreover, the ARMM Regional Assembly cannot enact a law
itself so mandates through a legislative enactment. creating a national office like the office of a district representative of
Congress because the legislative powers of the ARMM Regional
Mariano vs. COMELEC Assembly operate only within its territorial jurisdiction as provided
Summary: in Section 20, Article X of the Constitution. Thus in the said case, the
This case involves the law (R.A. 7854) creating Makati into a highly SC ruled that MMA Act 201, enacted by the ARMM Regional
urbanized city from what used to be the municipality of Makati. At Assembly and creating the Province of Shariff Kabunsuan, is void.
the time the City of Makati was established, the population count
was 450,000. When it was established into a city, the law provided Note: There must be a law passed by Congress in order for an
for 2 congressional districts. increase in representation to take place, which the ARMM Regional
The following arguments were raised by the petitioners against the Assembly is not authorized to do on its own. The Constitution is
constitutionality of this law: explicit with regards to increase in representation by way of a law
1. There is a provision in this law which says that this city will passed by no entity other than Congress. Thus legislative districts
acquire a corporate existence. Because of this clause, the are created or reapportioned by an act of Congress, and only
petitioners assumed that it means all of the officials in this city will Congress since this power is vested exclusively in Congress by the
have a fresh term. For example, the municipal mayor, upon the 1987 Constitution. However, insofar as barangays and municipalities
conversion, will become a city mayor thus the three-term limit are concerned, these do not create legislative districts hence, the
would be erased. The petitioners claim that this violates the term ARMM Regional Assembly may validly create barangays and
limits of the Constitution because the law recognizes that this new municipalities.
city will have a new corporate existence. Mayor Binay, for example
in this case, has already served for two consecutive terms and due to In Aldaba vs. COMELEC, the Court ruled that for a city to be entitled
this law, he would be given a fresh start. to a representative legislative district, it must meet the 250,000
2. The petitioners also pointed out that the Constitution says a city population requirement and only in the following election, could it
must have at least a population 250,000 for it to have one (1) district be then entitled to such.
and also, according to the petitioner the total population must be at
least 500,000 for it to have two (2) districts. Aldaba vs. COMELEC
They argued that R.A. 7854 was unconstitutional because Makati has Facts: This case is an original action for Prohibition to
a total population of only 450,000. declareunconstitutional, R.A. 9591 which creates a legislative district
Held: for the City of Malolos, Bulacan. Allegedly, the R.A. violates the
(On the first argument) The Court said that this is not an actual case minimum population requirement for the creation of a legislative
or controversy because this is merely hypothetical. The petitioner's district in a city. Before the May 1, 2009, the province of Bulacan
argument is premised merely on a speculative or hypothetical event was represented in Congress through 4 legislative districts. Before
in which Mayor Binay may seek reelection in the future, which the the passage of the Act through House Bill 3162 (later converted to
Court stated that such is not a case that is ripe for adjudication thus House Bill 3693) and Senate Bill 1986, Malolos City had a population
there exists no actual case or controversy. of 223, 069 in 2007.
(On the second argument) The Court said that the Constitution
states a city with at least 250,000 people shall have at least one House Bill 3693 cites the undated Certification, as requested to be
representative. As long as you meet that minimum threshold of issued to Mayor Domingo (then Mayor of Malolos), by Region III
250,000 people, you entitled to one representative. Thus, the Director Miranda of NSO that the population of Malolos will be as
number of representatives may be increased as long as that projected, 254,030 by the year 2010.
threshold has been met. It is not required that for every
representative, there has to be at least 250,000 people. Even Petitioners contended that R.A. 9591 is unconstitutional for failing to
granting that the census stood at 450,000, the number of its meet the minimum population threshold of 250,000 for a city
to meritrepresentative in Congress.
11 | P a g e
Reconsideration of the Resolution dated May 12, 2010 on
Issue: the ground that the allowance or disallowance of a motion
1. Whether or not R.A. 9591, “Án act creating a legislative district to intervene is addressed to the sound discretion of the
for the City of Malolos, Bulacan” is unconstitutional as petitioned. Court, and that the appropriate time to file the said
2. Whether or not the City of Malolos has at least 250,000 actual or motion was before and not after the resolution of this
projected. case.
 September 7, 2010, movants-intervenors filed a Motion
Held: for Reconsideration of the July 20, 2010 Resolution, citing
First Issue - It was declared by the Supreme Court that the R.A. 9591 several rulings of the Court, allowing intervention as an
is unconstitutional for being violative of Section 5 (3), Article VI of exception to Section 2, Rule 19 of the Rules of Court that it
the 1987 Constitution and Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to should be filed at any time before the rendition of
the 1987 Constitution on the grounds that, as required by the 1987 judgment. They alleged that, prior to the May 10, 2010
Constitution, a city must have a population of at least 250,000. elections, their legal interest in this case was not yet
existent. They averred that prior to the May 10, 2010
Second Issue - It was also computed that the correct figures using elections, they were unaware of the proceedings in this
the growth rate, even if compounded, the Malolos population of case.
223,069 as of August 1, 2007 will grow to only 249,333 as of August  October 5, 2010, the Court issued an order for Entry of
1, 2010. Clearly there is no official record that the population of Judgment, stating that the decision in this case had
Malolos will be at least 250,000, either actual or projected, prior to become final and executory on May 18, 2010.
the May 2010 elections thus, it is not qualified to have a legislative
district of its own under Section 5, Paragraph 3, Article 6 of the 1987 Issue:
Constitution.  Whether or not the provision in Article 9(2) of the Rules
and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code
Navarro vs. Ermita of 1991 valid.
Facts:
 October 2, 2006, the President of the Republic approved Held:
into law Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9355 (An Act Creating the  Yes, the Congress, recognizing the capacity and viability of
Province of Dinagat Islands). Dinagat to become a full-fledged province, enacted R.A.
 December 3, 2006, the Commission on Elections No. 9355, following the exemption from the land area
(COMELEC) conducted the mandatory plebiscite for the requirement, which, with respect to the creation of
ratification of the creation of the province under the Local provinces, can only be found as an express provision in the
Government Code (LGC). The plebiscite yielded 69,943 LGC-IRR. In effect, pursuant to its plenary legislative
affirmative votes and 63,502 negative votes. With the powers, Congress breathed flesh and blood into that
approval of the people from both the mother province of exemption in Article 9(2) of the LGC-IRR and transformed it
Surigao del Norte and the Province of Dinagat Islands into law when it enacted R.A. No. 9355 creating the Island
(Dinagat). Province of Dinagat.
 November 10, 2006, petitioners filed before this Court a  The land area, while considered as an indicator of viability
petition for certiorari and prohibition challenging the of a local government unit, is not conclusive in showing
constitutionality of R.A. No. 9355. The Court dismissed the that Dinagat cannot become a province, taking into
petition on technical grounds. Their motion for account its average annual income of P82,696,433.23 at
reconsideration was also denied. the time of its creation, as certified by the Bureau of Local
 Undaunted, petitioners filed another petition for certiorari Government Finance, which is four times more than the
seeking to nullify R.A. No. 9355 for being unconstitutional. minimum requirement of P20,000,000.00 for the creation
They alleged that the creation of Dinagat as a new of a province. The delivery of basic services to its
province, if uncorrected, would perpetuate an illegal act of constituents has been proven possible and sustainable.
Congress, and would unjustly deprive the people of Rather than looking at the results of the plebiscite and the
Surigao del Norte of a large chunk of the provincial May 10, 2010 elections as mere fait accompli
territory, Internal Revenue Allocation (IRA), and rich circumstances which cannot operate in favor of Dinagat’s
resources from the area. They pointed out that when the existence as a province, they must be seen from the
law was passed, Dinagat had a land area of 802.12 square perspective that Dinagat is ready and capable of becoming
kilometers only and a population of only 106,951, failing to a province. This Court should not be instrumental in
comply with Section 10, Article X of the Constitution and of stunting such capacity.
Section 461 of the LGC.  Ratio legis est anima. The spirit rather than the letter of
 May 12, 2010, movants-intervenors raised three (3) main the law. A statute must be read according to its spirit or
arguments to challenge the above Resolution, namely: (1) intent, for what is within the spirit is within the statute
that the passage of R.A. No. 9355 operates as an act of although it is not within its letter, and that which is within
Congress amending Section 461 of the LGC; (2) that the the letter but not within the spirit is not within the statute.
exemption from territorial contiguity, when the intended Put a bit differently, that which is within the intent of the
province consists of two or more islands, includes the lawmaker is as much within the statute as if within the
exemption from the application of the minimum land area letter, and that which is within the letter of the statute is
requirement; and (3) that the Operative Fact Doctrine is not within the statute unless within the intent of the
applicable in the instant case. lawmakers. Withal, courts ought not to interpret and
 July 20, 2010, the Court denied the Motion for Leave to should not accept an interpretation that would defeat the
Intervene and to File and to Admit Intervenors’ Motion for intent of the law and its legislators.
12 | P a g e
stated in the Constitution. In determining the allocation of seats,
Note: the following procedure shall be observed: (1) The parties,
In making a city or municipality, there is an exception under the organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked from the highest to
Local Government Code which states that the 2-kilometer the lowest based on the number of votes they garnered during
requirement on land area shall not be applied a the city or elections. (2) The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at
municipality that is composed of one or more islands. least 2% of the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be
entitled to one seat in the House of Representatives. There’s a
Aquino vs. COMELEC provision here which has been declared unconstitutional by the
The Court said that the population requirement of 250,000 only Supreme Court in Banat vs. ComElec, “Provided that those
applies to a city in so far as the Constitution is concerned. This garnering more than 2% shall be entitled to additional seats.” This
requirement does not apply to provinces since there is no specific limitation was removed by the Supreme Court. Now the procedure is
provision in the Constitution that fixes a 250,000 minimum that if you get the percentage by dividing the total number of votes
requirement population in order for the composition of the received by a certain party-list over the total, if you get 2%, you are
legislative district of a province. entitled to one seat. The next step is to multiply the percentage with
the remaining seats. Ex: Bayan Muna got 7%, multiply it by the
August 8, 2019 remaining seats after the you get the guaranteed seats and then
We are now in the Party-List System. We discussed last meeting that after multiplying, you get a whole number until you fully fill-up the
the membership in the House of Representatives is divided into two seats allotted for the party-list representatives. How many seats are
categories: a) District Representatives and b) Party-List allocated for the party-list representatives? That formula is already
Representatives. Where do we find that provision in the Constitution stated in the law which was computed in the case of Banat vs.
regarding the Party-List Representatives? The composition of the ComElec. Prior to this case, the consistent ruling of the Supreme
House of Representatives is found in: Court is that to fill up the 20% for the party-list representatives in
the House of Representatives, it’s not mandatory to fully fill-up the
Sec. 5, Art. VI (1) The House of Representatives shall be composed 20% but the Supreme Court declared in this case that the 20% must
of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two be filled up because the purpose would be defeated as to the party-
hundred and fifty members, (We learned last meeting that Congress list representation. You cannot give chance to those under-
itself, by way of law, can increase its own representation, not the represented and marginalized sectors if it will not be filled up. If the
regional assembly.) unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be 2% limitation would be used, you can never fill the entire 20% in
elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, Congress for the party-list representatives so that limitation was
cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the removed by the Supreme Court which explains why we have a new
number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a computation under this case. The procedure is the same: (1) Parties
uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, or organizations are ranked from highest to lowest. (2) The parties,
shall be elected through a party-list system of registered national, organizations, or coalitions receiving at least 2% of the total votes
regional, and sectoral parties or organizations. cast for the party-list system shall be given one guaranteed seat. (3)
Those garnering sufficient number of votes according to the ranking
How many per cent comes from the district representatives and the shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to the total
party-list representatives? number of votes until all the additional seats are allocated. This third
step pertains to the multiplication of the percentage with the
Sec. 5, Art. VI (2) The party-list representatives shall constitute remaining number of seats after you deduct the guaranteed seats.
twenty per centum of the total number of representatives Finally, the limitation is that each party, organization, or coalition
including those under the party list. For three consecutive terms shall not be entitled to more than 3 seats.
after the ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the seats
allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by The number of district representatives is fixed. For a particular
law, by selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, election period, we already know how many district representatives
indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other will run for office or how many district representatives will compose
sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector. the House of Representatives. How do you get the 100% if that is
only 80%? You divide the fixed number by 80%. For example, in
What is the law that gives life to the party-list system? We have R.A. Banat vs. ComElec, the number of district representatives was only
7941, otherwise known as the “Party-List System Act.” The policy of 220, divided by 0.8 is 275. That should be the 100% composition of
this law in Sec. 2 is that The State shall promote proportional the House of Representatives which already includes the 20%. The
representation in the election of Representatives to the House of 275 seats must be filled up including the district and party-list
Representatives through the Party-List System (Why?) to enable representatives. Since we know that 220 seats is allotted for the
Filipino citizens belonging to the marginalized and under- district representatives, how many seats are for the party-list
represented sectors, organizations, and parties who lack well- representatives? You just subtract 220 from 275 which gives you a
defined political constituencies but would be able to contribute to difference of 55. That is the number of seats you allocate for the
appropriate legislation, will benefit the nation as a whole, allow party-list system.
them to become members of the House of Representatives.
Towards this end, the State shall develop and guarantee a full, Next step is ranking. This is done by the ComElec which includes the
free, and open party system in order to attain the broadest counting of the number of votes or party-list and the total number
possible representation from party, sectoral, or group of interest in of votes cast for the party-list system. After ranking, they can get the
the House of Representatives. This law also provides for the percentage based on the total number of votes received by a certain
division. The manner by which the seats in the House of party-list over the total number of votes cast. Those party-lists
Representatives are to be filled pursuant to this 80/20% division. In which received at least 2%, they will be given one seat out of the 55
Sec. 11, The party-list representatives shall constitute 20% of the (which we solved earlier). In Banat vs. ComElec, 17 party-lists
total number of the members of the House of Representatives as received at least 2%, they are entitled to one seat (Buhay - 7%,
13 | P a g e
Bayan Muna - 6%, CIBAC - 4%, etc). Those 17 party-lists who This party-list group wanted to participate in the party-list system
exceeded the 2% are entitled to one seat each. Since they are but it was disqualified by the ComElec. The argument of Ang Ladlad
already entitled (the 17 party-lists), the next step is to deduct 17 is that it is an LGBT community which is marginalized and an under-
from 55 which results to 38. The 38 remaining seats will be represented sector. The ComElec made the disqualification because
multiplied to the percentage from all the party-lists using the of immorality based on moral grounds, based on the Bible, and
ranking. For example, Buhay who got a percentage of 7.33 will be based on the Qur’an. Also, Ang Ladlad advocates sexual immorality
multiplied with 38 will equal to 2.79. Buhay, the number 1 party-list and it is a nuisance. Those are the grounds which contributed to its
got one guaranteed seat. If you add up 1 and 2.79 the result is 3.79. disqualification. Are the bases of the ComElec valid? The Court said
The limitation on the number of seats to be given for party-list that the ComElec denied Ang Ladlad’s application on the ground that
groups is only limited to 3 seats so Buhay, even if it got 3.79, will LGBT is not enumerated in the Constitution and R.A. 7941. This
only be given 3 seats. Bayan Muna who also got the percentage of group is not enumerated in the list nor is it associated with or
3.33 is entitled 3 seats. CIBAC, who got 2.8 will be entitled to 2 seats related to any of the sectors in the enumeration. In other words,
and so on and so forth until the 55 seats will be occupied. A decimal, ComElec is saying that the list in the Constitution as well as in
in cases where it isn’t a whole number, will be removed. Only the prevailing jurisprudence that only the groups included in the list are
whole number will be considered. Take note of the computation in allowed to participate is exclusive. According to the Court, that list
this case because it is now the formula. based on jurisprudence is not exclusive. A party can participate in
the party-list system if it represents labor, peasant, fisher-folk, or
Abayon vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET). urban poor, indigenous communities, women, handicapped, youth,
Lucaban, et. al. filed a quo warranto petition in the HRET against veterans, overseas workers and professionals, but this list is not
Aangat Tayo, a party-list, and its nominee, Abayon. In other words, exclusive. As long as it can prove that it is marginalized and under-
the party-list already won and their first nominee occupied his seat represented, then it can participate in the party-list sector. Can
as a member in the House in the House of Representatives. They religion be used as a basis to refuse a certain party-list applicant’s
pointed out that Abayon is not qualified to sit in the House of petition for registration? No, because government action must
Representatives as a party-list representative because he does not always be secular. It cannot be religious, otherwise, it will violate
represent the marginalized and under-represented. Abayon’s spouse religious freedom and etc. Whenever the State acts, as a rule, it
is a Congresswoman and etc. Also, they challenged the status of must exercise benevolent neutrality. As much as possible, it must
Aangat Tayo as a party-list group because according to them, it is accommodate, give out, or carve out an exception from the general
not a marginalized and under-represented party. Abayon, on the rule. The Court is saying, “Do not use the Bible or the Qur’an as one’s
other hand, countered that the HRET has no jurisdiction over him basis.” What about public morals as a ground to deny its petition for
because this attack or petition, collaterally attacked the status of the registration? The Court said that ComElec has not even identified
party-list and this power (in determining whether or not this party- any specific overt immoral act performed by this group. There
list is allowed to operate or to participate in the party-list system) is should have been a finding by the ComElec that the group’s
with the ComElec. The facts in this case are: (1) Abayon was already members have committed or is committing immoral acts. Moral
a member of the House of Representatives but his position was disapproval without more is of sufficient governmental interest to
challenged and (2) the status of his party-list. He argued that it is not justify exclusion of homosexuals from participating in the party-list
the HRET that has jurisdiction but the ComElec. The Court said that system. The denial of its registration on purely moral grounds
since it was dealing with a member of the House of Representives, amounts more to a statement of dislike and disapproval, not on any
the HRET has jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the members legal ground.
of the HR are of two types: (1) the members of the legislative
districts and (2) members elected through the party-list system. Lokin, Jr. Vs. ComElec - Lokin is a member of Citizens’ Battle Against
Once elected, both the district representatives and the party-list Corruption (CIBAC). When they applied in the ComElec to participate
representatives are treated in like manner. They have the same in the party-list system, they submitted 5 nominees: (1) Villanueva;
deliberative rights, salaries, and involvements. They participate in (2) Lokin; (3) Cruz-Gonzales; (4) Tugna; and (5) Galang. Before the
the making of laws that would directly benefit their legislative elections, there leader, Villanueva, withdrew the list. Then they had
districts or sectors. When you already assume your office as a party- an amended list which enlists only 3 remaining representatives, (1)
list representative of a winning party-list, you are now a member of Villanueva; (2) Cruz-Gonzales; and (3) Borje. Lokin, Jr., Tugna, and
the House of Representatives and therefore, if there is any question Galang were removed from the list. After the elections, CIBAC won
as to your qualifications, returns, and elections, it is the HRET that and it was entitled to two seats. Which application should be used,
has jurisdiction over you. Even if we vote based on a certain party- the former list or the one which was amended? If the former list
list that we are in favor of, even if we cast our vote for a particular would be followed, Lokin, Jr. would have the second seat entitled to
party-list, the party-list will not occupy the seat in Congress but CIBAC in the House of Representatives and otherwise if the
rather the nominee which becomes a member of the House of amended list would be followed. What was the basis of CIBAC in
Representatives. Therefore, that person is subject to the jurisdiction removing the 3 other nominees or members because they
of the HRET. It is for the HRET to interpret the meaning of this substituted them? The ground that they used was:
particular qualification of a nominee which is the need for him or her
to get bonafide member of the representative of his organization. So Sec. 13 of Resolution 7804 issued by the ComElec, that a party-list
if there’s an issue on disqualification, being already a member of the nominee may be substituted only (1) when he dies, (2) or his
House of Representatives, it is the HRET that has jurisdiction. It is nomination is withdrawn by the party, (3) or he becomes
inevitable, under the Constitution, that HRET is the sole judge when incapacitated to continue as such, (4) or he withdraws his
one contests, among other things, the qualifications of the members acceptance to a nomination.
of the House of Representatives. Also in cases where one is just a
nominee of the party-list that won the party-list system. There are 4 grounds but the one they used is that the nomination
was withdrawn by the party as stated in the rules of the Resolution
Ang Ladlad vs. ComElec issued by the ComElec. They just followed what was stated and
removed the 3 other nominees. Was that a valid ground for the
14 | P a g e
withdrawal or the substitution of the nominees? The Court said that - Facts: Layug filed a petition to disqualify this Buhay Party-
“No, the law R.A. 7941 only gives 3 grounds by which substitution list from participating in the participation as well as one of
may be effected. The ComElec just added ground (2). This is ultra its nominees, Brother Mike who is the leader of El Shadai.
vires because the law only enumerates the grounds. ComElec, His argument is that this Buhay party-list is a mere
therefore, cannot add another exception not stated in the law.” extension of El Shadai which under the party-list system as
Considering that the additional ground was invalid, therefore, it well as in the constitution, bawal mag participate and
would appear that the withdrawal of the list had no basis. The religious groups.
original list should stand, considering that the substitution was - Later on, this party-list won in the election and was
invalid as it was based on a ground not provided by law. This entitled to 2 seats. Brother Mike was only the 5th
insertion by the ComElec of the new ground was invalid. It is an nominee. Since he is only 5th, wala siyay nakuha na seat.
axiom or rule in Administrative Law that adminstrative authorities And therefore he was not able to be a member of the
such as the ComElec cannot arbitrarily act and introduce alien items House of Representatives. The case was filed before HRET.
in the IRR. - Does the HRET have jurisdiction? No.
o First, Brother Mike is not a member of the House
Lokin, Jr. Vs. ComElec (2012)This is an intra-party dispute as to who of Representatives since he did not get that seat
the nominees of CIBAC in the party-list system should be entitled to being the fifth nominee.
the seats in the House of Representatives after having won the o Second, this talks about the qualification of a
elections. The case was filed before the ComElec. Lokin, Jr. argues party-list which the COMELEC has jurisdiction to
that the ComElec should not be able to decide whether or not they decide. It is the COMELEC not the HRET that has
should be disqualified or not in the party-list because this involves jurisdiction over the qualification of Buhay party-
an intra-corporate dispute. Who has the jurisdiction? The regular list because it is vested on it by law.
courts with special jurisdiction to resolve intra-corporate disputes Atong Paglaum Inc, vs. COMELEC
which treat party-list groups as corporations. On the other hand, the - Facts: This is the case that amended the parameters as to
argument of the other party is that it is the ComElec because it is the which parties can join the party-list system. Kay naay ga
one who determines whether or not a party-list can participate in apil2 na dli ga represent sa marginalized sector. Therefore,
the party-list system, whether or not the members are qualified to the court had to examine the provision in the constitution
be nominees, and etc. Who has jurisdiction over this intra-party if allowed ba mag participate ang mga national, regional
dispute? It is the ComElec because it has jurisdiction over cases political parties in the party-list system.
pertaining to party, leadership, and the nomination of party-list - The court said that based on the provision in Article VI
representatives. Even if Lokin, Jr. et. al insist that this conflict is of a Section 5, Paragraph 1. Who can participate?
purely intra-corporate nature, (They submitted their requirements to o Section 5. (1) The House of Representatives shall
be able to participate in the elections, certificate of nomination, and be composed of not more than two hundred and
etc. before the ComElec. They are invoking ComElec’s power in the fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law,
first place. The ComElec can decide whether or not a person can run who shall be elected from legislative districts
or be a nominee for a party-list.) it is the ComElec who has apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the
jurisdiction and not the regular courts. Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the
number of their respective inhabitants, and on
Amores vs. HRET the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and
- Facts: This involves the qualification of Emmanuel Joel those who, as provided by law, shall be elected
Villanueva. Amores, filed a petition for quo-warranto with through a party-list system of registered
the HRET kay nka daog naman ning party-list, ni lingkod na national, regional, and sectoral parties or
si Villanueva sa iyang seat in Congress. It was argued by organizations.
Amores that this Villanueva sat as a member of the House - In other words, the constitution does not limit to sectoral
of Representative as a representative of a party-list group representatives. Pwede mag dagan ang national and
CIBAC. And he was representing daw the youth sector. regional parties. So katong pag limit sa sectors into only
However, he was already 31 years old or beyond the age sectoral parties is not consistent in the provision of the
limit of 30 pursuant to RA 7941. Ang gihimo ni Joel is that Constitution. So, in other words, dapat gi allow ning mga
he admits that he is already 31 so he shifted to another regional and sectoral parties in the first place. And ilang
sector now representing overseas filipino workers. gina himo, since prior to this decision, gi limit man siya into
However, he did not do this under the period required by sectoral, nagpa pobre2 or it fabricates stories just so they
law which is dapat at least 6 months prior to the election. can fill this sector.
- Is he disqualified or not? - It is the clear intent of the constitution which is to allow
o The court said that he is disqualified. In the case this 3 groups to participate in the party-list system.
under the law RA 7941, Section 9, In case of - How do we harmonize this policy in RA 7941 which
a nominee of the youth sector, he must at least envision to give as much representation to those who have
be twenty-five (25) but not more than thirty (30) less in life for them to be able to participate in law making.
years of age on the day of the election. Under \
the law, if you want to change your affiliation o For the sectoral, the court said
you must do it within 6 months before the that phrase "marginalized and
election. Here, he was not able to do that and underrepresented" should refer only to the
therefore his shift had no effect. In other words, sectors in Section 5 that are, by their nature,
he cannot represent the youth as well as the economically "marginalized and
overseas filipino workers. He is therefore underrepresented." These sectors are: labor,
disqualified. peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous
Layug vs. COMELEC cultural communities, handicapped, veterans,
15 | P a g e
overseas workers, and other similar sectors. For 4. Sectoral parties or organizations may either be
these sectors, a majority of the members of the "marginalized and underrepresented" or lacking in "well-
sectoral party must belong to the "marginalized defined political constituencies." It is enough that their
and underrepresented." The nominees of the principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and
sectoral party either must belong to the sector, concerns of their sector. The sectors that are
or must have a track record of advocacy for the "marginalized and underrepresented" include labor,
sector represented. Belonging to the peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural
"marginalized and underrepresented" sector communities, handicapped, veterans, and overseas
does not mean one must "wallow in poverty, workers. The sectors that lack "well-defined political
destitution or infirmity." It is sufficient that one, constituencies" include professionals, the elderly, women,
or his or her sector, is below the middle class. and the youth.
More specifically, the economically 5. A majority of the members of sectoral parties or
"marginalized and underrepresented" are those organizations that represent the "marginalized and
who fall in the low income group as classified by underrepresented" must belong to the "marginalized and
the National Statistical Coordination Board. underrepresented" sector they represent. Similarly, a
o For the national and regional parties, the court majority of the members of sectoral parties or
said that The recognition that national and organizations that lack "well-defined political
regional parties, as well as sectoral parties of constituencies" must belong to the sector they represent.
professionals, the elderly, women and the youth, The nominees of sectoral parties or organizations that
need not be "marginalized and represent the "marginalized and underrepresented," or
underrepresented" will allow small ideology- that represent those who lack "well-defined political
based and cause-oriented parties who lack "well- constituencies," either must belong to their respective
defined political constituencies" a chance to win sectors, or must have a track record of advocacy for their
seats in the House of Representatives. On the respective sectors. The nominees of national and regional
other hand, limiting to the "marginalized and parties or organizations must be bona-fide members of
underrepresented" the sectoral parties for labor, such parties or organizations.
peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous 6. National, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations
cultural communities, handicapped, veterans, shall not be disqualified if some of their nominees are
overseas workers, and other sectors that by their disqualified, provided that they have at least one nominee
nature are economically at the margins of who remains qualified.
society, will give the "marginalized and Cocofed vs. COMELEC
underrepresented" an opportunity to likewise - Facts: This party-list failed to submit 5 nominees and their
win seats in the House of Representatives. registration before the COMELEC as a party-list was
- What if mag apil-apil ang major political parties. The major cancelled. They argued that it should not have been
political parties are those that field candidates in the cancelled. The court said that the cancellation was valid.
legislative district elections. Major political parties cannot The law expressly requires that at least 5 qualified
participate in the party-list elections since they neither nominees shall be given to the COMELEC.
lack "well-defined political constituencies" nor represent - SC: Failure to comply with the law under RA 7941 Section
"marginalized and underrepresented" sectors. Thus, the 6, is a ground for the cancellation of registration. But not
national or regional parties under the party-list system are all violations of this law can be a ground for cancellation. It
necessarily those that do not belong to major political must be a violation that is inevitable to the party itself.
parties. This automatically reserves the national and Here, the failure to submit the list of 5 nominee is evitable
regional parties under the party-list system to those who to the party and therefore the cancellation was valid. Why
"lack well-defined political constituencies," giving them the are 5 nominees needed? So that makita sa mag vote ang
opportunity to have members in the House of ilang names and mkita ang advocacy ani na group.
Representatives. - The identity of these five nominees carries critical bearing
New parameters set by the SC: on the electorate’s choice.
1. Three different groups may participate in the party-list Anad vs. COMELEC
system: (1) national parties or organizations, - Same issue, failure to declare 5 nominees, so na cancel
(2) regional parties or organizations, and ilang registration. Valid ang cancellation according to the
(3) sectoral parties or organizations. Supreme Court.
2. National parties or organizations and regional parties or Abang Lingkod vs. COMELEC
organizations do not need to organize along sectoral lines - Facts: It is a sectoral organization which promotes the
and do not need to represent any "marginalized and interests of peasants and fisherfolks. It manifested its
underrepresented" sector. intent to participate in the May 2013 elections. However,
3. Political parties can participate in party-list elections the COMELEC decided to cancel its registration as a party
provided they register under the party-list system and do because it failed to establish its track record in uplifting
not field candidates in legislative district elections. A the cause of the marginalized and under-represented. This
political party, whether major or not, that fields candidates happened in Nov 7, 2012. Unsa ang nakita sa
in legislative district elections can participate in party-list COMELEC? ABANG LINGKOD failed to show that its
elections only through its sectoral wing that can separately nominees are themselves marginalized and
register under the party-list system. The sectoral wing is by underrepresented. It only offered photographs of some
itself an independent sectoral party, and is linked to a alleged activities it conducted.
political party through a coalition. - In the meantime na wala pa na decidan sa SC, nag gawas
ang ruling sa court sa Atong Paglaum na gitanggal natong
16 | P a g e
track record requirement for the party-list itself. The court sought to be represented and this membership is a
clarified that because of the change it Atung Paglaum, so continuing qualification for public office as a member
dli na kailangan eprove as a party-list that you have a track of House of Representatives.
record under the ruling of the court in Atung Paglaum. Gabriela vs. Comelec (not fully settled, SC nag backout)
That requirement was only laid down by the court in Ang - Facts: Gabriela is a party-list. There are 238/.80= *0.2=59.5
Bagong Bayani vs COMELEC katong old parameters or seats to be allocated to party-list groups. Ang gihimo sa
standards. Therefore it cannot be a ground anymore for COMELEC which was approved by the supreme court was
cancellation of party-list registration. that gitanggal nila ang .5. And then nireklamo si gabriela
- SC: There was no mention that sectoral organizations because if gamiton ang 59.5 they are entitled to 2 seats
intending to participate in the party-list elections are still but if 59 lang, they will only be entitled to 1 seat kay
required to present a track record. It is not even required mahimo siyag 1.99. They are claiming na dapat wala
under the law. Contrary to the COMELEC's claim, sectoral gitanggal kay they are reducing now the membership in
parties or organizations, such as ABANG LINGKOD, are no the house of representatives by removing the decimal
longer required to adduce evidence showing their track point.
record, i.e. proof of activities that they have undertaken to - SC: The court said that, this is the majority opinion, only
further the cause of the sector they represent. Indeed, it is the whole integer of 59 is considered. This is because what
enough that their principal advocacy pertains to the is being determined is the number of seats that they
special interest and concerns of their sector. Otherwise actually allocated to the winning party-list groups and a
stated, it is sufficient that the ideals represented by the fraction of a seat is a disqualification.
sectoral organizations are geared towards the cause of the - Nevertheless, considering that the winning party-list
sector/s, which they represent. groups have already been proclaimed by the COMELEC
- Is the track record requirement totally gone? The court and their respective representatives have already assumed
said that no. It is only required of nominees of sectoral office, matters concerning the adjustment of seats granted
parties or organizations that represent the marginalized to the qualified party-list groups, if any, should be brought
and under-represented who do not factually belong to the to the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal; the
sector represented by their party or organization. Court may not pass upon the same in this certiorari action.
- There is no longer any incentive in merely feigning J. Leonen’s Separate Opinion
representation of the marginalized and underrepresented - Dissent of J. Leonen - kaning pag tanggal sa .5 is not
sectors. consistent with the Constitution.
Lico vs. COMELEC - Nevertheless, it concurred in the result because the people
- Facts: Talks about the qualification of the member in the involved here have already assumed office so HRET na ang
house of representatives. Nakadaog na ning ilang better maka decide. Gabriela should file the complaint in
representative diri. Atong Koop is the party-list and it filed HRET. And now we await on the decision on this case.
to the COMELEC its list of nominees with Lico as the first
nominee and Mascarina as the second. Nakadaog ang
Atong Pooc in the party-list and it was entitled to 1 seat. August 10, 2019
So Lico, the first nominee sat as the representative in the Constitutional Law 1
House of Representatives. A year later after he assumed Atty. Gil Garcia
office, gitanggal siya because he was disloyal. Atong Koop Transcribed by: ZC
filed a case in COMELEC to compel his removal from the
House of Representatives because he is no longer a
member of this party-list, therefore wala na siyay gina (First 20 minutes - Exam answers)
represent na party and therefore he can no longer seat in
the House of Representatives. The Legislative Department:
- The COMELEC 2nd division upheld the expulsion. But it did C. Legislative privileges, inhibitions, and disqualifications
not rule on whether or not he should vacate his seat in the
House of Representatives because it knew that it did not a. Salaries
have the power to do so. He is already a member of the
House of Representatives so ang makatanggal sa iya is Article 6, Section 10
HRET. The salaries of Senators and Members of the House of
- Tama ba ang gihimo sa COMELEC? The court said that that Representatives shall be determined by law. No increase in
should not have been done by the COMELEC because said compensation shall take effect until after the expiration
membership in the party-list of a party-list member is a of the full term of all the Members of the Senate and the
continuing qualification of the member of the House of House of Representatives approving such increase.
Representatives. Considering that it involves a qualification
of a member of the HoR, it is not the COMELEC that has Discussion: So kintahay, for this year magincrease sila sa salary, it
jursidiction over that issue but the HRET. HRET has will not take effect during their term. And hutdon pa pud ang term
jursdiction over qualifications, returns and elections. atong 12 kabuok Senators na gi-elect during the term na napasa
Continuing membership is a qualification. tong balaod. In other words, the law will take effect after six years,
- SC: There is no legal basis in the action of COMELEC in which is after the term of the senators na nagvote ato, as well as the
upholding the validity of the expulsion of this person from congressmen. Three years lang man sila, so walay issue sa
Ating Pook despite its own ruling that HRET has jursidiction congressmen kay mahuman man dayon ang term after three years.
over his disqualification. Because his findings or retouch Pero pag Senators, hutdon pa tanan katong nag-vote ato, which is
upon his qualification requiring him to be a party-list six years.
nominee, to be a bona fide member of the party-list group
17 | P a g e
Basically, after six years pa magtake-effect ang law and it will benefit effect na ang law or ang increase. Therefore, ang pagcompute sa
those [who will serve] after the end of the term of those who voted iyahang sweldo is not the old rate, but the new rate as increased.
for this law.
Is he correct?
In Philconsa vs. Mathay that is precisely what happened.
No. The rate that should be applied, should be the rate prior to the
CASE: PHILCONSA VS MATHAY increase, because the law can only be operative from December 30
Philconsa (Philippine Constitution Association) filed a suit against the 1969 (mao ning time na mag-end ang ilahang term) for incoming
auditor of the Philippines because nagpasa og balaod ang Congress members of Congress when the full term of all the members of
of the Philippines, approving their salary increase. Congress, House of Representatives and Senate, that approved the
increase will have expired.
The salary increase of the Speaker and members of the House of
Representatives under RA 4134. This law was approved in 1964 and So kini nga benefit, it’s not actually for the old batch of legislators
it was to take effect in 1965. So nag-set aside sila og kwarta for it. but for the incoming legislators. Otherwise, if we allow the increase
Philconsa filed a case to stop the spending of the money because by way of retirement, we will be indirectly violating the
under the previous Constitution (1935 pa ni during that time), no Constitutional provision. Dili na gi-direct sa imo og hatag ang sweldo.
increase in (such? 21:47-21:49) compensation shall take effect after But gi-increase ang imohang pension, which is a circumvention of
the expiration of the full term of all the members of the Senate and the prohibition and cannot be allowed.
the House of Representatives approving such increase. Considering
na wala pa nahuman ang term sa katong mga Senators nga nag- b. Freedom from arrest
approve aning balaod, the law shall not take effect yet after one
year. Section 11 of Article 6
A Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall,
Does the Constitution require that not only the term of all the in all offenses punishable by not more than six years
members of the House of Representatives but also the term of imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is
Senators who approve that law before this increase may take effect? in session. No Member shall be questioned nor be held liable
in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress
Answer: Yes, The term of all the members of Congress, which or in any committee thereof.
approve this increase, must end before the increase becomes
effective. That is very explicit in the provision. Unsa man na sa RPC nga dili molapas og 6 years? Prision
correccional max, dili pa sya pwede ma-arrest.
Naay Bar question:
Pag dili na in session ang Congress, mawala na ang isa ka
If on July 1, 2010, in a special session, Congress approves a law requirement pwede na sya ma-arrest.
increasing the salary and the law is published immediately, when will
it take effect? Requisites of freedom from arrest:
A. July 1, 2010 - magtake effect ba siya immediately nga napublish 1. The offense is punishable by not more than 6 years imprisonment;
sad siya in the same day? and
B. 15 days after publication 2. Congress must be in session.
C. June 30, 2013
D. June 30, 2016 Discussion: Which should be not more than prision correccional.
What is next to prision correccional is prision mayor so pag prision
Answer: It is on June 30, 2016. The expiration of the full term of the mayor na na, dili na mag-attach ang privilege. So, if Congress is not
senators, as well as the members of those who voted for the law, in session then the privilege will not happen.
would expire.
This privilege is given to our legislators so that they can still legislate
CASE: LIGOT VS. MATHAY in the meantime, dili maapektuhan ang ilahang trabaho even if they
This is related to Philconsa Vs. Mathay. This Congressmen, naelect are sought to be incarcerated. But when Congress is in recess,
siya for three terms as a congressman of this district. In his second pwede na siya dakpon.
term, gipasa tung RA 4134 - katong law na subject sa Philconsa Vs.
Mathay.
CASE: PEOPLE VS JALOSJOS
But since wala gi-allow sa Supreme Court nga mag-take effect prior This full-fledged member of Congress, because they voted for a
to the expiration of the term of the Senators, wala sya naka-benefit rapist, is confined at the national penitentiary while his conviction
atong increase. So, in his third term, naelect na pud sya, wala pa for statutory rape on two counts and acts of lasciviousness on six
nagtake effect ang balaod kay incumbent pa ang mga Senators nga counts is still pending appeal. So, naconvict na siya sa lower court,
nag-vote. nag-apela siya. He filed a motion asking that he be allowed to fully
discharge the duties of a Congressman including attendance at
He tried to run for the fourth time, because during that time allowed legislative sessions and meetings.
pa sila, but he lost to his opponent. Now, moretire na sya in his third
term. Ang iyahang ginaingon is - considering that nagtake-effect na He insists that having been reelected by his constituents, he had the
ang balaod inig retirement, he should enjoy the new rate already. duty to perform his functions as a Congressman, because it is his
Kay kining pag-third term niya, nahuman na pud ang term atong mga covenant to the people who voted for him.
senators nga nagvote atong balaod. So dapat daw as of this time,
18 | P a g e
Can he invoke Article 6 Section 11 to be free from arrest while freedom of speech, which covers utterances made in the
Congress is in session? performance of their official functions, which includes speeches
delivered, votes cast, bills introduced in Congress, and other acts
No. performed in the premises or outside in the official discharge of
their duties. So if it is related to their functions as a Congressman,
What is the penalty for statutory rape? they can invoke parliamentary immunity.
It’s more than prision correccional so you can not invoke this
provision. As a rule: dili sila pwede makasuhan for their speeches and debates
in Congress.
Jalosjos here has not given any reason why he should be exempted
from this provision in the Constitution. Because wala na-meet ang Why?
requirement and his absence in Congress is a legitimate one.
Because effective legislation requires such privilege. You cannot air
What about his argument that he was voted by the people therefore your opinion freely if mahadlok kay pagkahuman prisohon dayon ka
if he is not allowed to participate in the legislative proceedings he for your utterances.
will be shortchanging the people who voted for him?
So para sharp ang paghimo sa atong mga balaod, tagaan nato og
opportunity ang mga members of Congress so they will be able to
The Court said that: speak their mind without being liable outside Congress for whatever
1. To allow him to go to Congress would be to create a privileged utterances they made in the course of their debates and speeches
class which is not proper, without justification in reason. therein.
2. The performance of legitimate and even essential duties by public CASE: JIMENEZ VS CABANGBANG
officers has never been an excuse to free a person validly in This person is a member of the House of Representatives and he
prison.The accused-appellant is only one of 250 members of the wrote an open letter, while Congress is in session. This is a civil
House of Representatives, not to mention the 24 members of the action for damages because of a libelous write up of Cabangbang.
Senate, charged with the duties of legislation.
When he was in the trial court, he moved for the dismissal of the
He cannot validate his argument by arguing that this will be complaint on the ground of parliamentary immunity. Privileged daw
discrimination against him. “The Court cannot validate badges of ang iyahang communication, absolutely privileged because he did it
inequality.” The people also knew that you cannot go to Congress in the course of his duties as a member of the HOR.
(because you are a rapist) and yet they voted for you.
Is the publication a privileged communication?
CASE: TRILLANES VS PIMENTEL
Trillanes is a member of the Magdalo group and he participated in Here, the issue stems from the fact that at the time of the
the Oakwood Mutiny. There were charges filed against them before publication of this write up, he was a member of the HOR and he is
the court. Pending their case, they were incarcerated. He ran for invoking his parliamentary immunity. To be able to determine
public office as a Senator and he won a seat. He filed a motion to the whether or not he is exempt from arrest or liability for that write up,
Court to be released from his incarceration pending the case we must determine if this act falls within the parliamentary
because he has to participate in the proceedings having been immunity.
elected as a legislator.
The Court said, no. The write-up is an open letter when Congress
Can he be released? was not in session and this letter was published in several
No. The Court said her that all prisoners, whether under preventive newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines. It is obvious,
detention, meaning pending pa iyahang kaso, wala pa sya na-convict thus, in causing this communication to be published he was not
or serving final sentence cannot practice their profession or engage performing an official duty, either as a member of Congress or an
in any business, or occupation or hold office, elective or appointive, officer or any committee thereof. So, that communication was really
while in detention. not done in the course of his duties as a member of the House.
These inherent limitations, however, must be taken into account Outside na siya, dili niya ma-invoke ang parliamentary immunity.
only to the extent of restraints on the power of locomotion. The Nevertheless, he was not penalized here, because it was not found
Court has recognized, in fact in People Vs. Jalosjos, that this person that his statements were libelous. But, take note that outside sa
might be imprisoned, but still somehow accomplish legislative iyahang duties tung iyahang paghimo ato nga letter, therefore, wala
resource. Look at De Lima. niya navalidly invoke ang parliamentary immunity.
He could have been made liable for damages had it been proved
c. Parliamentary Immunity during the proceedings.
nd
Article 6, Section 11, 2 sentence: CASE: OSMENA VS PENDATUN
No Member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any Congressman Osmena, Jr. filed a petition for declaratory relief
other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in against Congressman Pendatun. He asked for the annulment of the
any committee thereof. resolution nga katong resolution gihimo sa House to investigate him
for violation of their rules.
Meaning, outside Congress, dili sila mahold liable for any of their
speeches or debates, except Congress itself. So, this is parliamentary
19 | P a g e
The HOR created a special committee to investigate the charges The Court said that her utterances would readily show her
against the President of the Philippines here, in his privileged statements ofexpression of personal anger and frustration for not
speeech. Because of the speech of Osmena, nag-investigate na being considered for the post of Chief Justice. In a sense,her remarks
karon ang House. In the same manner, nagconstitute pud sila og were outside her official parliamentary functions.
committee to determine whether or not ang iyahang language nga
gigamit would be violative of their own rules. So pwede siya mahold liable.
His defense was that - this Committee cannot hold him back because “Even parliamentary immunity must not be allowed to be used as a
he was just acting pursuant to his duty as a member of the House of vehicle to demean and destroy the reputation of the court and his
Representatives. In other words, he is invoking parliamentary magistrates, nor as armor for personal wrath and disgust.
immunity. The Court is not hesistant to impose some form of disciplinary action
against this Senator because of her disrespect towards the court.”
By this investigation, were his parliamentary immunity violated?
“The factual and legal circumstances of this case, however, deter the
The court said, No. Court from doing so, even without any sign of remorse from her.”
What is the purpose of parliamentary immunity? Ang ginaingon sa Supreme Court, the best body to impose any
liability on Senator Santiago is the Senate, because of the language
“To enable and encourage a representative of the public to she used.
discharge public trust with firmness and success. It is indispensably
necessary that he should enjoy the fullest liberty of speech and that However, the Senate did not do anything much to the dismay of the
he should be protected from the resentment of everyone, however Supreme Court, it just said nga na-sad sila nga this was not
powerful, to whom exercise of that liberty may occasion offense.” penalized. But it rather would not impose liability on her, instead,
gipasa siya sa Senate.
What is the guarantee of this immunity?
The guarantee is he is complete freedom without fear of being made CASE: TRILLANES VS CASTILLO-MARIGOMEN
responsible in a criminal or civil action before courts or any other Naay investigation on the alleged overpriced parking lot in Makati.
forum outside the congressional hall. Meaning, his responsibility And then there’s this person nga iyang (Trillanes) ginaingon was a
before the legislative body itself remains. dummy of VP Binay who was involved in this anomaly.
Ikaw dili ka pwede maprison, dili pud ka pwede makasuhan sa gawas This person thought the statements of the Senator will libelous. So
for libel or any criminal act or civil case. But it does not exempt you he filed a complaint for damages against him before the trial court
from penalty if you violate the rules of your respective House. having been labeled as a dummy of VP Binay.
Who has jurisdiction or who may hold him accountable? In his answer, Senator Trillanes contended that the statements were
made in the performance of his duties as a senator, and therefore,
It is the House concerned not the courts. The House is the judge of are covered by parliamentary immunity under Article 6 Section 11 of
what constitutes disorderly behavior not only because the the Constitution.
constitution has conferred jurisdiction upon it, but also because the
matter depends mainly on factual circumstances, of which, the The trial court, however, denied the dismissal of the complaint and
House knows best, but which cannot be depicted in black and white then proceeded to hear the same.
for presentation to, and adjudication by the Courts.
Who is correct? Trillanes or the trial court?
You cannot at all times justify your utterances if naay rules ang
inyohang respective House that limits kung unsa inyong dapat The Court said the trial court is correct here. Where did he make his
mahimo. statements? Trillanes made it in media interviews, outside of
Congress.
If you read the provision: No members shall be questioned xxxx in
any other place for any speech or debate in Congress or any He admits that he uttered that questioned statements describing his
committee thereof. person as a VP Binay’s dummy in connection with Hacienda Binay in
response to media interviews during gaps and breaks in the plenary
He can be liable inside Congress. and committee hearings in the Senate.
CASE: POBRE VS DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO “It is evident that the remarks fall outside the privilege of speech or
Remember, Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago was once nominated debate under Article 6, Section 11. The statements were clearly not
for the position of the Chief Justice and she was a Senator at that part of speech delivered in the Senate or of its committees. They
time.She was not appointed to the position and because of that she were also not spoken in the course of any debate in the said fora.
went to the podium and delivered a privilege speech at the Senate. Likewise, it cannot be successfully contended that they were made
in the official discharge or performance of his duties as a Senator, as
Because of the speech, Pobre filed a disbarment complaint against the remarks were not integral to the legislative process.”
Miriam Defensor Santiago?
When can you not validly invoke immunity?
Did his disbarment complaint succeed?
“Parliamentary non-accountability cannot be invoked when the
lawmaker's speech or utterance is made outside sessions, hearings
20 | P a g e
or debates in Congress, extraneous to the "due functioning of the Unsa ang purpose sa prohibition?
(legislative) process.”
“The purpose is to prevent him from owing loyalty to another
“To participate in or respond to media interviews is not an official branch of the government, to the detriment of the independence of
function of any lawmaker; it is not demanded by his sworn duty nor the legislature and the doctrine of separation of powers.”
is it a component of the process of enacting laws. Indeed, a
lawmaker may well be able to discharge his duties and legislate So, you have to pick one.
without having to communicate with the press.”
“Forfeiture of the legislator’s seat, or cessation of his tenure, shall be
So, pwede siya maging liable for it. automatic upon the holding of the incompatible office. Thus, a
congress-man who was elected provincial governor was deemed to
What body has jurisdiction? Is it the Senate that can penalize him or have automatically forfeited his seat in the House of Representatives
can he be penalized by the court? when he took his oath for the provincial office.”
He can be penalized by the Court because his parliamentary However, not every office in the government is regarded to be
immunity cannot be invoked. incompatible with the legislative function, because there are certain
positions in the Constitution na you are, as a member of the Senate,
and then gi-elect ka to be part of this Committee,etc. That is not
Prohibition on incompatible and forbidden office violative of this prohibition on incompatible offices.
Now, our members of the Congress do not only enjoy privileges but For example, membership in the Electoral Tribunal -- the HRET and
they also suffer from certain disqualifications. They also have the SET are composed of senators and justices of the Supreme
obligations and duties to fulfill. Under the Constitution there are Court. So kung ikaw, mo-lingkod diha in the tribunal, you cannot
disqualifications against congressmen and senators. forfeit your seat as a Senator. Membership in the electoral tribunal
is permitted by the Constitution itself. Moreover, it can be shown
One of which is the prohibition on incompatible and forbidden office that the second office is an extension of the legislative position or is
under Section 13. in aid of legislative duties the holding of do not result to the loss of
the legislator’s seat in Cogress.
Article VI, Section 13
SNo Senator or Member of the House of Representatives What is the scope of this incompatible office?
may hold any other office or employment in the
Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality It applies to all office or employment within the government,
thereof, including government-owned or controlled including GOCC.
corporations or their subsidiaries, during his term without
forfeiting his seat. Neither shall he be appointed to any office Forbidden office
which may have been created or the emoluments thereof
increased during the term for which he was elected. In a forbidden office, no senator or member of the House of
Representatives shall be appointed to any office which may have
The first paragraph talks about an incompatible office. When you are been created or emoluments thereof increased during the term for
already a member of the House of Representatives or Senate, as a which he was elected. Because of this, even when the member of
rule, you can no longer hold any office or employment in the Congress is willing to forfeit his seat, he may not be appointed to
government, including GOCCs without forfeiting your seat. any office in the government that has been created or emoluments
thereof increased, during his term.
Kung gusto ka mag seek og other position just like what Alan
Cayetano did, you have to forfeit your seat as a Senator, so Such a position is a forbidden office and the purpose is to prevent
incompatible ang offices. Pili lang kag isa. trafficking in public office. Bawal na siya even if you are willing to
give up your seat.
The second paragraph talk talks about a forbidden office, “neither
shall he be appointed to any office which may have been created or Take note however that the appointment of the member of
the emoluments thereof increased during the term for which he was Congress to that forbidden seat is not allowed ONLY DURING THE
elected.” TERM FOR WHICH HE WAS ELECTED when such office is created or
his emoluments increased. After his term, and even if the legislator
So, bawal siyang i-appoint. This limitation is only until his term, so if is reelected, the disqualification no longer applies and he may
dili na siya mare-elect after that term, pwede na siya ma-appoint sa therefore be appointed to the office. So, hulaton na lang nimo na
kining office na ilahang gihimo. mahuman imong term then paappoint ka.
Forbidden Office Vs. Incompatible Office CASE: LIBAN VS GORDON

Senator Gordon was elected as senator. Now, he was also appointed
Forbidden office - The public officer is not allowed to hold office as the Chairman of the Philippine National Red Cross, chairman of
which has been created even during his term or when the the Board of Governors.
emoluments thereof increased.
Because of this, Liban filed a case to expel him from Senate because
Incompatible office - He can hold that, provided that he forfeits his he has deemed to have violated the provision of incompatible office.
seat in Congress. According to Liban, the PNRC is a government entity and therefore,
21 | P a g e
when Gordon sat on PNRC as Chairman of the Board of Governors, Other prohibition, under Article 6, Section 14:
he forfeited his seat as a Senator. Article 6, Section 14
No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may
Is Gordon here holding an incompatible office? personally appear as counsel before any court of justice or
before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other
The Court said, no. The Court did not uphold the argument that administrative bodies.
PNRC is related to the government. In the first decision of the
Supreme Court here, the Court said the PNRD is not a GOCC but a *EXCEPT if siya mismo ang naay kaso. This only applies to lawyers na
private organization performing public functions. While it is created legislators.
by law, its functions are private. And considering that it is private, it
will not fall under the enumeration of government office or GOCC
nga mahulog nga incompatible office (if you take a position What else?
simultaneously with you being a legislator at the same time.) Again,
PNRC is not a government office, nor is it a GOCC. It’s a private Continuation of Section 4: Neither shall he, directly or
organization, so walay incompatibility. indirectly, be interested financially in any contract with, or in
any franchise or special privilege granted by the Government,
On motion for reconsideration on this case, the court modified its or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof,
decision. It still held that Gordon is not holding an incompatible including any government-owned or controlled corporation,
office meaning pwede niya to I-hold simultaneously ang positions as or its subsidiary, during his term of office.
a legislator and the chairman of the PNRC but it changed its ruling as
the nature of the PNRC. The office of the Chairman of the PNRC is * This is to prevent conflict of interest
not a government office and a GOCC, for the purpose of the
prohibition in the Constitution. Also:
He shall not intervene in any matter before any office of the
Is it a private corporation? Government for his pecuniary benefit or where he may be
called upon to act on account of his office.
The Court said that it is a SUI GENERIS institution. There is none like
it, not just in terms of structure, but also in terms of history, public * This is also to prevent conflict of interest
service, and official status afforded to it by the State and the
international community. It is a non-profit donor-funded voluntary PUYAT VS DE GUZMAN
humanitarian organization whose mission is to bring timely, This case, naay issue regarding this corporation. Ang kaso gi-file
effective, and compassionate humanitarian assistance for the most before the SEC. Katong isa ka member sa corporation, embattled in
vulnerable. the SEC, nagpatabang sa isa ka member sa House of Representatives
and what that person did is it bought shares to make it appear that
This entity cannot be related or connected to the government he is a member of the corporation and since this corporation is being
because it is independent from government. It is also not a private sued and he has stocks in that corporation, he has interest not as a
entity because it was created for a specific purpose which is not member of the House of Representatives but as an owner of this
private in character. The Court said that the error in the 2009 Corporation.
decision was the directing of the Court for PNRC to incorporate as a
private corporation so that it can be subjected to the jurisdiction of Ang iyahang kalaban argued that this is an indirect violation of the
the SEC or for the regulation of any body of the government. The prohibition in the Constitution. You are not allowed to represent any
Supreme Court said that the court erred in its decision that time. The party in any proceeding under Article 6 Section 14. You cannot
nature of the PNRC is that it is not a private entity as well. “personally appear as counsel before any court of justice or before
the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other administrative
By requiring the PNRC to organize under a corporation code just like bodies.”
any other private corporation, the Court lost sight of the PNRC’s
special status in the International Humanitarian Law as an auxilliary Was he allowed to represent this person, on the guise that he is also
of the State designated to assist in the discharging of its obligations a member of the corporation?
under the Geneva Convention.
The Court said he may not. His purchase of the shares here was
PNRC must have an autonomous status and must carry out its obviously meant to circumvent the prohibition against an
humanitarian mission in a neutral and impartial manner. It’s not appearance.
private. It must be distinguished from a public and private entity. It
is the main characteristics of the national societies, that they are not “He is not appearing on behalf of another, although he is joining the
inspired by financial gain but individual commitment and devotion. cause of the private respondents. His appearance could
theoretically be for the protection of his …. sharesXXX”
PNRC can neither be classified as an instrument of the State, so as
not to lose its character of neutrality as well as independence, nor “However, certain salient circumstances militiate against (him)XXX”
can it be a private corporation since it is regulated by International Because nahuman na ang issue, didto pa siya nag-apil apil og palit og
Humanitarian Law and treated as an auxiliary of the State. So it is a shares. Therefore, ang intent gyud niya is really to represent that
SUI GENERIS entity. person in the guise of being a stockholder.
Still, daog gihapon si Gordon kay dili gihapon incompatible ang The Court said: “Under those facts and circumstances, we are
iyahang paglingkod ato nga position, not being a government entity. constrained to find that there has been an indirect "appearance as
22 | P a g e
counsel before ... an administrative body" and, in our opinion, that is Ang majority of each house shall constitute a quorum to do
a circumvention of the Constitutional prohibition.” business. quorum- a majority is usually 50 percent plus 1. But a
smaller number may adjourn from day to day, meaning pag dili nila
Duty to disclose ma achieve ang quorum, they may compel the attendance of absent
members in such manner and with such manner and with such
One of the duties of our Congressmen is to disclose their wealth. penalty as such house may provide. So usually, unless stated sa
constitution na kani ang number of members or senators are
Article 11, Section 17 required to get this result, the house concerned can operate if it has
A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office a quorum. So for example in the deliberation of laws, naa silay
and as often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a ipasang balaod and then for example there are 200 members of the
declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net house of the representatives, the required quorum there is only
worth. In the case of the President, the Vice-President, the majority which is 50 percent plus 1, that would be 101 members.
Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, And if they want to pass a law, they would only need the majority of
the Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional that quorum, which is basically 52 members. But there are
offices, and officers of the armed forces with general or flag provisions in the constitution that would require na kani ang number
rank, the declaration shall be disclosed to the public in the na atong basis for voting. But for other matters, quorum ang
manner provided by law. kailangan. Now, insofar as the rules of proceedings, each house may
determine the rules of its proceedings-So sila sad ang magformulate,
punish its members for disorderly behavior and with the
This is the SALN (Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth). concurrence of 2/3 of all its members, suspend or expel a member.
So a certain house of congress gets the 2/3 membership vote, they
Another form of disclosure that is also in the Constitution, Article 6 may use that number to expel a member from that house. A penalty
Section 12 of suspension that will be imposed shall not exceed 60 days.
Santiago vs. Guingon
Article 6, Section 12.
All Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives
Insofar as rules of proceeding are concerned, insofar as c
shall, upon assumption of office, make a full disclosure of
their financial and business interests. here, nag elect ang senate ug officers. And then naka dao
Tatad as senate president. Ople, on the other hand, nom
What is the law that governs this disclosure? voted senate president with a vote of twenty-two. Twenty
and 2 senators are not in favor. Kinsa man to silang du
This is RA 6173 - The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public Officials and Employees Tatad manifested that as there’s only one who voted fo
should constitute the minority. On the other hand, senator
Section 8 requires the filing of SALN. minority because gamay lang man ang ilahang political g
7 out of 24, so minority pud daw sila. So karon naa na
Kung Senator ka you file it before the Senate Secretary, kung
Congressman the Secretary of the House of Representatives.
pwede nato ma vote as minority leader. Now the case wa
Tatad because eventually wala na elect as minority lea
That is required so that the people will be able to monitor your senator who was voted as the minority floor leader. So th
wealth. Pero lisud karon mokuha karon og SALN from these people go to the supreme court to compel, kay ang petition kay qu
kay kelangan pa nimo mokuha og consent from the plenary as well
as the fees na imohang bayron. They have made it difficult for the
minority floor leader in the senate is among other things.
public to get copies of their SALN for purposes of monitoring.
Therefore, they are indirectly violating the principle of transparency.
xxxENDxxx
INTERNAL GOVERNMENT OF CONGRESS

What are the rules that govern it? Unsa ang mga provisions in the
constitution that allow congress to implement its own rules? Does it
have its own rule? Allowed ba sa constitution magbuot buot sila ug
unsa ilang pwede nilang himuon sa ilang rules and procedure?
We have provision to the constitution that deal with those matters.
we have Article VI,Section XVI (2) the senate shall elect its president
and the house of representatives its speaker by majority vote of all
its respective members. Each house shall choose such other officers
as it may be necessary. In so far as the the speaker of the house and
senate president is concerned, klaro ang provision sa constitution na
majority vote of all its members. Insofar as the other officers are
concerned, bahala na ang mga house concerned as to how they will
choose other officers. And that is why we have the recent case later
katong mga suarez ug katong isa ka representative nga nag away for
the minority leadership.
23 | P a g e
question: did the court have jurisdiction over this case? Pwede ba ni ma resolve sa Avelino vs. Cuenco
supreme court?
The court said, in order to compute, asa ba ka magbase s
Answer: Yes. Why? It is well within the power and jurisdiction total number of the Court to absolute?
of senators inquire Total number of the
whether indeed the Senate or its officials committed a absolute?violation Or of the
naa Constitution
pa bay laing rule? or Now in this case, the
gravely abused their discretion in the exercise of their functions
the Philippines.and prerogatives.
one was out of the country. so that se
senate to attend because naa man siya sa gawas. Now
Question: naa bay violation of the constitution here?
and by resolution voted for a new senate president. no
Answer: No. quorum requirement here? 12 lang sila. Where do we co
out of total 24? Kay kung 12 out of 24, definitely, wala gy
Ang ilaha lang issue here is the voting of the minority leader, kung
here, the kinsa
quorumang is maging minority
determined based on the 23 senators
leader sa senate.
When the constitution declares that the majority of each
The constitution is silent as to unsaon pag vote sa minority.does
It is explicit
not mean however
all thein members.
the voting Meaning, it need not b
of the majority. And for the rest of the officers, ang senate na
absolute majority of all the ninyo
ang bahala kung unsaon members of the senate les
na. the method of choosing who will be such other officers is merely a derivative
constitutes the constitutional majority of the of the senate for pu
exercise of the prerogative conferred by the aforequoted constitutional provision. Therefore,
gamit sa supreme court na number was the 23 not the
such method must be prescribed by the Senate itself, not absent,by the Supreme Court. While
let’s determine whether theor not the absent mem
constitution is explicit on the manner of electing the senate president and the House
compel his attendance. Kung ang senator is not outside th
speaker, it is then silent on the manner of selecting the otherprobablyofficers on both iinclude
nahospital, chambers of iyang number because
nimo
congress. To that, the constitution says that each house shall thechoose
senatesuch other officers
to participate in theasdeliberations.
it so for examp
may be necessary. So kani, as to how the senate selected its minority leader in this case, the
other senator was not outside the country but rather in the
court will not touch on that because it is already a matter of is procedure which is given
within the jurisdictional to the of that house, the num
authority
respective house to promulgate. And kung naa man silabeissue insofar as the procedure
considered for purposes of determining quorum. Othe
adopted in the election of that minority officers concerned, that
that method
house, the cannotbasis bewill
prescribed-
be those lang katong pwede mac
the preferred method cannot be prescribed by the court but rather it should be prescribed by
the respective house. So in this case, one member was out of the country, h
quorum. There was also a member in this case who was
So in the absence of any constitutional or statutory guidelines or specific rules, the court is
the counting.
devoid of any basis upon which to determine the legality of the acts of the senate. Wala may
What
constitutional provision na gi invoke na violated, wala puy gina ingonif thenaspecific
balaod house does not reach the required qu
nga naviolete
said earlier they can
but rather a mere internal rule which the court said it cannot touch first because legislative actually adjourn from day to day and
absent members
rules unlike statutory laws do not have the Imprints of permanence based on the
and obligatoriness rules of the house concern
during
their effectivity. The court cannot use that to anchor its decision because wala ta kabalo in instances na kailanga
constitution also enumerates the
the next congress lahi na pud ang rule na ilang iadopt.nakabutang So dili dira sa pwede
constitution
ianchor unsasaning mga instances.
supreme court ang basis sa ilang decision but rather GUIDELINES
on permanent basis VOTING:
IN CONGRESS’S such as the
constitution or law. Here there was no such allegation of- theIn violation
the election of theofficers-
of the constitution
it requiresor
the majority vote.
law so the court cannot decide in this case. - To suspend or expel a member- 2/3 vote of all the members. So
hindi ka magbase sa imong quorum sa katong present, 2/3 jud
Quorum
imong kailangan.
as we said earlier, a majority of each house shall constitute a
- Discipline members - majority is needed.
quorum to do business. So pag dili nila ma acquire ang quorum,
- Declare the existence of the state of war- 2/3 vote in a joint
meaning wala sila mahimo because we do not have the numbers; a
session voting separately
smaller number may adjourn from day to day and may compel their
- Emergency powers of the president- majority
entrance on absent members in such manner. So even if they do not
- If the congress will have to choose the president in the case of
have quorum, they can still do stuff such as compelling the
tie- majority in a joint session voting separately.
attendance of absent members in such manner and under such time
- If the congress decides the president’s disability- 2/3 vote
and under such house may provide.
- To confirm the choice of the senator or members of congress to
become vice president- majority vote
What is the constitutional basis for the determination of a
- When they shall receive their (after vote) on the exercise of the
quorum?
president of his commander in chief powers- simple majority,
joint session, joint voting. (mao ni tong marshal law)
- If the congress has to confirm the presidents amnesty powers-
majority
- Treaty concurrence- 2/3 of the members of the senate
Now, there was a question before, if there is a voting nga kailangan
ang both houses magvote on a particular measure, unsa ang atoang
basis? Is it separate ang house of representatives ug ang senate? Do
24 | P a g e
they vote separately? The GENERAL RULE: if the constitution does
Now this law was challenged for among other things
not say that it should be a joint session voting jointly, then voting
would be separate. Separate jud na as a rule. Except there would interpelation by that representative because according to
wala gi entertain, naay violation sa rules of proceedings s
be instance na joint voting in a joint session kato lang sa martial
law. So as a rule kung kailangan ang vote sa duha ka houses, theyhere null and void because of those reasons? No. why? W
vote separately.
the enactment of this law, ang mere internal rules of pr
So katong mga instances nga explicit ug pila kabuok ang mag vote in
the constitution, we follow that. But kung walay na mention as toconstitutional requirements for the enactment of law. The
how many we can follow the general rule which is quorum. quorum but only that there was some maneuver allegedly
Now, each respective house can also promulgate its own rules of the interpolation was not heard. Can courts inquire into
proceeding. And as we said earlier, kung unsa ang rules na ilang gi
pang adopt, the supreme court or any court for that matter has no
house of congress failed to comply with its own rules? Th
business as a general rule because that is not a constitutional abroad, in varying forms of expression, all deny to t
provision. So wala jud kay legal basis if any kung mag decide ka allegations that, in enacting a law, a House of Congress
based on those internal rules. the absence of showing that there was a violation of a c
private individuals. The court will not strike down that law
Arroyo vs. De venecia with internal rules. These rules are subject to revocation,
of the body adopting them. So, procedural rules are not
There is this amendment of the NIRC. Naay version ang house, naa pud version ang senate.
upon which the court can anchor its decisions. That is the
If they have conflicting provisions in their respective versions, naay body nga gi create na
concern to the observance of this internal rules of proceed
naga reconcile and that is called Bicameral Conference Committee. Depende kung unsaon
rules does not have the effect of nullifying the act excep
nila pag constitute anang committee, depende na sa congress. Naa silay representation dira,
This is subject to qualification. If the rule, supposedly
and then they would reconcile and make concession para maging consistent siya sa kung
members of the legislative body, the question becomes
unsa ang gina envision sa House and kung unsa ang gina envision sa senate na final version
question because private rights are now involved. So ka
sa bill.
rule. So if you are able to show that this violation in the
So there was a Bicameral Conference Committee here which private
wasrights, not only
constituted and the
thenrights
after of the members of th
nag issue n ani siya ug report consolidating the bill balaod, then it by
as proposed canboth
in fact create
house of an issue that the sup
representatives and the senate katong reconciled version na. however no rights
Now katong of private
report individuals
gi subject na are involved but o
representatives.
siya ang next step ani is for interpellation. Musugot ba? I vote pa na usab sa houses. Muagi
na pud na ug vote kung mu approve ba sila sa version of the bill as reconciled. Now there
was an attempt to interpelate the sponsor of the committee report here pero nagsabay ug
storya ang objection and the interpelation, naay gi mention nga gusto mag interpelate, and at
the same time ang speaker of the house of Representative naa pud siyay gi ingon. So they
did not hear each other. So wala nadunggan ni speaker ang katong ang ginayawyaw ni Joker
Arroyo-katong gusto mag interpelate, gi approve ang balaod. Wala na siya na entertain. And
later on, na enrolled ang bill, gi signan sa secretary of the house of representatives, secretary
of the senate, and gi signan sa speaker pati sa senate president, and then gi attest sa duha
ka secretary sa houses. And then it became a law.
25 | P a g e
here of the officers concerned, unsa na house diri ang concern?
Garcillano vs. House of Representatives
Senate or House of representatives? House of representatives po sir.
Kinsa ang mga officers na involved here? Representative Baguilat.
Remember this is the Hello Garci issue. So gi imbestigahan ning issue. However,
What position was contested? Minority leader. Now before nag-
nagreklamo si Garci. He went to the supreme court because ang pagpadayon
elect ang mga representatives nato, sa
naayilang
new rules na gi-formulate.
proceedings walay governing rules of procedure katungAmong bodyothers
na nagaunsa ang investigate ato. Based
nakuha na rules? No on the interchange
duly published rules of procedure. Can the body continue without such rules? Here the courtUnsa ang gi-adopt na
before the plenary of these representatives?
rules? It would elect the house of representatives. All of those who
said that the senate cannot be allowed to continue with the conduct of the legislative inquiry.
voted for who voted for the losing speaker shall belong to the
It violates the provision in article VI section 21 of the constitution that who
minority and those "[t]he Senate
voted for the or
otherthecandidate shall be the
House of Representatives, or any of its respective committees
majority. may conduct
So, later inquiries
on nag-vote vote nainsila.
aidSpeaker Alvarez won
with 252 votes, kinsa ang
of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure." So kani mao ni angsecond? And how many votes did he get?
8 for Baguilat, and 7 for Suarez. Baguilat wants to be a minority floor
example nga naay constitutional provision involved even if it relates to procedure because
leader, what is his basis? The rule is whoever gets the second
the constitution is clear. Before they can conduct these inquiries
highest votein aidbeof
shall thelegislation,
minority leader.dapat
So, what is his basis? The
naay duly published rules of procedure. Without these long-standing
published tradition,
rules, naga baliktong
kung kinsa ta second
sa placer siya ang
magingwithout
constitution. Therefore, the continuing activities of this body leader ofthese minority. Kinsa angrules
published nagging minority leader?
Representative Suarez. Now, who should really be the minority
would be against the constitution. Naa pud discussion here. Naay argument pud ang senate
leader? So, gi-check sa Supreme Court, kung kinsa ba jud dapat.
committee. First of the senate contended that they are just following
What is the issue the rules
in this case?of The
theissue
previous
in this case is whether or not
committees. Nagpublish sila before ug rules and gina the adopt
respondents may be compelledtobythe
lang namo (referring writ of mandamus to
senate committee), so there is no need for us to promulgaterecognizeanew Baguilat
these as rules.
minorityTheleader
court of the house of
here distinguished as to the nature of the senate as a representatives.
continuing body. Should Baguilat be recognized as the minority
The senate is an
leader? No sir. Why? Nganong dili man si Baguilat? We are talking
institution, the senate itself is continuing because dili man
about animo
rule of ma abolish
procedure, ang
insofar the senate
election, and not the speakers
unless iamend nimo ang constitution, I revise nimo ang constitution.
concern. And so, However,
what did in thethe conduct
house of representatives do here
of its day to day business, the senate of each congress actinsofar as the voting
separately andof the minority leader is
independently ofconcerned? What did
the senate of the congress before it. Karon nga senate, lahi n inga senate sa previoustheir rules, this was
they do to their own rules? They changed
because of the adoption of the new rules, mao na to ang mag
senate. Why? Because we elect every 3 years 12 senators to The
govern. compose
previous rulehalfisof thekinsa
kung senate.
ang second placer, but the
So lahi na pud na nga senate actually. new rule is kung kinsa ang i-choose sa majority mao na to ang
minority. Nag buot buot pud sila kung kinsa ilahang minority leader.
Therefore, if that is the case, all pending matters and proceedings,
Is this deviationexample on task
constitutionally bills,
impermissible? Is this change
legislative investigations, they are not required by the senate to be continued because this is the provision is clear
allowed in the constitution? Yes. why? Because
a totally new senate. So kato ilang argument na sameang gi-require
rules anglanggi isgamit
ang mu-vote
nila. ani
Ana ngaang
position ug speaker ug sa
senate kani ang procedure, insofar as to the election of the other
supreme court NO because you are composed of totally officersnew set of senators, therefore you
are concerned, it also states that the house of
have to promulgate anew your own rules. Wala man daw nila gi amend
representatives, is on itsang
sole rules.
control. THEY
Therefore, dili pwede maki-
STILL HAVE TO PUBLISH THE RULES. Nagpublish alam sila ang
pero sa internet-
Supreme Court kungthatunsaonis na
notnila pag-adopt or if i-
sufficient publication. 24:20 adoopt nila ilahang new rules in the first place because it is a matter
Wala man daw nila gi-amend ang rules, wala nila gi-change of procedure it is solely given with the discretion of the house
you still have to publish the rules. Nag-publish na sila, tapos sa concerned to promulgate.
internet, that is not sufficient publication. Dela Paz v. Senate Now let us go Journals and Congressional Records, based lang
Committee, there was an investigation here as to the policemen na gihapon ni siya and continuation sa Article VI, Section 16, paragraph
nag adto sa Russia and brought with them several millions of pesos, 4, each house shall also keep a journal of ots proceedings, and from
nasakpan then gi-confiscate, the senate now created an investigative time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may, in its
body to investigate the matter in aid of legislation. Niadto sa judgement , affect national security; and the yeas and nays, naay
Supreme Court ang mga police on the ground that this senate body enumeration dire sa mga instances na dapat i-record sa journal, yeas
or foreign relations committee na naga-investigate ani na matter and nays on any question shall, at the request of one fifth of the
does not have jurisdiction over the issue. Now, the court said that members present, be entered in the journal. Each house shall also
this matter presented if whether this committee has jurisdiction keep a record of its proceedings. Now, kaning discussion on Journal
over the issue of them bringing money outside is beyond the power kaakibat ani ang discussion on the Enrolled Bill Theory, kay naay
of the Supreme Court to resolve because this is a political question. mga issues na for example, napasa na ang law, tapos karun, Nakita
The challenge of the jurisdiction on the senate foreign relations nimo ang mga journals aning Congress. And Nakita nimo na, “wala
committee raised by the people here in effect asks this court to lagi ning mga pag deliberate sa journal, wala lagi sa final output sa
inquire the matter within the senate with full discretion. And law? Therefore, this law is unconstitutional” pwede ba nimo na
therefore, is a political question, it is not by the court to intervene in gamition as a basis? So, karun ang topic is about journal v. the
what is clearly a question of policy, at any rate even if the court can enrolled bill.
decide this matter, the court said that it is within the jurisdiction of Now we go to this, Enrolled Bill Theory, what is this enrolled bill
the senate committee. theory? Na-explain na siya extensively in the case of Arroyo v.
So, now we have the case of Baguilat v. Alvarez, what happened Devenecia, diba this case kanina is the amendment to the National
with this case? This case is a petition for mandamus filed by the Internal Tax Code (NIRC), na gi-railroad daw to na balaod because
petitioner the house of representatives and also a member of the among other things wala gidungog ang ilahang appellation, etc. naa
house of representative to be compel to recognize that daw mga conspiracy theories na gipasa ning balaod by violation of
representative, Baguilat as the minority leader, before the election rules of procedure of the house of representatives. But later on,
26 | P a g e
napasa ang balaod, naa nay law, bill na nahimong law. And base on court said that, No, because the enrolled bill theory is applicable.
the law, wala didto Nakita didto ilahang mga arguments against it, Ang ilahang argument na wala siya napass into a proper procedure
because the law was passed according to the normal procedure of would fall in the phase of enrolled bill theory.
Congress. So, ilahang gina-ingon is this law is unconstitutional Abakada v. Purisima, this is another case which talks about not
because of the following defects; katong wala na interpellated, really the enrolled bill theory but the manner by which a bill
daghan irregularities among other things, and the court anchored its becomes a law in congress. This case is about the Republic Act 9335,
decision when it tell that the law is validly passed on the enrolled bill the law to optimize the revenue-generation capability of the BIR and
doctrine/ theory, what is this theory? This theory means that the BOC. So, kato na law gi-challenge among other things, naay
signing of the bill and the speaker of the house and the senate provision diri na naga-require ug isa ka congressional oversite
president and the certification of secretaries of both houses of committee to approve the IRR before this law will take effect. Pwede
congress that it was passed are conclusive of its due enactment. ba mag create ang congress ug body that is also composed of
Before na i-present kay president, pirmahan mana nila katong mga members of congress to check whether or not the IRR of this law
gi-mention nato na mga tao katong mga speaker of the house, already formulated by the executive, na i-check nila kung tama ba
senate president, attested and certified by the secretaries of both ning IRR before this law will take effect. And the court said, No,
houses mao na ang ginatawag na enrolled na bill. So katong bill na to because this amount to joints to congressional oversite committee
pasabot ato kay gi-pirmihan man aning mga tawhanang ni therefore amounts to a legislative veto.
niagi siya sa proper procedure. So, what if there is an enrolled bill Before we go to that concept, nag-enumerate diri ang Supreme
here? The effect of the enrolled bill is that, an enrolled act in the Court ug steps before a bill becomes a law. (1) a bill is introducing
custody of the secretary of the state, this is United States by any members of the house of representatives or the senate
jurisprudence and having the official attestation of the speaker of except for some measures that required to originate solely in a
the house of representatives and the president of the senate carries specific chamber. (2) the first reading involves the reading of the
on its phase, what? A solemn assurance by the legislative and the number and time of the measure and its referral by the senate
executive department and already signed by the president, that they president or the speaker to the proper committee or study. (3) the
did the proper procedure in enacting and executing the law and that bill may be killed in the committee or t may be recommended for
it was duly passed by the congress. So the courts do not meddle approval, with or without amendments, sometimes after public
especially if enrolled na ang bill to the validity of that law and as hearings are first held thereon. If there are other bills of the same
regards to its passage if naa nay enrolled bill, why? Because pag nature or purpose, they may all be consolidated into one bill under
mapakita na sa Supreme Court ning balaod na napasa, pasabot ana common authorship or as committee bill. (4) once reported out, the
gitarong ni ug pasa sa congress ug gipirmahan sa president. Ang bill shall be calendared for second reading. It is at this stage that the
Supreme Court, equal body as a rule cannot just render that law bill is read in its entirety, scrutinized, debated upon and amended
unconstitutional just because naay adjudication na wala siya na when desired. The second reading is the most important stage in the
properly pass based on their rules of procedure. Mao na ang effect. passage of a bill. (5) the bill as approved on second reading is printed
Under the Enrolled bill doctrine the signing of the bill with the in its final form and copies thereof are distributed at least three days
certification and attestation from the speaker of the house of before the third reading. On the third reading, the members merely
representatives and president of the senate and adjudication of the register their votes and explain them if they are allowed by the rules.
secretaries of both houses that it was passed in its due enactment. No further debate is allowed. (6) once the bill passes third reading, it
And in this case, it is challenging the validity of the doctrine hence is sent to the other chamber, where it will also undergo the three
there was no valid argument to depart from that rule. readings. If there are differences between the versions approved by
What about the journal? Naa puy tension ang Supreme Court diri na the two chambers, a conference committee representing both
journal wala man nag clash ang record sa enrolled bill and sa journal, Houses will draft a compromise measure that if ratified by the
the court has something to say about the journal. Insofar as the Senate and the house of representatives will then be submitted to
journal is concerned, It is conclusive on the matter as required by the president for his consideration. (7) the bill is enrolled as finally
the constitution. so naay mga matters under the constitution na approved by the Congress, thereafter, authenticated with the
dapat mabutang sa journal, so far as they are concerned conclusive signatures of the Senate President, the speaker and the secretaries
sila sa mga courts and here the journal also provides that there was of the respective chambers. And finally, ang role ni president, the
the due enactment of the law in question. this was confirmed by the final step (8) the submission to the president for approval. Once
journal of the house of representatives that this bill was duly passed. approved. It takes effect as law after the required publication.
So, enrolled bill plus gi-confirm pa jud sa journal, unsa pa ba Now, in this case, the law is valid except for this specific provision na
imuhang argument against it. The journal is conclusive as matter nagahatag ug power ang legislative oversite committee to check the
required by the constitution, with respect to the other matters and IRR. Why is that? First, this oversite committee, exercises a
absence of evidence to the contrary. The journals are conclusive in legislative veto and this legislative veto which is the power to what?
effect, these journals are memorials of the most prominent persons Veto this law pwede kaning house of committee na ni, pwede nila
in character. So, ikaw, if you have anything against the passage of ma-defeat ang effectivity ng law na ito if they would say that the IRR
this law, you have to present evidence na dili lang siya matter of is invalid. So, basically Congress is now saying na gina-veto sa
procedure na va-violate but rather provision of the constitution Congress ang law which is not within its power to do. now,
among other things but seldom ra kayo ang instance na ma-nullify legislative power is exercise by the two houses of congress; the
ang law, ma-declare na unconstitutional or null and void if ang house of representatives and the senate. And it cannot be given this
imuhang basis lang kay not following procedure especially if a ng power to legislate to a specific committee or a chamber. It is
iargue sa imuha kay ang enrolled bill theory. Naa pay isa, Farinas v. exercised by these two houses not by committee or both or either
Executive, the passage of Republic Act 9006 where it was argued house of chamber. What else? This legislative veto power violates
that there were irregularities that attended in the enactment of this the veto power of the president. Plus, the law, when it leaves
law before this law became a law. When it was a bill it was duly congress kay gipa-sign na nila sa president and the president signs it.
signed by the speaker of the house of representatives and senate It no longer has? As a general rule, any hand in the execution of the
president and attested and certified by the secretaries of both law, monitoring purposes nalang during legislative inquiries kung na-
houses and eventually gi-pirmihan ni president. Is this law void? The proper implement ba ang balaod. But insofar as other matters are
27 | P a g e
concerned Congress has no longer a hand in the implementation of any question at the request of 1/5 of the members present and the
the law. This creation of this committee composed of members of summary of proceedings. Refer to your syllabus.
Congress to determine whether this IRR is valid. Therefore, even Now, if there is a clash between the journal and the enrolled bill,
outside na siya sa Congress tagaan napud nimo siya ug power to unsa ang mag prevail? That is the case of Astorga vs Villegas.
what? Given the discretion whether to implement this or not by A case on House Bill 9266. Ang giadapt sa senate na amendment is
ruling whether this IRR is valid or invalid. That cannot be done, the kay Tolentino. Based on the journals, it does not appear that the
laws of the Congress say that nothing can be done to do with it amendments of Senator Roxas were approved. Now later on, naa
anymore. So, ang rule is that, provision that approves the na'y enrolled bill na decidan na sa President of Senate, the Speaker
implementing rules of a law after it has taken effect is of the HR, gipirmahan na pud sa ilang mga secretaries and then
unconstitutional. gipresent kay President, gipirmahan ni President ang balaod. Later
Nag-discuss pud dire ang Supreme Court about the legislative veto on, nasapasa ang balaod. pagtanaw ni Tolentino, unsay nakita niya?
which is also important. What is a legislative veto? It is a statutory The Roxas amendment was included. ana siya (Tolentino), "asa man
provision which requires the president or an administrative agency akoang extensive amendements?". So, because of this, niadto siya sa
to present the proposed IRR of a law to Congress, which by itself or SC arguing among other things that wala daw na properly passed
to a committee retains a right or a power to approve or disapprove ang law. What incident here should be taken note of? Which is very
such regulation. material to the applicability or non-applicability of the enrolled bill
Council v. Secretary, isa sa mga gigamit sa Supreme Court to doctrine? Naay gihimo diri ang isa ka person which was material to
validate the law is the enrolled bill theory, the court said here that the applicability or non-applicability of the doctrine. What did the
the law was already signed by the president, speaker of the house, senate president do? He declared his signature on the bill to be
and certified by secretaries of both houses, enrolled bill na siya. invalid and issued a subsequent clarification that the invalidation of
Those who are assailing the provisions of the bill here have failed to his signature meant that the bill he had signed had never been
convince the court to look beyond the 4 corners of the enrolled copy approved by the Senate. Does the enrolled bill theory still apply?
of the bill. NO. They argued valid ang bill, gipirmahan etc. pero dili applicable
and enrolled bill because again, what are the needed signatures of
an enrolled bill?The signing of the speaker, signature of senate
Let’s go to the JOURNALS. Do they have any probative value? As we president and the secretaries, and the certification of the secretaries.
earlier in the case of De Venecia, the journals are CONCLUSIVE on Dapat kompleto, unsa ang nawala diri? Signature of the Senate
matters that are required by the Constitution to be recorded President. Iyang gi-disown. Sayin that’s not the version of the bill
therein. And in fact, with respect to other matters in the absence of that we actually approved, therefore I am detracting my signature in
the evidence to the contrary they are also given CONCLUSIVE effect. that bill. And so since nakulangan na ang signature, dili na mag apply
US vs PONS ang enrolled bill.
Si Pons gikasuhan ug violation aning ACT 2381. Ang iyang arguement So unsa naman karon ang gamiton sa SC as basis to determine WON
was this law was never validly enacted because makita nimo sa this law was validly passed or not? The court resorted to the
balaod itself na it was passed on the 28th day of February and that legislative journals. What did the journals revealed in this case?
was the last day of the session of the Congress. Naa siyay evidence Journal discloses that substantial ang lengthy amendments that
based on the journals, other extraneous evidence na ang law was were introduced but were not incorporated in printed text, so
passed not on Feb 28, katong last day sa session sa Congress, but on therefore wala jud na validly passed ang laws. Mao ni ang isa ka case
March 1. Therefore, since gipasa siya na dili na in session ang na dili applicable ang enrolled bill because there is no enrolled bill to
Congress, this law is VOID. Therefore, he should not be held speak of. So the court had to resort to the journals to determine
criminally liable. Can PONS take judicial notice of legislative journals? WON tama ba ning ginaingon ni Tolentino. In fact, he was validated,
Apparently, based on the journals of Congress in this case, naay mga katong iyang mga amendments na giapprove wala nag appear sa bill.
deliberations. Based on those on deliberations, nakita sa Supreme Because of this, naay violations. The court cannot rely anymore to
Court na ang last date sa deliberations sa Congress na naapil ning the enrolled bill theory. Wala na validly passed ang law based on the
balaoda was February 28. So unsa ang basis na gigamit ni accused in proper procedure and had to nullify the same because of that.
this case? Some other evidence, mga chika siguro outside or [FIELD vs CLARK]
whatever which are beyond journals. The US Supreme Court held that it is not competent, for those who
Can courts take judicial notice of these journals? YES. The result is are challenging validity of this law, to show the journals that the
that the law and the adjudicated case make it the duty of the courts enrolled bill contained a section that does not appear in the enrolled
to take judicial notice of journals. In this case, the journals are not act. In other words, US Supreme Court is saying that kung
ambiguous or contradictory as to the actual time of the inconsistent ang journal vis a vis the enrolled bill; enrolled bill will
adjournment. They showed the absolute certainty that the prevail.
legislature adjourned on Feb 28, 1914 and that the law was passed Here, it is alleged that this enrolled act, the bill signed by the
on that day. Therefore, katong argument ni PONS diri na gipasa daw President which became law, was missing a section 30 based on
ang balaod on March 1 will have to what? ang iyang kalaban kay Congressional Record Proceedings, Reports of Committees of each
katong entries of journal na napasa siya on Feb 28. You cannot rebut houses, Reports of Committees on Conferences and other papers
that with any other evidence. klaro ang journal eh. From the very printed by authority of the Congress. Based on these papers, kani
nature and object, the records of the legislature are as important as daw na balaod na missing ang section 30, because of this missing
those of the judiciary. And to inquire to the veracity of the journals provision, the law is invalid. The court said that the copy of the bill
of Philippine Legislature when they are clear and explicit, would be and the signatures of the presiding officers of the two houses of
to violate the spirit of the Constitution of the Philippines. And legislature and approval by the president, is conclusive proof of the
legislative records are generally unimpeachable. enactment and contents of a statue, and could not be contradicted
What are the matters that are required to be entered in the journal? by the legislative journals or in any other mode.
YAES and NAYS on the third and final reading of the bill under Article The court here discussed the concept of the enrolled bill theory. as
6, section 26, par. 2. VETO Message of the President, Yeas and Nays the president has no authority to approve a bill not passed by
on the re-passing of a bill vetoed by the president,yeas and nays on congress, an enrolled act in the custody of the secretary of state, and
28 | P a g e
having the official attestations of the speaker of the house, of the Pwede ra pud bawion sa President. What if the Cabinet believe that
president of senate, and of the president of the US, carries on its face the President cannot be able to discharge his duties? So, pwede sila
a solemn assurance by the legislative and executive departments of magsulat sa Congress nga the President is no longer able to do that.
the government that the law was passed by congress.
Why is this enrolled bill theory so persuasive? pag naay issue on the For better appreciation of this, let us discuss the provision. Kindly
validity of a law vis a vis its passage na naay arguement sa enrolled read this provision, Geronga. Article 7 Sec 11:
bill, tagaan man jud ug weight ning enrolled bill? Almost conclusive “Whenever the President transmits to the President of the Senate
ang effect if there is an allegation. WHY? because to rule otherwise, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written
to not believe the enrolled bill theory, will suggest a deliberate declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of
conspiracy to which the presiding officers, the committees on his office and until he transmits to them a written declaration to
enrolled bills and the clerks of the two houses that ilahang gi- the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the
deliberately manipulate ang katong balaod. kaning mga tawhana Vice President as Acting President.”
ang nipirma, kung di ka mutuo ani na enrolled bill, you would be
suggesting thatthe people, after the bill was presented to these So that paragraph is very simple to understand. If the President, naa
signatories, na ilaha jud gi deliberately exclude tong mga provisions syay cancer, di nya mafulfill ang duties, pwede sya magsulat. Asa sya
na gi-alter nilang upat (4) and approved by the president. That is a magsulat? Magsulat sya ihatag niya sa President of the Senate and
very remote situation which is i-consider nimo, lisod siya katuohan. the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Vice President
That is why the enrolled bill is persuasive on the courts. will now act as the President.
(4) Journal Entry Rule vs Enrolled Bill Theory
Now, what if the President is in denial? Sakit na kaayo iyang lawas
[PHIL. JUDGES ASSN. vs PRADO] kay naa syay cancer. Nagpresscon gihapon sya, naka-dextrose para
ingnon nga nagatrabaho etc. and then pero ang iyang members of
Naa daw mga provisions in the law challenged here na was not the cabinet know that he is ailing. What can they do? What should
included in the original version of the senate bill. Then, of course, they do? Second paragraph:
this law should be declared invalid. The Court said that under the “Whenever a majority of all the Members of the Cabinet
enrolled bill doctrine, kung unsa man ang nakita nimo sa balaod and transmit to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the
signed by the President, kaning bill na napirmahan sa House Speaker House of Representatives their written declaration that the
pati sa President of the Senate we believe that these are the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,
contents of the law as signed by the President. Walay gitanggal, gi- the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties
modify, gi-palit. Congress also keeps its own records. Now Congress, of the office as Acting President.”
kato ang discussion nato on the journals of Congress, the vis-à-vis
Enrolled Bill Theory. So what do the Members of the Cabinet do? Why are they given
such power in the Constitution?
e. Sessions Answer: These members of the cabinet are the people closest to the
President. They are handpicked by the President so they know his
Now let’s go to the Sessions of Congress. Unsa ang mga types of condition. If they think that the president is unable to discharge,
sessions. Naa tay mga gina ingon nga Regular session under Art. 6 they can write the Speaker as well as the President of the Senate of
Sec. 15: this circumstance.
“The Congress shall convene once every year on the
fourth Monday of July for its regular session, unless a different date And thereafter, the VP shall become president?
is fixed by law and shall continue to be in session for such number Answer: No. Shall assume the powers and duties as Acting President.
of days as it may determine until thirty days before the opening of
its next regular session, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal And then, what can the President do to remove this
holidays.” pronouncement/written declaration of his Cabinet members?
Answer: Art. 7 Section 11 par. 3. He will also write to the President
Now what are the special sessions? Naay mga provisions in the of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives that
Constitution. Katong ganina. Art. 6 Sec. 15: he is able to discharge.
“The President may call a special session at any time.”
Nganong naa may ing-ana atong President? Nganong ma-override
What else? Art. 7 Secs. 10-11: man niya ang Cabinet members?
“The Congress shall, at ten o’clock in the morning of the Answer: It’s because they are merely representatives of the Chief
third day after the vacancy in the offices of the President and Vice Executive. They can be supplanted by this person. By doing so,
President occurs, convene in accordance with its rules without need magsubmit sya “I can do my job.” He will then re assume.
of a call and within seven day,s enact a law calling for a special
election to elect a President and a Vice President to be held not Then what can the members do with regard to the hard-headedness
earlier than forty-five days nor later than sixty days from the time of the President?
of such call.” Answer: So naa pud silay ilahang counter-statement. So karon
“Whenever the President transmits to the President of contested na ang issue because the President says he can do it and
the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his the members of the Cabinet say he cannot do it.
written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and
duties of his office and until he transmits to them a written Who decides the issue? How? How many votes are needed?
declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be Answer: The Congress. 2/3 vote of both Houses, voting separately,
discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.” that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of
his office. If they cannot get that number? They deliberate on that
issue kung contested gihapon sya.
29 | P a g e
And gi-emphasize nato tung instance nga voting jointly, the martial
What else? Naa puy provisions dire that call for a special session law.
among others as discussed in Padilla. Unsa tong instance? Relating
to the proclamation of martial law. What is the role of Congress [PADILLA vs CONGRESS]
there?
Remember this case katong naay question nga wala daw nag
So unsa ang required nga manner of voting and the number of votes convene in a joint session ang both Houses to determine whether or
required by the Congress? not to revoke or to extend Martial law which is contrary daw to the
Answer: May revoke the proclamation or suspension with majority provisions of Art. 7 Section 18. Ang position ni Padilla et al was that
votes by all its members, voting jointly, in a regular or special mandatory ang Congress in a joint session to revoke the martial law
session. or to extend it. That is stated in Art. 7 section :
“The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a
Take note: This is the only provision in the Constitution nga niingon majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may
nga ang voting sa Congress is joint. Joint session, joint ang voting. revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not
So katong 24 add lang to sya kung pila kabuok atong representatives be set aside by the President.”
unya dira madetermine ang majority. That is the only provision that
requires that. So the absence of any provision, we can reduce Because of that provision, mandatory daw. Duty nila to have that
therefore the other instances na magvote ang Congress on a specific joint session to determine whether to revoke or extend. Is there a
matter, they vote separately. As separate houses considering that duty imposed by that provision? NO. Congress to vote jointly is
we are a bicameral form of government. explicit only to situation when the Congress revokes the
proclamation of Martial law and the suspension of writ of habeas
Basically, naa tay regular and special sessions. Regular, when corpus. They can vote jointly if they want to extend martial law with
th
Congress convenes every year, 4 Monday of July unless otherwise the initative of the President. But nowhere in the provisions does it
provided by law until 30 days from the start of the new regular require them to convene at all time when the President declares
session. Special, called by the President anytime due to vacancy of Martial Law and suspend the writ of habeas corpus. The provision
the offices of both the President and the Vice President. Also, to only requires them to vote jointly on the revocation or suspension of
decide on the disability of the President because majority of all the the suspension. There is no obligation on the part of Congress to
members of his Cabinet assert that he can no longer perform his convene a joint session. The separate houses already concur for the
duties, revoke or extend the proclamation of martial law and the extension of the declaration of martial law.
suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.
Now let’s go to discipline of members, naa na tay nadiscuss ani
Naa pud tay sessions nga joint. And these sessions nga joint and before. Under Art. 6 Section 16(3):
voting separately. What are these? Choosing the President in case of “Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings,
a tie. Determining the President’s disability. Confirming the Vice punish its Members for disorderly behavior, and, with the
President. Declaring the existence of war. Propose constitutional concurrence of 2/3 of all its Members, suspend or expel a
amendments. And naa tay mga joint sessions, and naa tay isa ka Member.”
joint session nga ang vote is joint and that is martial law.
[ALEJANDRINO vs QUEZON]
So in your syllabus makita ninyo tung instances na voting separately,
choosing the President, mao ning tie. The person having the highest Kani sya, he was, by declaration of the Senate, this Senator was
number of votes, nag elect ug president then nagka tie for some deprived with all the prerogatives, privileges and emoluments of his
miraculous reason, the person having the highest number of votes office. So he went to the Supreme Court, by way of mandamus, to
shall be declared the winner. But in case two or more shall have an compel Senate to rule otherwise. Can he do that? The Court said
equal highest number of votes, one of them shall be chosen by vote that the general rule of mandamus is that it will not issue, in this
of majority of both House of Representatives and Senate voting case, the SC to command the Senate for the obvious reason that
separately. neither is inferior to the other. Mandamus [inaudible] against that
legislative body to compel the performance of its duties is purely
As we discussed earlier, determining the President’s temporary legislative in character and of which it has exclusive control. And
disability. Confirming the nomination of the Vice President. How what body therefore is responsible exclusively to penalize its
does it happen? When there is vacancy, in the office of the Vice members? The Senate itself. Either House of Congress may punish a
President like Erap, na-impeach sya and he was resigned from his member for his or her orderly behavior.
position, the President shall nominate a Vice President among the
members of the Senate and the House of Representatives. GMA [OSMENA vs PENDATUN]
chose Guingona who shall assume his office upon confirmation by a
majority vote of all members of both Houses of the Congress voting Tung nagprivilege speech sya tapos gi-imbestigahan sya, when we
separately. discuss the parliamentary immunity. Gi-investigate sya by the House
na asa sya nagabelong. And gusto nya irestrain na ang proceedings
Declaration of a state of war. Congress by a vote of 2/3 in joint to reverse that House Resolution calling for investigation on his
session voting separately shall have the power to declare the statement of assets and liabilities. Can this be nullified by the court?
existence of a state of war. I-declare lang nila na naay war, not to NO. And they could not invoke parliamentary immunity because
engage in war. these Members of the respective Houses are subject to their own
disciplinary proceedings.
Also in amending the constitution, Congress may porpose
amendements upon ¾ vote of its members voting separately. [SANTIAGO vs SANDIGANBAYAN]
30 | P a g e
This is a different case because karon naa nay intervention by an
external party which is a Court. Why? Santiago, gi-file an syag kaso
Anti-Graft case before the Sandiganbayan in violation of RA 3019 This paragraph is very important. SOLE JUDGE, basta
and so eventually she was still, at that time, a member of the ang issues relates to contests relating to ERQ or Elections, Returns,
Commission of Immigration and Deportation.Gi file an syag kaso and Qualifications. Remember the previous cases. Citizenship is a
then it ripened into a case before the Sandiganbayan. Now, the continuing requirement. Pag elected naka, you will assume office as
mean time na elect sya as Senator of the Philippines. The case is now a member of Congress, kinsa ang naay "sole judge", jurisdiction? SET
pending in the Sandiganbayan, it is a special anti-graft case. And it or HRET.
issued a 90-day preventive suspension against Senator Santiago. So
iserve na karona ng preventive suspension by the directive of this Does Supreme Court have jurisdiction to resolve these issues? NO.
court. Santiago argues that Sandiganbayan has no power to NOT in the FIRST INSTANCE. dapat muagi ka aning HRET or SET when
preventively suspend her because the only body that can discipline it involves ERQ kay sole judge siya. In fact, if you file the case directly
her kay ang Senate and not the Courts. She claims that there is an to the supreme court, i-dismiss na because it has no jurisdiction.
issue of separation of powers here. Dapat dili mag interfere ang
court karon nga senator na sya. The Court said that there is no issue What is the Composition? both of these tribunals (SET&HRET) has 9
on separation of powers. The doctrine of separation of powers may members; 3 Justices of Supreme Court, remaining 6 members of the
not be effectively exclude members of the Congress for the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case may be, who
applicability of RA 3019 from its sanctions. Also, preventive shall be chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the
suspension is distinct from the penalty of suspension nga political parties and the parties or organizations registered under the
maimpose by the Senate itself. In fact, preventive suspension is not party-list system represented therein.
even a penalty. Lahi ang nature nila duha. RA 3019 does not Unsa ang basis sa 6 members? based on proportional
exclude members of Congress and that, therefore, the representation from political parties. Mag-ihap na sila kung unsa
Sandiganbayan did not err in decreeing this preventive suspension ang proportion ani na party, mao pud ang sa uban. pila kabuok ang
order. The law does not state that the public officer must be members sa inyuhang party, divided by all the members, multiply
suspended only in the office wherein he was allegedly charged. So kung pila to ka-seats.
wala sya na insulate sa provisions of RA 3019 just because she’s
now a senator. Considering that the Sandiganbayan issued an Section 19, Art. VI:
order, it should bind her as well. The Electoral Tribunals and the Commission on Appointments shall
be constituted within thirty days after the Senate and the House of
[TRILLANES vs CASTILLO-MARIGOMEN] Representatives shall have been organized with the election of the
President and the Speaker. The Commission on Appointments shall
Not really on the matter of disciplining members of Senate, but meet only while the Congress is in session, at the call of its Chairman
rather on wrong invocation of parliamentary immunity. Considering or a majority of all its Members, to discharge such powers and
that iyang statements gihimo niya functions as are herein conferred upon it.
during media interviews, outside legislative sessions, all his
statements therefore are not covered by parliamentary immunity. Now, these tribunals, as we said earlier are the SOLE JUDGES of all
contests relating to Election Returns and they should maintain their
Now, let's go to the Electoral Tribunals. In the course of our what? Unsa ilang characteristic because they are the sole judge?
discussions before, namention na nato ni especially in Citizenship. kung judge ka, you should be? You should be INDEPENDENT.
Kaning mga HRET, SET, diba? now let's go to them, extensively. Therefore, dili ka mag tuo-tuo. For example, there is a ruling in the
COMELEC and then naging issue siya before the HRET. You cannot
Where can we found the Electoral Tribunals in so far as Congress is say just because the COMELEC ruled in this manner, that it is binding
concerned? unsa ang mga electoral tribunals na naga govern sa before the HRET. NO, because it (electoral tribunal) should be
atong members of Congress? INDEPENDENT.
Meaning of Sole Judge - Contests only applies when somebody is
Electoral Tribunals: already PROCLAIMED.
-House of Representative Electoral Tribunal One of the very important requirement na dapat nato i-take into
-Senate Electoral Tribunal consideration. When there is an issue whether or not kinsa ang naay
jurisdiction over a contest, is it must relate already to a member of
HRET is found in Article VI, Section 17 & Section 19. the house/senate. kay ug dili pa ka member ana, you will not be
under the jurisdiction of either of these two electoral tribunals.
Section 17, Art. VI:
The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an
Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests ---end 1:44:00 – for the next, start onwards states time--- (refer to
relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective guide case below)
Members. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of nine
Members, three of whom shall be Justices of the Supreme Court to be Barbers vs. Comelec
designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six shall be Dan: the Comelec seating as a national board of canvassers,
th
Members of the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case proclaimed diazon as a duly elected 12 senator in the 2004
may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional elections. Diazon has already assumed the office and Barbers who
representation from the political parties and the parties or ranked next to Diazon filed a petition before the Comelec to annul
organizations registered under the party-list system represented his proclamation.
therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Q: so naa na tay member, nag assume na siya ani na office, unsa ni
Chairman. siya nga body? Senate or House of Representatives?
A: Senate.
31 | P a g e
Q: so senator na siya, nag assume na siya sa iyang duties, and then Q: In this case, what happened? Naka daog na ba siya? Nilingkod na
iyang kalaban asa niadto? Gusto niya ipa? ba siya?
A: annul his proclamation A: Yes. So that is why the HRET has the jurisdiction over the issue.
Q: where did he file his petition?
A: Comelec LAYUG vs. COMELEC
Q: what did the Supreme Court said? We discussed this case already. If the HRET has jurisdiction anent
A: NO. it is not the Comelec who has the Jurisdiction but the Senate this issue, Layug questioned and filed a petition to disqualify this
Electoral Tribunal. It is the SET which has the Jurisdiction over this partylist for participating in the partylist system elections. According
case considering that it involves the election, the turn of to him, this partylist is an extension of a religious organization plus
qualification. So ang SET dili ang COMELEC. gi-challenge pud niya ang nomination ni Bro. Mike. Asa niya gi-file
Fernandez vs. HRET iyang kaso? Before the COMELEC. Later on, nakadaug ning partylist,
th
Vicente sought the cancellation of Ferandez’s COC as the pero wala nilingkod as representative si Bro. Mike because ika-5
st
representative of 1 district of laguna on the ground that naa daw sya na nominee. Pila gani ang makalingkod sa seat? 3. So wala jud
st
siya material Misrepresentation regarding his residence. The sya nakalingkod unless mamatay tung 1 3. So ang question is kinsa
Comelec dismissed the claim for lack of merit. Eventually, this ang nay jurisdiction over the qualification of this partylist to
Fernandez was proclaimed as the duly elected member of the House participate in the partylist system? Is it HRET, kay nakadaog ning
st
of Representatives representing the 1 district of Laguna. Later on, partylist? Or COMELEC? The Court said it is the COMELEC. Dili ni sya
because of this proclamation, the kalaban filed a petition before the pwede ma transfer ang issue sa HRET since wala man ni nag-involve
th
HRET praying for the declaration of ineligibility of Fernandez. And nga representative. Bro. Mike as the 5 nominee, not being a
this was granted by the HRET and they disqualified Fernandez. member of the house of representatives, so there is no member
Fernandez challenged the decision arguing that the HRET should calling the application of the jurisdiction of HRET regarding the
have been guided or cautioned by the COMELEC’s prior decision qualification of this person and the qualification of the partylist.
where ang COMELEC nag-ingon he was already adjudged as qualified JALOSJOS vs COMELEC
to run for the position of congressman. In other words he was saying Jalosjos ran for mayor and won. He bought a house in that locality.
that mali ka HRET ang COMELEC oh before ko na proclaim, naa nay Later on, hapit na mahuman iyahang term limit. He wanted to run
nd
declaration ang COMELEC na I am qualified to run. So ikaw HRET you for another office, so he filed his COC as representative of the 2
should be bound by that proclamation by the COMELEC. Is the HRET district of Zamboanga Sibugay in the national elections. This
bound by that determination by the COMELEC? NO. Why? Because it prompted an opponent, Irasmo filed a petition to deny or cancel the
is the sole the judge of all contest relating to election returns and COC before the COMELEC because this Jalosjos only established his
qualifications of their respective members. The authority given to residence only to be able to run for office as representative in this
this electoral tribunal is full, clear and complete. The word sole locality. The COMELEC eventually declared Jalosjos to be ineligible to
emphasizes the exclusivity of the jurisdiction of these tribunals seek election. However, the Court said that although the
which is conferred upon the HRET and SET after the elections and Constitution vests to the COMELEC the power to decide on
proclamation as well as clarified by the court later, dapat pag questions affecting the elections, returns, and qualifications of
assume na ka sa office and you become member of the House of candidates, wala na syay jurisdiction when we are talking about
Representatives and the Senate. members of Senate and HOR. The moment that representative is
Abayon vs. HRET already proclaimed as a winner ansd assumes office as a member of
Q: What Happened in this Case? either house, it is the respective electoral tribunal who will assume
A: (answer is inaudible but closer to this) petitioner Daryl Grace J. jurisdiction regarding his election return or qualification. Here, with
Abayon is the first nominee of the Aangat Tayo party-list the fact that his proclamation and assumption of office, any issue
organization and Jovito S. Palparan, Jr. is the first nominee of the regarding disqualification will be decided solely by the HRET.
Bantay party-list group won a seat in the 2007 elections for the ATONG PAGLAUM vs COMELEC
members of the House of Representatives. COMELEC disqualified 39 partylists under the partylist system on the
Q: this involves what type of representatives? ground, among others, that it failed to comply with the
A: Party-list Representative requirements in the partylist system law. As well as the previous
Q: so karon naka daog ni iyang party-list, and since siya ang first case, Ang Bagong Bayani vs Comelec. What body has jurisdiction
nominee, nilingkod na siya karon sa House of Representatives as a over the qualification of partylists? The COMELEC.
party-list representative. Karon gi challenge before the Comelec ang
status kaning iyang party-list because it is not qualified daw among REYES vs COMELEC
other things and accordingly kani pud daw ilang mga nominees wala On May 14, 2014 the COMELEC cancelled the COC of Reyes. For this,
pud daw qualification and they are also disqualified. Is there thereafter, she was proclaimed winner in the May 2013 elections.
distinction between a member of the House of Representatives On June 5, the COMELEC issued a certificate of finality that her COC
sitting as a district representative and a member who is sitting as is cancelled. On the same day, she took her oath of office before the
party-list representative insofar as the jurisdiction of the HRET over speaker of the HOR. Now, she challenged the ruling of the COMELEC
them is concerned? Naa bay distinction na kung party-list that considering na na-proclaim na, dili na dapat ang COMELEC ang
representative ka kani ang mag hear sa imong kaso. Pag district nay power to rule that she is disqualified, rather, it should be the
representative ka, kani ang mag hear sa imong kaso regarding your HRET. Daog na sya eh. Is she correct? NO. Why? Because she is yet
qualifications, elections, and returns. Is there any distinction? to assume her office as a member of the HOR. Kanus-a ma
determine unsa ang date nga dapat mag-assume na kag office? It’s
A: None on the noon of June 30, 2013. In other words, katong nagging final
Q: why is there no distinction? ang decision sa iya, wala pa sya nagging member. In fact ang
A: Nominees of the Party-list are also members of the House of decision sa COMELEC cancelling her COC became final and executory
Representatives. Hence, they are accorded with the same rights and before this date. Therefore, kinsa ang naay jurisdiction, is it the
privileges that the district representatives enjoy. Also, they are COMELEC? Or HRET? The jurisdiction remains with the
subject to the Jurisdiction of the HRET. COMELEC.Because she was never considered a member of the
32 | P a g e
HOR. When is a candidate considered a member of the HOR? In disposed of her lack of the requirements to hold the position.
previous decisions, once a member proclaimed, taken his oath and Therefore, she could not be a member of the House of
assumed office, he is already considered as a member of the HOR. Representatives. Kay not only did she lack the... katong mga valid
Here, what are the requirements? There must be concurrence of the proclamation, wala pa pud siya nag-assume og office. Because she
following: (1) valid proclamation; (2) proper oath; (3) assumption of would not assume it, considering that there was not valid
office. Here she cannot be considered a member of the HOR proclamation.
because she has yet to assume her office. Wala pa naabot ang June
30, natanggal na sya therefore she cannot say that she is a member Composition
of the HOR. We have the case of Tanada vs. COMELEC.
Si Tanada here, nagka-issue sila as to who should be the
representative of this local government unit. Tanada, Tan... duha ni
Constitutional Law I ka Tanada ang nag-dagan diri - Wigberto, Angelina Tan, and Alvin
August 17, 2019 1:14:11 John Tanada. Now, Wigberto wanted this Alvin John Tanada
Mancao, Madrazo, Geronga declared as a nuisance candidate kay kung ma-declare ni siya as
nuisance candidate... unsa diay iyang purpose nganong Tanada man
ang apelyido sa iyang kalaban? Para ma-mislead ang mga voters nga
--------------------------------Mancao-------------------------------- thinking they would be voting for the other Tanada na mag-vote sila
So, I would like to emphasize - nag-start na ta last meeting with the aning isa ka Tanada. So, he wants this Alvin John Tanada declared as
case of Reyes vs. COMELEC and I would to emphasize these cases a nuisance candidate para ang votes na maadto kang Alvin Tanada
because these cases deviate from standing pronouncement by the would be credited to him added that to the latter having been
Court. Correct me if I am wrong, if this has been reversed, but kani declared as a nuisance candidate. So, mao to iyang gihimo nag-file
pa ang standing ruling. This case of Reyes vs. COMELEC as to when siya sa COMELEC og inato na kaso. Later on, nakadaog to ilang
the jurisdiction of the House of Representative Electoral Tribunal or kalaban instead of katong duha ka Tanada. Si Tan ang ning-prevail as
Senate Electoral Tribunal would begin. The Court emphasized here winner. Now, the case before the COMELEC was eventually decided
na mag-start siya... diba ang kailangan is that there must be a valid in favor of... well the Court said here that Court had no jurisdiction
proclamation; a proper oath; and assumption of office. But under over his petition which involves the returns of a proclaimed member
the Constitution these officials - elective officials only start their of the House of Representatives because at the end of the day it
office on June 30. So, dira pa mag-start daw ang jurisdiction sa HRET would be touching on the election of this Tan. All matters affecting
og sa SET. the validity of this person's title along with the returns, refering to
the canvass of the returns of the proclamation of the winners would
What happens if nag-file na ka sa COMELEC and then in the be the jurisdiction of the HRET. Kani nga case would be connected to
meantime mag-take effect ning tulo ka requirements: proclamation; a later case kay because of this case nag-ingon ang Court na it should
oath; assumption of office? be the HRET that should decide on the issue of the election of this
Tan kay naka-daog na siya. And so following this ruling of the Court,
Then, that would be a supervening event that should prompt the ni-file na si Tanada og kaso before the HRET. We will encounter that
parties to transfer the issue to the HRET or the SET, kung asa na case later.
applicable tribunal because kani na mga tribunals na ni ang naay sole
jurisdiction on the qualifications, returns, and elections of our Remember that case of Lico vs. COMELEC, katong gikasohan ning
elective members of Congress. So, here take note nga Reyes, iyang member sa isa ka partylist group before the COMELEC. And the
CoC was cancelled on May 14, 2013, and on May 18 she was COMELEC said na valid iyang expulsion that it could not remove this
proclaimed winner. But on June 5 naging final and executory tong person from the House of Representatives kay member na man siya.
decision cancelling her CoC. Now, she took her oath of office before Ana ang Supreme Court na that part of the COMELEC should also
the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Ang iyahang kalaban have stayed its hand in ruling the qualification of this person
karon nag-libog kung asa mag-file og kaso. Sa COMELEC o sa HRET? because this person is already a member of the House of
Reyes' argument was that the appropriate tribunal should - it should Representatives and therefore it is the HRET that has jurisdiction
be the HRET because gi-proclaim na siya, nakadaog na siya, and then over his qualification. The Court found without legal basis the
nag-assume na siya og office. COMELEC's upholding of the validity of the expulsion of this Lico
from the partylist despite its own ruling that the HRET has
But the Court said that it is not the HRET that has jurisdiction over jurisdiction over the disqualification issue because, again, this
her. Why? Becuase she cannot be considered a member of the touches on a continuing qualification of a member of the House of
House of Representatives because she has not yet assumed office. Representatives.
Take note however of the dissenting opinion of the justices here, Velasco vs. Belmonte. Continuation ni siya sa katong Reyes case
particularly the dissent of Justice Carpio na in the previous ganina. Diba nag-insist siya, natanggal na siya throught the
jurisprudence ang reckoning point as to when a winning candidate COMELEC, she insists that the HRET has jurisdiction over her removal
should be under the jurisdiction of the HRET when he or she wins, is from the office. And the COMELEC already declared cancelled her
when he or she is duly proclaimed. Proclamation sa una ang CoC but she insisted na HRET ang naay jurisdiction. And the Court
reckoning point as to HRET na ba or SET ang naay jurisdiction. But said that it is not the HRET that has jurisdiction. Despite that
here deviated from that and said na it should be June 30 kung kanus- decision by the Supreme Court wala gihapon gi-declare iyang
a siya mag-assume og office. So, this is the standing rule right now. kalaban - Velasco as the winner by the House of Representatives.
In the motion for reconsideration of the case, the Court emphasized This prompted Velasco to go to the Supreme Court to force Congress
that ang katong tulo ka requirements: valid proclamation, oath, and to command it by way of mandamus to declare him and have him
assumption of office - the Court even emphasized that there was no take his oath of office as the winning candidate of this locality as the
valid proclamation in the first place because na-cancel na iyang CoC Representative thereof. Can the Court do that? Can the Court direct
prior to her assumption of office. Her proclamation was baseless. Congress to declare this person as the winner? To have him take his
Why? Before the proclamation COMELEC En Banc had finally oath of office? Yes, because the Court said that there is no issue
33 | P a g e
anymore on this Reyes. Long decided na iyang kaso na disqualified petition to declare... gi-continue niya iyang crusade, not against Tan,
siya per (inaudible 10:56) kay di na siya makaadto sa HRET because but Tanada to have that person declared as a nuisance candidate.
she is not a member in the first place. What is stopping Congress Kay mas dali siguro siya na-remedy for him na ma-declare, kay na-
from hailing the other party as the winner? Nganong naga-insist man declare na siya sa COMELEC before eh na nuisance candidate. Gusto
mo kay Reyes as the winner? The Court here commanded the niya ipadayon sa HRET, because naay prior funding and probably he
Speaker of the House of Representatives - compelled him to could win easier with that issue filed before the HRET. So, gipadayon
administer the oath of the right representative here who is Velasco. to niya iyang case before the HRET ka na-delcare na man si Reyes
Can this be done? Does this violate the separation of powers of (Tan?) as representative. Gi-padayon to niya iyang pagpa-declare
these institutions? No, because this is already a duty. Naa nay final aning other candidate as nuisance candidate, ang effect, again, as
and executory decision sa Supreme Court, all they have to do is we said earlier ang votes na gihatag atong nuisance candidate would
obey the same. By not doing what they are duty-bound to do, be given to the person nga gi-samok atong nuisance candidate. Now,
mandamus will apply. the HRET said that it did not have the jurisdiction to rule on whether
or not this other Tanada is a nuisance candidate. So, this prompted
Ty-Delgado vs. HRET. Si Pechay, he was already convicted of libel Tanada to go to the Supreme Court assailing this ruling. The Court
and that offense naa siyay characteristic of being a crime involving said that the HRET did not commit a grave abuse of discretion, tama
moral turpitude. Now, if you are convicted of an offense that in other words, ang gihimo sa HRET to declare that it did not have
involves a crime involving moral turpitude you are as a rule jurisdiction over this petition to declare this person as a nuisance
disqualified from running for public office. Nevertheless, nidagan candidate. But is it not in the previous case ni-ingon ang Supreme
gihapon si Pechay, nakadaog siya. He was proclaimed as a duly Court that the HRET has jurisdiction? The Court said ang gi-ingon sa
elected member of the House of Representatives of the First previous case sa Supreme Court is that the HRET has a juridiscition
Legislative District of Surigao del Sur. On May 31... So, na-proclaim over the election of Tan, not the declaration of this other Tanada as
na siya as winner by this provincial board of canvassers. On May 31, a nuisance candidate. So, that's how the Supreme Court skirted that
2013, the opponent here filed a petition of quo warranto before the issue. What about the jurisdiction of the HRET? The HRET did not
HRET ad cautelam - with caution, basig mali siya nag-file siya daan commit a grave abuse of discretion when it declared that it had no
with reservation na siya. As alleging that this Pechay is ineligible to jurisdiction to declare whether the other Tanada was a nuisance
serve as a member of the Houser of Representative. Now, before candidate as things stand the COMELEC En Banc ruling on Alvin
siya nag-file atong kaso before the HRET. Naa na pud siyay pending John's candidacy has long become final and executory. Kay kung gi-
case before the COMELEC. Naa na tong petition for disqualification blame ni Tanada na ang Supreme Court ang ni-ingon na dapat HRET
didto. Diba na-proclaim na man si Pechay? So, nag-file pud siya og ang naay jurisdiction, ni-ana ang Supreme Court na we directed him
petition ad cautelam respecting na naa pud siyay pending na to the HRET to question the conduct of the canvass of Tan's
petition sa COMELEC nag-file siya karon sa HRET. Now, the COMELEC proclamation, not the nuisance candidacy of the other Tanada.
in the case filed before it, dismissed the petition for disqualification
against Pechay for lack of jurisdiction. And, the HRET in its katong Rivera vs. COMELEC involves declaration of partylist nominees to be
case pending before it held that it had jurisdiction over the present winners... to sit in the House of Representatives. There was this
quo warranto. Nevertheless, ang ruling sa HRET kay Pechay's petition for quo warranto filed by CIBAC against its own national
conviction of Libel did not involve a crime involving moral turpitude. council in the COMELEC. In the meantime, gi-swear na ning mga
So, he was not disqualified. So, this person, Ty-Delgado, went to the nominees by the Speaker of the House and they assume the office.
Supreme Court asserting that finding by the HRET. The Court here, So, they filed a petition for quo warranto before the Supreme Court
for our information, held that libel is one of the crimes that involve to have those people removed from office. The Court said once a
moral turpitude. But what about the jurisdiction of the HRET here? winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and
The Court said that we are talking about a qualification of a member assumed office as member of the House of Representatives even if
of the House of Representatives. Dili ba dapat ang HRET ang nag- you are a partylist nominee the jurisdiction over those issues will
decide ato na case? The Court said that nag-decide na ang HRET now be fly before the HRET, no longer before the Supreme Court.
saying that he is not disqualified because this title is not an offense Hulaton sa nimo mag-decide tong HRET, before ka musaka sa
involves moral turpitude. So, the Court said that even if this entity Supreme Court.
has sole jurisdiction to rule on the election, returns, and
qualifications of a member of this House of Representatives it can This case of Abayon vs. HRET, nag-declare, nag-file og election
review its decision under its expanded power of judicial review protest ning kalaban and gi-declare sa HRET na naay failure of
because there is commission of grave abuse of discretion which the elections. And it is the argument of the losing party that the HRET
Court found the HRET committed here. The HRET committed grave has no jurisdiction to declare a failure of elections, only the
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisidiction COMELEC can do that. Does the nature of that jurisdiction to annul
having failed to disqualify Pechay for his conviction for libel. So, mao the election in the precints here on the ground of terrorism? The
na imong next step. Just because napildi ka sa does not mean na it said that yes. Why? The power of the HRET to annul the elections
cannot be - no longer have any remedy. So, pwede pa ka muadto sa differs from the power granted to the COMELEC to declare failure of
Supreme Court alleging against grave abuse of discretion. And that elections. The Constitution no less grants the HRET wtih exclusive
what has happened here. Nag-commit og grave abuse of discretion jurisdiction to decide all election contests relating to members of the
ang HRET when it failed to disqualify Pechay prompting the Supreme House of Representatives which necessarily includes those which
Court to hold such grave abuse of discretion as a (inaudible 15:05). raise the issue of fraud, terrorism, and other irregularities
And the Court here declared Ty-Delgado as the winner. committed during or after the elections, otherwise, it would
undermine its constitutional power to decide the election contest.
Katong gi-mention nato na case ganiha involving Tanada and Tan. The phrase "election, returns and qualifications" should be
So, this is a continuation Tanada vs. HRET (2016), ga-ingon ang interpreted in its totality as referring to all matters affecting the
Supreme Court didto na you should have filed your petition now validity of the contestee' s title.Consequently, the annulment of
before the HRET kay na-declare na man si Tan as winner. Follwing election results is but a power concomitant to the HRET' s
that instruction by the Court, nag-file si Tanada karon sa iyahang constitutional mandate to determine the validity of the contestee' s
34 | P a g e
title. And thereofore the HRET may annul the election returns in its interfered asserting that it had the judicial supremacy by that we
determination for terrorism, and all other electoral irregularities mean that it has the power to interpret the provisions of the
existed to warrant the annulment. So, the HRET found na nay Constitution and determine whether the acts of the complaining
terrorism, so gi-annul ang pagka-proclaim atong person. What about party are consistent with the provisions of the Constitution. The
the COMELEC's power under RA 7166? The Court said that the Court emphasized here that although the Constitution provides that
passage of this law cannot deprive the HRET of its incidental power the Senate shall choose six senators to be members of the Senate
to annul the elections in the exercise of its powers. The COMELEC Electoral Tribunal this tribunal is not part of Congress nor of the
does not exercise quasi-judicial functions when it declares a failure Senate. This is an independent body.
of elections pursuant to RA 7166. It performs performs its
administrative function when it exercises such power. So, there is a --------------------------------Madrazo-------------------------------
difference. What is the difference? There is a difference between And it has the exclusive power to choose who shall form part of it,
the annulment of elections by the electoral tribunals and the the fundamental law, as prescribed nevertheless in the manner the
declaration of the failure of elections by the COMELEC. First, in the authority shall be exercised.
former it is an incident of the judicial function of the electoral
tribunal while the latter, the power of the COMELEC is in the So, while the under the Constitution, ang composition based on the
exercise of its administrative function. Second, electoral tribunals proportional representation, at the end of the day, ang magdecide
only annul the elections with results connected with the election ana, kinsa ang electoral tribunal ang concerned. Sila ang mag ihap,
contests before it, whereas, the declaration of the failure of kung pila karon ang, pila ka proportion, pila ka seats ang ilang
elections by the COMELEC relates to the entire election of the iallocate. But this does not deny the Supreme Court the power to
concerned precint or political unit. As such, in annulling the elections check whether or not this is compliant with what the Constitution
the HRET does so only to determine who among the candidates says. The Court said "Yet, this does not detract from the power of
garnered a majority of the legal votes casted. The COMELEC, on the the courts to pass upon the constitutionality of acts of Congress.
other hand, declares the failure of elections with the objective of And, since judicial power includes the authority to inquire into the
continuing the elections which were not held or was suspended or if legality of statutes enacted by the two Houses of Congress, and
there was war resulted in the failure to elect. The conclusion is that approved by the Executive, there can be no reason why the validity
there is no overlap in the jurisdictions here because when the of an act of one of said Houses, like that of any other branch of the
COMELEC declares a failure of elections on the grounds of violence, Government, may not be determined in the proper actions" under
intimidation, terrorism, or other irregularities it does so in its judicial supremacy to interpret the provision by the Supreme Court.
adminsitrative capacity. In contrast, when the electoral tribunals
annul the election based on the same grounds, they do so in the Now the Court said here that if the present composition of the set is
performance of their quasi-judicial functions. maintained, mawala ang pagka independent ani nga tribunal,
because it will always be governed by the five members of the ruling
So we are done with cases filed before the electoral tribunals. So, political party. And the court set limitations, the party having the
let's go to its composition. Diba na-discuss nato na it's composed of largest number of votes may not nominate more than three
nine members? Three justices from the Supreme Court, and six from members. So kung ikaw ang biggest party there, tulo lang pwede
the respective house based on the proportional representation of nimo inominate, among other things. But of course, it was decided
parties therein. in the 1935 Constitution. So the Senate has adopted its own rules in
order to not be inconsistent with that ruling, and of course the 1987
Now, in this old case of Tanada vs. Cuenco, after the 1955 elections, Constitution. Now, what you get from that is that the court can
members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal were chosen. The Senate rebuke the composition of the Senate if it is not consistent with the
then was overwhelmingly occupied by the Nacionalista Party and Constitution.
there was only one senator who was the opposition. Now, since nine
members: 3 justices og six kabuok senators, ang mahitabo isa lang Abbas vs. Senate
jud siya kabuok sa tibuok SET to be a member, and the five would be
from the Nacionalista Party. This was assailed by this person, Now, Abbas filed before the Senate an election contest against 22
because to do so would be - unsa pa man iyang pulos kung naay candidates of Laban and who were proclaimed senators-elect. Now,
election protest? Isa lang siya kabuok voice. Even if mu-join sa iya so nagfile silag [elect report? 27:27] against elected senators already
ang tulo kabuok jusitices, upat lang sila and this five majority will so [kinsa 27:29] magdecide ana kung naay question on the
always prevail and will rule in favor of its party. So, kung ana dapat qualifications, returns, elections of the senators, it is the SET (Senate
naa daw limitations an i-set ang Supreme Court insofar as the Electoral Tribunal). At that time, the SET was composed of three
composition of the electoral tribunal is concerned. Now, take note justices of the Supreme Court, and six senators. Now, ang kaning six
that in the 1987 Constitution, i-distinguish nato ang officers under senators are all, mao ni sila tanan ang gikasuhan by this Abbas. So
the constitution... ang pag-elect sa officers sa Congress ang gi- ang iyang position is that kaning mga tawhana ni, they will never
specify lang is katong Speaker of the House and the President of the vote against themselves. Therefore, nagpropose sya ug recalibration
Senate nga dapat i-elect sila by majority etcetera. As to the other of the composition of the SET, to accommodate the disqualification
officers ang respective house na ang bahala. But insofar as the of the six senators who are members of the SET. Alangan naman,
composition of the SET and the HRET ang concerned naay provision unsaon nimo pagdaog ana kung ang six kay imong kalaban. Of
in the constitution that mandates nga naay proportional course they will rule in their favor. So to accommodate this case, he
representation. So, kung naay issue on whether kung unsa ang suggested the following amendments to the SET through [rules],
pagka-compose aning SET og HRET, this is a justiciable issue because that rule na gusto nya ipachange requiring the concurrence of five
pwede ni ma-check sa Superme Court if nag-comply ba ang SET og (5) members for the adoption of resolution is that ang gusto niya
HRET sa proportional representation. Anyway, so mao ning ichange is that if there are more than four (4) members that are
problema aning isa ka person the sole member of this opposition as disqualified, the remaining members shall constitute a quorum, if
a member of this SET kay unsaon nalang if there is any dissent it not less than three (3) including one (1) Justice, and may adopt
would never be heard kay siya lang isa and in this case the Court
35 | P a g e
resolutions by majority vote with no abstentions. This is to tailor-fit So hulaton sa nimo nga naay action or inaction na himuon tung
to the situation created by this petition for disqualification. House of Representatives, insofar as the composition of the HRET is
concerned, and dili [happy 32:52], meaning nag act na or wala nag
Can his proposal be given weight? Pwede ba nato na, nine members, act ang House of Representatives, then you should go to the
and if five ang kailangan to get that majority but these people are all, Supreme Court to question whether or not there is an inconsistency
what, they all belong to one party, more than four members are in the Constitution.
disqualified, the remaining members will constitute a quorum. So
more than four members, so that's basically at least five, ang mabilin So take note of the composition: Each Electoral Tribunal shall be
nalang kay ang four. Kinsa maning four? Tulo ka justices ug kaning composed of nine Members, three of whom shall be Justices of the
isa ka senator. Pwede ba na kani lang sila ang magdecide sa mga Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the
kaso to the exclusion of the five na members of the other party na remaining six shall be Members of the Senate or the House of
gikasuhan? The court said that no. The purpose ngano na kaning Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be chosen on the
composition sa set na naay membership sa Supreme Court, naa puy basis of proportional representation from the political parties and
membership sa legislature, is that so that this tribunal would have the parties or organizations registered under the party-list system
judicial and legislative components. Therefore, the "legislative represented therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall
component" cannot be totally excluded from participation in the be its Chairman.
resolution of senatorial election contests, without doing violence to
the spirit and intent of the Constitution. Now what is the function of the electoral tribunals? The Electoral
Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the
So what is the remedy now? Katong six sa imong gikasuhan are all election, returns and qualifications of their respective Members.
members of the same party unya ang nabilin nalang kay ang tulo ka Now, these tribunals are supposed to be independent from the
Supreme Court justices. Unsaon man nato para maging independent House they belong to because they are a separate entity. They are
pa rin ang tribunal? The court said the remedy here is to have the six supposed to exercise quasi-judicial functions so dapat dili sila, as a
inhibit from the case. So sila nalang sa ilang konsensya kung rule, maapektuhan aning body, kaning House of Representatives or
maginhibit sila or dili. Members may inhibit, and this is the proper the Senate when they decided on cases. To bolster its
recourse. Every Member of the Tribunal may, as his conscience independence, the court has in many cases upheld its sole
dictates, refrain from participating in the resolution of a case where jurisdiction to decide on elections, returns, qualifications, even to
he sincerely feels that his personal interests or biases would stand in the exclusion of the Supreme Court.
the way of an objective and impartial judgment. But it could not, the
court said, accommodate the amendment kung kato nalang upat Nature of Function
ang magrule sa HRET if at least more than four of the members
there are not independent. Angara vs. Electoral Commission
Pimentel vs. HRET Dugay na ni nga kaso. In the elections of September 1935, Angara
was determined, do you remember this case, katong nagfile sya, ang
During the May 1998 elections, 14 partylist representatives were iyang kalaban, so Angara won the elections, and then iyang kalaban
proclaimed women, and so, naa tay mga district and partylist nagfile ug election protest. Now, gideclare na si Angara as member
representives. Now ang pagcompose karon sa HRET, diba dapat of this House, kani nga time, 1935 Constitution pa. So Angara was
proportional representation pud, para sa SET, HRET, with the same already declared a member. Now, ang iyang kalaban nagfile ug
rule. Wala'y naapil na miyembro karon sa HRET na nagbelong sa election protest, ana ang Electoral Commission, which is the HRET
partylist representatives. This prompted Pimentel to go to the during that time, that it still has jurisdiction to determine the
Supreme Court to compel this HRET to include, dapat iconsider qualification of this winning candidate. Angara, on the other hand,
ninyo ning mga members sa partylist group to be a member of the said na daog na man ko, unsaon pa man nimo nang petition nimo
HRET. The Court said here that the Constitution expressly grants to dira sa Electoral Commission na dapat idismiss na na. Naa silay
the House of Representatives the prerogative within Constitutionally difference as to the date of the filing. Kung ifollow nato ang
defined limits to choose from among its district and partylist declaration diri sa legislative body nga katong dates na nadeclare si
representatives those who may occupy the seats allotted to the Angara as winner, dili na magprevail karon ang kaso against him
House in the HRET and the Commission on Appointments. So before the Electoral Commission. On the other hand, the Electoral
[inaudible 31:56] Supreme Court is saying, you should not have Commission said that duly filed, promptly filed ang petition aning
directly went to the Supreme Court, gihulat sa dapat nimo dapat nga kalaban ni Angara before it.
nagproposa paka sa House of Representatives sa imong proposal,
dapat gientertain sya, nga naay inani nga composition, iapil ang So kinsa ang atong ifollow, ang katong time na gideclare si Angara as
partylist representative. Not go [directly32:13 ] to the Supreme winner of this legislative body? Or is it the rules of this Electoral
Court when there is an earlier remedy that should have [been] Commission? Which date is controlling? The court said it's the date
availed of. set by the Electoral Commission. The court emphasized here that
there should be a separation of powers. Proper checks and balances
Section 18, Article VI of the Constitution explicitly confers on the should be observed and the court emphasized the nature of an
Senate and on the House the authority to elect among their Electoral Commission, the Electoral Commission is a constitutional
members those who would fill the 12 seats for Senators and 12 seats creation, invested with the necessary authority in the performance
for House members in the Commission on Appointments. Under and execution of the limited and specific function assigned to it by
Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution, each chamber of Congress the Constitution. If atoang ipursue tong argument ni Angara na
exercises the power to choose, within constitutionally defined limits, magprevail gihapon ang declarations of the legislative assembly
who among their members would occupy the allotted 6 seats of during this time over the Electoral Commission, ma-defeat ang
each chamber’s respective electoral tribunal. purpose aning Electoral Commission, na pwede lang diay mag
declare ning legislative body na, cut off time na ha, dili na mo pwede
36 | P a g e
mag file ug kaso against this person kay member na sya ani, before candidates for the position of Representative for the Fourth District
the Electoral Commission. The court said that wala nay pulos ning of the province of Pampanga. In due time, Bondoc had a protest
isa, kung pwede diay mu unsa, legislative assembly. 36:33 It should with the HRET kay nadaog naman ang kalaban, which composed of
be, and it should maintain as an independent organ. The grant of nine members. Three of whom were justices of the Supreme Court,
power to the Electoral Commission to judge all contests relating to and the remaining six, were members of the House of the
the election, returns and qualifications of members of the National Representatives, chosen on the basis of proportional representation.
Assembly, is intended to be as complete and unimpaired as if it had Out of the six HRET members, five belong to the LDP, and one is
remained originally in the legislature. from Nacionalista party. [So 5, 6, ang tulo kay justices.] So basically
controlled sa LDP ang HRET. So kadto naay gikasuhan nga case
Of course karon nga Constitution, if you are already a member, the before the HRET who is a remember of the LDP. Ang member na
HRET therefore has jurisdiction. Kani nga time, libog pa sila kung, wala niboto in favor of the LDP's decision, si Camasura, ang effect
pag member naka, pwede pa ba ka makasuhan sa Electoral kay [nisupak? 40:45 ] na sya sa pagvote ato nga iyahang [sabong?
Commission. 40:50 ] was that nadaog na hinuon tung nagfile ug kaso. So
natanggal, [...40:55 ] the HRET [ 40:57 ] ruled against the member of
Anyway, the Court emphasized here the independence of this entity, the LDP here, nga gikasuhan before the HRET.
cannot be restricted by proclamations of the House concerned. If its
power is restricted, it will become ineffective. This prompted the LDP to expel Camasutra from the party. What
happens when you're expelled from the party? If you no longer
Request of Justices Melencio Herrera, Cruz and Feliciano to be belong to the party, here the LDP, you no longer have the power
Relieved as Members of the HRET, Resolution Dated March 19, 1991 also to sit in the HRET. Because di naman ka part sa katong ruling
majority in the House. So, by necessity, matanggal pud ka sa HRET.
Remember the case of Bondoc vs. Pineda, katong member ni sya sa
HRET, and he is supposed, he was expected to vote in favor of his Can that be done? Can this person be removed from the HRET
party. Nine to kabuok sila, so kaning tulo ka justices, isa ka kalaban because he, the ultimate effect maremove sya from the HRET
nga political party, then lima kabuok na members sa ruling political because of his disloyalty, may the House of Representatives, at the
party. Now this person voted not in favor of his party. So karon, request of the dominant political party therein, change that party's
nakakuha na ug majority ang justices sa Supreme Court, katong representation in the House Electoral Tribunal based on partylist
kalaban sila. Now kani si not following instruction na party, gitanggal loyalty?
sya from the party for being disloyal. And diba we learned in the
case of Bondoc vs. Pineda that partylist loyalty is not a ground for No. Why? Because it impairs the independence of the electoral
the expulsion of this person as a member of the House of tribunal. It is a clear impairment of the constitutional prerogative of
Representatives. It defeats his security of tenure, among other the House Electoral Tribunal to be the sole judge of the election
things. Also, the independence of the tribunal, [inaudible 38:27 ] sa contest between Pineda and Bondoc.
Supreme Court, this person [who was independent] did not even
follow the decision of his partymates. Is disloyalty to a party a valid cause for termination of membership
in the HRET? No. It is not a valid cause for termination. This tribunal,
Now, because of that, katong other justices, nafeel pud nila nga the court emphasized, should be independent, should be non-
murag dili na independent ang tribunal, they requested na they partisan. Unsaon nimo pagpa non-partisan kung it is composed of
should be relieved also of their duties as the three justices in this partylist, uh, sorry, based on proportional representation. Anyway,
HRET. the court emphasized that this entity should be nonpartisan. They
must discharge their functions with complete detachment,
"Congressman Casamura's vote in the Bondoc v. Pineda case was, in impartiality, and independence even independence from the
our view, a conscience vote, for which he earned the respect of the political party to which they belong. Therefore, "disloyalty to party"
Tribunal but also the loss of the confidence of the leader of his party. and "breach of party discipline," are not valid grounds for the
It is clear to us that the unseating of an incumbent member of expulsion of a member of the tribunal.
Congress is being prevented at all costs. We believe that the Tribunal
should not be hampered in the performance of its constitutional Powers
function by factors which have nothing to do with the merits of the
cases before it. We suggest that there should also be a provision in The powers of the HRET, you already know, sole jurisdiction to
the Constitution that upon designation to membership in the decide all contests relating to the election, returns, and
Electoral Tribunal, those so designated should divest themselves of qualifications of their respective Members, or the Senators, if it's the
affiliation with their respective political parties, to insure their SET.
independence and objectivity as they sit in Tribunal deliberations."
In fact, its decisions are, as a general rule, not subject to the review,
Anyway, that's just the content of their letters. even by the Supreme Court in the absence of grave abuse of
discretion.
Independence of Electoral Tribunals
Libanan vs. HRET
Now let's go to the independence of these electoral tribunals as we
started to discuss earlier. Kung nagrule na ang HRET ani na matter, as a rule, the Supreme
Court will also not touch that ruling unless mapakita nimo na naay
Bondoc vs. Pineda grave abuse of discretion.
Mao na ni syang kasuha. Pineda of the Laban ng Demokratikong The use of the word "sole" emphasizes the exclusive character of the
Pilipino (LDP) and Bondoc of the Nacionalista Party were rival jurisdiction conferred. So unsa pa man atong nakit an na mga cases.
37 | P a g e
Katong mga cases na gidala sa Supreme Court na ginaremand balik man syay nadawat na notice, asa diay nako ni in the first place, wala
or ginadismiss kay dapat dili sa ila ginafile, dapat ginafile sa HRET. ko kabalo na naa diay koy kaso et cetera. Why? Because naga avail
Naa pa tay cases na nahuman na ug rule ang HRET or SET, pag file sa karon ang HRET based on its rules of procedure of its substituted
Supreme Court, wala gihapon, ginadismiss gihapon kay walay service, which means if dili ni sya maservan personally sa person, it
mapakita na grave abuse of discretion. Any file or action taken by will be served in its last known address. Unfortunately, the court
the HRET on the matter within its jurisdiction shall as a rule not be said, there was no valid substituted service here, therefore, the
reviewed by the Supreme Court. That's the general rule. Dili pwede HRET did not acquire jurisdiction over the person na gisendan atong
magreview as an appellate court. But if there's grave abuse of notice, because wala sya naproperly notify.
discretion, and you're able to show and convince the Supreme Court
of its existence. Then it will rule accordingly. Now, is this a matter that's within the jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court to review? Is this breach in the procedure something that the
When can the court entertain petitions against the decisions of the court can undertake? Yes.
electoral tribunals? Only upon the determination of the tribunal's
decision or resolution rendered without or in excess of its Why? Because this involves the jurisdiction of the HRET over this
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Also, if walay person. Kung walay jurisdiction in the first place, lack of jurisdiction
jurisdiction in the first place to rule on the matter, pwede pud na i- is also a ground to challenge the ruling or resolution or order of that
set aside sa Supreme Court. electoral tribunal, aside from grave abuse of discretion.
Garcia vs. HRET The court said general rule, dili na pwede i-entertain, but since
napakita diri na walay jurisdiction in the first place, kay wala man
Garcia filed a petition of quo warranto before the HRET against his diay naproperly notify ang person, it will resolve the issue. And it
opponent. The petition attacked the eligibility of this person to hold held na wala jud nag acquire ug jurisdiction ang HRET over this
the seat as a member of the House of Representatives. Upon the person as it was never notified.
filing of the petition, nagfile karon si Garcia ug required filing fee.
The HRET however dismissed the petition for failure to pay the Vilando vs. HRET
5,000-peso cash deposit. So aside from the filing fee, naa pa juy cash
deposit. Thereafter, he rectified the inadvertence and paid the cash Remember this case katong citizenship atong winning candidate,
deposit, and filed the motion for reconsideration. The HRET however unya ang ending is ang naturalization sa iyang papa ang naging issue.
denied the MR. So he went to the Supreme Court to compel the Ingon ang HRET na, nagresolve ang HRET on the issue of the
HRET to recognize or entertain his petition, nagbayad na sya ug cash naturalization of the father. And the HRET, can that be done?
deposit ug 5,000.
Can the citizenship acquired by way of naturalization of this father
Can the court take cognizance of this petition? Yes, because of the be an issue that can be resolved in the HRET? The court said no.
expanded jurisdiction of the court. Pwede idetermine, tan awon sa
Supreme Court kung naa ba juy grave abuse of discretion. Number one, that is a collateral attack on the citizenship of this
person acquired by way of naturalization. That cannot be done
Did the HRET commit grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed under the law. You should have a direct action to assail that based
the petition for quo warranto when Garcia failed to pay the cash on the grounds of the judicial naturalization law.
deposit? No. Because klaro sa HRET rules nga kailangan nimo mag
comply with the deposit before that petition will be entertained. So, So even if the power of the HRET is plenary, complete and
in other words, girecognize sa Supreme Court ang kaso but it ruled unimpaired, it does not carry with it the authority to delve on the
na walay grave abuse of discretion. legality of the judgment of naturalization of this candidate's father in
pursuit of disqualifying this candidate. To rule otherwise would
operate as a collateral attack on the citizenship of the father, which
Judicial Review of the Decisions of Electoral Tribunals is not permissible.
Martinez vs. HRET --------------------------------Geronga-------------------------------
Again, the general rule on the jurisdiction on the court regarding Commission on Appointments
HRET is that it cannot entertain its petitions unless there is an
allegation and showing that there is a grave abuse of discretion or Now let's go to the Commission on Appointments.
lack of jurisdiction. In this case, the court said that the HRET gravely This entity should be independent because it is one of the checks
abused its discretion that is why it ruled in favor of the party. and balances mechanisms. Unsa ang iyang trabaho? Naa tay list of
officers in the constitution appointed by the President na subject for
While as a rule independent ning HRET, it's not insulated approval by the CA (rephrased).
nevertheless upon the expanded judicial review powers of the Composition:
Supreme Court, as long as the party invoking the jurisdiction of the Under sections 18 and 19 of Article VI--this is a constitutionally
Supreme Court against the HRET was able to allege and properly created body-- there shall be a Commission on Appointments
prove grave abuse of discretion or lack of jurisdiction. consisting of:
a) President of the Senate, as ex officio Chairman
Sandoval vs. HRET b) 12 Senators and
c) 12 members of the House of the House of
Kaning kaso nga namali ug serve ang notice, nagfile ug kaso ning si Representatives, elected by each house on the basis of
person against this other person pero nasend sa maling address, so proportional representation from the political parties and
in other words, wala nakatubag atong person na gikasuhan kay wala
38 | P a g e
parties or organizations registered under the party-list CA because may change of political alliances. Katong mga
system represented therein. nakalingkod na didto daan who were supposed to be members of
The Chairman of the Commission shall not vote, except in the case these parties, nag change ug alliances, nigamay na nuon ang percent
of a tie. ani, kani na pud, natanggal na hinuon tong si person kasi di na ruling
party, wala na siya naka achieve atong proportion to entitle her to
Sec. 19 The Electoral Tribunals and the Commission on that seat. Can this be resolved by the Supreme Court? Is this issue a
Appointments shall be constituted within 30 days after the Senate political question? The court said that, NO. What is involved here is
and the House of Representatives shall have been organized with the legality of the act of the chamber in removing this person from
the election of the President and the Speaker. The Commission on the CA. So the composition of CA is a justiciable matter than can be
Appointments shall meet only while the Congress is in session, at the resolved by the SC.
call of its Chairman or a majority of all its Members, to discharge
such powers and functions as are herein conferred upon it. Coseteng Vs. Mitra, the same issue. Whether the members of the
house in the CA were chosen on the basis of proportional
Daghan kaayo ug kaso in the Executive Department related with the representation. Naay issue sa composition, pwede ba siya ipresent
CA, so mas extensive ang discussion ani nga body in Article 7. What na issue before the SC? Yes. It's not a political question.
is Article 7? Article 7 talks about the Executive department.
We have the case of Guingona vs Gonzales. Kaning kasuha ni, this
In the constitution, there are a list of officers appointed by the involves the membership or the composition of the CA. Because we
president na muagi dapat ug confirmation from the CA. As a rule, are talking about proportional representation. This computation of
the president has discretion to appoint, among others, members of the membership of the CA based on proportional representation.
the cabinet, ambassadors, etc. Because his discretion is almost Ang ending was, naay isa ka political party didto na .5 ang makuha
untampered, naay institution na gi create sa constitution para i- na seat. Ang gihimo karon sa senate, gi-himo niyang one seat,
check kung qualified ba ang appointees to sit in the position. Sila ang katong isa pud na ang seat is 1.5, gihimong 1. So nabawasan karon
mag check sa act ni president in appointing high ranking officials. ug .5 tong isa, nadungagan ug .5 ang isa. Each sila naay seat. Ang
question nila is, it cannot be done kay di na proportional. The court
Kinsa ang mga appointees diri ang atong ma remember recently na said that this fractional representation violates the constitution.
gi deny sa CA? Daghan kaayo ug members sa Commission on Why? There was an increase in the representation of one party, and
Appointments na mga *inaudible, nag joke siya* that is why they a decrease on the other. Dapat gi apply ni sa SC atong case sa
hate them. Mura siyag kuan tig sala ba, para ma check gud if ang gabriella, katong .5 diba. The point of that case was that, wala pa to
appointees ni president mga kuan mga bus drivers whatever. This gi resolved with finality by the SC, because number one, may issue
commission, just like the Electoral Tribunal, is supposed to be on forum shopping, number 2, it is the H-rep that has jurisdiction
independent from the 2 houses of Congress. over that issue because nakadaog na, nag assume na ug office tong
mga parties didto. But there is no, walay reason, not to raise that
Powers of CA: issue before the SC kay di man gihapon satisfied ang party sa
What is its power? It power is to act on all appointments submitted decision sa H-rep. Anyway, here, naay increase sa representation sa
to it within 30 session days of Congress. Kinsa ang mga officers na each party, katong .5 gitanggal sa isa. This is a violation of
dapat i-confirm by the CA? Makita nato na sa Article 7, Section 16. proportional representation. What is the purpose of proportional
The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the representation? It is to check on the majority party in Senate and
Commission on Appointments, appoint the: also to maintain a balance of power. So unsaon man nato ng .5? The
a) heads of the executive departments (meaning, mga CA may not be fully composed. In other words, if .5, walay seat.
Department Secretaries) Why? The CA can function even if it is not fully composed as long as
b) ambassadors, may quorum. What the constitution requires is that there is at least
c) other public ministers and consuls, a majority of the entire membership. Under the sec 18, the
d) officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval commission shall rule by a majority vote. So it does not require a full
captain, composition of 25 members. Motion for consideration was filed, but
e) and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in the court maintained its decision. It is not mandatory to elect 12
the Constitution (kinsa mani sila---- the Chairman and senators in the commission; the overriding directive of the
members of the Constitutional Commissions subject to the constitution is that there should be a proportional representation in
approval of the CA, and who else (?), the regular members of the membership in CA. The specification of 12 members to
the Judicial and Bar Council). constitute its membership is merely an indication of maximum
Now there are appointments in the constitution vested in the complement (or number) allowable under the constitution.
president such as justices of the Supreme Court, muagi pa ba sila sa
CA? No, because kato na mga provisions sa constitution, naa nay gi Pimentel vs HRET
mention na no need na sila i-affirm by the CA. Why? For example, Wala daw giapil ang party-list representatives. Same ruling, it's not
ang mga Supreme Court justices and judges of lower courts ginasala for the court to decide YET, dapat may actions ang house of
na sila not by CA, but other independent bodies like Judicial and Bar representatives. Dapat sila ang mag decide unsaon nila pag compose
Council, also including the ombudsman and his deputies. ang CA and HRET based on proportional representation. It is only
until then that it can be brought before the SC.
Can the list be added, pwede ba sila mag add by way of a law na
kaning person na i-appoint by the president should be confirmed by Let's start with the Powers of Congress.
the CA? No, kasi the list is exclusive and cannot be expanded by Congress has the power to legislate, which is Section 1 of Article 6.
legislative enactment. The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the
Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of
We have the case of DAZA vs. SINGSON regarding the composition Representatives.
of CA. The house of representative revised its representation in the
39 | P a g e
What is legislative power? The power to propose, enact, or ordain, a. their privileges, inhibitions and disqualifications.
amend, modify, repeal laws. Where is that lodged? In Congress, 4. Qurom and Voting Majorities
composed of HOR and Senate. 5. Discipline
6. Electoral Tribunals
Now what is the characteristic of Legislative Power? It is 7. Commission on Appointments
characterized as full, meaning, without limits, generally. The
practical consequence, congress cannot pass a law with a provision In so far as the composition thereof is concern.
that law is not subject to repeal. Why? Because its power is plenary
and the powers of subsequent congresses are as powerful as the Let’s go to the powers of Congress. We already discussed before
current congress. If you restrict the powers of future congresses to that the role of Congress is to legislate. What is the extent of their
amend a law, or repeal, Congress therefore is curtailing now its own legislative powers?Legislative power is the power or competence of
powers, which cannot be done. thelegislative to propose, enact, ordain, amend, alter, modify
including to repeal laws vested in Congress except in so far as the
So general rule, plenary. Just because it’s plenary does not mean extent they serve to the people by the Commission on Initiative and
wala siyang exemptions. Naay limitations gi-imposed ang Referendum.
constitutions. And also, international agreements that bind us in so
far as the exercise of legislative power is concerned. Among others, We distinguish before the ORIGINAL AND DERIVATIVE or DELEGATED
naa tay substantial and procedural limitations. LEGISLATIVE POWER. What is the characteristic of legislative
power? Vested in Congress. It is characterized as RULE.
Procedural limitations - kining mga limitations set by the constitution Generally without limit, however:
concerning the process of creating these laws. Among other things,
one subject, one title, mga formal requirements required by the General Rule: It is Plenary. (Which means that there are exceptions
constitution. – limits to such power).
Exceptions: - Among others,
Substantive limitations - substance itself. Dili pwede kaning mga  Express Substantive Limitations and Implied
balaod mag contain ug ing ani na substance because ginabawal siya. Substantive Limitation.
Example, mga limitations on the bill of rights like no law shall be
passed abridging the freedom of speech or to establish religion, or EXPRESS: What instrument dungeon can limit the legislative power
paghimo sa exemption sa taxes without the required number in the of Congress to legislate? We have TREATIES. There is a form of
congress to grant such exemption. These are expressed substantive concession, sometimes there are provisions in it that would
limitations. But we also have implied substantive limitations. For mandate Congress to pass certain laws that would benefit a
example, separation of powers. Wala na gi specifically mention sa particular state among other things and of course, the Constitution.
constitution, but we know that the powers are separate by the It limits the powers of Congress in so far as the enactment of laws is
express division of the articles. For example, ang balaod on the case concerned as to the substance. We have provisions in the
on the violation fo these implied substantive limitations katong joint Constitution that limit Congress that they cannot pass certain laws,
congressional oversight committee, diba, that violated the and that they cannot put a provision in a certain law. We also have
separation of powers by allowing this committee to check the IRR if a limitation in the Constitution as to how laws are supposed to be
valid ba or dili. What else? Belgica vs Ochoa, the power of congress passed.
to participate in the execution of the law. Dili ka pwede mag insert
ug provision dira na tagaan ug discretion ang individual legislator to We have in the Constitution, EXPRESS, SUBSTANTIVE LIMITATION
have a hand in the execution of the law. What else? Principle of AND, IMPLIED SUBSTANTIVE LIMITATION which we will discuss
Non-delegation. That is an implied substantive limitation. As a rule, eventually.
legislative power, is already delegated. So as a rule, dili nimo na
pwede ma delegate. But we also know may permissible delegations Again, the power of Congress to promulgate all laws that they can
mentioned in the constitution among other things like the think of under the sun, it is plenary.
delegation to local legislative units kay expressly gina mention man
siya sa constitution and enacted in the local government code, naa The plenary power of Congress to enact laws was discussed in the
sad tay delgation sa president in so far as tariffs and customs are case of City of Davao Vs RTC.Here, GSIS was assessed with Real
concerned. Also, limited delegation in so far as the promulgation of Property Tax by the City of Davao. GSIS did not pay, so the property
rules and regulation and implementation of the law is concerned. So was to be taken/confiscated by the Government. Property is to be
naa tay exemptions to the prohibition on delegation of powers. And sold to in favor of the City as payment for unpaid real property
we also know that katong 2 requirements before there is a valid taxes. The GSIS contends that it was exempt from paying real
delegation in the creation of IRRs: the law must be complete and property tax because in the GSIS Law PD 1146 as amended by PD
sufficient standards and completeness test. 1981 givesGSIS a tax exemption from real property taxes. The
*end of discussion argument of the City of Davao was that when the local government
code was enacted, it removed this exemption. Who is correct?
We are almost finish with the Legislative Department. Halfway.
When we are done with the Legislative, we are also halfway with the GSIS filed a suit to stop the sale of their property before the RTC of
syllabus. Davao and it ruled in favor of GSIS noting at the time it was
Anyway, we are already done with the discussion on several topics assessed, it was exempt from real property tax under the provisions
that pertain to the Legislative Department, particularly the of PD 1146 and PD 1981.Under those laws, thattwo conditionsmust
administrative matters. We discussed be compliedwith before any tax exemption provided therein could
1. who legislators are, be withdrawn namely:
2. the Houses of Congress,
3. District and Party List Representatives
40 | P a g e
(FIRST) that the provision be expressly and categorically repealed by What does that mean? The Court is saying that, current Congress
law so there must be a provision in the amending/repealing law that cannot always forsee that this law will always be good. It’s not all-
the specific provision is being taken out (that privilege is being taken knowing that at all times, this law will never be repealed and will be
out); and good in the future. Again, we cannot limit future Congresses. The
power of Congress to pass laws is plenary. Current Congress cannot
(SECOND) that a provision be enacted to substitute the declared limit/bind future Congresses by making laws passed during their
policy of exemption from any and all taxes as an essential factor for time irrepealable or with conditions prior to their repeal or
the solvency of the GSIS fund. So there is a correlative provision to modification. So the effect of the setting of the these conditions
that effect. renders this provision irrepealable. Current legislature cannot bind
the actions of future legislative body with a particular mode of
Considering that the local government did not do that, it just remove repeal. Again we emphasize that legislature has plenary making
all tax exemptions for all GOCC’s. According to the RTC, so since powers for all subjects. It cannot again impose conditions as to how
there was no compliance with these conditions under the law, specific provisions of the law maybe repealed in the future. It
therefore, this repealing law should not be given effect. Therefore, cannot bind itself or its successors by enacting irrepealable laws.
the exemptions given to GSIS would remain. Is the RTC correct? Every legislative body may modify or abolish the acts passed by itself
or its predecessors.
The Court said that in so far as the period that the year the GSIS was
levied with the property taxes, it was incorrect. Because, dili mag- So considering the conditions that was imposed by the amending
apply ang conditions before the privilege given to the GSIS could be law with GSIS. They do not exist because they are invalid. The
removed by law. In other words, the court is saying that kaning provision was then validly amended by the local government code.
duha ka conditions, this cannot be impose in the removal or repeal However, it was then made valid by a subsequent law amending the
of this provision. Why is that? GSIS tax exemptions. But at that time when the taxes were
imposed, the exemption was non-existent and the Court said that
Why can’t the Congress impose conditions so the law that they pass conditions cannot be put in place in provisions prior to the repeal of
in the future cannot be repealed or difficult to be repealed. The the specific law or provision. So that’s that. The plenary powers of
Court here discussed the power of Congress to pass laws. The Court Congress wasdiscussed in this case. Including the express
recognize a fundamental flaw in Section 33. The flaw in the section substantive limitation as well as the implied substantive limitation
of the law Section 33 was that this imposition of these conditions, on the prohibition to pass irrepealable laws. @14:15
made this provisions irrepealable or at least it impose conditions
prior to its repeal or amendment.
Mikee Balogo
The second paragraph of Section 33 of P.D. No. 1146, as amended,
effectively imposes restrictions on the competency of the Congress City of Davao v. RTC (Continuation)
to enact future legislation on the taxability of the GSIS. This places At the time na gi-impose ang taxes wala tong mga exception. The
an undue restraint on the plenary power of the legislature to amend court said nga dili nimo pwede butangan og condition prior to the
or repeal laws, especially considering that it is a lawmaker’s act that repeal of the specific law or provision
imposes such burden. Only the Constitution may operate to
preclude or place restrictions on the amendment or repeal of laws. Na discuss sa case ang plenary power of the congress, and ang
express and implied substantive limitations of the prohibition to
So we did mention those express substantive limitations so only one pass irrepealable laws.
of the instrument that can limit that is the Constitution.
Constitutional dicta is of higher order than legislative statutes, and To conduct legislative inquiries
the latter should always yield to the former in cases of irreconcilable The congress cannot enact laws if it does not know what it is
conflict. And it went on to discuss the passage. Can Congress pass or enacting. Kabalo dapat sila sa facts, kung unsa dapat ilang itweak, or
promulgate irrepealable laws? Of course, NOT. Among the implied address, and to get the facts to the people who are affected so, naga
substantive limitation is of legislative powers is the prohibition conduct sila og legislative inquiries in aid of legislation.
against the passage of irrepealable laws. Why?
Question hour is quite similar from the legislative inquiries because
It is a basic precept that among the implied substantive limitations they undergo proceedings.
on the legislative powers is the prohibition against the passage of
irrepealable laws. Irrepealable laws deprive succeeding legislatures Question hour Provision Article VI, Section 22
of the fundamental best senses carte blanche in crafting laws If granted by the president, ang Department head, if requested, or
appropriate to the operative milieu. appear before either of the House of Senate or House of
Representatives, mag report ang head didto, pertaining sa iyang
In other words, the Court is saying that at that time that this law was department.
passed, it doesn’t mean that in the future, it is still applicable, so you
cannot restrict future Congresses to amend, repeal or modify that
law. Their allowance promotes an unhealthy stasis in the legislative
front and dissuades dynamic democratic impetus that may be
responsive to the times.The Court even said here that, perpetual
infallibility is not one of the attributes desired in a legislative body,
and a legislature which attempts to forestall future amendments or
repeals of its enactments labors under the delusions of omniscience.
41 | P a g e
SECTION 22. The heads of departments may upon their own
initiative, with the consent of the President, or upon the request of GR: Appearance is mandatory; otherwise you may be cited in
either House, as the rules of each House shall provide, appear contempt.
before and be heard by such House on any matter pertaining to
their departments. Written questions shall be submitted to the Why is this important? This power is incidental to legislative
President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of function. Inquiry is an essential in the legislative function. Ang
Representatives at least three days before their scheduled congress dili dapat magpataka og pasa og laws without knowing
appearance. Interpellations shall not be limited to written anything. Facts regarding sa maapektuhan sa law; kailangan ba jud ni
questions, but may cover matters related thereto. When the ipasa nga law? .
security of the State or the public interest so requires and the
President so states in writing, the appearance shall be conducted in However, this power is limited.
executive session. 1.) Duly published rules of procedure
2.) Observe the rights of the people invited in the proceeding.
Senate v. Ermita Exception is ang Executive privilege, EO 464. Mao ang basis ni GMA
There was an investigation regarding sa North Luzon Railway ngano niya ginabawalan mag appear ang heads didto sa congress
Corporation with the China National Machinery and Equipment tungod naa silay executive privilege. Tanan nga gistorya nila na facts
Group. Naay legislative inquiry tungod naay anomaly and a few days kay protected sa executive privilege.
later nag issue si GMA og EO 464, it makes kung kinsa tong officials What is Executive Privilege?
sa executive department nga imbitahon sa Congress to participate sa It is the power of the government to withhold information from the
inquiry, kailangan nila mangayo og consent from the president, apil public, the congress, and the court. It is also the right of the
pud ang AFP officials. Nag reklamo ang senate, nag invite sila og president and high level executive branch officers to withhold
resource speakers from the executive department, dili na mangadto information from the public, the congress, and the court.
because they did not seek the consent from the president and if
they sought the president’s consent but she did not consent. If you successfully invoked the Executive Privilege pwede ka nga dili
ma-compel sa Congress. Nganong importante ang Executive
Is EO 464 limits the Congress its power to conduct inquiries in aid of privilege?
legislation? Is it unconstitutional? It is NOT ABSOLUTELY
unconstitutional according to the Court. There were some provisions Types of Executive Privilege:
held as unconstitutional.
 state secrets privilege - on the ground that the information
SECTION 1. Appearance by Heads of Departments Before Congress. – is of such nature that its disclosure would subvert crucial
In accordance with Article VI, Section 22 of the Constitution and to military or diplomatic objectives.
implement the Constitutional provisions on the separation of powers
between co-equal branches of the government, all heads of  informer’s privilege, or the privilege of the Government
departments of the Executive Branch of the government shall secure not to disclose the identity of persons who furnish
the consent of the President prior to appearing before either House information of violations of law to officers charged with
of Congress. the enforcement of that law.
Insofar as Question hour is concerned, pwede himuon sa president  generic privilege for internal deliberations has been said to
na dapat mangayo og consent ang department heads sa iyaha. attach to intragovernmental documents reflecting advisory
opinions, recommendations and deliberations comprising
Question Hour is in the context of a parliamentary system of part of a process by which governmental decisions and
government, It is a period of confrontation initiated by Parliament policies are formulated.
to hold the Prime Minister and the other ministers accountable for
their acts and the operation of the government. Basically, it is a It is important in president’s decision making. The presidents and
checking of the congress, kung tama ba ang pag implement sa law by those who assist him must be free to explore alternatives in shaping
the executive department. policies, and making decisions and to do so in a way, many are
unwilling to express privately. Naa jud ma-discuss with the president
Is question hour mandatory? In the 1973 Constitution, naay nga confidential matters. There are matters to be kept such as state
provision nga mandatory. However, in the 1987 Constitution, the secrets, military secrets, diplomatic secretrs, national security. Dili
framers removed mandatory nature of the appearance in question pwede ma-divulge kay detrimental sya sa atong country.
hour to conform in the separation of powers. It is only discretionary,
naay power ang head sa department to decline. Ang mahimo lang ni There are certain officers cannot be forced to appear in its inquiries:
congress is to request, pwede sya ideny or igrant para dili maka 1.) the president – separation of powers issue
conceal og illicit information from the congress. In question hour, it 2.) justices of the SC – separation of powers issue gihapon.
is not mandatory to appear, the congress requests for you to
appear. Naa na sa imo kung mu-appear ka sa congress o dili. Legislative investigation in aid Question hour
of legislation
Legislative Investigation Any person may appear Only Department heads may
SECTION 21. The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of appear.
its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of The committees conduct The entire body of the House of
legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. investigation Senate conducts the
The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries investigation.
shall be respected. Appearance is mandatory. If
42 | P a g e
there is a subpoena pursuant to Legislation, the aim of which is to elicit information that may be
this inquiry, you have to go, useful for legislation. On the other hand, the Question Hour, the
otherwise you objective function is to obtain information in pursuit of Congress’s
Oversight Function. What else? Kato pud tong Compulsory
Processes. Question Hour: Not Compulsory; Inquiry in Aid of
Sir Gil: Because they want to get facts from the parties or the masses Legislation: Compulsory.
of people who are affected by the passage or non-passage of a
specific bill, (mao na ngilangginabuhatdira, nagaconductsilangmga [27:22]
inquiries in aid of legislation) Now, so mao tong premises. Let’s go to back to E.O. 464. Insofar as
Section 1 is concerned, or Question Hour, pwede bang i-stop
However, this power, while it is very strong, it has limitations: 1) niPresident angmga…yes. Because, as we said earlier, Request
Duly published Rules of Procedure, 2) observe and respect langangpwedengmahimosa Congress ining Question Hour for an
gihaponang rights samgataoinvited in such a proceeding. Executive Head to appear before it, so dilipwedemacompelng
The General Rule (GR) is that you cannot resist if you are called by Congress without Consent of the President, if the President so
Congress to a legislative inquiry, you cannot resist the subpoena, declares that kailanganngiyang consent. What about the other
otherwise you will be held in contempt. One Exception (XPN) there Sections of this EO 464? Section 2(a) Rule of Confidentiality based on
is when you validly claim Executive Privilege. That is what E.O. 464 is Executive Privilege is Fundamental, so this is just a premise of the
about. Mao naang basis ni GMA daw EO: Valid daw according to the Supreme Court, there is nothing
nganongginabawalanangiyangmga Executive Heads from appearing unconstitutional with Section 2(a).
in Congress, it’s because the Executive Department has this
Executive Privilege. Kanangilangisturyadihanafactsare protected by But, ang Unconstitutional diri ay ang Section 2(b), and Section 3.
Executive Privilege. Why? Section 29(b) enurmerates who are covered by the Executive
Order (EO 464). So gienumeratediriSila Senior Officials of the
[24:38] Executive Department, Generals and Flag Officers, PNP Officers,
What is this Executive Privilege? Senior National Security Officials; and Section 3 is the Blanket
It is the power of the Government to withhold information from the Prohibition: All Public Officials enumerated in Section 2(b) shall
public, the Courts, and Congress. It is also the right of the President secure Prior Consent to the President prior to appearing before the
and High level Executive Branch Officers to withhold information either house of Congress to ensure the observance of the Principle
from the Congress, the Courts, and ultimately the public. So if you of Separation of Powers.
are able to successfully establish and invoke the Executive Privilege,
pwedekangdili ma-compel saCongress to appear. These 2 provisions are Unconstitutional. Why? The Rule is that when
you are Called in a Senate Inquiry, ang General Rule ay
There are many discussions here regarding the Types of Executive dilikapwedemakabalibad unless you are able to Validly Invoke, claim
Privilege: a) State Secret Privilege, b) Informer’s Privilege, c) Generic to invoke Executive Privilege the privilege attaches not on the
Privilege for internal deliberations. person called to an inquiry, but rather to the Form of information
elicited from him.
Now, nganongimportante man ningExecutive Privilege?
Nganongginaprotektahannisyanaprivilege? The privilege is not because you are an Executive Officer, you are a
Because it is important in presidential decision making, the Secretary of this Department, but rather the information na gusto
president and those who assist him must be free to explore the kuhaonsaimuhanadapatmagremain privileged. Like katong
alternatives in the process of shaping the policies and making example natinganina: Military Secrets, Diplomatic Secrets… In other
decisions and to do so in a way that many would be unwilling to words, when you want to claim Executive Privilege, you must be
express except privately able to state the reason nganong ginaclaim nimo ni sya and this
privilege must attach to the information sought to be elicited from
So naajudmo’y ma discuss with the President nakananglisodsya ma you. Dilipwedenaangprivilege ay magattach to the person and that
publicize because it would be distasteful, or probably would be would be a Blanket Privilege for anyone who is asked to appear
damning to the administration, that is why there are certain matters before Congress. Why? KaningEO 464, it did just that. Naa’yGeneral
that must be kept privileged. Privilege, or General Blanket of Protection, gina-attach to
Unsa’ymga examples ana? MgaState Secrets, Military Secrets, samganaenumeratenamgaofficalsdirina before they can go to
Diplomatic Secrets and those affecting National Security. Congress, they must secure the Consent of the President. That is not
Dilinapwedei-divulge. Kay kung ma divulge na, it’s detrimental to how you validly invoke the Executive Privilege. So dilipwedena
our country. Blanket Prohibition. Number 1 ang main reason
nganongdilinasyapwedemahimo by the President is that it
[26:09] diminishes the power of the Congress to Conduct Inquiries in Aid of
So kato, (???) in aid of Legislation when you are asked to appear Legislation, especially if they want to elicit information from the
before it, you cannot resist as a general rule, Except when you are Executive Department.
validly able to invoke Executive Privilege. And not only that, there So here, insofar as Sections 2(b) and Section 3 are concerned, to
are certain officers of this government that cannot be forced by secure this Executive Order requires those officials to secure the
Congress to appear before its inquiries. Kinsa’y example ana? Consent of the President prior to appearing before the Congress,
AngPresident. (It’s a Separation of Powers Issue). Justices of the this provision virtually states this Executive Privilege actually covers
Supreme Court (Separation of Powers) persons – when in truth – it cannot be applied to persons. That is, as
a rule is a misuse of the Doctrine. Executive Privilege, as discussed,
Now going back to the Topic of Inquiries: The Question Hour and has been properly invoked in relation to specific categories of
Inquiries in Aid of Legislation, they are distinct, but they are related information, and not categories of persons (That is the General
and complementary. The power to conduct Inquiries in Aid of Rule). So, dilipwedenanaay issuance dirina giving you, because you
43 | P a g e
are sitting in that position, executive privilege. Congress has the
right to know why the Executive considers the requested Pwede ba na himuon? Sa isa ka person na gi invite or gina compel sa
information privileged. It does not suffice to merely declare the senate, na mag adto to go to court to stop it on the premise na naay
President or an Authorized Head of Office that it is so privileged, and pending case before the court ? --THE court said NO. it emphasizes
that the President does not overturn that determination. That that the inquiry involved in this case is the inquiry in legislation,
declaration of Privilege leaves Congress in the dark on how that which is as we said MANDATORY kung gi compel ka to appear before
requested information could be classified as Privileged. A Claim of it unless mahulog ka sa exceptions, here the rule of legislative
Privilege being a claim of exemption from the obligation to disclose purpose because it involves an anomaly which the senate by way of
information must be clearly asserted. So mao tong reason why law wants to rectify. Now can courts enjoined the directive of the
dilipwede tong Sec. 2(b) (Katong Enumeration) and Section 3(Katong senate committee for resource speakers to attend such inquiries? --
General rule nakailangannimomangayo’g consent from the President Court said that the RTC or any court for that matter had no authority
before you can appear before a legislative inquiry.) to prohibit the committee from requiring this person to appear and
testify before it. It limits the powers.
This case discusses the two (2) inquiries (In aid of legislation,
Question Hour), it distinguishes both of them. Another thing, kung unsa man ang findings dha sa senate inquiry, it
is not taken judicial notice of the courts, when you go to court you
Now let’s go to legislative Investigations, nanadiscussnanatin a little, still have to prove it under the rules of evidence. Court added that
in Section 21. you cannot stop this senate inquiry from compeling you to appear
before it just because there is a pending case against you before the
What are the distinctions between the two? court, in any case the court even said here that there was no court
Section 21 (Inquiry in Aid of Legislation): (a) Any person may appear, that can acquire jurisdiction on the matter, kay iyahang kaso
(b) the committees conduct the investigation (naay committee pending pa sa Office of the ombudsman, wala pa na file sa court.
napwedehimuonangmga houses to conduct it), (c) the subject
matter is any matter for the purpose of legislation SENATE VS ERMITA
(dilipwedenamaskinunsalang, Investigation lang just for the heck of The court distinguished section sec 21 from section 22 and to
it—it must be for the purpose of Legislation) (d) Appearance is emphasize this power which is to conduct inquiries in aid of
Mandatory. legislation is incidental to legislative function, that is why it so
important, otherwise they can’t do their jobs effectively which is to
Section 22 (Question Hour): (a) Only Department heads may appear, legislate if they are not able to compel. Ngano tagaan man og
(b) The entire body of the House (Senate/House of Representatives) contemp power ang senate? To sanction the people na dili mo adto
conducts the investigation, (c) The Subject matters are related to the pag gina compel sila. But of course there are exemptions to that
Department only, (d) Appearance in that Question Hour is rule, president or associate justice or chief justice of the supreme
Discretional. court, they are able to validly establish also separation of powers na
ma compel, being a co equal body.
Those are the distinctions between the two (2).
Gudani VS senga
Senate Blue Ribbon vs.Majaducon Here naay distinction in so far as AFP officials are concerned, naay
Naa’y inquiry nagiconductang Senate Blue Ribbon Committee “hello garci” issue ( si GMA nakita sa tv) so there was a senate
insofar as the anomalies in the AFP is concerned. Among others inquiry on that matter. One of the people, certain set of people
sailahang mga gipangita na anomalya ay compel to apppear for these inquiry, was our officials of the AFP,
nagpalitngmgapropertiesnamgaoverpriced. Now, one of the ang directive sa PRES sa ialha kay “do not appear” pero naay duha
persons invited to participate in the inquiry refused to appear at the diri na ning appear, in violation of that directive. So pag appear nila,
hearing. Kanisya, emplyado or officer of the AFP. nag testify sila. Gi kasohan sila sa PRES, they were relieved from
Why? Ngano man *34:00+… service and they were charge of violating the articles of war. So gi
court martial sila. And they went to court to challenge this action.
Chokko Castro
DOES the president have the authority to issue an order to issue
SENATE BLUE RIBBON VS MAJADUCON order to the AFP to prevent them from testifying before the
legislative inquiry?? - COURT said YES . in so far as executive officials,
Naay inquiry gi conduct ang senate of the BLUE ribbon committee in pwede sila ma compel ni pres to not appear, but they can appear if
so far the anomalies in the AFP is concerned, among others na they want to, because they are compel by senate or committee, but
ilahang nakita pag palit og mga properties na overpriced, now one of in so far as AFP personel are concerned , if bawalan sila sa pres, dili
the persons invited to participate in the inquiry refused to appear at jud sila mu adto ana na inquiry. Ngano naay distinction, ngano pag
the hearing, empleyado o officer ni sya sa AFP, why? Ngano man? AFP bawal? Ngano dili pwede mu supak sa pres? -- the president has
They filed a petition for prohibition and preliminary injunction with constitutional authority to do so by virtue of her commander in chief
prayer for TRO with the RTC , why ? ngano man ? - kay naa man daw power.and that is consequence of military officer who defies such an
pending case in a trial court regarding the property in question nga injunction is liable under military justice. Any military official whom
discuss krn sa senate inquiry. Ang gina ingon niya, since naa namo Congress summons to testify before it may be compelled to do so by
kaso in court kung naa kay ma discuss dira sa senate inquiry it could the President.
be dangerous to him and also there is already a pending case so dili
na nimo na pwede hilabtan na matterconsidering nag take nag But what if pres does not allow the appearance of these military
jurisdiction, gi kuha na na issue sa court and when he filed that officials arbitrarily? If the President is not so inclined, the President
petition before the trial court, gi grant. Nag issue krn ang RTC og TRO may be commanded by judicial order to compel the attendance of
against the senate committee involved here to stop, because there the military officer. Final judicial orders have the force of the law of
is already a pending case relating to the property in question. the land which the President has the duty to faithfully execute.
44 | P a g e
The ability of the President to prevent military officers from For number 3, meaning pwedesya ma overturn if the information
testifying before Congress does not turn on executive privilege, but sought likely contain evidence
on the Chief Executive’s power as commander-in-chief to control
the actions and speech of members of the armed forces. Are all of these present in the claim of Neri here insofar as the
information to be soliticited is concerned? Yes, all the elements are
IN re:SABIO present,the communication relates to the questions, which must
relate to quintessential and non-delegable power of the President
Kani na case involved ang PCGG. PO number 1 which created the which is the power of t enter an executive agreement with other
PCGG section 4, provides “No member or staff of the Commission countries.
shall be required to testify or produce evidence in any judicial, Second, the communication are received by the close advisor of the
legislative or administrative proceeding concerning matters within President, niNeri. By operational proximity test, he can be
its official cognizance.”. So krn naay gi conduct na inquiry ang considered as a close adviser of the president cabinet.
senate, naay mismanagment sa Philcomsat Holdings Corporation na
involve ang PCGG, so nag invite krn ang senate og resource speakers Third, there is no adequate showing that will justify the limitation of
form pcgg and they did not appear. Kay protected sila sa section 4 the privilege and the unavailability of the information elsewhere by
PO number 1. Are they correct? -- court said NO. this provision. an appropriate investigating authority.
Considering these jurisprudential instructions, we find Section 4(b)
directly repugnant with Article VI, Section 21. Section 4(b) exempts Neri was able to validly claim the executive privilege in this case.
the PCGG members and staff from the Congress' power of inquiry.
This cannot be countenanced. Nowhere in the Constitution is any What has to be shown by the committee seeking that information to
provision granting such exemption. Its unconstitutional. Also lift that privilege?
violates rule of accountability in article 11. So dagdag reasons na It must be able to show that the nature and appropriateness of the
kani provision it was unconstitutional. function in the performance of which the material was sought and
the degree to which the material was necessary to its fulfillment.
Ang sunod na discussion dire kayunsaangkiningmga executive
privilege, nay two kinds of executive privilege, presidential In other words, The subpoenaed evidence is demonstrably critical to
communications privilege and Deliberative process privilege, the responsible fulfillment of the Committee’s functions.
distinguish the two: Dapatmaogipakitasa committee. “Wala name lain makuha
information”
Presidential communications privilege, these applies to decision
making of the president rooted in the constitutional principle of
separation of powers and the president’s unique role. Applies to the Remus Calicdan
documents in the entirety. Congressional or judicial negation of this
privilege is subject to greater scrutiny. And number two, the claim requires a precise and certain reason for
preserving their confidentiality. So, katong letter nimo, the formal
On the other hand, deliberative process privilege applies to decision claim must explain the reason nganong ang imohang information
making of the executive officials, not the president. Rooted on dilimahatag because it is privileged. Are these present in this case to
common law privilege. Negation of this privilege is not as scrutinized their valid invocation or claim in this case of that privilege which is
as negation Presidential communications privilege. Take note of that existing? Yes. Katong letter ni Executive Secretary, katong nag
academic distinction. Who are covered by this Presidential suffice.
communication privilege? Sa US Jurisprudence, only White House
Staff that have “operational proximity” to direct presidential Garcilliano vs. House of Representatives Committees
decision-making. Thus, the privilege is meant to encompass only Hello Garcigihapon. Nagpadayon ang investigation without duly
those functions that form the core of presidential authority, published rules of procedure under Article 6, Section 21. Dibadapat
involving what the court characterized as “quintessential and non- the senate and the house of representatives and its committeesthe
delegable Presidential Power ”murelatesya to that kind of power so Senate or the House of Representatives, or any of its respective
based on those discussions, nagformulateang court dire ug elements committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance
insofar as legislation is concerned before Executive Privilege can be with its duly published rules of procedure."So, dapatnaay duly
validly invoked” published rules of procedure. Otherwise, if ma violate ninga
provisions. And therefor, ang proceedings diri may be considered
1. The Protected communication must relate to a quintessential and unconstitutional. Wala nilanahimodiri. Ang ilangdefense is that
non-delegable Presidential Power kaning rules nagigamitmaonamanning rules sa una walanamonigi
2 The communication must be authored or solicited and received by amend, walanamonigihilabtan, gi carried over langnamo and we are
a close advisor of the President or the President himself; and using the same set of rules as used by previous senate sa
3. This privilege is qualified because it can be overcome by showing committees. And the court said that kaningunsapudgi explain sa
an adequate need to divulge the information court ang nature of the Senate as a continuing body. As an
4. institution it is continuing because the only way you can dissolved
For number 1, Sounsamang examples anang non-delegable the senate is if that removed in the Constitution by way of revision.
presidential power? Example ana kay diplomaticy kay dili nama But insofar as the ordinary day to day operations of the senate is
delegate sa President as a general rule. Patipudng Clemency concerned, when it changes its composition it is a separate and new
senate it is now composed of a new half of senators so you cannot
For number 2, the test is that advisor must be of operational say that the previous senate is the same senate as before insofar as
proximity to the president. Dapat close syasa President. Operational their operation is concerned, moreover if the current senate does
proximity ang closeness. not want to continue matters of the previousit cannot be compelled
45 | P a g e
to so because it is an entirely new senate. The conduct of its day-to- Finally, final naba? we have the case of Balag vs. Senate. So, naay
day business the Senate of each Congress acts separately and hazing dirinahitabo, namataynisi Horacio III.
independently of the Senate of the Congress before it. So, gi relieve
nasa court katong rules na previous senate dilinasiya mag-apply Now, ang involve diri kay ang Aegis Juris Fraternity ,AJ Fraternity of
sainyo because you are a new insofar as this operation of the day-to- the UST. So, the senate inquiry was conducted and this person Balag
day activities related diriinyong inquiry, in aid of legislation. Kana was invited by the senate hearing. Karon dilisiyamutubagsamga
siya, naapektohannasiya by the change of composition of the questions naginapangutanasaiya. He invokes his right against self-
Senate. Therefore, you need to promulgate and publish a separate incrimination. He was cited in contempt. Seconded by Senator Poe
set of rules for your committee. They did not do that. moved to cite in contempt seconded by Senator Villanueva and
Zubiri.
Philcomsat vs. Senate
So, katogihapon no, philcomsat investigation on mismanagement on So, karon proper na, naanasiyay contempt order, gi detain nasiya.
millions of losses. So, nagpa investigate karon ang senate. Ang issue The contempt order issued against him simply stated that he would
diri is that it talks about generally the power of legislative inquiry be arrested and detained until such time that he gives his true
which carries with it all the powers of senate proper for its effective testimony, or otherwise purges himself of the contempt. In other
discharge. So, it cannot be emphasized or acted with grave abuse of words, naalangsaiyanakasalalay kung ma release nasiya on
discretion when it submitted the findings. So, nag himonasila ug detention or not. So, kung dilisiya mu ingon so forever siya ma priso,
report insofar as the investigation is concerned and, of course, as a forever siya ma detain. It does not provide a definite and concrete
result of the investigation given its constitution mandate to conduct period of detention.
legislative inquiries. Unsadiay to problemaato before? Tungod kay
wala man sila nag appear, na pinpoint nasila. So, kanisila ang liable So, ang question here is what is the duration of the detention of a
cause they did not defend it among other things. So, mao tong contempt order by the Senate? The court said that the period of
reason nganonahadloksilaaning reports, they said this was issued on imprisonment or contempt by congress, it must be not indefinite.
grave abuse of discretion. No, because it was done by this There is a genuine necessity to place a limitation on the period of
committee pursuant to its power to conduct inquiries in aid of imprisonment that may be imposed by the Senate pursuant to its
legislation given its Constitutional mandate to do so. inherent power of contempt during inquiries in aid of legislation.
Ang specified period would amount to an excessive restriction and
So, kaniRepublic vs. Bolante. Recent case, there is this fertilizer on therefore would violate your right to liberty. Dibadapat protection-
scam. So, the republic filed an ex parte application before that AMLC angihaponimong right even if you are in that inquiry. Thus, the
docketed as AMLC case before the RTC. They wanted to draw on the period of imprisonment under the inherent power of contempt by
authority provided by the AMLC through Resolution. This application the Senate should only last until the termination of the legislative
filed before the RTC sought the issuance of an order to inquire into inquiry under which that power was invoked.
the 70 accounts allegedly related to the fertilizer fund scam.
So, termination, kung dili ka ma-terminate, dilipud mu squeal then
So, gusto makitakaronsa Republic ang contents aning bank accounts. dirara ka kutobpero kung ma terminate nasiyapwedenakamuhawa.
It can only do so by way of a court order. So, sa nag file When, therefore, is an inquiry terminated? It is terminated under
silakaronaning application before the court. Isa samga pieces of the Senate Rules in two instances. First, upon approval or
evidence nailanggipakita is kaning result. Senate Committee Report disapproval of the committee report. Second, the legislative inquiry
No. 54 kay naayni testify dirina witness relating to this fertilizer fund of the senate terminates upon its expiration of one congress. So,
scam. Nga katonaay scam and then involve ningmgatao and they either of the two. So, in other words, the first nahumanna ang
have these accounts. So, gi file nakaronsa Republic as evidence.Ang inquiry nag submitnasila ug report pwedenakamulayas. Second,
gihimosa RTC, it did not grant the application. It found no probable walajudnilanahuman ang report perona expire naang congress, nag
cause to believe that the deposits and investments involved here change napud ang composition pwedenapud ka mulayas. Because
were related to unlawful activity. This prompted the Republic to go that is another senate diba as we said earlier. So, mao to ang
the Supreme Court to challenge that order by the RTC on the ground limitation dili forever okay?
that the trial court should have taken judicial notice of the contents
of the Senate Committee report. The court said here that the RTC’s
finding that there was no probable cause was not tainted with grave AUGUST 29, 2019
abuse of discretion. The court receiving the application from inquiry
cannot simply take the AMLC’s word that probable cause exists. Carly Divinagracia
What about the katong Senate committee report? This application So we are still in the Legislative Department. Let’s Continue. We
was only supported by two pieces of evidence, the senate started our discussion on legislative inquiries. We also discussed
committee report and the testimony of Espina. The court said that it what legislative inquiry is. And we compare it with Question hour.
had ruled that reports of the Senate standing on the same level as Legislative Inquiry and legislative investigations are in Article VI,
other pieces of evidence submitted by the parties, and that the facts Section 21. Question Hour is Section 22. To distinguish what their
and arguments presented therein should undergo the same level of features are: among others we also discussed that Inquiries needs
judicial scrutiny and analysis. Just because finding nasa Senate does legislation, whereas in question hour requires an appearance
not mean na bound ang court anamutuodiaysila. The courts have (mandatory) and appearance will be compelled by the Senate
discretion to reject them, no grave error can be ascribed to the RTC otherwise you may cited in contempt.
for rejecting and refusing to give probative value to this Senate
Committee Report. So, dili ka mahadlokna if you are invited an SECTION 21
inquiry and you know guilty ka because whatever the finding there is The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective
ipresent man gihaponnasa court. Just like any other piece of committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance
evidence kailangangihapon mu agisa rules on admissibility. with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons
appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.
46 | P a g e
In this case, co-petitioner Marcos primordially assails the nature of
SECTION 22 the legislative inquiry as a fishing expedition in alleged violation of
The heads of departments may upon their own initiative, with the her right to due process and to be discriminatory to the Province of
consent of the President, or upon the request of either House, as the Ilocos Norte. However, the Court disagreed with her and said that
rules of each House shall provide, appear before and be heard by this is a perusal of the minutes of legislative hearings so far
such House on any matter pertaining to their departments. Written conducted reveals that the same revolved around the use of the
questions shall be submitted to the President of the Senate or the Province of Ilocos Norte's shares from the excise tax on locally
Speaker of the House of Representatives at least three days before manufactured cigarettes through cash advances. So there was a
their scheduled appearance. Interpellations shall not be limited to legitimate query in so far as that matter was concerned. So take
written questions, but may cover matters related thereto. When the note of those limitations.
security of the State or the public interest so requires and the
President so states in writing, the appearance shall be conducted in We are done with Legislative Inquiriesand Question Hour. We
executive session. discussed previously executive privilege, as a general rule, you can
be compelled if there is an investigation in aid of legislation under
Arvin R. Balag Vs Senate GR 234608 (July 3, 2018): If you are in a Section 21 to go to that inquiry, otherwise, you may be held in
legislative Inquiry and you do not answer the question, you invoke contempt. So, you have to go there and then when you are already
the right of self-incrimination. Well you have that right, your rights in that Inquiry, you can invoke your right against self-incrimination
under the Bill of Rights are still respected in the Senate. In fact, in or you may not answer the questions as long as you are able to
the Senate Rules regarding inquiries, the rights are respected against validly claim executive privilege.
self-incrimination. However, the Senate also has the ability to
determine whether or not your assertion of such right will impede We discussed what are the elements for the privilege to and also the
on its function which is to conduct an inquiry on a legislative requirements for the claim of privilege for you to have a valid claim
legislation. What if there’s a clash. You will say, I have my right of of privilege if it exists.
self-incrimination, I will not answer. Can the Senate therefore hold
you in contempt because you invoke that right? Under their Rules, Now let’s go to another Committee or Body in Congress and that is
they will determine if there is improper invocation of that right. the Bicameral Conference Committee. Let’s just refresh our memory
When they determine that there is an improper invocation of that as to what this is. A Committee created by two houses of Congress in
right, one may be held in contempt. order to harmonize or reconcile the bills that they want to pass into
law where there are conflicts in provisions. And the creation of this
But of course, as we learned in Balag Vs Senatethat imprisonment Committee is born out of the rules of procedure of both houses.
when one is cited in contempt, cannot be indefinite. And distinctly in
aid of this legislation while it can be done by Congress, also has In other words, this was their prerogative in creating this Bicameral
several limitations as was discussed in the case of Marcos Vs Farinas. Committee. And as a RULE, the Supreme Court cannot intervene or
whether or not they will make this bill or block or will deliberate on
Marcos Vs Farinas GR 232395 (2018): reconciling the bill. This is an internal matter within the prerogative
There was this inquiry as on the NECROS , a group. there was a of Congress. The Supreme Court does not have any business with
legislative inquiry in so far as these personalities are concern which that because this is a matter or procedure. An internal matter within
included Imee Marcos on the misuse of tobacco funds in their the prerogative of Congress. The respective rules of each house of
locality. So an inquiry is conducted. In so far as they are concern, Congress provides for the creation of the Bicameral Conference
Marcos went to the Supreme Court to stop the TRO, to stop the Committee. The purpose of this Committee is where the two houses
inquiry. According to Imee Marcos this is just a fishing expedition. of Congress finds themselves in disagreement for changes or
amendments introduce by the other house, or legislative ill, this
In this case the Court clarified the limitations of the power to committee is the answer.
conduct inquiry. What are the limitations?
First, the inquiry must be in furtherance of a legitimate task of If there are certain differences, a Bicameral Conference Committee
Congress, which is legislation. The inquiry must be in furtherance of is called to reconcile conflicting provisions of both versions of the
the legitimate task of the Congress, i.e., legislation, and as such, Senate and of the House of Representatives. Conference committee
"investigations conducted solely to gather incriminatory evidence submits report on the reconciled version of the bill, duly approved
and punish those investigated" should necessarily be struck down by both chambers. The Senate prints the reconciled version in its
because the investigation must be in aid of legislation not enrolled form.
prosecution or election.
As a rule, the Supreme Court cannot touch the Bicameral
Second, the investigation must be in aid of legislation in accordance Conference Committee. The Supreme Court will not touch matters
with its duly published rules of procedure. That is why, if there is no involving the procedure of Congress (hands-off ang Supreme Court
published procedure, the proceedings are unconstitutional. It cannot ana).
proceed.
Nikita Dacera
Third, is that the rights of persons appearing in or affected by such Now let’s go to the Limitations on Legislative Power. We discussed
inquiries shall be respected. And where do you find these rights? way way back that Legislative Power is Plenary. Its characteristic is
Among others, the Bill of Rights which include the Right to Due that it is Plenary, therefore the present Congress cannot limit Future
Process and the Right Not to be Compelled to Testify Against Oneself Congress as to how laws are amended or if they are to be amended
(The Right Against Self-Incrimination). That is being respected and at all. Plenary can be anything under the sun. Just because it is
your rights are not diminished just because you are in an inquiry. Plenary doesn’t mean that it is unlimited because there are
The Courts emphasized that in this case. limitations. Naa ta’y Substantive Limitations, naa pud Procedural
Limitations.
47 | P a g e
A bill of attainder is a Legislative Act which inflicts punishment
Ang Substantive Limitations, naa ta’y Express Substantive without trial. So by your mere commission of the Offense, wala ka’y
Limitations, naa pud ta’y Implied Substantive Limitations. Ang trial trial because of this law: guilty na ka dayon, naa na kay
Express Substantive Limitations, asa man nato ni Makita? Precisely punishment. That cannot be done, because you have to be afforded,
because Express sya, meaning naga exist sya, Makita nimo sya given due process. It is not the law that determines. Congress
somewhere, and Makita nimo ang limitations sa Constitution itself. determines whether or not you should be penalized. Dapat muagi ka
For Example: sa tama na proseso, tagaan kag right paper, among other things,
1) Bill of Rights, Sec. 4: No laws shall be passed abridging the especially if you are charged and committed a crime.
Freedom of Speech or Expression of the Press, (Dili pwede
magpasa ng balaod ang Congress na mag stop anang imong What else kanang mga Substantive Limitations in the Constitution?
mga Freedom to Express, or the right of the people to peacefully In Article 6: Appropriation Laws. Ngano man? Because it involves
assemble and petition the government to (???) because that is a Public Funds which are very vulnerable to Malversation or
limitation set in the Bill of Rights. Appropriation.
2) Section 5: No laws shall be made (??? 16:11) establishment or
Religion prohibiting the Free Exercise thereof Sec. 25: Congress may not Increase the Appropriations
3) Section 7: Access to Official Records and Documents pertaining recommended by the President for the Operation of Government.
to Official Acts and Sanctions or Decisions shall be afforded to Katong Executive Branch, and even the Legislative and the Judiciary,
the citizens (so naa kay access these data. However, subject to isa lang ang maghatag sa ilahang budget, dili pwede na ang
such limitations provided for by Law) Congress, taasan nila kay kulang ang atong Pork Barrel. No.
4) Section 8: Right of People, Including those employed in the Because, sila ang naga pangayo ng kwarta. Ang Congress ang
Public and Private Sectors to Form Unions, Associations, or magappprove. Unsa ba ni? Naa ba tay kwarta ani? Useful ba ni sya
Societies for Purposes not Contrary to Law shall not be na expense, etc. Magdeliberate na sila.The Congress cannot increase
abridged. the appropriations recommended by the President for the Operation
5) Section 10: No Law impairing the Obligations of Contracts shall of the Government as specificed in the Budget.
be passed Sec. 25(2): No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the
6) Section 19: Excessive Fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, general appropriations bill unless it relates specifically to some
degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death particular appropriation therein. Dapat naay “Item”, otherwise that
penalty be imposed, unless for compelling reasons involving will become a “RIDER”
heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any
death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusio Sec. 25(3): The procedure in approving appropriations for the
perpetua Congress shall strictly follow the procedure for approving
7) Section 20: No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non- appropriation for other departments and agencies.
payment of a poll-tax (or Cedula)
8) Section 22: No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be Sec. 25(5): (Importante ni sya) No law shall be passed authorizing
enacted any transfer of appropriations, however, (as a rule, dili pwede na
kani na agency, kani na Secretary or kani na officer, iyahang i-realign
So those are some of the Express Substantive Limitations, realign just because he feels it. NO LAW shall be passed authorizing
particularly in the Article 3 or the Bill of Rights any transfer of appropriations.) HOWEVER, naay exception: the
President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of
[17:28] Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the
So kani sya tanan, nadiscuss ni sya sa atong 2nd semester heads of the Constitutional Commissions, may, by law, (so pwede
sila iauthorize BY LAW) be authorized to augment any item in the
What is an Ex post facto law, by the way? General Appropriations Law for their respective offices from
It is a law that Changes the Penalty and it afflicts a greater SAVINGS in other times of their respective appropriations. So kani
punishment that what the law had attached to the crime when silang gipang enumerate, sial President, Senate President, Speaker of
committed. When we talk about an Ex post facto law, it is a Criminal the House, Chief Justice, ug katong the heads of the Constitutional
Law which is given retroactive effect. So unsay example ana? makes Commission, sila lang ang pwedeng i-authorize by law (kailanga ra
an act Criminal which was innocent or not criminal when it was gihapon ng law, dili sya automatic) to transfer funds from their own
committed… aggravates a crime, makes it greater than when it was department from their savings. So kung Makita nila na wala nay
committed. Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater kwarta ani na item na very important sya, tapos naa silay savings,
punishment (?annexed?) to the crime committed, alters the legal pwede nila na sya nila fund-an, ang kuhan nila na funds gikan sa
rules of Evidence, Authorizes conviction upon less or different savings if they are allowed by law.
testimony than the law requires at the time the crime was Discretionary Funds appropriated for particular officials shall be
committed. [18:15]Assumes the (???) civil rights and remedies but in disbursed for public purposes, subject to such guidelines as may be
effect imposes the deprivation of a right… deprives the person who prescribed by law. If by the end of the Fiscal Year, Congress shall
committed a crime of some lawful protection to which he has have failed to the General Appropriations Bill for the ensuing Fiscal
become entitled. Kana pud sya ang mga examples of Ex post Facto Year, The General Appropriations Law from the Preceding Fiscal Year
law. So kung naging heavy ang penalty of a Law tapos nahimo sya, shall be deemed re-enacted, and shall remain in force. Diba
for example: taasan ang penalty sa Rape for instance. Dili na sya nagkaissue tayo this year because naa toy gusto na process na gusto
pwede i-apply sa katong naka commit to the entirety of the validity ipafollow ang Executive Department, and on the other hand the
of that law, dili sya pwedeng hatagan ug Retroactive Effect, it will Legislative Department (Held a Grudge?/Would not Budge?) kani
have that Ex Post Facto effect and furthermore, it is not favourable ang akong gusto na process. So, nagkadeadlock sila unsaon ang
to the accused. pagkapasa ng Appropriation. Nahadlok sila na if dili na ni maenact,
What about a Bill of Attainder? kaning balaura na ni, ma-re-enact ang previous appropriations law,
and according to them – and it’s true—katong mga gustong i-
48 | P a g e
implement this year cannot be implemented if ang gamiton nimo na employees of the DOST SIR G: the next year 1998 gi implement sa
budget is from previous year, definitely naa man kay gusto na mga DOST ang provision aning balaod, paulan og mga bonus, consistent
Infrastructure pero limited ka by the budget last year. Wala na nimo with the provisions of this law. LATER on the next year 1999 COA
na foresee, ang gusto nimo ibuild last year, mao ra tong na- issued report na, NGANO nag issue pa man og mga benefits, when in
appropriate last year, so dili nimo sya ma atukud(???)(23:31) or fact these benefits were not provided in the GAA of 1998, asa ni gi
maimplement because you are acting on a re-enacted budget. So, kuha na kwarta. So it was disallowed.
kana ang dili nila gusto mahitabo. Gusto nila mapasa ang … they
had to come up with a compromise. Naa to’y issue about katong What does that mean? Ktng mga naka name na pangalan sa Notice
mga insertions by those who deliberated on the law after the of disallowance gipa balik tanan benefits na imuhang gi dawat,
Bicameral Conference Committee. Naa pa jud diay mga precisely because it was illegal, spending money not apropriated for
gipangsuksok, diba? And ultimately, the President had to approve in the General Appropriations law. This promted in 2000 year after
the law with vetoes, vetoing several items that were identified to be COA finding, gi request ktng regional director sa isa ka DOST region
illegal insertions, and so, dili ta operating on a re-enacted budget. na ipa authorize ang ilahang secretary to realign the funds used the
savings to pay the finding sa COA mga disallowed amount, naka
Sec. 28: The Rule of Taxation shall be uniform and equitable. hatag na silag kwarta, wala na silay mahimo ana so, to fund that in
Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation (2) Congress order to uh.. Para mawala ang notice of disallowance, gamition na
may, by law, authorize the President to fix within the Specified lang ang savings, kay wala bitaw provision in the law which grants us
Limits… tariffs, import and export quotas… (4) no law granting any that item (of course if walay item, walay kwarta gi hatag) kuhaon na
Tax Exemptions shall be passed without the concurrence of a lang nato ang savings sa DOST para pang bayad and the SECREATARY
majority of all the Members of the Congress. So kana ang mga of the DOST did that. BUT the COA insisted that it cant be done.
limitations.
So who is correct here. COA correct or DOST ? COURT - COA is
Art. XIV ng education, Section 4 (3) All Revenues and Assets of Non- correct. Why? The constitution limitation involve here is ARTICLE 6
Stock, Non-Profit educational Institutions used actually, directly, and SEC 29. No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in
exclusively for Educational Purposes shall be exempt from Taxes and pursuance of an appropriation made by law. What about that RA
Duties. So in other words, dili ta pwede mag pasa ng balaod na 8439? The law that granted the magna carta benefts - well the court
matanggal ang mga benefit because it’s a limitation provided in the said YES it grants the benefits BUT walay law nga nag butang og
Constitution. kwarta para sa DOST na i hatag sa ilahang empleyado pursuant to
that law. Is the law not enough? Is RA 8439 not enough? - Court said
Art. VI Sec. 29(2) (The Rule: No money shall be paid out of the NO. the amounts needed to fund the Magna Carta benefits where to
treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law. That be appropriated by the GAA, and that meant that such funding must
is why dili ka pwede makaspend ng money kung walay balaod na be purposefully, deliberately, and precisely included in the GAA.
allowing you to spend that money) No Public money or Propety dapat naa to kwarta or item sa GAA to pay for the benefits pursuant
shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed, directly or to RA 8439, wala eh. R.A. No. 8439 alone could not fund the
indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, payment of the benefits because the GAA did not mirror every
denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, because provision of law that referred to it as the source of funding.
of the separation (of Church and State). Dili pwede mabayran ang
kani na mga institutions (???) ang kwarta by the State. Otherwise Therefore that expense is unconstitutional or illegal. What about
the state would now be engaging in a non-secular activity. As a rule, transfer of the savings? - there was no valid transfer of savings here.
bawal na. XPN: When such priest, preacher, minister, is assigned to Why is it not valid; the transfer or DOST secretary, pag realign para
the Armed Forces or any Penal Institution or Government gamiton mabayaran sa benefits - because in the first there was no
Orphanage or Leprosarium [25:40] item in the GAA where the savings will be transferred to. The
requirement for valid transfer of savings is that first required that
Chokko Castro there must be savings from the authorized appropriation of the
Article 6 29 SECTION 29. (1) No money shall be paid out of the agency. The second demanded that there must be an existing item,
Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law Sir project, activity, purpose or object of expenditure with an
gil: That is why di ka pwede maka spend og money pag walay balaod appropriation to which the savings would be transferred for
allowing you to spend that money. No public money or property augmentation purposes only.required that there must be savings
shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed, directly or from the authorized appropriation of the agency. The second
indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, demanded that there must be an existing item, project, activity,
denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any purpose or object of expenditure with an appropriation to which the
priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher, or dignitary as savings would be transferred for augmentation purposes only.
such, except when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is
assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal institution, or Effect pa bayaron ba ang empleyado? No operative fact applies
government orphanage or leprosarium. SIR G: because of employees receive it in good faith, they did not know. Court said na
separation, dili pwede mag bayran ang kani na mga institustions or dili na lang pa bayaron, but it would serve as a lesson, when giving of
tagaan kwarta by the state, otherwise the state would now be benefits you have to ask it in your budget.
engaging in a non secular activity, naga support na syag religion, AS
A RULE, bawal na. EXCEPT WHEN SUCH PRIEST, preacher or minister BELGICA VS OCHOA That 2011 PDAF expressly stated lump-sum
or dignitary is assigned on Armed forces, pwede na sya kay amounts allocated for individual legislators and the Vice-President:
exception. Going back to the limitation Article 6 section 29, Representatives were given ₱70 Million each, broken down into ₱40
Million for "hard projects" and ₱30 Million for "soft projects"; while
CASE: Nazareth vs VILLIAR On December 22, 1997, Congress enacted ₱200 Million was given to each Senator as well as the Vice-President,
R.A. No. 8439, grants the following additional allowances and with a ₱100 Million allocation each for "hard" and "soft projects."
benefits (Magna Carta benefits) to the covered officials and Unsay purpose ani ? In the 201272 and 201373 PDAF Articles, it is
49 | P a g e
stated that the "identification of projects and/or designation of The first question related to our topic, wala daw dapat gi-implement
beneficiaries shall conform to the priority list, standard or design ang DAP, because you disburse public funds there must be a law
prepared by each implementing agency (priority list requirement) x x allowing this DAP so therefore it is not constitutional. Is DAP
x." However, as practiced, it would still be the individual legislator required to be a law for it to be enforced?
who would choose and identify the project from the said priority list.
The court said that No. It was not appropriation measure therefore
Valid ba ni ? -- INVALID because it violates the principle of separation no appropriation law is required to adopt or implement it. DAP is
of powers and is thus unconstitutional. the Legislative branch of actually budget execution. The argument of the State, nisugot ang
government, much more any of its members, should not cross over court that no law was necessary for the adoption and
the field of implementing the national budget since, as earlier implementation of the DAP cause it was not a fund nor
stated, the same is properly the domain of the Executive. from the appropriation program, so there was no need for a law for it
moment the law becomes effective, any provision of law that because implementation rani sya of the program of the executive
empowers Congress or any of its members to play any role in the department, it was a policy to stimulate the economy through
implementation or enforcement of the law violates the principle of accelerated spending and in the context of the DAP , adoption and
separation of powers and is thus unconstitutional. Pero wala na ba implementation being a function pertains to the executive as the
jud role ang congress after a law is passed? - Naa pero it is limited to main actor of the budget execution, there is no need for congress to
oversight. (1) scrutiny based primarily on Congress‘ power of legislate it precisely because it is already budget execution.
appropriation and the budget hearings conducted in connection
with it, its power to ask heads of departments to appear before and There is no more need for appropriation for the DAP because the
be heard by either of its Houses on any matter pertaining to their money has been set-apart from the public treasury in the GAA.
departments and its power of confirmation; and (2) investigation However, ang gigamit nila sa kwarta for the DAP is scrutinized by the
and monitoring of the implementation of laws pursuant to the Supreme court. They justified the spending under this program by
power of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation. Beyond using savings from the Executive Department so tan-awa karun
that. Dili na maka hilabot ang congress. under the provision in the Constitution and existing laws, particularly
the GAA kung unsa ang magconstitute ug savings. The court said
Applying these concepts obviously, if the congressman or legislator, here that the money used are unreleased appropriations and
sya mag pili sa priority list. That is where the implementing of the unwithdrawn obligated allotment.These are not savings , therefore
budget, nanghilabot naka. He should not have a hand in that. It dili nimo ni sila pwede matransfer. First of all, where did the
violates the non delegability of legislative power the rule. WHY - President get the power to transfer, realign funds and savings? It is
article 6 sec 29 o money may be paid from the Treasury except in in Article VI, Section 25 paragraph 5 to wit
accordance with an appropriation made by law What therefore
constitutes an appropriation, and who can appropriate? - 5) No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations;
appropriation involves (a) the setting apart by law of a certain sum however, the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of
from the public revenue for (b) a specified purpose. The PDAF article the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme
in 2013 GAA, gave these legislators the power to dictate how much Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may, by law,
from the fund would go to a specific project or beneficiary that they be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations
themselves also determine. law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their
respective appropriations.
So thats where they enact of appropriation and who can exercise
that act of appropriation ? - congress not the individual legislator. So Why is this needed? Nganong naa may ani nga provision sa
violative sya of that principle Constitution? Because the Court said the Congress cannot anticipate
every need of this Department. Alangan maisip nila na kini lang ang
ARAULLO VS AQUINO III Question of the constitutionality of the kwarta jud na kailangan, wala ta kabalo sa mahitabo. That is why
DISBURSEMENT ACCELERATION PROGRAM (DAP) The president tagaan ug authority ang President by law from Congress na mag re-
invoking his power to realign, (ktng gi mention, na mag transfer og align to meet this exigencies. Executive discretion is necessary to
savings, gi himo niya na fund certain priority projects. So naay achieve a sound fiscal and assure effective implementation. So mao
savings daw gipang gamit to fund mga activities) which ni sumbong na sya ang reason na giallow ang pagrealign sa funds if authorized by
si Jingoy estrada ( cause he is slowly being prosecuted. So the DAP law.
became an issue.
Now, the power to transfer funds from one item to another
How was it justified by the executive department through THE emanates from law and which is clear in the provision, however nay
DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT (DBM)? - The funds kailangan na requirement under the Constitution:
under the DAP, na gi gamit diri, were taken from the unreleased First, there must be a law authorizing the President
appropriations under persons services, unprogrammed funds, Second, the funds to be transferred are savings generated from the
carried over appropriation unreleased on the previous year, budgets appropriations for their respective offices. In the first place naa kay
for items or projects that had to be realigned to support faster savings na gitransfer
disbursement projects. They justify their transfer of funds. And the Third, the purpose of the transfer is to augment an item in the GAA
issue reached the supreme court. because - tama ba ni ang gi himo for their respective offices. So kung wala nag exist ang item sa GAA
sa executive depart?? - 1st issue related to topic. Wala dapat gi dili pwede because what will you augment?
implement ang DAP because there was no law, that allowed for it to
happen and before u can disburse public funds there must be a law. The first requisite in the Constitution sa kini nga prohibition, the
Unconstitutional daw. Is the DAP required to be in a law for it to be Court said that the GAA of 2011 and 2012, they lacked valid
enforced?? - Court said NO provisions to authorize these transfer by the Executive department.
Ngano man? Naay provision didto allowing the President, tung mga
Daniel Operario tao na gienumerate nato to transfer funds using their savings. Mali
50 | P a g e
daw, not in accordance in the Constitution because walay phrase na nangayo ani nga kwarta. Karun gipangayo nila, mao na ang savings.
for their respective offices. In other words, the effect of kadtong Dili pwede na naa didto tas wala nila gigasto, that cannot be
provision without that limiting phrase is you can transfer considered as savings as defined in the GAA itself. So dili sya pwede
everywhere from one department to another. That is why mao na maging savings na pwede matransfer-transfer ni President. They
ang gihimo karun, from the executive tagaan ug kwarta ang have not ripened to the categories from which savings can be
legislative, thinking that is allowed. So ang 2011-2012 GAA, they generated. So unreleased appropriations cannot be considered
were not compliant with the first requirement na there must be a savings again since they have not even reached or used by the
law authorizing the President, nay provision pero unconstitutional agency viv-a-vis the project is concerned.
because that provision did not provide for the limit for their
respective department. What about the unobligated allotments?
Republic Act No. 10147 GAA of 2011 AUGUST 29, 2019 These are encompassed by the first definition of savings, in the GAAs
concerned which is these are portions or balances of any program or
Section 59 appropriation in the law free from any obligation and encumbrance.
Use of Savings. —
The President of the Philippines, the Senate President, the Speaker Mikee Balogo
of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme As defined by the GAA itself. Dili sya pwede mahimong savings na
Court, the Heads of Constitutional Commissions enjoying fiscal ma-transfer lang ni president. They have not yet ripened into the
autonomy, and the Ombudsman are hereby authorized to augment categories of items from which savings can be generated.
any item in this Act from savings in other items of their respective Unreleased appropriations cannot be considered as savings because
appropriations. they have not been used by the agencies.
Unobligated allotments, on the other hand, were encompassed by
(As you can see, the phrase “for their respective office does not the first part of the definition of "savings" in the GAA, that is, as
exist.” "portions or balances of any programmed appropriation in this Act
What about the 2013 GAA? Nakasulat ba didto ang phrase na for free from any obligation or encumbrance." But the first part of the
their respective office? So tama na sya. Na meet na nya ang first definition was further qualified by the three enumerated instances of
requirement. How about the second requirement na dapat savings when savings would be realized. As such, unobligated allotments
to be used, to realign, to fund an existing item. Didto napud ang could not be indiscriminately declared as savings without first
discussion sa Supreme Court insofar as this GAA provisions are determining whether any of the three instances existed. This signified
concerned. What are savings? The GAAs in question here 2011, that the DBM’s withdrawal of unobligated allotments had
2012, 2013 defined what savings are, these are portions or balances disregarded the definition of savings under the GAAs.
of any program
Savings refer to portions or balances of any programmed
Republic Act No. 10147 GAA of 2011 appropriation in this Act free from any obligation or encumbrance
Section 60 which are:
Savings refer to portions or balances of any programmed (i) still available after the completion or final discontinuance or
appropriation in this Act free from any obligation or encumbrance abandonment of the work, activity or purpose for which the
which are: appropriation is authorized;
(i) still available after the completion or final discontinuance or (ii) from appropriations balances arising from unpaid compensation
abandonment of the work, activity or purpose for which the and related costs pertaining to vacant positions and leaves of
appropriation is authorized; absence without pay; and
(ii) from appropriations balances arising from unpaid compensation (iii) from appropriations balances realized from the implementation
and related costs pertaining to vacant positions and leaves of of measures resulting in improved systems and efficiencies and thus
absence without pay; and enabled agencies to meet and deliver the required or planned
(iii) from appropriations balances realized from the implementation targets, programs and services approved in this Act at a lesser cost.
of measures resulting in improved systems and efficiencies and thus
enabled agencies to meet and deliver the required or planned In this case, the unobligated allotments were not considered as
targets, programs and services approved in this Act at a lesser cost. savings because the DBM did set in clear terms on the criteria for
Threfore in was only in these instances that savings could be the withdrawal of these unobligated allotments. The fact that the
generated, only upon the purpose being fulfilled. So in the first place withdrawal of allotments under the issuances of the DBM could
is dapat giimplement nimo tung item and then nakasave ka either reissued for the original programs and projects of the agencies
nahuman nimo sya tas naa kay savings or gidiscontinue nimo sya but concerned, from which the allotments were withdrawn. It means
in the first place dapat giimplement nimo sya. The phrase “free from that the projects have not been fully discontinued. The purpose for
any obligation or encumbrance” is important. In other words which the withdrawn fund has been appropriated was not yet
nagrequest na ang agency naa kuy budget sa GAA ha, akoa ning fulfilled or did not yet cease to exist, rendering the declaration of the
gastuhon, sulat sya sa DBM. Tas karun si DBM, okay tagaan syag funds as savings impossible. In other words, ang funding na gigamit
kwarta. Kung gihatag sa imo ang kwarta, gastuhon nimo ang kwarta for the DAP cannot be considered as savings. And the third requisite,
and if dili nimo mahurot paggasto nimo, mao to ang savings there must be an item existing in the GAA to be funded by these
savings. Wala pud ni nag exist. Asa man ni gikuha ang payment sa
Ngano mani dili maconsider na savings? Unsa ang gigamit sa pag impeach kang Corona? Wala man sa GAA. The DAP itself as a
pagbayad sa DAP? Ang gigamit nila na funds came from the program is not fully unconstitutional. However, there were acts and
unreleased appropriations such as unreleased personnel practices declared by the court unconstitutional such as the
appropriations, unreleased appropriations for slow-moving project withdrawal of unobligated allotments from the implementing
and discontinued project. Nganong dili mani pwede ang unreleased agencies, AND the declaration of these allotments and unreleased
funds to be considered as savings? Why? Because this appropriations as savings, cross-border transfers of the executive
appropriations have not been even reached the agency. Wala pa sila to augment appropriations of other offices outside the executive
51 | P a g e
(kadtong gipambayad sa senators), and funding the projects that additional workload. Ang remedy dire kay paadtuon na lang sa Court
were not covered by any appropriation in the GAA. of Appeals, dili mudiretso sa SC.
Section 31. No law granting a title or royalty or nobility shall be
Cocofed v. Aquino enacted
The collection of Coco Levy funds began in 1971, following the
passage of RA 6260. Later on, nag devolve ang use aning funds, Musaka ka sa Supreme Court dile ka pwedemudiretsosa Supreme
which included the passage of several presidential decrees, PD 755, Court
961... these laws were struck down as unconstitutional because
these declared coco levy funds as private assets. Moreover, PNOY Lets go to the Implied Substantive limitations, naatayginaingonna
issued EO Nos. 179 and 180, E.O. No. 179 calls for the inventory and express, naapudtay implied substantive limitations, walasiyagi
privatization of all coco levy assets. E.0. No. 180, on the other hand, mention sa constitution peronaga exist nisiyana limitations for
mandates the reconveyance and utilization of these assets for the example kaning Doctrine of non-delegation of legislative powers,
benefit of coconut farmers and the development of the coconut (latin) “The legislative neither must nor and transfer the power of
industry. Naay provision dire in PD 1468 that allows as to how the making laws to anybody else or place except, or place it anywhere
CCSF and CIDF funds to be utilize Section 3 The balance, if any, shall but where the people have which is on itself. Congress therefore
be utilized for investments for the benefit of the coconut farmers as cannot as a rule delegate its legislative powers because that is
prescribed in Section 9 hereof. Kana ang standard na gigamit sa delegated legislative power from the people, diba 5 to kabuok,
executive department to pass these executive orders to implement original and derivative or delegated so si Congress is already
this law. This provision does not provide a valid standard for exercising delegated legislative power dilinananiya ma delegate
delegation to be delegated. It is an open-ended provision which elsewhere as a general rule. But of course there are several
cannot be considered a law which provides clear legislative exceptions to the rule what are these? First delegation to local
parameters. The provision of P.D. No. 1468 are simply too broad to government units, in the Constitution gina empower ang local
limit the amount of spending that may be done by the implementing autonomy and because of that pwedena by way of the law, by
authority. Considering that no statute provides for specific exercise of legislative powers of local government units so gi allow
parameters on how the SAGF may be spent, Congress must first nasiya by way of the Local Government Code, what else?
provide a law for the disbursements of the funds, in line with its Delegations allowed by Constitutions such as Emergency powers to
constitutional authority. EO 180 and PD 1468 are declared void. the President, power to fix tariff rates, delegation to the people
under the Constitution and delegation to administrative bodies,
Dela Cruz v. Ochoa 2018 maoni tong gi discuss dibakatongmga power to promulgate rules
Daghan gihapon mga sakyanan nga walay official plate numbers and regulations provided that the law fulfills to the two
because nagka-issue sa procurement of the plate niagi pa og RT requirements of a valid delegation, the completeness and sufficient
hantod niabot sa SC. It was challenged that the spending of the standard so those are the.... valid delegation to administrative
funds relating to that activity is unconstitutional. The transfer of the bodies, before makahimosilaog IRR dapat complete ang balaud
appropriation for the motor vehicle and registration and driver’s meaning the law is complete in all its terms and conditions and the
licensing regulatory services under the 2014 GAA is unconstitutional. delegate will only have to enforce it and number two dapatnaasiyay
This program does not appear in the 2014 GAA therefore, it deprives sufficient standard the law must contain adequate guidelines to
the president his veto powers. Is this activity not stated in the GAA? prevent the delegation from running riot. So what can a delegate not
Kung ang activity wala naka state sa GAA, dili man nimo pwede ma- do? It cannot add a new standard. Kung mao ra ni ang amoanggina
implement, kay walay kwarta for it. You cannot spend public funds ask karon, dilesiyapwede mag dungag ani na parameter, changing
without allowing you to do so. The Court said that, this program was legislative policy, expanding the powers given to a particular officer
properly funded by the GAA, naay provision didto sa GAA for motor and of course amending the law, di napwedehimuonsa legislative
vehicle and driver’s licensing regulatory services. Nakabutang jud sya agency, dapatlmitedsiya to the law it is implementing.
didto specifically wherein it includes the plate making. Also, naay
reference gihimo ang SC the details sa 2014 budget, didto nakita ang Now in the Case of Flores vs Montemayor
specifics as to how that item how to be spent. Naay allotted money Which discusses about the delegated power of the President, giving
didto, apil ang plate making. it the PAGC, the Presidential Anti Graft and Corruption to do
investigations, but these investigations kung unsa ang ilang result?
Another Express Substantive limitation sa Constitution is in Art VI, (Nag commendatory lang to the president) so that is one example of
Section 30 and 31 Section 30. No law shall be passed increasing the delegation of power.
appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this
Constitution without its advice and concurrence. Now let’s go to delegation of legislative power kay kani ang bulk sa
discussion for example the case of Review Center vs Executive
General Rule: dili pwede nimo pwede hatagan og additional work Secretary Ermita. Have we discussed this? The leakage of the
ang SC by increasing its appellate jurisdiction provided in the nursing board exam? In 2006, dibanagka leakage atona exam unya
Constitution. Exclusive sya as long as dili sila muhatag sa ilang advice nag yawyaw tong mga nag tarongog study naipa take nasad mi og
og concurrence. If the SC does no concur then, it cannot be done. exam usab blah blah blah etc. So because of this leakage nanakita
The case of Fabian v. Desierto, wala sya na discuss dire kay sa ang mga questionnaire samga specific review centers, President
judiciary sya nabutang. It was challenged here that a provision in an GMA issued E.O. 566 authorizing the CHED to supervise these review
Ombudsman Act RA 6770 which authorizes an appeal to the SC from centers, ang question karon is can it be done by the President?
the Office of Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary law. The When the law involved here does not huh, the coverage of CHED
ombudsman conducts preliminary investigation kanang murag city under RA 7722 does not include the power to check these review
prosecutor. It is also a tribunal which can determine administrative centers, so can the President extend the power of the CHED? Of
infractions. The SC said that it cannot be done by way of a law (RA course not, this E.O. clearly expanded CHED’s coverage under RA
61770 ) because we did not give our advice and concurrence to that 7722 and therefore this cant be done because this is already beyond
52 | P a g e
the rule making powers of the President, naa nay standard nagi set PROHIBITION AGAINST DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER
ang AUGUST 29, 2019 Aside sa express substantive limitation, naa pud tay implied
substantive limitation, the doctrine of non-delegation of legislative
balaud which is only on these instances nag add pa dyudogisa, that powers. Nagstart ta og discuss about ana sa case ni Review Center
cannot be done. These review centers are beyond the jurisdiction of v. Ermita
the CHED under RA 7722. If you want to include these review
centers then ipa amend niyonangbalaud. Review Center v. Ermita
The president cannot expand the review powers to check by mere
COCOFED vs Republic issuance of an administrative law because naay implementing
Among the relevant laws that implemented, that created and agency which is the executive department
implemented this Coco levy fund is PD 1755 which prohibited the
use of the fund for the acquisition of a commercial bank for the COCOFED v. Republic
benefit of coconut farmers and the distribution of the shares of This PD 755 was challenged for being unconstitutional. That
stocks of the bank it applied free to the coconut farmers and later on declaration of unconstitutionality (inaudible 1:15), the use of COCO
kaningabalaud was declared unconstitutional by the supreme court, Levy funds for the acquisition of commercial lands for the benefit
there were pending cases in the Sandiganbayan to get these funds coconut farmers and the distribution of shares of the land which
kay ang naka benefit man ani kay katongmga cronies ni Marcos, were acquired by Philippine Coconut Administration. PCA is the one
because of the lack of standard na manipulate nila ang pag use sa who collects and administers the funds – to buy assets. Under this
funds. Nahatagsa farmers, gipalit from the farmers and they law, the PCA was given the authority to use the funds and distribute
themselves are now the owners of these stocks etc. Gi declare na the shares acquired to coconut farmers. There was an investigation
unconstitutional, nagkakasosa Sandiganbayan para ma recover ning conducted new administration insofar as the management of funds.
amounts and the sandiganbayan consistent with that, it said, it ruled It was reported na gigamit ni sya to enrich the cronies of Marcos.
that this law was unconstitutional. Now karon, niabotningkasosa Naabot sa Sandiganbayan ang kaso, naay na-involved nga high-
Supreme Court because of this funding of the Sandiganbayan, this ranking officials. The Sandiganbayan declared PD 755
law is not unconstitutional, they provided for the valid delegation for unconstitutional because wala syay standard insofar how the funds
legislative power but the Court said here that this law, particularly to be used pursuant to PD 755. In other words, kung walay clear nga
section 1 involved an invalid delegation of legislative power, as a parameters ang law, it will grant the implementing agency much
rule dilepwedemaka delegate og legislative power ang legislative authority on how to implement the law. It cannot be done without
department, unless, ma meet niya tong two tests, the completeness violating the rule on the non-delegation of legislative powers
and the sufficient standard. Here walay sufficient standard ang because the law itself did not set the parameters upon which it will
balaud for it to be implemented under PD 1755, huh why? That be executed.
decree authorizes this PCA, Philippine Coconut Authority to
distribute to coconut farmers for free the Stocks of UCPD and take Gi-declare nila ang law unconstitutional, naabot sa SC ang kaso. Is
from the funds, the financial commitments of the coconut farmers, the law involved invalid delegation of legislative power? The Court
dile enough ang law to implement this provision because it did not said YES. The GENERAL RULE: the Congress cannot delegate
delineate who were coconut farmers in the first place. Distribute to legislative power but there are exceptions.
coconut farmers the shares of UCPD, Who are coconut farmers,
makitanimo? Wala, there is no provision. The law, the decree does Exceptions:
not even state who are to be considered coconut farmers, the 1.) Instances permitted by the constitution
definition of a coconut farmer, the basis as to the number of shares, 2.) Delegated legislative powers exercised by the local
he is entitled to receive cannot be determined, left to the discretion government unit.
of the implementing agency and therefore this law did not identify 3.) The delegation to the Executive branch to promulgate
or delineate any clear condition as to how the shares is to be Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR). It cannot
converted so this PD 755 did not provide for the specifics, expand the provisions of the law.
particularly the definition of the coconut farmer and how the money
is supposed to be spent, therefore ang pag implement ana by the Two tests determine the validity of delegation of legislative power:
executive branch charge the implementing, the law would also (1) the completeness test and (2) the sufficient standard test. A law
follow the same defect kay walasilakabalo kung asai distribute ang is complete when it sets forth therein the policy to be executed,
kwarta, what else? This law did not identify or delineate a clear carried out or implemented by the delegate. It lays down a sufficient
condition as to how the disposition of the UCPD shares or the standard when it provides adequate guidelines or limitations in the
conversion to private ownership will redound to the advancement of law to map out the boundaries of the delegate’s authority and
the national policy declared under the law which is to accelerate the prevent the delegation from running riot. To be sufficient, the
growth and development of the coconut industry. Wala standard must specify the limits of the delegate’s authority
gibutangsabalaud, ngano mu accelerate ang coconut industry announce the legislative policy and identify the conditions under
tungodaning distribution of these UCPD shares. A conclusion, the which it is to be implemented.
law did not provide for any guidelines, standard condition, or
restriction by which the shares are to be distributed to coconut In the instant case, the requisite standards or criteria are absent in
farmers that would ensure that the same would be undertaken to P.D. No. 755. As may be noted, the decree authorizes the PCA to
accelerate the growth and development of the coconut industry and distribute to coconut farmers, for free, the shares of stocks of UCPB
therefore this law grants to this agency, the PCA, the ability to and to pay from the CCSF levy the financial commitments of the
distribute without any clear parameters on these funds, therefore coconut farmers under the Agreement for the acquisition of such
walay valid delegation of legislative power, so unsa man ang pag bank. Yet, the decree does not even state who are to be considered
execute atonga agency, walay clear standards, it cannot be done for as coconut farmers. Would, say, one who plants a single coconut
violating this implied substantive limitation. tree be already considered a coconut farmer and, therefore, entitled
to own UCPB shares? If so, how many shares shall be given to him?
53 | P a g e
The definition of a coconut farmer and the basis as to the number of banks and financial institutions and, if circumstances warrant, to
shares a farmer is entitled to receive for free are important variables forbid them to do business, to take over their management or to
to be determined by law and cannot be left to the discretion of the place them under receivership. The legislature has clearly spelled
implementing agency. out the reasonable parameters of the power entrusted to the MB
and assigned to it only the manner of enforcing said power. In other
Moreover, P.D. No. 755 did not identify or delineate any clear words, the MB was given a wide discretion and latitude only as to
condition as to how the disposition of the UCPB shares or their how the law should be implemented in order to attain its objective
conversion into private ownership will redound to the advancement of protecting the interest of the public, the banking industry and the
of the national policy declared under it. To recall, P.D. No. 755 seeks economy.
to "accelerate the growth and development of the coconut industry
and achieve a vertical integration thereof so that coconut farmers Belgica v. Ochoa
will become participants in, and beneficiaries of, such growth and The PDAF case. Unsa may connection sa non-delegation of legislative
development. power dire? Ang provision sa PDAF allows individual legislator to
exercise the power of appropriation. Who can exercise the power of
Vivas v. Monetary Board appropriation? It is the Congress and not individual legislators. It is
Gi-question ang authority sa Monetary Board of the Central Bank to a violation of the non-delegation of legislative powers.
close a bank which is already losing and prior to any hearing
conducted to determine WON the bank is losing. Consistent to the Disini v. Sec. Of Justice
provisions of RA 7653 otherwise known as The New Central Bank The Anti-Cyber Crime Law was challenged because the Congress
Act. There EuroCredit (ECBI) bank here which was closed by the invalidly delegated its power when it gave the Cyber Crime
Monetary Board. The closing of the bank was assailed because it was Investigation the power to formulate a national cyber security plan,
invalid. and that provision allowing to do so did not contain a sufficient
standard of parameters for it to follow. The Court said that there
Sometime in April 2008, the examiners from the Department of was no invalid delegation. The provision passed the 2 tests. The law
Loans and Credit of the BSP arrived at the ECBI and cancelled the is complete, it directed the CICC to formulate and implement this
rediscounting line of the bank. Vivas appealed the cancellation to plan contrary to the position of those challenging the provision, the
BSP. Thereafter, the Monetary Board (MB) issued Resolution No. law meet the sufficient standards for the CICC to follow it to provide
1255, dated September 25, 2008, placing ECBI under Prompt a definition for home cyber security.
Corrective Action (PCA) framework because of the following serious
findings and supervisory concerns. On March 4, 2010, the MB Tua v. Mangrobang
issued Resolution No. 27623 placing ECBI under receivership for the Tua challenged the constitutionality of Sec. 15 of RA 9262 because of
following reasons: there is an invalid delegation of legislative power to the Court and to
the Barangay officials to issue protection orders. Is he correct? NO.
(a) is unable to pay its liabilities as they become due in the ordinary
course of business; The court said that insofar as to the grant of this power to the Court
and to barangay officials, it is within the power of the congress to
(b) has insufficient realizable assets to meet liabilities; decide. Sila man nagpasa sa law. Nag jive lang ang powers sa Court
and Congress to settle justiciable controversy.
(c) cannot continue in business without involving probable losses to
its depositors and creditors; and With regard to the Barangay officials, there was no invalid
delegation of legislative power, the function to issue protection
(d) has willfully violated a cease and desist order of the Monetary orders is purely executive in nature pursuant to the duties of
Board for acts or transactions which are considered unsafe and barangay officials under the LGC, to maintain public order in the
unsound banking practices and other acts or transactions barangay.
constituting fraud or dissipation of the assets of the institution
Ferrer v. Bautista
Issue: The power delegated in favor of the Bangko Sentral ng The case is about delegated legislative power to local legislative
Pilipinas to place rural banks under receiverships is unconstitutional units, insofar as the power to tax its own people. There were
for being a diminution or invasion of the powers of the Supreme ordinances issued by the Quezon City, imposing socialized housing
Court, in violation of Section 2, Article VIII of the Philippine tax. Gina-impose sa residents. Gina tax ang homeonwers dili mga
Constitution. informal settlers, to pay specific fee for the benefit sa mga walay
balay.
Ruling: there is no violation of the non-delegation of legislative
power. The rationale for the constitutional proscription is that Naa pud gi-impose nga garbage bins for the purpose of facilitating
"legislative discretion as to the substantive contents of the law the garbage collection and to reduce wastage in the community.
cannot be delegated. What can be delegated is the discretion to Ma-deter daw kay naay fee imposed.
determine how the law may be enforced, not what the law shall be.
The ascertainment of the latter subject is a prerogative of the It is a penalty imposed on the homeowners due to the failure of the
legislature. This prerogative cannot be abdicated or surrendered by LGU to perform their duty to secure and protect the real property
the legislature to the delegate." homeowners from the informal settlers. Therefore, ang socialized
housing tax is a burden to them. Problema na sa LGU na to get rid of
In this case, under the two tests, there was no undue delegation of the informal settlers, nganong sa ila man daw ihatag ang burden
legislative authority in the issuance of R.A. No. 7653. To address the through paying fees. With regard to this issue, the Court ruled that it
growing concerns in the banking industry, the legislature has is a valid exercise of power of taxation of the LGU.
sufficiently empowered the MB to effectively monitor and supervise
54 | P a g e
Can the LGU impose taxes? shegave an order to the Barangay Tanod Benjamin dela Cruz (Dela
The Court said YES. The primordial principle here is that, LGU as a Cruz), to destroy the basketball ring by cutting it up with a hacksaw
rule, can legislate. The LGU can legislate only through a valid which the Tanod promptly complied with, thus, rendering the said
delegation of legislative power from the National legislature. LGU’s basketball court unusable and because of that, a case was filed by
power to tax emanates from law which is consistent to the provision the Ombudsman against her because her acts should be
of Constitution on Local Autonomy. The power to tax is derived by administratively sanctioned. Her defense was that, the acts of
LGUs from national legislation. With regard to its power of taxation, destroying the basketball ring was only pursuant to her duty as
it is one of the most effective instruments to raise revenues defined in the local government code. Police power to abate this
financing the LGUs and the Court emphasized that the power of public nuisance (she was referring to the barangay basketball court).
taxation is not exclusive to the Congress because local legislative
bodies are now given the direct authority to levy taxes. Why are our BarangayChief Executive perform this act pursuant to her police
local governments given such power? It is to strengthen our powers. The Court said that police power is granted to local
economy. Nevertheless, the power of taxation of the LGUs is not government code to local government units to exercise. But the
inherent. Except if it is delegated to them by the Constitution or power to exercise police power is generally lodge on what entity? Is
statute. The Congress may provide statutory limitation to this. it the executive or the legislative? The court said that it is in the
legislative branch.
However not all class legislations are unconstitutional if there is a
valid justification. There is a valid justification in this case, what is The Barangay Officialscould cite no barangay nor city ordinance that
the purpose of this tax? For the purpose of undertaking a would have justified their summary abatement through the exercise
comprehensive and continuing urban development and housing of police powers found in the local government code.No barangay
program, the disparities between a real property owner and an nor city ordinance was violated; neither was there one which
informal settler as two distinct classes are too obvious and need not specifically declared the said basketball ring as a nuisance per se that
be discussed at length. The differentiation conforms to the practical may be summarily abated. When the Barangay Chairperson exercise
dictates of justice and equity and is not discriminatory within the police power, it had no basis, no source under any local or barangay
meaning of the Constitution. ordinance. Can exercise that police power under the general
welfare act?
In other words, the Court said, yes, this local government unit can
tax this homeowner for the benefit of those who do not have How is police power exercise by barangay officials? They can
homes. And there is no discrimination there because there is a valid exercise police power including the abatement of such nuisances
justification between this two classes of people. under the general welfare clause of the local government unit. And
this power given by the general welfare clause is a power exercised
What about the garbage fee? The Court said that it is by the government mainly through its legislative department, and
unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection clause. For not the executive, branch. The prevailing jurisprudence is that local
the purpose of garbage collection, there is, in fact, no substantial government units such as the provinces, cities, municipalities and
distinction between an occupant of a lot, on one hand, and an barangays exercise police power through their respective legislative
occupant of a unit in a condominium, socialized housing project or bodies.
apartment, on the other hand. The basis that they use for garbage
fee imposition is where you live (condominium, apartment, or in Does the barangay chairperson have the authority to exercise police
socialize housing project. power pursuant to a legislative enactment by the local government
unit? In this case there is no such authority given to this barangay
The rates being charged by the ordinance are unjust and inequitable: official to effect the abatement of the basketball court ring under
a resident of a 200 sq. m. unit in a condominium or socialized the guise of the exercise of police power precisely because she was
housing project has to pay twice the amount than a resident of a lot not given such authority by the local legislative body.
similar in sizethanthose living in socialized housing projects (samga
squatters). You will encounter in Second Year, General Welfare Clause in so far
as local government units are concerned. You can find it in Section
They were imposed a higher rate with the contention that they have 16 of the local government code.
a lot of garbage. However, the Court said that is not a proper
standard. What’s the difference with people living in a socialize In Quezon City PTCA Federation, Inc. Vs Department of Education GR
housing projectthanthose residing / living in a condominium as far as 188720 (February 23, 2016);
wastage is concern?The respondents said that most likely, garbage
output produced by these types of occupants is not uniform and A Department Order was passed by the Dept of Education DO 54
varies in large degrees, hence the different garbage rates. The Court which was entitled“Revised Guidelines Governing Parents-Teachers
said that this imposition is unjust and unconstitutional for being Associations (PTAs) at the School Level“ addressed the many
violative of equal protection clause. anomalies and problems attached to PTA’s. Now, the QC PTCA
Federation challenge this issuance by the Secretary of Education on
In Natividad C. Cruz Vs Pandacan Hiker's Club, GR 188213 (Jan. 11, the ground that among others, it is an undue delegation of
2016) legislative powers. The Court said that the DO is not
unconstitutional. Court discusses that delegation is necessary in the
There were people playing basketball in a barangay court. Punong first place. General Rule: Cannot delegate legislative power. But
Barangay or Chairperson Natividad C. Cruz became upset upon one of the exceptions: Can Delegate it to the Executive Department.
seeing individuals playing basketball in the Barangay Basketball The Executive Department has to execute the law. For example, in
Court. She proceeded to ask why the basketball court was open and the creation of the IRR to iron out the context of the law, to fill-in
told the players that they do not have the right to play in that the details. Why is it necessary? It is a recognition of the increasing
basketball court since they are not members of the Barangay. So complexity of the task of government. Congress is not expected to
55 | P a g e
forsee everything that will happen in the execution of the law. should be a distinction on income earned prior to the amendment
That’s why the Executive Department was given limited authority to and the income earned thereafter because none is indicated in the
provide for these rules, to implement the law, provided it stays law.
consistent with the law.
The CIR went over his authority to implement that law because that
Who exercises this delegated power? The executive department. limitation in that context was not indicated in the law in the first
These regulations have the force and effect of law. However, before place. Therefore, there is no legal basis for the BIR to introduce this
executive officials can exercise limited delegated legislative power, law of pro-rating of the new personal and additional exemptions.
there must be two tests has to be fulfilled. The Completeness Test
and the Sufficient Standard Test. The provision that allows for the So what about on the condition, if you will receive other benefits in
exercise of such power must already be complete and must have excess of P30,000, you will no longer be considered a minimum
sufficient standards. There is an additional requirement under the wage earner and therefore, you can no longer avail of that
Administrative Code which requires the filing of the rules adopted by exemption.
administrative agencies with the University of the Philippines Law
Center. Each rule submitted to the UP Law Center shall become The Court said that this additional requirements or conditions
effective fifteen (15) days from the date of filing. imposed by the BIR are not found in the law as well, therefore, the
Commissioner once again exceeded or went beyond his authority to
What is the basis of the rule-making authority of the Secretary of issue this revenue regulation.
Education? The Education Act of 1982. This law grants the
Secretary such authority and using that authority, he issued this Again, in implementing a law, an administrative agency issuing
Department Order. The Court said that this is consistent with the regulations may not enlarge, alter or restrict the provisions of the
provision granting him such power. law it administers, and it cannot engraft additional requirements not
contemplated by the legislature. It cannot add to the requirements
Department Order No. 54, Series of 2009 was validly issued by the provided by law. To do so constitutes lawmaking, which is generally
Secretary of Education pursuant to his statutorily vested rule-making reserved for Congress.
power and pursuant to the purposes for which the organization of
parent-teacher associations is mandated by statute. Likewise, there
was no fatal procedural lapse in the adoption of Department Order In Efraim C. Genuino Vs. Leila De Lima GR 197930 (April 17, 2018)
No. 54, Series of 2009.
Remember this case? The Hold Departure Order which is anchored
In Jaime N. Soriano Vs. Secretary of Finance, GR 184450, (Jan. 24, on DOJ Circular # 41, Series of 2010. This was issued in 2010 so
2017) when people got pending cases against them with DOJ / Prosecutors
Office, as a rule, DOJ can invoke the Hold Departure Order so they
This talks about Revenue Regulations issued by the Commissioner of cannot leave the country in which GMA’s name was included in the
Internal Revenue to implement the provisions of Republic Act No. Hold Departure List.
(R.A.) 9504. The law granted, among others, income tax exemption
for minimum wage earners (MWEs), as well as an increase in They contested the constitutionality of the circular. The validty of
personal and additional exemptions for individual taxpayers. the DOJ Circular was challenged. The Court said that the Circular is
unconstitutional. Why? There is no law that authorizes the DOJ
This RR issued by the Commissioner went beyond what the law Secretary to issue this DOJ Circular in the first place.
allowed. Why?
Again, before an agency of the executive department can implement
The Revenue Regulation (RR) restrict the implementation of the a law, there must be a law in the first place. There is no law
MWEs' income tax exemption only to the period starting when the particularly providing for the authority of the Secretary of Justice to
law took effect. In other words, the first regulation issued bythe curtail the exercise of the right to travel. Under the Constitution,
CIRhas prorated application of the benefit of the new set of personal there are limited grounds restricting that right. And consistent with
and additional exemptionssince this came into law halfway into the the provisions in the Constitution, one of the requirements is that,
year, then they will just be applied to the remaining half of the year, there must be a law to effect such a limitation. De Lima presented
instead of applying the exemption to the entire year 2008. So that’s laws. In fairness to her, she was not the one that issued this DOJ
one of the regulations issued by the CIR. Circular. It was a past DOJ Secretary. De Lima simply implemented
the law based on the DOJ Circular based on the Circular which was
Another was that the RR also imposed a condition for the availment long effective.
by MWEs of the exemption provided by R.A. 9504. Supposedly, in
the event they receive other benefits in excess of P30,000, you will To defend the validity of the Circular and Hold Departure Orders, she
no longer be considered a minimum wage earner and therefore, you cited provisions in EO 292 (Administrative Code of the Philippines).
can no longer avail of that exemption. The Court said that the provisions cited do not give such an authority
to the DOJ Secretary. Sections 1, and 3 Book 4 Title 3 Chapter 1 of
Are this revenue regulations valid? EO 292, Section 15 Chapter 11 Book 4 of EO 292 are what was used
as basis. The Court said this are mere general provisions designed to
The Court said that No. In the first clause, in so far as in the pro- lay down the purposes of the enactment and the broad enumeration
ration in the availment of the benefit is concern, the Court said that of the powers and functions of the DOJ.
the policy of the law RA 9504 is "full taxable year treatment" as
regards the application of tax exemption laws. R.A. 9504 did not Section 1 is a Declaration of Policy (the Essence of the Law). Section
provide for a prorated application of the new personal and 3 does not authorize the DOJ to issue Hold Departure Orders to
additional exemptions. There is no reason therefore why there restrict the constitutional right to travel. Section 15 simply provides
56 | P a g e
for the types of issuances of the administrative may issue but they
did not speak ofany authority or power rather than give clarification The Court said that in this Act 1760, ang prohibited acts lang, which
to the major issuances that was issued by Secretary or head of means angmga acts nanaay Penal Sanctions are only those in
agency. There is no specific provision in the law that allows and Sections 3, 4, and 5. And the act committed by the accused in this
empowers the DOJ Secretary to restrict the right to travel under the case not of any of those Sections. What about Section 6? (???38:55)
law cited. karonang Court ang argument nganonggikasuhansya… unsaang
provision? It authorizes the Director of Agriculture to do certain
We are done with implied substantive limitations. things, among others, to require animals that are suffering from
dangerous communicable diseases be quarantined. However, there
People Vs Jose O. Vera (GR 45685, Nov 16, 1937-38) is nothing in the law that says that the violation of the orders of that
Director will be penally sanctioned. Just because you violate that,
Now let’s go to Cases where there are Undue Delegation of the law does not say that naay penal sanction attached to the
Legislative Power as discussed by the Court. violation of the issuances of this Director of Agriculture. In other
words, when criminal law provides for specific acts, katolangna acts
In the very old case of People Vs Vera, Old Probation Act No. 4221 nanaay penalty, maolang to angpwedengmapenalizesaimuha. Kung
was challenged. Why? There is a provision in the Probation Act: walay penal sanction katong act naimonggicommit in that penal law,
This Act shall apply only in those provinces in which respective dilikapwedei-penally sanction. Here, any violation of the order of the
Provincial Boards are provided for the salary of a Probation Officer Director of Agriculture is not a Penal Violation precisely because the
at rates not lower than those provided for Provincial Fiscals. This law (Act 1760) does not say nanaay penal sanction attached to the
provision according to the Supreme Court is problematic because it violation of such directives of the Director of Agriculture.
gives now the authority (if the law is applied or not) to the Considering nawalay penal sanction, dilisyapwedena ma penalize
provinces. ana. Nowhere in this code is a violation of the orders of this Director
of the Bureau of Agriculture made penal offense.
What if they won’t provide a salary for a Probation Officer at rates
not lower than those provided for Provincial Fiscals? In other words, People vs. Maceren [40:23] (1977)
the applicability of the law would now depend on whether or not Electrofishing. Under the old Fisheries Law, it created a Fisheries
the provinces would adopt or apply this condition. The Court said Commission, and because of this law, nagpasangmga Administrative
the provision is incomplete and has no * standards. The Legislature Orders (AOs) katong officer concerned diri which included AO 84-1.
is not made for the operation of the Probation Act contingent upon Now in the Old Fisheries Law, walay express provision of a penal
specified facts or conditions to be ascertained by the Provincial sanction sapagelectrofish. But AO 84-1, gi prohibit sya. So karon,
Board. It needs the entire operation of the law or none-operation kaykining accused, nag electrofishsya, gikasuhansa Court for
thereof upon the Provincial Board and the discretion vested is violation of the Fisheries Law. Is it correct that he was penalized?
arbitrary because it is absolute and unlimited. In other words, if the The Court said that in the meantime, nagpasaangng amendments sa
province will not provide for the salary of probation officer in their Fisheries Law which now included Electrofishing as a Criminal Act.
province at the rate not lower than Provincial Fiscals then the law But katong time nagicommitniya, walapa’y provision didto but
will not operate in their province. The Court said, that provision is karonkaygipenalizesyakaynagissuekatong Secretary of Agriculture
unconstitutional. and Natural Resources ng AO nabawalang Electrofishing.
What if dilisilamagprovideng salary for para sa probation officer at The Court said that Katong law nanagapply or nag take effect when
the rate not lower than those provided for provincial fiscals? In the person accused committed electrofishing, did not at the time
other words, ang applicability of the law would now depend WON expressly prohibit electrofishing, and therefore
these provinces would adopt/apply this condition. dilipwedemagexpandang provisions sabalaod by an Adminisitrative
Issuance of an Implementing Agency. If the law is silent, (or does not
So the Court said that this provision is Incomplete, and has No penalize an act) then that Executing Agency cannot make criminal.
Sufficient Standards. The Legislature has not made the operation of
the provision at contingent upon specified facts or conditions to be What about the fact that gi-amend angbalaod? The Court said that it
ascertained by the provincial board. It leaves the entire operation or is a recognition that in the first place, that under the old law,
non-operation of the law thereof upon the Provincial Board, and the [electrofishing] dilisya criminal. Therefore walang basis under the
Discretion vested is arbitrary because it is absolute and unlimited. So law to penally sanction these accused, considering that at the time
in other words, magtake effect ang law only if the provinces would the acts were committed, they were not yet criminal acts.
provide for the Salaries of these Probation Officers at the rate not
lower than Fiscals. If dilisilamagprovide for that, dilimagtake effect Again, the power to execute the law cannot be extended to
ang law sailahang province. The Court said that that provision is amending or expanding the statutory requirements, or to embrace
Unconstitutional. matters not covered by the statute
US vs. Panlilio (1914) [37:43] People v. Dacuycuy (1989) [42:32]

He was convicted of violation of Act 1760 related to the quarantine There is a violation here of RA 4670 or the Magna Carta for Public
of the animals suffering from dangerous diseases. Gikasuhansyasa School teacher. So gikasuhannisiDacuycuy for violating that. Now,
Court criminally kay, pursuant to the law – nagissuesi Director of gikasuhansya, nagkahearingnasa Court, and then gichallengeniya
Agriculture ng directive nadapatdilinimohimuonni. Now, because of (Dacuycuy) ang penal provision upon which (kung asasyagikasuhan),
violating the directive, kayiyanggihimo is that naka quarantine under Sec. 22 of the Law. Why? Angkanyang Argument is that it
naganiangmgaCarabao, he still illegally and willingly and ordered imposes a Cruel and Unusual Punishment because the term of
those Carabao to be taken from the corral and used the for work. So imprisonment is not fixed in the law. What does that provision read?
violative daw nasyasa directive ni Director of Agriculture which is A violation of this law, under Sec. 22 read: “A person who shall
anchored on Act 1760. wilfully interfere with, restrain, and coerce any teacher in the
57 | P a g e
exercise of his rights guaranteed by this act, etc. shall be punished from office. And they challenge this Law: “It provides that if revenue
by a fine of not less than P100.00 nor more than P1,000.00 or by collections fall short of the target at least 7.5%, the law does not set
imprisonment at the discretion of the Court. So the Court said that the standard sa Revenue Targets.
this Law does not provide for sufficient standards as to how long the
imprisonment should be. In other words, dili limited ang limitation The Law provides that pagmulapassa 7.5% nga limitation sailahang
sa non-delegation of legislative powers to the Executive Branch: It collection, pwedesilangmatanggal from the Service. Can we anchor
also applies to the Judiciary. angpagcomputenatonisa 7.5% will be based on the Revenue Target.
The law does not provide unsaonpagcomputesa Revenue Target. So
Kung ang law does not provide for the parameters set for which the in other words, pwedeidetermineang Revenue Target (???47:57),
Judiciary shall set penalty, then, angiyanghimuon (angmahitaboana) 100 Billion. So unsahon man nimonapagcollect? You can no longer
is that sya (Ang Judiciary) will now be exercising Legislative powers, meet that because of the arbitrariness of the amount. Why?
because the Law does not set the limitation. It is apparent that the Because the law does not fix the Standard upon which the Revenue
Laws prescribed period or imposable penalty of imprisonment. Target is fixed.
While there is a minimum and maximum penalty for Fine is
prescribed, there is no equivalent provision for the penalty of Is that provision Unconstitutional? No. The law is complete here. It
imprisonment, although both appear to be qualified by the phrase meets the Completeness test and the Sufficient Standard Test. Why?
“At the Discretion of the Court” The revenue Targets upon which the 7.5% are based on the original
estimated revenue collection expected of the BIR and the BOC for
So now, it is within the Discretion of the Court to impose upon, what the given Fiscal Year (kinsaymaghataganana figure?) as approved by
one thousand (1000) years? Because it is allowed by the law? DBCC and stated in the BESF submitted by the President to
Congress. So this law lays down a reasonable yardstick for removal,
The Court said that That is an invalid delegation of Legislative which is when you fall short of your revenue collection by at least
Powers. Walay Standard. Undue delegation of Legislative Power 7.5% with due consideration of all relevant factors affecting the level
because the duration of the Penalty of Imprisonment is left solely at of collection.
the Discretion of the Courts as if the latter were a legislative
department of the government. So, unconstitutional ang provision, The determination of the revenue targets does not rest solely on the
dismissed kunggikasuhankaato (possible). And the Penalty of President because it undergoes the scrutiny of the Development
Imprisonment was declared Unconstitutional. (So katong clause Budget Coordinating Committee… katong DBCC. So in other words,
langanggitanggal, ang penalty of imprisonment; but katong fine we cannot say that si President just fixed the Targets Arbitrarily
naaragihapon to: naay standard. Minimum: P100.00, Max: P1000.00; because giscreen pa man ang figures… aprubahan, to be the revenue
gitanggallangang Imprisonment) target within the Fiscal Year, because girequiresyasabalaod. So naay
sufficient Standard.
Ynot v IAC (1987) [45:14]
Here, an Executive Order (EO) prohibited transportation of Carabao So the General Rule ng Delegation of Legislative Power. But of
and Carabeef from one province to another, which was violated by course we have exceptions to that. For Example: The Delegation of
the accused in this case. And, so katongnakitananagviolate, the Legislative Power to the President; among the many examples we
Carabaos were confiscated by the Police Station Commander have discussed before. We can find this in Art. VI, Sec. 23 & Sec. 28.
because of the violation. Now, this EO 262-A was challenged for
being Unconstitutional because it provides for an Undue Delegation Kaning Sec. 23, Grant of Emergency Powers to the President. In
of Legislative Power times of War and National Emergency, Congress may, by law (So
magpasangbalaodang Congress), authorize the President, for a
The Court said that: Yes. It is Unconstitutional. This Executive Order limited period, and subject to limitations and restrictions that may
defined the prohibition, convicted the accused, and imposed be prescribed, to exercise powers necessary and proper to declare
punishments on him without hearing. So isa to samga violations National Policy. So by law, pwedenilahatagansi President ug
kaning EO: denied him of due process, walay Court Hearing, among Emergency Powers in times of War or National Emergency:
other things, before maconfiscateangiyangCarabao. Another reason Delegated Legislative Power.
why Unconstitutional sya: The Undue Delegation of Legislative Sec. 28: Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix Tariff
Power. Why? Because ang provision (EO 262-A): “The Carabaos Rates, Import and Export Quotas, etc.
confiscated shall be distributed to Charitable Institutions… blah
blahblah… as the chairman of the National Meat Inspection What else? The Constitution also Provides for a limited delegation of
Commission may see fit. The Court said that The Standard “May See Legislative Power to the People by way of the System of Initiative
Fit” is dangerous because walay standard at all. Kung feel langniyana under Art. VI Sec. 32.
this is “may see fit” and ihataglangniyasakaning institution,
pwedenaihatagniya. Delegation to Local Government Units (LGUs): The power to create,
merge, abolish and substantially alter boundaries provinces, cities,
The Court said that the phrase “may see fit is an extremely generous municipalities, or barangays: Essentially Legislative in Nature;
and dangerous condition. If it is a condition, it is laden with (fe???) however, the Framers of the Constitution have allowed delegation
opportunities for partiality and abuse and even corruption. So, this is of such Power in Art. X, Sec. 10 of the Constitution, as long as the
not a sufficient standard and therefore cannot be implemented following requirements are present:
without violating the Undue Delegation Doctrine. 1) The Criteria Prescribed by the Local Government Code is met;
2) The creation, division, merger, abolition or substantial
ABAKADA v Purisima (08) [47:05] alteration of the boundaries is subject to the approval of the
The Law that optimizes the collection of BIR and BoCustoms Majority Vote in a Plebiscite
officials. Nahadloksila because there are Revenue Targets naiset, and
if they do not meet these Revenue Targets, pwedesilamatanggal
58 | P a g e
Where can you find that Power of Local Government Units to create, given to the Sanggunian. The Court said that is no invalid exercise of
divide, merge, abolish, and alter boundaries substantially: Sec. 10, the delegated legislative powers here, the corporate powers of the
Art. X: “No Province, City, Municipality or Barangay can be created, local government unit conferred the basic authorities upon it to
divided, merged, abolished, and alter; Except: in accordance with legislate, pass legislation that will interfere the personal liberty,
the Criteria established by the Local Government Code, and Subject property of lawful businesses and occupation. Where can you find
to the approval of the Majority Vote of the Plebiscite in the that authority of local legislative units to pass such ordinances? It is
Government Units directly affected. from the delegated issued by Congress through the Local
Government Code which provides the general welfare clause in
So pursuant to that provision, naataymga cases: section 16 provides
Umali v Comelec (2014) Section 16. General Welfare. - Every local government unit shall
The SangguniangPanglungsodng Cabanatuan passed a resolution exercise the powers expressly granted, those necessarily implied
requesting the President to declare the Conversion of Cabanatuan therefrom, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental
City from a component city of the Province to a highly urbanized for its efficient and effective governance, and those which are
city. Can this be done by the Local Government Unit? And can the essential to the promotion of the general welfare. Within their
President also declare this city, which was once a component city, to respective territorial jurisdictions, local government units shall
be a Highly Urbanized City? ensure and support, among other things, the preservation and
enrichment of culture, promote health and safety, enhance the right
Yes. Asa man na Makita na power? So, General Rule: Legislative of the people to a balanced ecology, encourage and support the
Power cannot be delegated. However, with exceptions: and one of development of appropriate and self-reliant scientific and
that is the power to create, alter, etc. boundaries, local government technological capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economic
units. Asana Makita? Sa Constitution (Art. X, Sec. 10). So, Legislative prosperity and social justice, promote full employment among their
Power is given to Local Government Units to create, divide, merge, residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort and
abolish, and substantially alter boundaries. One of the Recognized convenience of their inhabitants.
Exceptions to the Power of Non-delegation Doctrine, as long as
Under Art. X, Sec 10, The Criteria prescribed in the Local General legislative power and police power. General legislative
Government Code is followed and that it is subject to a majority vote power, the power delegated by Congress to the legislative body or
in a plebiscite for that purpose. So pwedesilangmaka exercise Sanggunian to enact ordinances.
ngkanilang… katongmga powers.
The second power In Section 16 is police power,authorizing local
What about the President? May the President declare a city to be government units to enact ordinances for the health, safety,
highly urbanized? Yes. Under Sec. 453 of the Local Government prosperity and etc of its inhabitance.
Code: “This provision authorizes the President to make a
determination on whether or not the requirements under the Local The court said that this ordinance is consistent with those delegated
Government Code for the declaration of the city as a highly powers so walay undue delegation of legislative powers but this
urbanized city are complied with. It makes it Ministerial for the ordinance was dropped down as unconstitutional because it violated
President upon proper application by that Locality to declare this the equal protection clause which we will discuss next semester.
city as Highly Urbanized once the minimum requirements are met. In
doing so, this Sec. 453 of the Local Government Code automatically We have EvascovsMontanez , a 2018 case, a Davao case against
calls for the conduct of a plebiscite once the requirements are met. APM. Why? Because this APM, unsa meaning aning APM? Ad,
No further legislation is necessary before the city proposed to be Promotion kanang Makita nyosa taxi diba? Naga advertise sila.
converted becomes eligible to become a Highly Urbanized City. So Among silang advertising kaykanangmagbutangug advertising
ang source for the Delegation of the Power so that the Local materials through tarps. Here, the City government of Davao in 2000
Government Units to alter, create, merge, abolish, and substantially through its Sanggunian issued an ordinance entitled “An Ordinance
alter boundaries; as well as the Power of the President to declare a Regulating the Construction, Repair, Renovation, Erection,
city Highly Urbanized anchored on Art. X, Sec. 10 of the Constitution. Installation and Maintenance of Outdoor Advertising Materials and
For Related Purposes” and because of this, the City Engineer
Mosqueda vs. Filipino Banana (2016) [54:36] ordered the demolition of those advertising materials as it violated
Nahitabonisa Davao na case because nagpasang Ordinance this ordinance. This included several billboards of APM. Now,
angatuangSanggunian to Totally Ban aerial spraying, Montanez, kining tag-iyasa APM went to the trial court to have this
kaynagmutatena daw angmgatao surrounding those banana ordinance declared null and void. According to this person, this
planations: tulo (3) naangmata… (inaudible over laughter)… that was ordinance was unconstitutional since it was too broad in its
alleged in this case because of the Detrimental effects of Aerial application and is inconsistent with the National Building code of the
Spraying. So Gi-Ban. And of course, ang banana plantations here Philippines. Expanded ang powers nagiexercisekarunsaSanggunian
challenged the validity of this Ordinance totally banning aerial because the main law daw that regulates these structures does not
spraying. [55:11] even provide for the limitation nagiprovideaning ordinance. So in a
way ga argue sya of undue delegation went beyond its powers kay
limited langsyasa National Building Code.
Daniel Operario
August 31 , 2019 The Court said here that the ordinance is valid. Why?
AsagiderivesaSanggunianang power niya to regulate aningmga
So gibanang aerial spraying here. So the banana plantations here billboard? Gikuhanilaang power not form the National Building Code
challenged the ordinance that totally banned aerial spraying, so one but from Republic Act 4354 otherwise known as Revised Charter of
of the arguments raised by the banana plantations here was that the City of Davao. This is the charter that created our City, the Davao
the ordinance was issued beyond the delegated legislative power City charter enacted in 1965 vested the Local Sanggunian of the
59 | P a g e
Legislative power to regulate, prohibit, fix license and fees for Peroangginarequiresa RA 9054 is 2/3 vote. So it exceeded what is
billboards and other similar structures. In other words, required normally by congress. It makes therefore difficult for future
walagibasesaatong Local legislative unit ang power to regulate these congresses to amend this law kaykailangannimoug 2/3. This voting
billboards, by way of that ordinance, sa National Building Code but requirement is higher that what the constitution requires in passage
rather sa power nila under RA 4354. Didtogianchornilaangilang of bills and serves to restrain the powers of congress to amend or
power. So the Court said that inconsistency between this ordinance repeal the laws. It gives the law the characteristic of being
and the National building Code is irrelevant. The power to regulate irrepealable. What else?
billboards is the jurisdiction of the City as delegated by Congress to Second, the plebiscite requirement. It excessively enlarged the
the City Government of Davao City. plebiscite requirement required in Article X Section 18 requirement
in the Constitution.
So dibanaa man limit of km/hr? adtokasa court to ask the
constitutionality of that. Pwedenimoiingunnanaga exceed sya, nga Article 10 Section 18 Par 2 to wit:
baba ra kayo sa standard nagina set sa national law that regulates “The creation of the autonomous region shall be effective when
motor vehicles. However, Makita pudnimosa charter of Davao City approved by majority of the votes cast by the constituent units in a
naginatagaanug authority angatoangSanggunian to regulate the plebiscite called for the purpose, provided that only provinces, cities,
speed of the vehicles. So in case lang nay mgaaninakaso, pwede ma and geographic areas voting favorably in such plebiscite shall be
cite kininga case, that the authority of the Sanggunian to pass that included in the autonomous region.”
ordinance nanaglimitsa speed limit is anchored on the charter of
Davao City nanaga provide didtona allowed sya to set the speed True enough, nay mga laws that require plebiscites, specifically for
limit. The court even said here that even the National Building Code Autonomous Region. Under the Constitution daw however, limited
imposes minimum requirements as to the construction and langang instances namagrequirekaug plebiscite. Only amendments
regulation of billboards, the City government may impose stricter to provisions of the organic act, constitutionally essential to the
limitation because its police power to do so originates from its creation of the Autonomous Region which are aspects specifically
Charter, not from the National Building Code. So valid ang mentioned in the Constitution that would require a plebiscite. So
ordinance. what kind of amendments in the organic law will require a
plebiscite?
Another Implied substantive limitation is prohibition against the
passing of Irrepealable laws. Irrepealable laws deprive the These amendments to the Organic Act are those that relate to:
succeeding legislature of the fundamental best senses, carte blanche (a) the basic structure of the regional government;
or freedom, absolute freedom in drafting laws. So dilipwede, again, (b) the region's judicial system, i.e., the special courts with personal,
magsetkag limitations that will prohibit future legislations to prohibit family, and property law jurisdiction; and,
to repeal. One such case is the case of Kida vs Senate , so we have (c) the grant and extent of the legislative powersconstitutionally
RA 10153 which set, provided for the synchronization of the conceded to the regionalgovernment under Section 20, Article X of
elections of ARMM and the National Local Elections so because of the Constitution.
this gi set under this law ang date sa elections sa ARMM to
synchronize with the national elections. The problem daw is that it So if imong amendment touched those 3 types of amendments, you
did not comply with the conditions upon which it will be validly need not subject that law to a plebiscite. Only amendment to or
passed. Ngano man? Asa man to Makita na condition? We go first to revisions to organic act, constitutionally essential to the creation of
the organic law RA 6734, the act which provides for the organic act the Autonomous Region which are aspects specifically mentioned in
for the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao. So maoniang law the Constitution would require a plebiscite. By requiring all laws to
nganagcreatesa ARMM, established the ARMM. Another law was undergo a plebiscite makes it difficult to amend. In this law, just
passed which strengthened and expanded the organic act which is changing the date subject it to a plebiscite, making this repeal
RA 9054, and later on Ra 9140 was passed insofar the schedule of difficult. Those conditions therefore that require 2/3 of the vote and
the election is concerned, RA 9333 and later on RA 10153. Now plebiscite makes the provision irrepealable. In motion for
kaningbalauranani , RA 9054, RA 9140, RA 9333and including RA consideration, the court in its decision the supermajority
10153 which set the date of the elections was challenged to be requirement makes RA 9054 irrepealable. The plebiscite
unconstitutional. Dapatdawwalasilanapasa because ang argument, requirement is also overly broad as includes amendments which
RA 9054 prescribes for the provisions before the organic act may be does not need to be ratified.
amended. Angiyang argument was that setting of the dates of the Procedural Limitations
election constituted an amendment of the organic act and before Kabalonata we have discussed Subtantive limitations, express and
the organic act may be amended ,RA 9054 sets the requirements. implied. Subtantive because ang content of the law,
dilisyapwedehilabtan by these limitations, because they are limited
First, it must have the 2/3 vote of the voting requirement of explicitly by the Constitution and impliedly based on the doctrines
congress. Katong 3 laws nagichallengewala nag comply with the 2/3 we have just discussed.
requirement of the congress and also walasyaniagiug plebiscite. The Now let’s go to the procedural limitations, dilipwedena congress
question is are these three laws valid? The said that after RA 9054 passes a law that will not follow the Procedural Limitations before
which amended the organic law said that YES. These laws were such laws may be passed. What are these procedural Limitations?
validly passed. Why? Kadtung conditions ngagiimposed by RA 9054 We can see these in Article 6 Sections 27 to wit:
make it irrepealable.. Even assuming the challenged law here
amended RA 9054, this requirement of a supermajority of the SECTION 27. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it
congress and Second, the plebiscite requirement, they are invalid becomes a law, be presented to the President. If he approves the
conditions upon the passage. It makes the amendment of this law same, he shall sign it; otherwise, he shall veto it and return the same
difficult for future congresses. Again, the general rule in voting in the with his objections to the House where it originated, which shall
house of congress before they can validly pass laws is that if they enter the objections at large in its Journal and proceed to reconsider
have a quorum, the vote of the majority is sufficient. it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of all the Members of
60 | P a g e
such House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with 4. Article VI SECTION 24. All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills,
the objections, to the other House by which it shall likewise be bills authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of local application,
reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of all the Members of and private bills shall originate exclusively in the House of
that House, it shall become a law. In all such cases, the votes of each Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with
House shall be determined by yeas or nays, and the names of the amendments. Insofar as these types of bills are concerned, dapat
Members voting for or against shall be entered in its Journal. The they must exclusively originate from House of Representatives
President shall communicate his veto of any bill to the House where otherwisepwedenyamaviolateningaprovisiom
it originated within thirty days after the date of receipt thereof;
otherwise, it shall become a law as if he had signed it. Tolentino vs Secretary talks about the passage of the Value-added
Tax, nag-impose of 10% VAT
Before we go there ,na discuss nanatotung steps no, how a bill
becomes a law. A bill is introduced in the House of Representatives Tolentino vs sec.
or Senate. The First Reading involves only the reading of the number
and item. Thereafter it is referred by said President or Speaker to Passage of the value added tax law, nag impose og 10% vat, before
the proper committee for study. That bill may be repealed in the this law took effect, nagka problema supreme court as so far as its
committee or may be recommended for approval with or without passage is concerned. Challenge against this law was that it did not
amendment. Once reported out of the committee, the bill shall be comply with the origination requirement 3 reading among other
calendared for second reading. It is at this stage the bill is ready at things. First unsa history ani ? started with the passage, nag start sya
its entirety scrutinized and debated upon, amended when desired. from house bill num 11197, originated sa house of rep, later on
The second reading is the most important stage in the passage of there was a substitute measure from the same house, number
the bill. The bill as approved is printed in its final form and its copies 11917, so hence. The bill substituted gi deliberate sa house of rep,
rd
thereof are distributed to atleast 3 days before the 3 Reading. On and afterwards gi send sa senate after 3 readings. ON the senate, it
rd
the 3 Reading, the members will register their vote and explain submitted a report recommending however the approval of its own
them if they are allowed by the rules. No further debate is allowed. bill senate, senate bill number 1630. It was submitted as in
rd
Once the bill passes the 3 reading, it is sent to the other chamber substitution of another bill from it in consideration of house bill. Nag
where it will undergo the same 3 reading. If there are differences in originate ang bill sa house of representative pero naay anticipatory
their versions, a conference committee of different chambers will bill in senate which was approved by the senate, and later on nag
draft a compromise measure that will be ratified by the Senate and constitute sila og bilateral conference committee, consolidated the
House of Representatives. The Bill is enrolled, printed and approved provision of these house bill and the Senate bill and came out of the
by congress. Authenticated by the signature of the President and 3rd version of the bill. It was approved and after the bill was
Speaker. The last step is it sent to the President for his approval. approved by house rep and senate gi sumbit sa pres and approval
and na permahan and became a law. Question. DID this law comply
So what are the procedural limitations provided in the with the exclusive origination requirement?? it is not the law — but
Constitution? the revenue bill — which is required by the Constitution to
1. Article VI SECTION 26. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall "originate exclusively" in the House of Representatives. It is
embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title important to emphasize this, because a bill originating in the House
thereof. – One Subject, One Title Rule. may undergo such extensive changes in the Senate that the result
may be a rewriting of the whole. IN fact there is a possibility of 3rd
2. Article VI SECTION 27(2) No bill passed by either House shall person of a bill created by a conference committee. Is there
become a law unless it has passed three readings on separate days, something wrong with that? Court said NO- senate can amend the
and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to bill To insist that a revenue statute — and not only the bill which
its Members three days before its passage, except when the initiated the legislative process culminating in the enactment of the
President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to law — must substantially be the same as the House bill would be to
meet a public calamity or emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, deny the Senate's power not only to "concur with amendments" but
no amendment thereto shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall also to "propose amendments." It would be to violate the coequality
be taken immediately thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered in of legislative power of the two houses of Congress and in fact make
the Journal. the House superior to the Senate.
3. Article VI SECTION 27. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall, Senate has own power to amend and introduce provision in this bill.
before it becomes a law, be presented to the President. If he Why? Co-qeual house of congress. What is required is THE BILL
approves the same, he shall sign it; otherwise, he shall veto it and ORIGINATE.
return the same with his objections to the House where it
originated, which shall enter the objections at large in its Journal and Note: this is an exercise of legislative power loged not in the house
proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of rep but congress as a whole which includes the senate.
all the Members of such House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be There is really no difference between the Senate preserving H. No.
sent, together with the objections, to the other House by which it 11197 up to the enacting clause and then writing its own version
shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of all following the enacting clause (which, it would seem petitioners
the Members of that House, it shall become a law. In all such cases, admit is an amendment by substitution), and, on the other hand,
the votes of each House shall be determined by yeas ornays, and the separately presenting a bill of its own on the same subject matter. In
names of the Members voting for or against shall be entered in its either case the result are two bills on the same subject.
Journal. The President shall communicate his veto of any bill to the the Constitution prohibit the filing in the Senate of a substitute bill
House where it originated within thirty days after the date of receipt in anticipation of its receipt of the bill from the House, so long as
thereof; otherwise, it shall become a law as if he had signed it. action by the Senate as a body is withheld pending receipt of the
House bill
61 | P a g e
What about the 3 reading? There is a fact here gi certified s ni pres 1243 until it received HB No. 8817, already approved on the Third
as URGENT. If it s certified by pres as urgent 3 reading requir, may be Reading, from the House of Representatives.
done away with. Basis here art 6 sec 26.
ARROYO VS DEVENECIA
What about the 3rd version the bilateral conference? - argument
was inserted on the final provision of the law na wala nag gawas sa Amadment of the MIRC, one of the challenges here was, wala naka
either verision of the house. Invalid daw. The court there anything follow, in the passage of the bill is concerned, particularly on the
unusual or extraordinary about the fact that the Conference interpolation - THE court said this is not a matter that is required in
Committee met in executive sessions. Often the only way to reach the constitution in the first place. Naa bay allegation diri ? na wala
agreement on conflicting provisions is to meet behind closed doors, sya gi agi og 3 readings. Or wala nag originate sa proper house? --NO
with only the conferees present. Otherwise, no compromise is likely ang allegation diri was, there was a violation of internal rules of
to be made.This is perhaps attributable to the known legislative produce of congress when the law was pass, the court said, they had
practice of allowing a Conference Committee to make insertions in no business in so far as the passage of that was concern on the
and deletions from bills referred to it for consideration, to the argument that it did not follow the internal rules of the house
possibility of an entirely new bill emerging out of a Conference concern, because this involves internal rules. mere failure to
Committee, as long as they are germane to the subject matter of the conform to them is not the effect of nullifying the act taken if the
bills under consideration. requisite number of members as agreed to that particular measure.
HOWEVER as a general rule, in violating its own rules naay person
Its okay that a 3rd version from these conference committee affected other than the members of a legislative party then a
provided its is germaine to the subject to the house and senate bills. question becomes judicial. But here there was no such allegation.
And okay lang pud tung new provision inserted sa bill by the The court also emphasized it cannot provide 2nd opinion on what is
conference committee the best procedure because the power to laid down it own rules of
QUESTION, ktng new bill gi himo sa conference committee subjected procedure is given to congress exclusively.
na pud ba sya to the 3 readings of the senate and house of rep ? the
court said NO - there is no reason for this committee report to ABAKADA VS EXECUTIVE.
undergo 3 meeting anew in two houses why? Otherwise there
would be no end in legislation. Kay mag balik balik ra. It would be Talk about amendment to RA9337 vat law. Same problem, nag
perpetual. originate ning bill sa house of rep. And later on the senate. ( gi
deliberate na diri sa house rep og 3 readings) then the senate
When is 3 reading required ? the rule is that, again there is no need approve its own version of the bill. In substitution of its own bills and
to subject the committee report to a 3 reading req. Because there taking in to consideration the bills submitted by the house of rep.
would no end to negotioation, since each house seeks modification The pres also certified the bill to be URGENT. And they’re after, nag
of the compromise bill. Unsay himuon pag ang 3rd version of the bill conference committee nag gawas ang 3rd version gi approve sa
? BOTH HOUSES WILL JUST NEED TO APPROVE IT. pero dili na i agi og duha ka houses, signed by the pres the law. Bill became law. Now
3 readings. When is 3 readings req? Only required referring only to naay challenge as to the passage of the law is concerned.
bills introduced for the first time in either house of Congress, not to First the bicameral conference committee allowed to exist ? YES, is it
the conference committee report. Considerably gi approve na man constitutionally mandated to be created ? NO, it is dependent upon
daan sa 2 houses daan. the house, the congress itself na mag compose sila ani na committee
to reconcile conflicting versions of their own bills, BUT in so far as to
ALVAREZ VS GUINGONA the creation of this committee is concerned. The court said this is a
Which talk about the validity of ra 770, converted municipality of matter INTERNAL RULES, na imuha ning internal rules of procedure
santiago into independent component city, originated house bill we will not catch on that, even if nag ingon mo na nag violate ni sila
8817 now later on human nag deliberate 3 readings saka sa senate, bicameral conference commmittee etch sa inyuhang rule, as a rule
however there was a counterpart bill in the senate , senate bill 1243, the court will not resolve that. Because it touches on matters of
introduce by senato, later on effect parehas ra silag contents sa bill. procedure na vested exclusively within congress. The court also
thereafter gi approve. Gi approve sa duha ka houses and permaham discussed here the urpose of the bicameral committee.
sa pres. ONE of the challenges of this law is that naa daw own
version daw sa senate sa ilahang bill ang gi apporve not the house What did the Bicameral COM do here ? they introduce changes to
version therefore it violated the exclusive origination. Is this law the both versions of the bill. The court said that the introduction of
valid ?? YES. there was compliance. A BILL of local application as a the BICAM CONference committee that these were only pursuant to
rule, Although a bill of local application like HB No. 8817 should, by its duty to harmonize both versions of the bill. They were only meant
16
constitutional prescription, originate exclusively in the House of to reconcile and harmonize the disagreed provision and did not
Representatives, the claim of petitioners that Republic Act No. 7720 inject any idea of intent of this wholly foreign to the subject
did not originate exclusively in the House of Representatives embrace in the original provision.
because a bill of the same import, SB No. 1243, was passed in the What about the NO amendment rule ?
Senate, is untenable because it cannot be denied that HB No. 8817 Dba after the 3rd reading,
was filed in the House of Representatives first before SB No. 1243 No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has
was filed in the Senate. passed three readings on separate days, and printed copies thereof
in its final form have been distributed to its Members three days
Nag comply sya sa origination req. The filing in the Senate of a before its passage, except when the President certifies to the
substitute bill in anticipation of its receipt of the bill from the House, necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or
does not contravene the constitutional requirement that a bill of emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto
local application should originate in the House of Representatives, shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be taken immediately
for as long as the Senate does not act thereupon until it receives the thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered in the Journal.
House bill. Clearly, the Senate held in abeyance any action on SB No.
62 | P a g e
Now can the conference committee not introduce amendments? Congress, naaymga instances napwedesiya mag exercise og
Kay nag pass an syag 3 readings ? Constitution say that no oversight powers, for example, scrutiny on a law based primarily on
amendment shall be allowed after the last reading of the bill. Is the Congress’s power of appropriation and number 2 mag conduct
conference committee violating this provision, when it introduces siyaogmga investigations or question hour to determine whether or
amendments to the law after it has already passed 3 reading in both not there is a faithful compliance with the provisions of laws that it
houses. - THE court said that NO. this provision Art. VI. § 26 (2) has passed. Beyond any of that that is already unconstitutional.
must, therefore, be construed as referring only to bills introduced
for the first time in either house of Congress, not to the conference Here what did it do? This provision created a legislative veto, what is
committee report. The Court reiterates here that the "no- a legislative veto? A statutory provision, there is a provision in the
amendment rule" refers only to the procedure to be followed by law requiring the president or the administrative agency to present
each house of Congress with regard to bills initiated in each of said the IRR of a law to congress which by itself or to a committee would
respective houses, before said bill is transmitted to the other retain the power to approve or disapprove that IRR. That veto is
house for its concurrence or amendment. to construe said already a form of a congressional leash, it is in a form of an inward
provision in a way as to proscribe any further changes to a bill after turning delegation, ngano man turning? Diba when there is a law,
one house has voted on it would lead to absurdity as this would naay limited delegated authority for this agency to create the IRR
mean that the other house of Congress would be deprived of its (inaudible) na before naninyoi-implement, ipachecknibaliknapudron
constitutional power to amend or introduce changes to said bill. ang delegated power. Inward turning the delegation designed to
Thus, Art. VI, Sec. 26 (2) of the Constitution cannot be taken to attach a congressional leash when agency to which congress is by
mean that the introduction by the Bicameral Conference law initially delegated broad powers, that violates the constitution,
Committee of amendments and modifications to disagreeing radically changes the design or structure of the constitution diagram
provisions in bills that have been acted upon by both houses of of powers as it entrusts to congress a direct role enforcing, applying,
Congress is prohibited. Did not violate exclusive origination. and implementing its own laws by giving it such power to approve
the IRR it is already turning upon the realm of execution.
Kung asa to siyana house concerned so after the third reading in the
senate, sila ang dilepwedemaka amend ato but it does not mean So di napwede, when the law gets out of Congress signed by the
that if it is transmitted to the house of representatives kay president, anything that has to do with the implementation of that
dilesilamaka amend because pwedepamansilamaka amend. The no law, hands off nadapatsi Congress except atong limited instances
amendment rule refers only to the procedure to be followed by each katong oversight, katong hearings, congressional hearings, and
house of Congress with regard to its (inaudible) in each of said investigations. So this provision requiring the approval of the
respective houses before that bill is transmitted to the other house Congress for this IRR to be approved is unconstitutional. It also
to construe that provision in a way as to proscribe and further violates the power of Congress to exercise legislative power.
changes to a bill after one house has voted on it would lead to an Legislative Power is vested in both houses and it cannot be
absurdity because that would mean that the other house in congress delegated to a committee or a single chamber so kaning provision
would be deprived of its power, constitutional power to amend or requiring the IRR to be subject to the approval of congress as a
reintroduce changes to said bill. Did it violate the exclusive condition, based on this committee, it violates the legislative power
origination, no because again... nag originate ang bill this VAT reform as well, it also violates the veto powers of the president, from the
from the house of representatives, dile ang law mismo ang mag moment the law becomes effective any provision of law empowers
originate, it must be ang bill lang ang required so therefore congress to and any of its members to take any role in the
dilepwede, it said the senate is not required to what? Copy implementation and enforcement thereof violates the principle of
everything. Kung unsa tong gibutangsa House of Representatives, separation of powers and thus is unconstitutional
maopud to iyangi pass because senate have the power to concur or
amend such a bill. Okay now let’s go to the, this is the final topic for tonight the 1
subject, one title rule, where do we find that, its in section 26
ABAKADA vs Purisima paragraph 1, every bill passed by congress shall only embrace one
This talks about, so, we are done with those, katongmga origination, subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof. What does the
three reading requirement, bicameral conference committee. rule provide? The bill must have one subject and one title and the
ABAKADA vs Purisima talks about legislative vetoes, remember this subject must be embraced in the title. What is the purpose of this
case? mao ra ghapon tong case saDOC DIR but there is a provision title, what is the purpose of the title of the law? It is to avoid fraud
here section 12 which creates this Joint Congressional Oversight on the legislature, so dapatsapagbasapalangsa title,
Committee and naaynakabutangdidtona after oversight committee magetsnadapatnimo ang content sabalaud and therefore kung kana
will have approved the implementing IRR it shall be the (Inaudible) nag content dilenakapwede mag insert og provision that are truly
pwedeba di na provision? Gi approve basiyasa joint congressional alien to it. Now, however, it cannot be literally interpreted to mean
oversight committee composed of members of both houses to that ang tibuok title would be an index of the law “A law reinforcing
approve the IRR of course not. So gi discuss dirisa supreme court ang the provision of blah blah blah “ as follows so maona to ang tibuok
concept of legislative supervision, the concept of legislative veto. title and then ang sunodatong title kay ang law napudthats not what
Supervision connotes a continuing and informed awareness on part it is envisioned, the title is not an index or catalog. It must be
of the congressional committee regarding executive operations in a germane or related to the subject matter however, no requirement
given administrative area, gi discuss pud dire ang definition sa that it will reflect all its contents. For example in the case of
legislative veto. Now the court said that this supervision or
congressional oversight, it is not unconstitutional per se, why? Phil Judges vs Prado
Congressional oversight maybe done provided that it conforms with Ang title sabalaud was that it withdrew the franking privilege from
the following requisite. It cannot vest upon itself any committee the supreme court, ah, courts noh, unsaning franking privilege,
with either executive or judicial power and when it exercises its kanang kung mag send ka og mail dilenai charge sa postal service, so
legislative power, it must follow the, provisions, procedure under because of this law RA 7354, gitanggal tong franking privilege nagi
the constitution, now going back to the oversight powers of repeal to nga privilege so karonnaa nay bayad ang mga courts if they
63 | P a g e
send mail to the postal office. So gi challenge nisiyanabalaud for prescribing the procedures therefore, authorizing the appropriation
several reasons, one of which is that it violated the one subject, one of funds, the court said that, this transferring of election officers
title rule. The court discussed here the purpose of why this rule from one region to another after four years is germane, related to
exist. It is number 1, to prevent hodge podge or log-rolling the subject matter stated in the title of the law, why? Because ang
legislation. What is a hodgepodge law or act? It is name given to a point sa law which is stated in the title is to ensure the integrity of
legislative act which embraces many subjects, such acts besides the registration process, by providing a guideline for comelec to
being evident proofs of the ignorance of the makers of them or follow the reassignment of election officers.
(their want of good faith) cantillated with confusion which is highly
prejudicial to the interest of justice. For example kay kung a Nganong germane related man siya? The court said that it is not an
balaudnimo is to create a municipality or city blah blah blah, alien provision, nag enhance ang registration process if the officers
unyanaadidtosa provision nga 100 million ang sweldosa mayor so tasked in it are not corrupt or not inefficient. Unsadiay ang
that is totally unrelated to the provision. nakitasamga law makers when they inserted this provision? Kato
dawmga nag dugaynasailangposisyondiha, four years or more,
What is a log-rolling? Legislation? A tactic used by legislators to tack naswitonasilasa process, kabalonasila mag pasikot,
on favored bills to propose legislation, conducting serious debates kabalonasilakinsailangilaron, so ilahangi reassign para fresh
on its issues. It is also a tactic to include several sub bills in one bill napudilahang environment, dilesila mag rely etc. improving the
when the passage of that individually is not possible. So in other registration process.
words kining hodge-podge o log-rolling mgasaksaksigabolnamga
provision in that law so dapat we comply with the rule, one subject Banat vs Comelec
one title. So dapat one subject langdyud ang balaud and expressed RA 9369 daw ang title is misleading because it speaks of poll
in the title, dilepwedesagolsagolna subjects in that law. automation but it contains substantial provisions dealing with the
manual canvassing of election returns and therefor the provisions
Number 2 prevent surprise or fraud upon the legislature by means of that deal with manual returns should be struck down for being not
provisions, bills, which the titles give no information and which germane to the title subject matter of this law, the court said that
might therefore be overlooked and carelessly and intentionally and this provision, the law does not violate the one subject, one title
unintentionally adopted kay ang title lagi kay “creation of a rule, this rule has always been given a practical rather than technical
municipality” unyanaaygisuksokna provision didtona alien. construction, moreover, a title which declares a statute ought to be
an act to amend another law is sufficient in the precise nature of the
Number 3, to apprise the people through the publication of this amendatory act, it need not be further stated here this law is an
legislative proceeding of the subject of the legislation. So again para amendatory act which amended the previous law and the court said
ma inform ang mga legislative bodies and the public as to the that the subject matter thereof of this law covers the amendments
context of the law. Here the law does not violate the one subject of the previous law and other related election laws to achieve its
one title rule, the law entitled an act creating the philippine postal purpose of promoting transparency, equity, fairness and accuracy in
corporation, defining its powers and responsibilities providing for the elections, so this law deals with amendments specific provisions
regulation of the industry and for other purposes connected need not be stated in the title.
therewith. Ang ilahanggi challenge na provision to be beyond or
outside the content is the repeal, pagtanggalaning franking privilege, Sept 4, 2019
the court said that a repeal of a law is the most germane provision
that you can find in a law, ngano man?, kay mu repair mana siyaog So, last meeting we finished the substantive limitations on the
provision to a prior law naiyanggina repeal. plenary powers of Congress which is to legislate. And we started our
discussion on the procedural limitations which we can also find in
First of all the title of the bill is not required to be an index of the the Constitution. So, as a rule, Congress’ power to legislate, it’s
body of the act or to be comprehensive enough as to cover every plenary. So maski unsa ilang maisip, it can enact that; provided that
single detail, because it would be impractical, unreasonable and they do not exceed the limitations – express substantive and implied
would render the legislation impossible. The details of the act may substantive, as well as the procedural limitations set forth in the
not be specifically stated in its title, basta as long as it summarizes Constitution.
and the title thereof is germane with the subject of the law,
dilekailanganna table of contents imuhang title of the law. Here ang So, we discussed last meeting what these procedural limitations are
gi repeal of the previous privilege granted, the court said that the as found in Section 26 and 27. We also discussed the one-subject,
repealing clause is germane to the act therefore it need not be one-title rule. Now, we continue with our discussion.
stated in the bill, the repeal of a statute of the given subject is
properly connected to the subject matter of a new statute on the What happens if there is, there are cases noh that what controls, the
same subject and therefore the repealing section the new statute is title of the law or the text of the statute?
valid not withstanding the title is silent on the matter. But that law
was unconstitutional because it removes the privilege from the Cruz vs. Paras
courts because it violated the equal protection clause. In Cruz vs. Paras, an old case, 1953, an ordinance was passed in a
locality, Bucaue, Bulacan, which prohibited the operation of night
In Deguzman vs Comelec clubs, among others.
Ang title sabalaud kay “Voters and Registration act of 1996” in fact it
has a longer title there is a provision here that re-assigns election Certain places of amusement within their local government unit, it
officers, if you have been an election officer in this locality for more anchored, the ordinance, on RA 938. However, the title of the law,
than four years i rotate ka to another locality, so ang reklamonila is as amended only states that it is an act granting municipal boards or
that this provision is not germane to the title of this law and the councils the power to “regulate”. Pero ang ordinance, nakabutang
court said that ang title sa law, “An act providing for the general didto na “prohibit”.
registration of voters, adopting a system of continuing registration,
64 | P a g e
What should be followed? Is this law unconstitutional? Is the provisions no matter how diverse they are; so long as they are not
ordinance unconstitutional? inconsistent or foreign to the general subject.
In discussing this case, the Court said that the ordinance is
unconstitutional. Ang basis sa pagdeclare sa Court, it cannot declare In this case, the section challenged is germane to the subject of this
this law as unconstitutional just because there is an inconsistency law which is to deregulate the downstream oil industry. It is
in its title. However, ang binding didto is the title of the law. supposed to sway prospective investors to put up refineries in our
country and to make them rely less on imported petroleum.
Why? Nganong di man ni allowed? In the body of the law, it was Nevertheless, even if this provision is declared by the Court to be
amended, eventually, where it included the prohibition but in the valid, in so far as that argument is concerned – violation of the one-
amendment, wala na-amend ang title ug apil. The Court questioned, subject, one-title rule, valid siya because dili siya naga-violate ato
is this law unconstitutional because of its inconsistency? nga rule. It, nevertheless, declared this law, over all to be
unconstitutional. Daghan defects ang law, particularly, on its anti-
The Court said, in the first place, only what local government units competition provisions which the Court said it cannot allow. Pero
can do, in so far as these establishments is concerned, is mag-?? ka walang violation sa one-subject, one-title rule here.
didto given their operation to regulate. And as much as possible, it
would resolve its case without invalidating this law. Considering that In the MR of this case, the Court upheld its decision, reiterating its
the title of this law allows it to regulate, allows LGUs to regulate the reasons why this law is unconstitutional. Not because it violated the
operation of this establishment, it will not declare this law to be one-subject, one-title rule but it gave more power to the already
unconstitutional because ang mubind or ang operative word is the powerful oil oligopoly, block the entry of effective competitors; it
word “regulate” as found in the title. Considering, however, that the would even sire a more powerful oligopoly and the check power will
ordinance na nakabase ani na balaod not only “regulates” but prejudice the interests of the consumers. So, it defeats the purpose
“prohibits”, ang ordinance karon ang dili faithful to the law and of what it seeks to improve or alleviate. Our country daw characters
therefore, it is invalid. with the steam oil industry controlled by a foreign oligopoly that can
So, here, the title was to “regulate”, eventually, the first section of run right. Those are the reasons why the law was declared
the law was amended to include the word “prohibit”, the title nag- unconstitutional.
remain the same. It was not in any way altered. The power granted
them remains is that of regulation. The title of the law here prevails Farinas vs. Executive
in so far as granting the LGUs authority to regulate these The case of Farinas vs. Executive talks about the provision in RA
establishments. 9006 or the Fair Elections Act which repealed the provision in the
Omnibus Election Code, Sec. 67 thereof. Under this provision when
Why did it prevail? you are an elective official and you run for public office, you are
Considering that the objective of fostering public morals is a deemed resigned. Under this law, RA 9006, gi-tanggal to siya na
desirable end. However, Congress may only regulate and not provision. In other words, if you are an elective official and you file
prohibit trade. Certainly, the ordinance on its face is characterized your COC, you are deemed resigned. In other words, ang mabilin na
by overbreadth. It is referring to the challenged ordinance. However, restriction karon is only for appointive public officials that they are
the intent of this law while noble does not allow Congress to deemed resigned when they file their COCs. Elective officials are
totally prohibit this kind of activity but only to regulate it. not deemed resigned.
Considering na nay provision which is the title, the title gives this
LGUs the power to regulate, it does not totally invalidate it. Pero So, kato gi-challenge ang provisions. Among others, this repeal is not
limited lang jud to regulation ang mahimo sa LGUs. germane to the title of the law which is to enhance the holding free,
orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections.
So, nagprevail diri ang title when the Court discussed the reason
nganong dili nila pwde i-invalidate this law because naa sa title didto So, did this provision repealing that provision in the OEC violate the
nakabutang na pwde nila i-regulate but not prohibit. one-subject, one-title rule?
The Court said that no. Nagdiscuss diri ang SC as to why this rule
Tatad vs. Secretary exists, this one-subject, one-title rule. So that it would curtail the
Tatad vs. Secretary talks about RA 8180, the deregulation – An Act evil of the so-called omnibus bills, log-rolling, hodge-podge
Deregulating the Downstream Oil Industry and For Other Purposes. legislation, as well as surreptitious or unconsidered bills and for
unconsidered encroaches.
One of the many challenges against this law is the provision, the
tariff provisions, Sec. 5 of this law. Naay impositions on tariff on However, the requirement of this one-subject, one-title rule should
imported crude oil. And refined petroleum products. So ang be given a reasonable and not a technical construction. It is
challenge against this law is that this provision was not consistent sufficient that the title is comprehensive enough reasonably to
with its title. It violates Sec. 26 Article 6 of the Constitution include the general object which the statute seeks to effect. Here,
requiring every law to have one subject which shall be expressed in tong nakabutang sa title, Fair Elections Act; it is to enhance the
its title. The inclusion of this tariff provision is beyond what the title holding of free, honest, credible, peaceful and orderly elections.
of the law allows. It is foreign to the subject of the law which is the
deregulation of the downstream 7oil industry. Removing that provision, that deemed resigned, in so far as elective
officers is concerned, it is, according to Court, included in the
In so far as this argument is concerned, the Court said that it did not content of the title. Moreover, there is no provision in any law that
agree with it. Why? This one-subject, one-title rule when it is is more germane in the law than a repeal of a previous law.
construed by the Court is not given its literal or technical
meaning.The title need not mirror or fully index or catalogue all What else ang reason sa prohibition sa one-subject, one-title rule?
the contents of the minute details of the law. A law having a single It is to prevent fraud para the legislature, the public, among other
general subject indicated in the title may contain any number of things. Well, the Court said here that the legislators were not kept
65 | P a g e
in the dark in so far as this repeal of that provision as concerned as It is a challenge on the validity of RA 10354 – The Responsible
included in RA 9006 because it underwent several deliberations in Parenthood and Reproductive Health of 2012.
Congress. Therefore, they were aware that this provision exists. So,
that provision does not violate the one-subject, one-title rule. Ang full title is An Act Providing for a National Policy in Responsible
Parenthood and Reproductive Health. The challenge in this law,
Remman vs. PRBRB among other challenges, was that the contents of this law are not
This talks about RA 9646 – An Act Regulating the Practice of Real faithful on the title.
Estate Service in the Philippines, creating the Professional
Regulatory Board of Real Estate Service, Appropriating Funds Why? Because, really, ang aim sa law is to prohibit or control
Therefore and For Other Purposes. pregnancy; it is actually a population control measure. Pero ang title,
Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health, wala daw nag-
So, mao ni ang title sa balaod. However, there is a provision there connect. The Court said that the law does not hide its true intent
that aside from the provisions establishing regulatory system for the which is actually, principally, a population control measure.
professionalization of the real estate service sector, it also, the
provisions regulating the real estate sector, extended its coverage to The purpose of this law is geared towards the reduction of the
real estate developers with respect to their own properties. Ilang country’s population and it does not conceal that fact.
properties karon muagi na ug…
It emphasizes the need for the Filipinos to be given, especially the
What is the effect? poor, access to information on the full range of modern family
Real estate developers even if they own it, the property, are planning, etc. All of these are clearly geared towards the prevention
prohibited from performing acts or transactions constituting real of pregnancy. And therefore, the object of the law, among others, is
estate service practice without complying with the registration and to reduce the number of births in the country.
licensing requirements for the businesses, brokers, agents,
appraisers, consultants, and sales representatives. Otherwise, even Does this violate the one-subject, one-title rule?
if they are the owners of these properties, kung ilaha ning ibaligya, No. Again, the rule is complied with if the title is comprehensive
covered sila by the provision. By this law, dapat mu-engage sila ug enough to include the general object which the law seeks to effect.
mga professional real estate brokers, appraisers, etc. And one of the objects it seeks to effect really is to reduce
pregnancies. Both the terms, “Reproductive Health” and
Ang kanilang argument was that “amoa man ning property, ngano “Responsible Parenthood”, in the title are interrelated and
apil man ni aning regulation?” They point out that they are now germane to the object of the law which is to control the population
required to be headed by full-time and registered licensed real growth.
estate brokers; it constitutes a limitation on the property acquired
and business prerogatives of these real estate developers. Now, we go to procedural limitations in both revenue appropriation
and tariff measures.
So, mao na ang substantive content sa ilang argument but nag-argue
pud sila na this inclusion of this regulating of real estate developers Remember, we discussed last time Article 6, Section 24, that all
is inconsistent with the title of the law. appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of
public debts, bills of local application and private bills shall originate
Is there an inconsistency? Is there a violation of the one-subject, one- exclusively in the House of Representatives but the Senate may
title rule? propose or concur with the amendments.
The Court said no. Again, its purpose is to curtail against the evils of
this omnibus or log-rolling legislation. It is complied with if the Now, going back to this provision, what do you mean by bills of local
subject of an act is comprehensive enough to include its provisions application?
the subject of the legislation. This requirement of this one-subject, Bills of local applications are those local in character. For example,
one-title rule should not be construed strictly, literally, but the creation of a new town, city or province.
reasonably. It is sufficient that the title is comprehensive enough
that it reasonably includes the general objective of this law. What about a private bill?
It is a bill that would apply to a particular individual or group of
Here, considering that that is the rule, the title of the law need not individuals. For example, a law that confers a citizenship on one
be an index of what is the contents of the law. individual or group of individuals or a law which gives such individual
a specific right, just like a right to sue the State. So, private bill siya
Did it violate? As we said earlier, no. Why? The inclusion of the real that must originate from the House of Representatives.
estate developers here, katong ilaha jud na property tapos gibaligya
nila. Considering that the title only mentions practice of real eastate Bills of local application, House of Representatives. Appropriation,
service is germane to the law’s primary goal of developing a core, revenue, tariff, bills authorizing increase of public debt, local
technical, competent and responsible, respective professional real application, private bills, they all have to originate from the
estate service practitioners. Since the marketing aspect of real House of Representatives but as we discussed last meeting, dili ang
estate development project entails the performance of those acts law mismo ang mag-originate, to the extent na dapat kung unsa tong
and transactions defined as real estate practices, it logically covers gipasa na bill sa Lower House, mao pud tong mugawas na balaod. No
the regulatory scheme to professionalize the entire real estate because the last phrases, “but the Senate may propose or concur
service sector which includes the operations of real estate with the amendments”. In other words, the bill, itself, must originate
developers. from the House of Representatives but it’s bawal if you go to
Senate and they will have a counter-bill there that’s waiting to
Imbong vs. Ochoa replace that bill or that they would totally abrogate the provisions
of that bill so that their own version would be adopted.
66 | P a g e
What about the requirement that this law daw must originate from
Considering that allowed sila in the Constitution to propose or the House of Representatives?
concur with amendments to remove that power would be to water No, it is the bill that must be originate from the HoR. This is a
down its power as a co-equal body with Congress. So, we emphasize revenue bill.Therefore, under Art. 6 Sec. 24, dapat mu-originate siya
that last meeting. from the HoR. It did originate exclusively from the HoR. The law was
initiated by House Bill 3455 and 3705 and ultimately, naging balaod
To emphasize that again. We have the case of Abakada vs. Executive siya after it went to Senate, Senate reached its own version. Gi-
which we discussed last meeting which is an amendment to the old reconcile before siya nahimog balaod.
VAT law.
Now, unsay reason why is it that these bills na gi-enumerate sa Sec.
Abakada vs. Executive 24, why they must originate from the HoR?
This talks about RA 9337 – The VAT Reform Act. So, admittedly, this For example, kaning mga bills of local application, revenue bills. The
law originated from a bill in the House of Representatives. And later theory is that since the HoR, the representatives are elected, 80% of
on, it underwent 3 readings and was passed in the Senate. Later on, them, are from the districts. These people are the ones who are
the Senate, had its own Senate bill which it tackled after it received expected to be sensitive to the local needs and problems of their
the House bill relating to the subject matter. Gihulat nila and they locality. Senators, on the other hand, are elected at large and are
deliberated on their own version of the bill in consideration of the expected to approach the same problems from the national
bill that they’ve just received from the Lower House and ultimately, prospective. So, here, there is no question that the bill was initiated
the Senate approved the version that it had. Later on, they from the HoR and ultimately, it became a law.
composed a bilateral conference committee where they
consolidated, harmonized both provisions of the bills. Eventually, Let’s continue with the limitations.
the report was passed, approved by both Houses. Later on, nahimo
na siyag enrolled bill. Gipakita kay President, gipirmahan niya, Art. 7 Sec. 22 – We’re talking now about the appropriation law. This
nahimo siyag balaod. law is the law that appropriates what the funds, tanang atuang
kwarta, gi-itemize unsaon siya pag-gasto. And it is stated in the GAA.
One of the major questions diri kay kaning balaura na ni, niagi ni siya
sa, admittedly, House of Representatives. Pero niagi na pud siya sa Now, unsa ang mga relevant provisions in so far as appropriation
bilateral conference committee. Under the Constitution, a bill, after laws are concerned?
it undergoes 3 readings, can no longer be amended. Therefore, Art. 6 Sec. 24 and 25. As we said earlier, all appropriation bills, etc.
katong pag-change change sa provisions after 3 readings in both must originate exclusively from the HoR.
Houses, in the bilateral conference committee, violated the
rd
proscription that after the 3 reading, dili na ka maka-amend. You What else?
only vote. Sec. 25 – Congress may not increase the appropriations
recommended by the President for the operation of the
Is there a violation in that? by the bilateral conference committee if government. As we will discuss later, the budget cycle in this
they’ve changed the provisions in the bill? country.
The Court said that no. As we discussed last meeting, this practice of
the Bicameral Cconference Committee does not violate the no- Sec. 25 (2) - No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the
amendment rule. Admittedly, the provision that upon the last GAA bill unless it relates specifically to some particular provision
reading of the bill, no amendment thereto may be allowed and only therein. Meaning, dapat it should be an item or a provision which
votes thereto may be taken, does not apply to the bills passed to specifically related to an item. In other words, it must not be
the Bicameral Conference Committee. foreign, extraneous, or otherwise known as a rider. Any such
provision or enactment shall be limited in its operation to the
This rule on no amendments only to bills that originate from that appropriation which it specifically relates. So, if it’s not an
House. In other words, if the bill originates from the Senate, for appropriation provision, it must be a provision which relates,
example, and it underwent 3 readings, dili na siya ma-amend by the nevertheless, to that appropriation. For example, it sets the
Senate. Later on, if ipasa sa House of Representatives, dili pasabot conditions upon which the appropriations may be spent. It will not
na niundergo na siya ug 3 readings sa Senate, dili na siya ma-amend be considered a rider but a provision which is totally extraneous
sa House of Representatives because it will also deliberate on the from an item can be considered a rider.
rd
same. Pwde sila mag-introduce ug amendments, and after the 3
reading, mag-vote na sila. In other words, this no-amendment rule Nganong naa man ani na prohibition sa Consitutition, particularly for
only applies to bill introduced for the first time in either House of appropriation bills?
Congress and not from the Bicameral Conference Committee. This Because appropriation bills are very, very comprehensive so much so
was already settled in the case of Tolentino which we already na malipat ka, wala ka kabalo na naa na diay rider didto. So, that is
discussed last meeting. why strict gyud kayo siya. Daghan kaayog provisions sa GAA;
therefore, it must be subject to closer scrutiny.
This no-amendment rule refers to the procedure to be followed by
each House of Congress with regard to bills initiated in each of said What else?
respective Houses before that bill is transmitted to the other House Another provision which is important here is Sec. 28 (5), kadtong
for concurrence or amendment. To rule otherwise would be… wala gidiscuss sa Araullo vs. Aquino where there should be no law that
nay power ang other House to amend it because you’re saying that should be passed authorizing the transfer of appropriations, as a
rd
after 3 reading, dili na siya ma-amend. The proscription with general rule. So, unsa nang kwarta na nakabutang dira sa GAA. Unsa
regards the amendment is only for the House kung asa siya niagi for nang purpose, mao lang na imong himuon, dili na nimo siya igasto
the first time ug 3 readings. Sila ang dili maka-amend. apil in any other way. Otherwise, pwde ka maliable for technical
malversation. However, the Constitution provides that the
67 | P a g e
President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the HoR, the Heads of the Constitutional Commissions, were, in the first place,
Chief Justice and the Heads of the Constitutional Commissions allowed to augment their own appropriations. And more
may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in the GAA law for importantly, walay line item na naga-exist to be augmented.
their respective office. So dapat nay provision in a law, normally,
gina-include na sa GAA. So, pwde nila madungagan ug kwarta ang Atitiw vs. Zamora
mga items sa sariling opisina from saving in other items of their Atitiw vs. Zamora talks about riders in a GAA law.
respective appropriations. Again, provided, that there is a provision
in a law that allows them to do that. So, mao to siya ang sole RA 8760 – GAA for 2000 was challenged because there was a
exception to the rule na dili pwde mag-transfer transfer ug paragraph there in the, special provisions of that law, which says
appropriations. that this fund would be used to wind up the activities of the
Cordillera Administrative Region and pay the separation and
To explain some of these provisions, nay mga kaso na gipang-assign. retirement benefits of all its affected officials and employees. It is
For example, the case of Brilliantes vs. COMELEC. alleged here that that provision is a rider. It is not consistent with
the purpose of the GAA.
Brilliantes vs. COMELEC
RA 8436 was passed by Congress to automate the election system. In fact, gina-dissolve na niya ang CAR. According to them, it
However, eventually, nagka-kaso sa Supreme Court in so far as the prohibited rider contravening Art. 6, Sec. 25 (2) of the Constitution.
contractor contracted to implement this law. Naay anomaly, nay
kaso to nullify this contract. Ultimately, dili jud ni ma-electronic in So, let’s discuss the concepts here.
the meantime ang May 1998 elections. Nevertheless, the COMELEC
insisted. Naa na man tay ani na balaod. Let’s make the best out of it. What is a rider, anyway?
So, the automation of the election was supposed to undergo 3 It is a provision which is alien to or not germane to the subject and
phases. purpose of the bill in which it is incorporated. So, if it is a rider, as a
general rule, it will violate this provision, Art. 6, Sec. 25 (2).
Phase 1 – Computerization of the Registration of the Voters
Phase 2 – Computerization of the Voting and the Counting A rider also violates the one-subject, one-title rule. Kay maging alien
Phase 3 – Electronic Transmission of the Results siya with the subject of the balaod which is already supposed to be
covered in the title. So, if naa kay rider, duh aka provisions sa
Considering na dili na niya ma-implement ang first 2 phases, wala Constitution ang imohang ma-violate, Art. 6, Sec. 25 (2) and Sec. 26.
nay contract sa contractor. Ilaha nalang itry i-apply ang phase 3
which is the Electronic Transmission of the Results. So, they sought Why are riders prohibited?
to implement it. Nag-issue silag resolutions allotting money for the The rationale or the reason against inserting a rider in an
purpose. Nag-kaso pa sa SC against this action of the COMELEC appropriations bill under a specific appropriation clause in the
because they continued the transmission of the unofficial results Constitution is similar to the rationale of the prohibition for the
for the 2004 elections, denominated as an unofficial recount. reason of the one-subject, one-title rule, which is to prevent this
hodge-podge or log-rolling legislation.
rd
So, gi-apply nila tong 3 phase. Gi-test lang nila. Pwde man siguro ni.
rd
Kung fully mu-automate ka, at least kabalo na ta sa 3 phase. Pwde Kaning mga alien provisions in a bill meant to be seen, the legislators
diay.Faithful diay ang pag-count, etc. in the public. Mao na ang purpose na nganong dapat iexclude, as a
general rule, ang riders.
Nag-set aside sila ug kwarta ana, for that purpose. Pag-abot sa SC,
was the act of the COMELEC valid? To prevent fraud of the legislators, to apprise the people of the
rd
No, the resolution setting aside money and implementing the 3 subject of the legislation are being considered.
phase was violative of the provision that – No money shall be paid
out of the treasury except pursuant to an appropriation made by Now, considering that the appropriation bill covers a broad range of
law. subject matter and includes more details to an ordinary bill. It must
be scrutinized closely. However, you can insert provisions in the
Naa bay provision in the law here that allows the COMELEC to GAA; provided, dili siya maconsider na rider because these
conduct an unofficial quick count of the 2004 elections? Which dapat provisions are germane to the purpose of the law. The rule
makita siya sa 2003 GAA. prohibiting riders should not be construed so strictly as to tie the
No, there is no money set aside for that purpose. There is no hands of Congress in providing budgetary policies in the
appropriation in the 2003 GAA for that purpose, the 2004 elections. appropriations bill. So, just because that provision does not say that
The GAA, RA 9206, the Court did not file any appropriation for the this amount is for this purpose, it does not mean na prohibited na
project of the COMELEC of the electronic transmission of unofficial siya as long as this provision is germane for the purpose of the GAA.
results.
What does this mean?
So, unsa ni illegal? This requires that all provisions in a GAA are either
The Court said na walay kwarta for your supposed unofficial count.
a) appropriation items or
What about the savings? Can the COMELEC use the savings to fund b) non-appropriations items which relate specifically to
this activity? appropriation items.
No, because in the first place, walay item in the GAA kung asa to i- In other words, pwde diay ka mag-insert ug non-appropriation items
transfer ang savings. So, dili to magamit na provisions even if the na dapat di sila mahulog as a rider because they are germane to the
COMELEC… In the first place, the GAA does not even say that the purpose of this GAA.
COMELEC or any of those enumerated officials, the President, the
68 | P a g e
Then when can you consider a non-appropriation item to be validly Gina-violate pud niya ang checks and balance mechanism,
included in the GAA? particularly, on the item veto power of the President.
These provisions or clauses that do not directly appropriate funds
but are deemed appurtenant, germane, in a general appropriations Where can we find this item veto power of the President?
bill, may be allowed when they specify certain conditions and It is in Art. 6, Sec. 27 (2) – The President shall have the power to veto
restrictions in the manner by which the funds to which they relate any particular item(s) in an appropriation revenue or tariff bill but
have to be spent. the veto shall not affect the item(s) to which he does not object.
So, related gihapon siya sa GAA. For example, ang provision na gina- In other words, kung naa kay appropriation revenue or tariff bill,
challenge diri, nay amount na gi-set. Tapos naay conditions for the pwde i-veto. Tanggalun ni President ang provision by way of a veto
spending of that amount. Even if that provision is not, strictly without totally nullifying the entire law. Kato lang revenue and tariff
speaking, an appropriation item, because wala man siya naga-ingon item. So, katong specific item pwde nimo siya tanggalon. Item veto
na naay amount for it, but they relate to that item nga naay amount. powers of the President.
They relate to that specific appropriation na naka-indicate sa GAA.
And di siya maconsider na rider because it’s germane to that. What is the purpose of this item veto power?
It rests on a variety of policies such as to prevent log-rolling
When is this provision which is a non-appropriation item or clause in legislation, impose fiscal restrictions under the legislature, and
a GAA germane to the GAA? fortify the executive branch’s role in the budgetary process.
It must be particular, unambiguous and appropriate. Why?

This is also the checks and balances mechanism imposed in the
a) It is particular if it relates specifically to a distinct item of Constitution to check on the acts of Congress. Makita ni President, o
appropriation in the bill and does not refer, generally, to this item in the appropriation bill is an item not related to any of the
the entire appropriations bill. provisions, pwde na to tanggalon because he has that power to
b) It is unambiguous or clear when its application or check upon the act of this separate co-equal body.
operation is apparent in the face of the bill and does
necessitate reference or sources outside the So, it is a sanitary check upon the legislative body calculated to
appropriations bill. guard the community against these effects if Congress deviates from
c) It is appropriate when the subject matter of that provision this mandate to properly legislate laws.
does not necessarily had to be treated with separate
legislation. When may the President exercise this item veto powers?
For the President to exercise this power, it necessarily follows that
For a non-appropriation provision to be included in the GAA, it must there must be a proper item which may be the object of the veto.
need these 3 requirements. Kay kung walang item, you cannot veto it.
So, kato lang ang doctrines, we apply them to the provision An item is defined in the field of appropriations as the particulars,
challenged here. This paragraph 1 of the special provisions, is this a the details, the distinct and severable parts of an appropriation or
rider because it is not particular, unambiguous, appropriate? of the bill.
The Court said that no. It is germane to the purpose of this law.
An example of an item is kadto, nag-allot ka ug 100M for the
Why? building of this tulay which the President can validly exercise his
Because it lays down a limitation or restriction on the use of the item veto powers on.
specific appropriation item already provided in the GAA.
An item of the appropriation bill, obviously, means an item which in,
So, related siya. It sets the condition as to how the amount is to be itself, is a specific appropriation of money, not some general
spent. provision of law which happens to be put in an appropriation bill.
So, mao nang president, may veto these items in appropriation
Belgica vs. Ochoa revenue and tariff bills.
We already discussed that the PDAF provisions, particularly, the
2013 GAA, the lump-sum amounts, where the individual legislator Now, nganong mu-violate man ning power ni President by the PDAF
can identify the project upon which these amounts are to be spent provisions?
are violative of several doctrines of the Constitution. Before we go there, naka-ingon ang SC na mao ni ang items –
calamity fund, contingent fund, intelligence fund. Naay kwarta gi-
One of them is the doctrine of non-delegability of legislative power. allot for intelligence fund. These are to be considered as items and if
makita ni President na improper ni or i-exercise ni President his
Nganong naga-violate siya ani nga doctrine? discretion to veto these items, he can do so, without vetoing the
Because this is an act of appropriation which can only be exercised entire law.
by Congress as a body not by individual legislators.
Lahi ang rule, in so far as other types of bills are concerned. Kani
Dili pwde i-delegate sa Congress ang power to legislate to a single lang siya ang mag-apply sa revenue, tariff ug appropriation bill. Kay
legislator because that power can only be exercised by Congress, as kung other bills siya, pag mag-veto siya ug balaod, the entire bill is
a rule. So, it violates the principle of non-delegability of legislative vetoed but in so far as those three types of bills are concerned,
power. pwde niya i-piecemeal veto.
What else?
69 | P a g e
Anyway, we’re talking here of the 2013 GAA which allows kato, The Court said that no because it does not set specific standard
those provisions thereof. Nganong gina-violate niya ang checks and upon which the money will be spent. Wide latitude is given to the
balances mechanism, violating the item veto power of the President? President to use the funds for any purpose he may direct and in
Why does it violate that? effect, allows him to unilaterally, appropriate public funds beyond
the purview of the law. Therefore, it is an undue delegation of
Why? Under the 2013 PDAF, how much was the lump-sum amount legislative authority considering na ang provision, for that particular
set, given to our brilliant legislators? Total lump-sump allocation? phrase, does not provide for a specific standard. But the rest of the
34.75 billion pesos. So, isipin nimo pila na na ka classroom, pila na ka provisions in PD 910 as well as Sec. 8, they are all valid except lang
hospitals, no. tong katong phrase. So, gitanggal to siya because it is
unconstitutional.
This appears to be as a collective allocation limit, further divided
among individual legislators. What about PD 1869?
Katong Presidential Social Fund, Sec. 12, allows the President to
Nganong dili man ni siya maconsider sa President as an item that he spend money in so far as Sec. 12 is concerned for priority
can validly veto? infrastructure development projects.The Court said that this
This amount would have to be further divided among individual provision is unconstitutional because the law does not set what this
legislators. When they received these personal lump-sum allocations priority infrastructure development projects are.
and after the GAA is approved, effectively, appropriate the funds
based on their own discretion. It means that the actual items of the In implementing this provision, therefore, the President is given
PDA appropriations, here, implemented by our legislators would not unbridled authority to determine that these infrastructure project is
have to be written into the bill. And thus, cannot be effectuated by a priority na pwde niya gamitan ani nga kwarta. Wala na puy
the President’s veto power considerations. sufficient standard. It gives him carte blanche full freedom or
authority to use the same fund for any infrastructure project
In other words, nakabutang didto ang amounts pero walay itemized, development priority development project; so, unconstitutional. But
walay purpose for it. Lump-sum siya na amount which the President the rest of the provisions of this law, not unconstitutional.
cannot exercise his item veto precisely because there is no purpose
for it except that. Therefore, the President is now constrained. This Belgica vs. Ochoa
set-up leaves the actual amounts and purposes of that We discussed kadtong provisions regarding the PDAF articles,
appropriation for further determination by the violating among others the veto powers of the President which we’ll
individuallegislators. Therefore, it does not readily indicate a also go back to later, more extensively. In other case, relating to
dissectible item which may be subject to the President’s power of appropriations, kadtong pag-implement sa President sa
item veto. So, the President will now be constrained to accept the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) which was challenged to
entire amount of this PDAF allocation without knowing the specific be unconstitutional because it requires daw a separate legislation.
project of the legislators. While the Court said, in this case, that DAP is a program adopted by
the President to accelerate the spending of funds already
Unsa niya pagkahibalo? Na kaning mga panuhak na legislators ang appropriated in the GAA. Therefore, there is no need for a separate
kabalo unsaon ni pag-spent. So, dili siya makabalo. law to implement this program as it relates to budget execution
already. So, no need for that. However, the practice, the
He’s constrained to accept that without knowing how it would be implementation of the DAP, here, practices, as to how it is
spent or to reject the full item, this 200B, to the detriment of all implemented, gi-declare sa SC as unconstitutional.
other legislators with legitimate projects. And therefore, dili ma-
execute ni President ang iyang item veto powers at all or if he can, Unsa man tong acts na gi-declare as unconstitutional pertaining to
he may not be able to exercise it fully. the DAP?
1) The withdrawal of unobligated allotments of the
This case now only talks about the PDAF articles in the GAA but also implementing agencies and the declaration of
the pork barrel given to the President. unobligated allotments and under these appropriations
as savings
So, unsa man ning gi-challenge na unconstitutional here? Gi-consider nila ang amount sa savings to fund the DAP. Prior to the
Because it grants the President the unbridled discretion as to how end of the fiscal year, this cannot be done without complying with
the funds to be collected through that law will be spent. the statutory definition of savings. Because as we discussed before,
before you can consider an item as savings, dapat gikuha na siya, gi-
Unsa man ning mga balaura ni? allot na siya for specific purpose, na human na iyang purpose, naa
We have PD 910 and PD1869. PD 910 on the Malampaya Funds and pay nabilin.
PD 1869 on the Presidential Social Fund.
2) Cross-border transfers of the savings of the executive
Naay provision on PD 910, Sec. 8, which talks about the discretion of We said before na katong mga gi-specify nato na officers, the
the President that all these revenues and receipts from the Board, President, the Vice President, the Speaker, the Heads of
etc., pwde niya maspend. Ang pinakalast, and for other such Constitutional Commissions, the Chief Justice, they have the power
purposes as may be heareafter directed by the President in Sec. 8. to augment items in their respective appropriations in their
Naay mga gi-enumerate na purposes specific pero naay general or ?? respective departments. However, what the President did, here, was
clause na kung unsa nga purpose ang maisip ni President, pwde niya to fund items that were beyond what the items appropriated for in
gamiton to nga na kwarta. the executive department. Nag-hatag siyag kwarta sa legislative, it
can’t be done. The cross-border transfers of the same dates of the
Is that provision valid? executive to augment the appropriations of other offices outside the
executive is unconstitutional. And the funding of activities and
70 | P a g e
programs not covered by any appropriation in the GAA is also
unconstitutional. Budget Legislation
This phase covers the period commencing from the time Congress
Why? receives the President’s budget which is inclusive of the NEP and
Again, from the cross-border transfers made by the President, nag- the BESF up to the President’s approval of the GAA.
hatag siya, nag-augment siya ug item that were not existent in the
GAA. So, he could not augment items na did not exist in the first This is also known as the Budget Authorization Phase. Initially, the
place. Bawal na siya. President’s budget, kadtong BESF and NEP, is assigned to the HoR
Appropriations Committee at first reading. And thereafter, there will
The DAP, itself, is a program valid, not needed to be in a law but be budget hearings. Dira n aka. Naay mag-invite sa heads of offices
the practices enumerated, here, in the executed, were declared by and responsible officials to defend the monies that they are asking.
the Court to be unconstitutional. Defend it before Congress because Congress holds the power of the
purse. Kung dili sila pwde magpataka-taka ug spend ug money kung
Let’s go to our discussion to the Philippine Budget Cycle. walay pulos ang purpose sa iyang pagspend. Even if niaagi na siya ug
DBM, gi-approve na by those screening entities, muagi na pud kag
What is the Philippine Budget Cycle? Congress to defend the budget. Budget hearings are conducted.
It has 4 phases – Thereafter, nakapasa ka sa budget hearing, na-approve tong
a) Budget Preparation, so ikaw, mangayo kag kwarta sa imuhang proposed budget for your agency. Thereafter, the HoR
imong mama, isulat nimo sa papel, formal request; drafts the general appropriations bill.
b) Budget Legislation, so, ihatag nimo sa imong mama,
approve na imong budget na gipangayo; Why?
c) Budget Execution, so, gitagaan kag kwarta, so, you Kay sa ila man dapat mag-originate. Because this is an
spend the money; appropriations bill. And thereafter, this is sponsored and defended
d) Accountability, gispend nimo ang money, was that by the HoR Appropriations Committee and Sub-Committee in
spend for that purpose? Gipalit ba nimo ug sapatos? plenary session. Thereafter, mag-proceed ang bill and under goes
rd
the 3 reading. And proceeds to the Senate.
So, mao to ang 4 general phases – you prepare it, you legislate it,
you implement it, and you account for it. The Senate conducts its own committee hearings on this general
appropriations bill. Thereafter, their version of the bill is likewise
rd
Budget Preparation approved on the 3 reading. If they want to reconcile the provisions,
It is started by the issuance of the DBM of a budget call. This budget they can constitute a conference committee.
contemplates budget parameters earlier set by the Development
Budget Operations Committee as well as policy guidelines and What will happen if they fail to do that? - the executive department
procedures to aid government agencies in the preparation and will defend their budget allocation before the Congress, and the
submission of their budget proposals. latter rejects the mechanism that was proposed by the former, and
the executive will stand by its proposal, WHAT HAPPENS?
So, after this budget call, the various departments and agencies that
made their respective agencies’ budget proposals to the DBM. So, If by the end of any Fiscal Year, Congress shall have deemed to pass
guided na man sila sa guidelines aning budget call. O asa inyuhang the gap for the ensuing Fiscal Year. The GAA for the preceding Fiscal
gusto ispend for this year, following the guidelines, o inyuha na nang Year shall be deemed due enacted and shall remain in force and
i-enumerate dira. You submit it, the agency’s budget proposal, to effect until the gap is passed by Congress.
the DBM.
Discussion:
These proposal are then presented to the technical panel of the
DBM and schedule budget hearings wherein the various It does not mean that when the Congress rejects the mechanism of
departments and agencies are given opportunity to defend their the Executive, the latter shall have no budget for the entire Fiscal
budget proposals. Thereafter, the DBM reviews the agency’s budget Year. The GAA, which was approved by the Congress during the
proposals and come up with recommendations by the Executive preceding year shall be deemed re-enacted and shall take effect
Review Board, comprised by the DBM Secretary and the DBM Senior until finally the GAA for the next specific year has been approved.
officials. Later on, the DBM consolidates the recommended agency’s
budget into the National Expenditure Program (NEP) and a Budget If the Department able to defend the budget proposal before the
of Expenditures and Sources of Funding (BESF). Kani nga documents Congress and ultimately after all the debates and proceedings
and these documents are thereafter, presented by the DBM and the before the Bicameral Conference Committee, a General
DBCC (Development Budget Coordination Committee) to the Appropriation BILL shall thereafter release and shall be signed by the
President and the Cabinet for further requirements of President of the Philippines - although it is submitted to him and
reprioritization. Once this is met and approved by the President, the subject for his VETO power. The President may exercise his ITEM
DBM prepares the budget documents for submission to Congress. VETO POWER and thereafter the VETO, or check the BILL, or SIGNED
and APPROVED, the budget shall now be implemented.
So, mag-start siya, submit ninyo tanan sa DBM, mag-hearing. Later
on, mag-dawat sa recommendation. Thereafter, mag-himo silag That is the third phase - THE BUDGET EXECUTION
BESF ug kadtong NEP. I-submit nila kay President to be deliberated
by it and others. Mag-come up sila ug requirements. Kadto siya, mao With the GAA helpful in full force the effect of the implementation
to ang ihatag karon sa Congress to be defended by those asking for of the budget, the budget execution phase happens. This is the
those amounts. So, naa na kay proposal. Now, we go to budget primary function of the Department of Budget and Management. So,
legislation. there is already a budget allocated for a certain department.
71 | P a g e
a. There must be a law authorizing those officers
Will the budget be released right away? b. The fund to be transferred are savings generated from the
appropriations for their respective offices (This cannot be observed
No, there is still a need for the certain department requesting for the in inter-department savings)
said budget to REQUEST the same from the DBM following the c. The purpose of the transfer is to augment an item in the General
appropriate procedure. Appropriations Law for their respective office as well.
If the documents necessary for the budget request have been So, for the first requisite, is there a law authorizing the President?
complied with, the budget allocated can already be used to spend
pursuant to its purpose. The court said that in the GAA of 2011 and 2012, there was no
provision in these two laws, while there is provision, the same is still
The actual disbursement or spending of Government Funds invalid. Why?
terminates the Budget Execution phase.
Because it missed a phrase "FOR THEIR RESPECTIVE OFFICE". It was
Thereafter, the money spent shall be accounted accordingly and this stated thereof that:
constitutes the FOURTH PHASE, which is the BUDGET "The officials that they can transfer as the President of the
ACCOUNTABILITY - which ensures that Government Funds have Philippines etc. are hereby authorizes to augment any item in this
been effectively and efficiently utilized to achieve the State's Socio- act from savings in other items of the respective appropriations. "
Economic Goals.
There must be an addition for their respective offices. Because once
The Agencies' Accountability may be examined and evaluated. the same is allowed, they can therefor do cross-boarder
augmentation. And as we said earlier, the expense of the transfer of
How? the item should be within the respective office. Considering that the
provisions of the 2011 and 2012 GAAs insofar as this authority to
SITUATION: Your agency requested for budget allocation for an transfer funds is missing that abovementioned phrase, those
efficient and effective exercise thereof, but there was only a case provisions are invalid and therefor cannot be the source of power.
filed - so where did the requested money go? Your agency was not
able to meet your performance targets, possibly the next following So, when the President exercised the power, he had no authority
proposals may no longer be approved. therefor as there was no source where the same power was
anchored from. Therefore, it rendered it unconstitutional.
WHAT ELSE?
What about the 2013 GAA?
There shall be an examination and evaluation of the Department's
budget accountability reports, agency performance, and also the There was already that phrase in the provision "For their Respective
Department shall be audited by the Commission on Audit. Offices", thereby leaving it valid. The first requirement is now
present in the 2013 GAA.
Basically, those are the phases in the Philippine Budgeting Cycle.
The next requirement is, before they may transfer the savings, the
Going back to the DAP, the court said that this is not an FUNDS to be TRANSFERRED are SAVINGS generated from the
appropriation measure. It relates to the THIRD PHASE,which is the appropriations for the respective offices.
budget execution. Hence, no appropriation law was required to
adopt or implement it. That is the Government Policy or Strategy ISSUE: Are the Funds used by the President to implement the DAP is
design to stimulate the economy through accelerated spending. savings?
Being a function pertaining to the executive as the main actor during HELD: No.
the third phase, the Congress need not to legislate to adopt or
implement this DAP. The Congress will appropriate but would have The President used the valid list of appropriations and un-obligated
nothing to do during the budget execution. allotments. Can these be considered as savings as defined in the
GAA? No.
Now, let us go to the way by which the DAP was implemented by the
Executive Department. Same, it was defined in the three GAA the definition of savings.
Savings pertain to the portion of balances of any program
There are requisites before the President may exercise his appropriated such as ---- the provision. The phrase, "It must be free
augmenting powers under Art. VI sec (35) No Law shall be passed from any obligation or encumbrance".
authorizing the transfer of any appropriations. However, the
President, Speaker, Chief Justice, Heads of the Constitutional However, those two types of Funds did not fall under the definition
Commissions, they may, by law, be authorized to augment any item of savings.
in the General Appropriations Law for their respective offices from
their savings in other items of their respective appropriation. The unreleased appropriations because of the non-compliance with
documented requirements or simply because of the unavailability of
Dissecting that provision, what are the requirements before they funds. But these appropriations do not reach the agencies to which
may exercise their power to validly transfer appropriated funds? they were allocated under the GAAs. In other words, these
unreleased appropriations before to appropriations with allotments,
REQUISITES: but without disbursement authority.
72 | P a g e
Illustration: There is an available money, but the same was not
moved to be spent. TAX LAWS
This cannot be considered as savings as the same was asked from What are the provisions in ARTICLE VI that deal with Tax Laws -
the DBM to be spent. It was then kept with the DBM. That cannot be Limitations imposed in Congress in so far as Tax Laws are
considered as savings. It was not released in the first place. concerned.
Again, because these appropriations are not even reached or even Art. VI Sec. 28
used by the agencies concerned vis-vis the program activity or
project for which Congress had allocated to them. Paragraph 1 - That rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable.
Congress shall thereat evolve a progressive system of taxation. (This
What about the unpublicated allotments? is a restriction)
The court said that, it may be considered as savings since it Paragraph 3 - Charitable institutions, churches, and convents
encompassed the first definition of the savings that it is a portion or pertaining thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands
balance of any program or appropriation in the GAA - freed from any and buildings and improvements actually, directly, and inclusively
encumbrance or publication but that fund is still qualified by three used for religious, charitable, or educational purposes shall be
conditions: except from taxation.
a. the funds must still be available after the completion of the final If you are a charitable institution, are you except from all taxes
discontinuance or abandonment of the work, activity, or purpose because of the foregoing provisions?
for which the appropriation is authorized.
YMCA vs. CA
b. from the appropriation balances arising from ---- compensation
and related costs FACTS:
c. from appropriation balances realized from the implementation of
the measures resulting to the improved systems and efficiencies. In 1980, private respondents YMCA - Young Men Christian
Association, a non-stock non-profit private institution, conducted
In other words, the money must be spent. This unobligated various movements and activities that are beneficial to the public
allotments do not fall under the definition of savings because the especially the young people pursuant to its educational and
spending of these allotments were not set in clear terms by the charitable objectives.
DBM. In fact, these withdrawn allotments could be re-issued for the
original programs and projects of the agencies to which they are In 1980, private respondent earned, among others, an income of
concerned. P676,829.80 from leasing out a portion of its premises to small shop
owners, like restaurants and canteen operators, and P44,259.00
In other words, the purpose for which these withdrawn funds had from parking fees collected from non-members. On July 2, 1984, the
been appropriated cannot be fulfilled. Or did not yet cease to exist commissioner of internal revenue (CIR) issued an assessment to
rendering the declaration of the savings as impossible. private respondent, in the total amount of P415,615.01 including
surcharge and interest, for deficiency income tax, deficiency
Illustration: You have asked for your money but the same was not expanded withholding taxes on rentals and professional fees and
spent. deficiency withholding tax on wages. Private respondent formally
protested the assessment and, as a supplement to its basic protest,
So, those considered by the Executive Branch as "savings", the court filed a letter dated October 8, 1985. In reply, the CIR denied the
said that they do not fall under the definition of savings. So, those claims of YMCA.
were used for spending, violates the provision of the Constitution
that can only transfer savings.
Private respondent submits that Article VI, Section 28 of par. 3 of the
For the President to effect the transferring of Funds, the purpose of 1987 Constitution, exempts "charitable institutions" from the
the transfer is to augment an item in the GAL for their respective payment not only of property taxes but also of income tax from any
office. source.
Here, where did the President use the money upon implementation
of DAP? NOTE: Charitable institutions are only exempted from property taxes
and these properties must actually be directly and exclusively used
As admitted, it went to those who were given under the legislative for religious, charitable, or educational purposes.
department - the individual senators, for their own budget. These
items did not exist in the GAA and therefore they cannot be
augmented by any saving. Also, it was not spent within the Executive ISSUE: Is the rental income of the YMCA from its real estate subject
Department - it was not in his respective office. But, he went to to tax? NO.
another office - violating therefore that provision.
At the outset, we set forth the relevant provision of the NIRC:
In so far as the DAP program is concerned, it is valid and does not Sec. 27. Exemptions from tax on corporations. — The following
need for a law for it to take effect. However, in so far as the organizations shall not be taxed under this Title in respect to income
execution thereof, those acts of the president, are considered as received by them as such —
unconstitutional. xxx xxx xxx
73 | P a g e
(g) Civic league or organization not organized for profit but operated When this,the agreement between the two parties, was challenged
exclusively for the promotion of social welfare; by Chavez before the SC, the Marcoses admitted the compromise
(h) Club organized and operated exclusively for pleasure, recreation, agreement.
and other non-profitable purposes, no part of the net income of
which inures to the benefit of any private stockholder or member; The question is, does the provision in the agreement which deals
The exemption claimed by the YMCA is expressly disallowed by the with the compromise in so far as the Tax is concerned relating to this
very wording of the last paragraph of then Section 27 of the assets. Can this be validly entered into between the Marcoses and
NIRC which mandates that the income of exempt organizations the PCGG?
(such as the YMCA) from any of their properties, real or personal,
be subject to the tax imposed by the same Code. HELD: NO. The agreements pertaining to that provision are declared
null and void for being contrary to the law and the Constitution.
The last paragraph of Section 27, the YMCA argues, should be The PCGG committed, in that agreement, to exempt from all forms
"subject to the qualification that the income from the properties of taxes, the properties to be retained by the Marcos heirs under
must arise from activities 'conducted for profit' before it may be that agreement and that is a clear violation of the Constitution
considered taxable." This argument is erroneous. because the power tax and to grant tax exemptions is not vested on
the PCGG but rather in Congress and to a certain extent in the Local
Legislative Units.
As previously stated, a reading of said paragraph ineludibly shows
that the income from any property of exempt organizations, as well There is no law granting any tax exemptions, which can only be
as that arising from any activity it conducts for profit, is taxable. passed with the concurrence of the majority of all the members of
The phrase "any of their activities conducted for profit" does not Congress in so far as the Marcoses. They were not granted benefits
qualify the word "properties." This makes from the property of the by way of a law. The PCGG therefore has absolutely no power to
organization taxable, regardless of how that income is used — grant tax exemptions even under the proper authority to
whether for profit or for lofty non-profit purposes. compromise ill-gotten wealth cases.
LUNG CENTER vs. QUEZON CITY

Note: It is actually exempted from the payment of the property tax
and it limits to the property itself. But the income that derives from FACTS:
the property are not subject to property tax but subject to the
payment for the income tax. Lung Center is a non-stock non-profit entity established by law. It
has a property where it operates a hospital. There is a big space on
the ground floor,which has been leased to private parties for a
Private respondent also invokes Article XIV, Section 4, par. 3 of the canteen and a small stores and to medical and professional
Character, claiming that the YMCA "is a non-stock, non-profit practitioners to use the same as their private clinics for their
educational institution whose revenues and assets are used actually, patients to whom they charge for a professional fee services.
directly and exclusively for educational purposes so it is exempt
from taxes on its properties and income." We reiterate that private A big portion of the right side of the property is being leased for
respondent is exempt from the payment of property tax, but not commercial purposes to a private enterprise known as Elliptical
income tax on the rentals from its property. The bare allegation Orchids. This hospital admits to accept paying and non-paying
alone that it is a non-stock, non-profit educational institution is patients. Eventually, the Quezon City Assessor's Office assessed both
insufficient to justify its exemption from the payment of income the land and the hospital building for real property taxes on its
tax. entirety. And the Lung Center paid but under protest on the ground
that it is a charitable institution and therefore except from real
Hence, for the YMCA to be granted the exemption it claims under property taxes under Art. 6 Sec. 28. paragraph 3.
the aforecited provision, it must prove with substantial evidence
that: ISSUE: Is the LUNG CENTER a Charitable institution
(1) it falls under the classification non-stock, non-profit
educational institution; and HELD:
(2) the income it seeks to be exempted from taxation is
used actually, directly, and exclusively for educational purposes. TEST to consider an establishment as CHARITY
which in this case, YMCA failed to prove.
To determine an enterprise is a charitable institution, the elements
that should be considered includes the:
CHAVEZ vs. PCGG a. statute creating the enterprise

b. its corporate purposes
FACTS: c. constitution and by-laws and methods of administration
d. nature of the work
There was a compromise agreement entered into between the
PCGG and the Marcoses, which referred to the ill-gotten wealth of The test is whether it exists to carry out a purpose reorganized in
the Marcoses. In the execution of this compromise, there was a law as charitable or whether it is maintained to gain profit for
concession given to the Marcoses that they will not be liable for private advantage.
taxes on the assets that are covered by the compromise agreement.
74 | P a g e
Under the law that created the Lung Center, it is a non-profit and proven that it had not undergone legal procedure. But, here it was
non-stock corporation. And just because it derives income from its not proven.
paying patients, this hospital did not lose its character as a charitable
institution. So long as the money received is devoted or used The Third requirement - within the scope given by the legislature -
altogether to the charitable object, which is intended to achieve. did the executive order here, was it faithful to the statutory
And no money accrue for the private benefit of the person who is authority given to the president?
managing.
No. The proscription in the importation of used motor vehicles
ISSUE: However, what about the properties which was taxed herein, should be operative only outside of the free-port. So, the
was the use thereof faithful to the conditions set in Article VI Sec 28 qualification here is that in so far as all of the provisions of this EO,
paragraph 3? Is the whole property was used directly and exclusively it is valid, but when it comes to its prohibition which was challenged
for religious, charitable, or educational purposes? herein - for importations in the free-port - that it was restricted, -it is
not allowed as the President has no authority to do that under a
HELD: No law.
Firstly, the petitioner reiterates the ruling that the covered This Executive Order exceeded the scope of its application by
exception is for real property taxes, which is applicable here since extending the prohibition of the importation used-cars to the free-
they were imposed with real property tax, but they did not pay. port, which under law is a foreign territory. Therefore, the President
cannot exercise power therefor. The free-port is not considered as a
ISSUE: Is the petitioner liable? domestic area - the portion of the Philippines outside the Subic Bay
Free-Port refer to the area that can be covered by the Executive
HELD: Orders insofar as those in the free-ports are concerned. The
President's power is only limited within the domestic sphere and
To be able to avail of this exception, the real properties themselves free-ports are considered as foreign territory. Therefore, the
must be actually, directly, or exclusively use for a charitable purpose. President had exceeded from his power when it included in the
If the real property is used for one or more commercial purposes, it prohibition the inclusion of the free-ports.
is not exclusively used for the excepted purpose, thus it is subject to
taxation. The fourth requirement is also wanting as the same there was no
logic in all the encompassing application of the assailed provision to
Here, the Lung Cancer had a portion of its space rented by private the free port.
entities for commercial purposes. The court decided to prorate - that
the area used for commercial purpose shall not be excepted from
tax involved herein. But, in so far as the area, which exclusively used MANDANAS vs. OCHOA
for charitable purpose was excluded from the computation.
FACTS:
EXECUTIVE vs. SOUTHWING
This involves a case whereby a provision in Article 10 sec 6 of the
FACTS: Constitution, vis-a-vis the competition of the just share of the taxes
of the LGU.
The power of the President to issue this executive order 156. Among
the provisions of this law is the prohibition of the importation in to Sec. 6 Art. 10 "LGU shall have a just share as determined by law in
the country including the free port of all types of used motor the National Taxes, which should be automatically be released to
vehicles. This was challenged by questioning the authority of the them."
President to issue such an executive order.
In the LG Code, it was limited under Sec. 2 "LGU shall have a share in
The requisites for a valid administrative issuance are: the National Internal Revenue Taxes" -so, the question is, which shall
prevail?
(a.) it must be authorized by legislature or there must be a law
promulgated (b.)in accordance with the prescribed procedure National Taxes in the Constitution or the Local Government Code - a
(c.)within the scope of the authority given and (d.) must be National Internal Revenue Taxes?
reasonable
It is the Constitution - it cannot be limited to the legislature through
The first requisite is met because there is a law that authorizes the the LGC the basis for the share of LGU insofar as taxes is concerned
President to issue this provision. The court herein discussed the because the provision in the Constitution is explicit -NATIONAL
instances with the Congress has given the president delegated TAXES not NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE TAXES.
legislative authority - tariffs, and customs code, EO 226 - the
Omnibus Investment Code, RA 8802 or ZPEG measures act. WHAT ARE THOSE TAXES THAT WILL NOT FALL AS INTERNAL
REVENUE?
Those are the laws that give the President statutory permission to
band or regulate importation of articles and commodities to the Section 21. Sources of Revenue. — The following taxes, fees and
country. There is a legislative basis. charges are deemed to be national internal revenue taxes:
(a) Income tax;
The Second requirement - promulgated in accordance with the (b) Estate and donor's taxes;
prescribed procedure - The court said that it is presumed that it had (c) Value-added tax;
undergone legal procedure. So if it was challenged, it must be (d) Other percentage taxes;
75 | P a g e
(e) Excise taxes;
(f) Documentary stamp taxes; and Art. 1 Sec. 7 If any bill shall not be returned by the President within
(g) Such other taxes as are or hereafter may be imposed and 10 days after it has been presented to him, the same shall be a law.
collected by the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Unless the Congress by their adjournment prevents its return, in
which case, it shall not be a law.
This was now excluded from the computation at first as the LGCode
says it has NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE, but after this case, the So, the President shall return the bill to the Congress within the
court said that include all those taxes as long as it is considered as requisite period. Otherwise, if the same was only kept, it will already
national taxes - this became the basis. become a law.
This enumeration of what the national internal revenue taxes are IS THERE SUCH MECHANISM IN THE PHILIPPINES?
under section 284 of the LGC has effectively deprived the LGU from
deriving their just share from other national taxes like customs NO. Under the Constitution, there is no requirement that Congress
duties. must be in session when the Veto Bill is resubmitted to the
So the court said that it must be included in the computation Congress. Actually, if the bill was vitoed by the President, it may still
because it is not limited to NIRT based on National Taxes. be overridden by the Congress by 2/3 of votes of both houses voting
separately.
The court enumerated herein the taxes to be computed insofar as
just share of the LGUs are concerned in the national tax. This Actually, there are only 2 veto which may be exercised by the
decision was applied prospectively and the President was not President - THE GENERAL and ITEM veto power.
obligated to appropriate to the Congress the arrears which were not
included in the computation before. OPERATIVE FACT DOCTRINE. There is no requirement that the President will transmit within the
time the Congress is in session. The 30-day period in the
INRE Appropriation Powers of Congress Constitution refers to Calendar days upon receipt, the President
must return it. Or WoN the Congress is in session because anyway
Does the President have the power also in relation to the offices of the responsible officers are open.
appropriations? in relation to laws in general?
What is the pertinent provision there?
YES, because the President has VETO powers. The President may
reject or approve a law, but that is not the sole extent of his VETO ART. 6 Sec 27 - The President shall communicate his veto of any bill
POWERS - there are still specifics. to the house where it originated within 30 days after the day of the
receipt thereof. Otherwise, it shall become a law as if he had signed
WHY IS THE PRESIDENT GIVEN VETO POWER? it.
A. To be a check on the act of the Congress particularly to prevent In the US, if the President fails to return the VETO Bill because the
hasty and ill-considered legislation by Congress. Congress is not in session, Pocket Veto happens - meaning, the bill is
deemed vetoed. The Congress has no ability to override the veto
ILLUSTRATION: The Congress passes a law, which is very repugnant, because it was returned by the President after the Congress Session
example A PRIVATE BILL ALLOWING SANCHEZ RAPIST TO GET OUT. ends. In the Philippines, this concept does not exist because the bill
will have to be returned, nevertheless, to Congress. There is no
B. To prevent legislation, which may be UNCONSTITUTIONAL. requirement that the latter must be in session and the same may be
overridden by the Congress.
Of course the President has to exercise his power. If he determines
that the law is inconsistent with the Constitution, he may exercise WHERE DO YOU FIND THE VETO POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT?
his veto power.
ART. 6 Sec. 27 P.1 of the 1987 CONSTITUTION
WHAT ARE THE TYPES OF VETO?
SECTION 27. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it
ABSOLUTE VETO - it empowers the President to withhold this ___ to becomes a law, be presented to the President. If he approves the
a bill passed by the legislature. Therefor the bill ends and must not same, he shall sign it; otherwise, he shall veto it and return the same
be contract. with his objections to the House where it originated, which shall
enter the objections at large in its Journal and proceed to reconsider
QUALIFIED VETO a veto which may be overridden with a higher it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of all the Members of
majority. such House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with
the objections, to the other House by which it shall likewise be
POCKET VETO which empowers the President to simply kick the reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of all the Members of
impeding for an indefinite period.The President neither ratifies or that House, it shall become a law. In all such cases, the votes of each
rejects nor returns the bill. It is an absolute veto that cannot be House shall be determined by yeas or nays, and the names of the
overridden. This can be in the United States - not exercised in the Members voting for or against shall be entered in its Journal. The
Philippines. The Veto becomes effective if the President fails to sign President shall communicate his veto of any bill to the House where
a bill after the Congress has adjourned and he was unable to it originated within thirty days after the date of receipt thereof;
override the veto U.S. Constitution. otherwise, it shall become a law as if he had signed it.
Is there a POCKET VETO in the Philippines? This is the General Veto Powers of the President. A bill is presented
WHERE CAN THE POCKET VETO BE SEEN IN THE UNITED STATES? to him, he can reject it by way of a VETO in its entirety. But, the
76 | P a g e
second paragraph is also important. That pertains to the item veto So, we started our discussion on vetoes. We discussed what it is,
powers of the President. The President shall have the power to veto why it exists, why the president is given such power. Among others,
any particular item or items in the appropriation or revenue or tariff to check the acts of the legislature which is part of the checks and
bill, but the VETO shall not affect the item or items to be object. balances mechanism so that the president can check if congress is
passing laws that are inappropriate or beyond the constitution,
If it involves all three types of bills, those may be item veto by the which in his discretion, mao to ang iyahang determination.
President. The law may still be effective without those vito-ed items
in the bill. Is the exercise of the president of this veto powers reviewable by
the Supreme Court? Is this not a political act na dapat dili hilabtan sa
WHAT IS THE PRACTICAL REASON WHY THE PRESIDENT WAS VESTED SC? Does this involve a political question?
OF SUCH A POWER?
GONZALES V. MACARAIG
ILLUSTRATION: In an appropriation law, because the option of the Facts: Congress passed a house bill here or the GAA for fiscal year
President is to VETO the entire law or approve it, but he does not 1989. The president signed the bill and it became a law. However,
like the law, there is no GAA, we will be working under a re-enacted naa siyang gipang veto na provisions, Sec. 55 and Sec. 16 because
budget because there was no item veto power given to the these provisions nullity the authority of the Chief Exec. and the
President. heads of different different branches of government to augment any
item in the GAA.
Precisely, he was given such a power so that tha GAA may still be
enacted excluding the veto-ed items. So there will be no hostage- So, gi-question karon ang pag exercise by the President atong iyang
effect in the operations of the Government by a VETO power of the veto powers. Why? Because kato dawng gi-veto niya are not items
President. Insofar as this types of writs are concerned - but are rather provisions ang therefore these provisions cannot be
expropriation tariff. vetoed by the president. Unsa lang daw dapat iyahang ma-veto in an
appropriation, revenue or tariff (ART) bill? Items. Kani iyahang gi
September 05, 2019 Consti 1 veto, provisons. Therefore, beyond her power to do so.
AMAR
Issue: did the president exercise the veto powers properly?
I would like to clarify the concept of a pocket veto, which is not in
the Philippines. Ruling: before we answer that question, nag discuss ang SC diri sa
mga concepts.
This pocket veto is a veto that can be found in the constitution of the
US. It happens when the president does not act on a bill within a 2 types of veto powers:
specified period. In the US, 10 days lang, the president may or may 1. General Veto Power of the President; and
not sign it. If he signs it, walang problema. If he does not sign it, it 2. Item-Veto power.
becomes a law. But, if dili nya to actionan within 10 days prior to the
adjournment of Congress, dili na mahimong batas. Asa Makita ang general veto power? It’s in Art VI, Sec. 27, Par 1.
 If it is a bill, dili siya appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill,
Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution states: and the president vetoes it, he vetoes the bill in its
entirety. That is the general veto power of the President.
If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days
(Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the But, when you talk about appropriations. Revenue, or tariff bills,
same shall be a Law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the pwede ma-exercise ni president ang iyang item-veto power, also
Congress by their Adjournment prevent its return, in which case it known as the line-veto power.
shall not be a Law.  In these types of bills, he can exercise his veto power over
a particular item(s). however, pag mag-exercise siya sa
So, walay gihimo si president within 10 days, and nag-adjourn ang iyang item-veto, he may not veto less than all of an item of
Congress na wala niya gi-signan ang bill, wala niya gi-veto, wala siyay an appropriation bill. So, kung tanggalon niya to. dili
gihimo sa balaod. It will not become a law because nag adjourn na pwede that in that item, tanggalon lang niya tong amount
ang congress. So, that’s the pocket veto in the US. It does not exist in or tanggalon niya ang purpose. Dapat kung i-veto niya tong
the PH. Ang atua lang, if the president does not act on the bill, it item, the entire item. That’s the item-veto. The entire
becomes a law by inaction. And walay requirement in the item, not the entire bill.
constitution na dapat mabalik tung iyahang bill or ma pirmahan niya  In other words, the power given the executive to
to within a certain period na dapat the congress is not yet adjourned disapprove any item or items in an Appropriations Bill does
because there is no provision to that effect in the PH constitution. In not grant the authority to veto a part of an item and to
the US, if the president fails to return the bill, because congress is approve the remaining portion of the same item.
not in session, pocket veto ensues. Meaning the bill is deemed
vetoed. In the PH, there is no such thing. The bill, in the PH, must Where did this item-veto power originate?
have to be returned whether or not congress is in session, otherwise It started in the 1935 constitution. In the 1935 Constitution, nay
for the lapse of the 30-day period, the bill becomes a law without provision didto in so far as veto power is concerned that gitagaan si
the president’s signature. So, that’s the difference. There is no president of power to veto provisions. ". . . When a provision of an
pocket veto in the Ph because there is no requirement for the appropriation bill affects one or more items of the same, the
president to transmit the bill, unsigned or signed, to congress while President can not veto the provision without at the same time
it is still in session. vetoing the particular item or items to which it relates . . ."
77 | P a g e
Now, in the 1973 constitution, nawala tong word na “provision”. Ang Despite not being technically an item, it being a provision which is
nakabutang nalang is “The Prime Minister shall have the power to inappropriate.
veto any particular item or items in an appropriation, revenue, or
tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect the item or items to which he Here, unsa ba ang nature sa gi-veto ni president? The challenged
does not object." "provisions" fall short of this requirement. Firstly, the vetoed
"provisions" do not relate to any particular or distinctive
In the 1987 constitution, it’s the same giilisdan lang ang word na appropriation. They apply generally to all items disapproved or
prime minister to president. So, wala nay reference sa word na reduced by Congress in the Appropriations Bill.
provision. Did this mean that the president cn no longer veto  So, wala siya nagarelate to a specific item. What was the
provisions in ART bill? Did this exclusion mean a disallowance of the provision being vetoed here anyway? The power to
power to veto provisions? NO. augment the appropriations of the president. Ana ang SC
 Notwithstanding the elimination in Article VI, Section 27 dili siya appropriate provision daw, at least in this case. So,
(2) of the 1987 Constitution of any reference to the veto of pwede siya tanggalon by the president because dili siya
a provision, the extent of the President’s veto power as pwede in the first place to be in that bill as stated in Art VI
previously defined by the 1935 Constitution has not sec 25. Even if in the constitution wala niya gimention tong
changed. This is because the eliminated proviso merely word na provision, item nalang. The power to strike out
pronounces the basic principle that a distinct and these provisions in these ART bills is still with the
severable part of a bill may be the subject of a separate president.
veto.
Now, when can these provisions in the general appropriations bills
Now, what is the difference between an item and a provision in a be considered as items? In the first place, nganong i-consider man
budgetary legislation? The court admitted here that these two items nimo siya as items?
are different.
 If we’re talking about an item, it refers to the particulars, Pwede nimo siya i-consider as an item for purposes of the president
the details, the distinct and severable parts of the bill. It is exercising his or her veto powers. So, when the legislature inserts
an indivisible sum of money dedicated to a stated purpose. inappropriate provisions in a general appropriation bill, such
It is an item which in itself is a specific appropriation of provisions must be treated as ‘items’ for purposes of the Governor’s
money. item veto power over general appropriation bills.
 What about a provision? It happens to be put into an
appropriation bill. So, mao tong gihimo niya diri. Take note of those concepts. What is
the remedy of a presidential veto? Katong question nato ganina, is
So, in other words, pwede ba magbutang ug provision, proviso, in an this exercise by the power of the president not subject to judicial
appropriation bill? Or dapat in an appropriation bill, puro na items? review? Does the constitution limit the remedy to the overriding of
YES, pwede ka magbutang ug provision as long as it is appropriate. that veto bu way of a 2/3 vote of both houses voting separately?
When is it appropriate? the Constitutional mandate that any The Court said that YES. As a remedy, a Presidential veto may be
provision in the general appropriations bill shall relate specifically to overriden by the votes of two-thirds of members of Congress. But
some particular appropriation therein and that any such provision Congress made no attempt to override the Presidential veto in this
shall be limited in its operation to the appropriation to which it case. Therefore, unsa pa ang pwede na remedy na i-avail? Pwede ka
relates. In other words, in the true sense of the term, a provision in muadto sa SC. Again, when the exercise of the power by an
an Appropriations Bill is limited in its operation to some particular authority is limited by the constitution, that is no longer a political
appropriation to which it relates, and does not relate to the entire question but rather a justiciable question. Kay ang issue is, is there a
bill. proper exercise of that power as limited by the constitution? Ma-
resolve na na sa mga courts. So, another remedy is to go to the SC
So, pwede ka magbutang ug mga provisions dira provided that they for it to check WON na-exercise ba ang power within the parameters
relate to the item, to a specific item. What if you put a provision of the constitution.
there that, generally dapat dili man nimo ginabutang na because it is
an appropriation bill, gibutang nimo ang provision dira unya dili pa BENGZONG V. DRILON
jud siya appropriate? That is something that cannot be done in that Facts: mga justices and judges of the SC and CA are affected in this
bill. Why? In Article VI, Section 25 (2) of the 1987 Constitution case because this talks about RA 910 as amended by Republic Act
provides: No. 1797. So, magretire na sila after 20 years of service, ang ilahang
benefit under RA 910 is kung unsa ilahang sweldo pagretire nila,
"Sec. 25 (2) No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the mao to ang madawat nila as pension. This was amended by RA 1797
general appropriations bill unless it relates specifically to some na nay automatic adjustment. So kung mu-increase pod ang sweldo
particular appropriation therein. Any such provision or enactment sa ilahang mga peers or sa ilahang mga ka-level when they retire,
shall be limited in its operation to the appropriation to which it mao pud ilang madawat na pension. Later on, President Marcos
relates." issued Presidential Decree 644 which removed this automatic re-
adjustment. So, nibalik sa kung unsa tong sweldo na nagretire siya,
In this provision, gina-allow and provision to be included in a GAA mao ra to iyahang madawat. Nawala tong automatic re-adjustment.
provided that it is specifically related to an appropriation therein. So, later on , the legislature saw it fit to repeal PD 644 pero pag pass
Mao na siya ang atong ginatawag na appropriate provisions that atong bill sa president, iyahang gi-veto.
may be inserted in an appropriations bill. If the provision does not
relate to that, invalid na siya. Dili pwede under Sec. 25 and therefore Now, ang mga affected justices, they went to the SC to challenge the
pwede na tanggalon ni president under his or her veto powers. validity of that repealing law, PD 644, and in that case, the SC
declared that that law did not exist or was not operative because it
78 | P a g e
was not published. So, wala siyay effect. Therefore, RA 1797 still So, nay amount na gibutang sa GAB(bill) to pay for our external debt.
applies. In other words, when the court decided that case, gibalik na And naa puy mga provisions which relate to the spending of that
ang privilege na automatic re-adjustment. So, because of this, amount. Pwede ang provisions diba? As long as they relate to a
congress noting that directive included the GAA for 1992 the specific item. Naay proviso, “PROVIDED, That any payment in excess
adjustment to the pension to these retired justices because nag- of the amount herein appropriated shall be subject to the approval
ingon ang SC na dapat imuha nang i-adjust. So, gitasan nila ang of the President of the Philippines with the concurrence of the
kwarta. Later on, it was presented to the president, iyahang gi-veto Congress of the Philippines;” gi-veto to niya na proviso. Valid or not?
to na item. So, nagsaka ning case sa SC. The argument is that, if he vetoes this, he should veto the entire
amount related to this proviso. Dili pwede na tanggalon lang nimo
Issue: is there a proper exercise of the veto powers here? ang isa na provi na related, then I retain nimo ang isa. When you
veto one of them and related to each other, veto all. Ang gihimo
Ruling: the court set the discussion here by saying that the veto daw niya diri is a piecemeal veto and it is a related provision.
power of the president is not absolute because as we already know
nay mga limitations set forth in the constitution. He does this power, Is there a valid exercise of the veto power here? YES. Because that
exercises it as a power vested in the constitution. But as the provision is inappropriate. Why? This is an "inappropriate" provision
constitution gives him this power, it also limits the same. because it refers to funds other than the amount allotted for the
payment of our external debt. In others words, it is not the amount
Unsa ang mga limitations sa item-veto? For example the power to that will pay the debt but katong sobra. And that does not relate
veto any particular item but the veto shall not affect the item or anymore to that specific item. So, valid ang pagtanggal ni president
items to which he does not object. So, pwede mapasa ang balaod because it is an inappropriate provision. As we said earlier, when it is
pero dili mag take effect katung mga gipang veto na items. Unsa pa? inappropriate, it does not relate to a specific item, the president can
katong dili pwede mag veto sa item sa item. Dapat veto the entire exercise his/her item-veto powers to veto that specific provision
item. If you want to veto a proviso relating to an appropriation or an being inappropriate.
item, dapat itanggal pud nimo sila tanan, not only the provision. You
incluse the provision also because they relate to each other. What What about the vetoing of the provisions for the revolving funds for
else? Well the court discussed the difference between an item and State Universities and Colleges (SUCs)? The court said it is a valid
provision. Take note of that. veto because there was no undue discrimination when the President
vetoed said special provisions.
What was the effect of the veto of the president here?
First, the effect of the veto was it actually repealed an existing law, Take note on the provision ganiha on the payment of the external
RA 1797. The automatic re-adjustment. That cannot be done debts, ang special provision itself is valid except that katong
because that is already a law. The president therefore cannot veto a gitanggal ni president validly. Kato lang sa excess, valid to siya na gi-
law. What else? He also, when he vetoed the amount here, nullified veto.
a decision of the SC. Nag decide and SC na unconstitutional tong
repealing law, therefore we give effect to the law as not repealed, Anyway, another item that is vetoed here is the provision on 70%
RA 1797. The congress followed the directive of the SC, gi-adjust and (administrative)/30% (contract) ratio for road maintenance.
nd
amount, gi-veto ni president. That is, in a way, also reversing the Gitanngal ni president ang 2 paragraph of the special provision
decision of the SC. In other words, the veto powers of the president relating to this. The court said that the veto here was
cannot reverse the decision of the SC. unconstitutional. The Special Provision in question is not an
inappropriate provision which can be the subject of a veto. It is not
As a rule, the veto powers of the president are not absolute. alien to the appropriation for road maintenance, and on the other
hand, it specified how the said item shall be expended — 70% by
PCA V. ENRIQUEZ administrative and 30% by contract. So, kung invalid ang veto, the
Facts: Daghang discussion diri because there are may items that provision would subsist.
were vetoed by the pres and each of them was dicussed by the SC. Is
the only way to review a veto by the pres through the mechanism, Veto of provision on purchase of medicines by AFP. The court said
overriding it to a 2/3 vote or is there another remedy? No. that is that the veto here is unconstitutional because the vetoed provision
not the only way. That remedy (overriding) is available only when is appropriate. So he cannot tanggal the provision and retain the
the presidential veto is based on policy or political considerations appropriation to which that provision relates to.
but not when the veto is claimed to be ultra-vires or exercised by the
president beyond his powers. So, kung nay ing-ana na allegation, Veto of provision on prior approval of Congress for purchase of
where do you go? In the latter case, it become the duty of the court. military equipment. Unsa ba jud ang tenor aning provision na gi-veto
Go to the SC to draw the dividing line where the exercise of ni president? Ang proviso relating to this item requires the prior
executive power ends and the bounds of legislative jurisdiction approval of Congress for the release of the corresponding
begin. modernization funds of the AFP. In other words, nangayo ug consent
na before i-approve na kwarta, i-approve s ani Congress. This was
The rule, however, is that when the court is presented with that vetoed. Is this a valid veto? YES. Because this provision talks about a
question, the Court will indulge every intendment in favor of the legislative or congressional veto. Which, as a rule cannot be
constitutionality of a veto, the same as it will presume the exercised by congress as it violates the doctrine of separation of
constitutionality of an act of Congress. So, if you allege that his veto powers.
is unconstitutional, you are to prove it as the alleging party because
there is a presumption of validity or constitutionality of the veto. What about the Veto of provision on use of savings to augment AFP
pension funds. Why? The provision grants the chief of staff of the
Now, let’s go to the provisions/items vetoed by the president here. AFP to use the savings to augment its pension funds. Valid or not?
First, is this special provision in the appropriation for debt service. VALID. Because it violates the provision in the constitution na kung
79 | P a g e
kinsa lang tong maka exercise sa power to transfer funds within the The MVPSP does not appear as an item under the Motor Vehicle
department. The list was exclusive. The president, senate president, Registration and Driver's Licensing Regulatory Services item in the
speaker, chief justice, heads of the ConCom. Here, ang gitagaag GAA na gihatag sa LTO. Ang item is kato, Motor Vehicle Registration
power kay ang chief of staff sa AFP, wala siyang power na ana under and Driver's Licensing Regulatory Services item, dili daw Makita dira
the constitution. Therefore, valid ang veto. ang paghimo ug license plate, therefore walay funding for this
program.
What about the condition on the deactivation of the CAFGU's?
Congress appropriated compensation for the CAFGU's, but added a The court said that that is wrong. Why? The appropriation for motor
special provision that the CAFGU will be deactivated in 1994. The vehicle registration naturally and logically included plate-making
veto here is VALID. Because that should be in a separate legislation. inasmuch as plate-making was an integral component of the
registration process. So kato na item, included dira ang pagbayad sa
The SC also talked here of the concept of an Executive MVPSP kay related ang pag rehistro sa vehicle sa mga plate
Impoundment. What is an Executive Impoundment? This is the first numbers.
case before this Court where the power of the President to impound
is put in issue. Impoundment refers to a refusal by the President, for What about the fact that this item was a lump-sum amount daw and
whatever reason, to spend funds made available by Congress. It is wala naka identify unsa ning mga Motor Vehicle Registration and
the failure to spend or obligate budget authority of any type. Driver's Licensing Regulatory Services na encompassed aning
amount in the GAA. Dili siya specific enough. So, lumpsum amount
In any case, the court said that the veto of that special provision was should not be included in the GAA.
valid because that is an inappropriate provision. This deactivation of
the CAFGU must be stated in another law, not in this GAA. The court said, pwede ka mu-refer sa details sa FY 2014 budget
which was attached to the 2014 GAA and didto daw Makita ang
breakdown unsaon pag spend tong kwarta. They specified and
BELGICA VS OCHOA contained the authorized budgetary programs and projects under
Facts: we discussed this last meeting. Ngano gani gina violate niya the GAA. So, didto ka mu-refer. So, dili siya lumpsum kay naa may
ang veto powers? The placement of these lumpsum provisions, specific programs attached to the GAA.
PDAF articles, in the GAA because these lumpsum provisions do not
constitute an item which can be vetoed by the president. Lumpsum Okay, so those are some of the cases that talked about the veto
ang amount. So, dili specified on how will it be spent. Dili siya ma- powers of the president.
consider as an item by the president. Therefore, dili niya ma-veto.
Therefore, it limits his/her veto powers despite it being an item in Can the legislative exercise veto powers?
the GAA, dili niya ma-veto because it cannot be considered as an
item kay dili siya specific enough. ABAKADA VS PURISIMA
Facts: we discussed this before. Katong Joint Congressional
What beckons constitutional infirmity are appropriations which Oversight Committee to approve the IRR. That is in the form of a
merely provide for a singular lump-sum amount to be tapped as a legislative veto. Befpre mag take effect ang IRR, ipa-check sa sa
source of funding for multiple purposes. It cannot be said that the amoa, Committee and congress. That cannot be done because it
appropriation law already indicates a "specific appropriation of talks about implementation and execution of a law.
money” and hence, without a proper line-item which the President
may veto. What is this legislative veto anyway? It is a statutory provision
requiring the President or an administrative agency to present the
Here, the PDAF provisions are lumpsum appropriations where the proposed implementing rules and regulations of a law to Congress
legislator identifies the items or projects after the passage of the which, by itself or through a committee formed by it, retains a
law. Unsaon pag-veto sa president ana kung wala siya kabalo unsaon "right" or "power" to approve or disapprove such regulations before
ang amount because lumpsum siya. Ang congressman pa mag they take effect. That cannot be done because it violates the
determine kung unsaon siya pag spend. So, reduction or diminution separation of powers. When the law is already passed by congress,
of his/her veto powers. limited nalang ang iyahang ability, in so far as that passed law is
concerned. Oversight nalang, not execution. So, as a rule, legislative
It forces him to decide between (a) accepting the entire ₱24.79 veto violates the separation of powers.
Billion PDAF allocation without knowing the specific projects of the
legislators, which may or may not be consistent with his national So, we are done with vetoes. We are also done with the legislative
agenda and (b) rejecting the whole PDAF to the detriment of all powers of the congress. Now, let’s go to the non-legislative function
other legislators with legitimate projects. of congress.
Naa silay duty to inform which is in Article VI, Sec. 12.

DELA CRUZ VS OCHOA Section 12. All Members of the Senate and the House of
Facts: this relates to the problem why atong mg plaka dugay kaayo Representatives shall, upon assumption of office, make a full
ma-release. Anyway, nagka-issue on the contracting. Dili daw disclosure of their financial and business interests. They shall notify
qualified tong gi-contract sa republic vis-à-vis the making of these the House concerned of a potential conflict of interest that may
plate numbers. There is a challenge here by the taxpayers assailing arise from the filing of a proposed legislation of which they are
the implementation of the Motor Vehicle License Plate authors.
Standardization Program (MVPSP) of the Land Transportation Office
(LTO). Why? Kay wala daw kwarta gi-appropriate ani under the 2014 One of the laws that facilitate disclosure is RA 6713 or the SALN law.
GAA. So, just read that law.
80 | P a g e
What we want to emphasize in this discussion is the non-legislative Naa bay power and SC to rule on matters that relate to an
power of congress to initiate and hear impeachment cases. Where impeachment proceeding, pending ang impeachment case? Pwde ba
do we find that power? Article XI, Sec 3. mag api-apil ang SC pag nay case na i-file before it relating to such
SECTION 3. impeachment? Or should it not touch the proceeding, it being a
(1) The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to political exercise?
initiate all cases of impeachment.
 So, kung gusto ka magpa-impeach of an impeachable Facts: here, gi-impeach si Corona. So, gi-file ang article of
officer, muagi dapat ka sa HR because they are the only impeachment sa Senate, nag proceed na ang hearing. In the
body allowed to initiate such cases of impeachment. meantime, niadto karon si Justice corona to the SC to stop the
proceedings in the senate based on several grounds. Wala daw pulos
(2) A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by any ang complaint, etc. hodge-podge, multiple charges, etc. and file it
Member of the House of Representatives or by any citizen upon a before the SC for it to take action or to stop the proceeding before
resolution of endorsement by any Member thereof, which shall be the senate.
included in the Order of Business within ten session days, and
referred to the proper Committee within three session days Issue: Can the jurisdiction of the court, can it be invoked to assail
thereafter. The Committee, after hearing, and by a majority vote of matters or incident arising from the impeachment proceeding? Or
all its Members, shall submit its report to the House within sixty can it not do anything?
session days from such referral, together with the corresponding
resolution. The resolution shall be calendared for consideration by Ruling: the court CAN exercise its power of judicial review in this
the House within ten session days from receipt thereof. jurisdiction and includes the power of review over justiciable issues
in impeachment proceedings. Pwede siya makialam because ang
(3) A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of the House impeachment proceedings, naa puy limitations na gibutang sa
shall be necessary either to affirm a favorable resolution with the constituton.
Articles of Impeachment of the Committee, or override its contrary
resolution. The vote of each Member shall be recorded. What is impeachment? Impeachment refers to the power of
 In other words, katong complaint i-refer pa siya sa Congress to remove a public official for serious crimes or misconduct
committee. Studyhan nila ang then that report will now be as provided in the Constitution. Very limited lang ang grounds sa
submitted to the plenary for a vote. The required vote is constitution to impeach an official.
1/3, either to affirm a favorable resolution (the committee
said na meritorious ni. Sufficient in form and substance, gi- Considering na nag-apil2 lang ang SC, what is the basis of its power?
affirm karon sa 1/3 vote) or pwede pud i-override sa 1/3 Given their concededly political character, the precise role of the
vote ang resolution of the committee involved na dili siya judiciary in impeachment cases is a matter of utmost importance to
in a proper form and substance. In other words, pwede ensure the effective functioning of the separate branches while
ang plenary mu-ingon na proper form and substance siya preserving the structure of checks and balance in our government.
despite the finding of the committee involved. The court is given such a power because pwede niya ma-check ang
acts aning co-equal branches if they are tainted with grave abuse or
(4) In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is arbitrariness. So, that is the standard, diba? As we discussed before,
filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House, the the political question doctrine has been severely (inaudible) by the
same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the expanded judicial review powers even if it involves an exercise of
Senate shall forthwith proceed. discretion of a political branch of a government, pwede ra siya ma-
review by the SC under the standard na dili dapat siya grave abuse of
(5) No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same discretion. Kani, pwede gihapon ma-check sa SC ang exercise of
official more than once within a period of one year. impeachment proceeding under the standard.
 This is the 1-year bar or 1-year prohibition.
Naa bay grave abuse na gi-commit by this prceeding? Wala.
(6) The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases Nevertheless, the court did not rule on the merits of justice Corona
of impeachment. When sitting for that purpose, the Senators shall petition because the issue became moot when he was already
be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the Philippines is convicted while the case is pending before the SC and he vacated his
on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside, but office without any protest.
shall not vote. No person shall be convicted without the
concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.
REPUBLIC VS SERENO
(7) Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than Facts: we have here a chief justice who is facing an impeachment
removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under proceeding in the HR. dili pa siya case ha? Proceeding pa siya kay gi-
the Republic of the Philippines, but the party convicted shall filan pa siya unya nag hearing pa ang house committee on justice
nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution, trial, and kung proper/substantial ba siya. Later on, nay findings, in the course
punishment according to law. of the hearing, na wala diay naka file si Sereno sa iyahang SALNs
 Dili ka ipa-priso. Matanggal lang ka and you are while se was still a professor of the UP. There is a requirement under
perpetually disqualified. RA 6713 na every year, upon the assumption of office, and every
year thereafter, dapat mag-file ka sa imong SALN. She did not
(8) The Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment to comply with that requirement under the law. Moreover, when she
effectively carry out the purpose of this section. applied for the position of chief justice (CJ) in the JBC, gi-require pud
sila asa ilang mga SALN. Wala niya na produce ang pila ka buok na
CORONA VS SENATE SALNs because wala daw niya na-file. Because of that finding, nag-
file karon og Quo Warranto petition before the SC ang office of the
81 | P a g e
SolGen against the CJ on the ground that she was not qualified for ranking public official, provided public office.
that position. Daghan defects ang iyahang qualification. The heaviest that Makita ang grounds for
of which is her lack of integrity. the valid removal of such
official in the constitution
Now, because of that, naa nay impeachment proceeding sa HR, naa It is a political process meant Involves a judicial
pa juy pending quo warranto petition before the SC, Sereno to vindicate the violation of the determination of the eligibility
gidiretcho sa SC to comment on that petition and mao na ning public’s trust because this or validity of the
iyahang ga answers to it. Among others, she alleges that she is an public official committed the election/appointed public
impeachable official. Considering that she is an impeachable official, impeachable offences. official based on
dili siya pwede ma-remove from office by way of a quo warranto predetermined rules.
proceeding. Impeachable officials, according to her, may only be
removed exclusively from office by way of an impeachment Can they proceed independently of each other? YES. Because they
proceeding and not quo warranto. Otherwise it would weaken the differ as to, again, jurisdiction, grounds, applicable rules pertaining
checks and balances mechanism set in place by the constitution na to initiation, filing and dismissal, and limitations.
nay diay lahi na remedy when in fact there is an exclusive remedy
set forth in the Constitution in so far as impeachable officers are What is the purpose of a quo warranto proceeding? It determines
concerned. whether an individual has the legal right to hold the public office he
or she occupies. It is the proper legal remedy to determine the right
Also, she said that there are so many jurisprudence to support her or title to the contested public office or to oust the holder from its
argument that impeachable officials may not be removed by any enjoyment. If the official concerned is an appointive officer, what is
other means other than impeachment. A lawyer/Justice who is determined is the legality of the appointment. Who commences it?
required to be members of the Philippine Bar to qualify for their The SolGen or public prosecutor, or by any person claiming to be
positions, they cannot be charged with disbarment. So, impeachable entitled to the public office or position usurped or unlawfully held or
siya as CJ, dili siya pwede ma-disbar because it would circumvent the exercised by another.
rule that dapat impeachment lang makatanggal. So, again, kung
assoc. justice ka, dili ka pwede filan ug disbarment proceedings. So What happens if you are convicted to a quo warranto proceeding?
kato tong mga gipang recite niya na jurisprudence na exclusive jud You are ousted, excluded from office, among other things.
ang mga impeachable officers na before ka ma remove from office,
only impeachment lang gyud ang way. Impeachment on the other hand, kinsa ang mag-initiate? House of
Rep. where do you file it? Filed before the Senate. Unsa ang effect if
What is the argument of the republic? The argument of the solgen you are found guilty or convicted in the Senate? You are removed
argued that this quo warranto proceeding may still be resorted even from office. Removal and perpetual disqualification.
against impeachable officers and that her assumption of office as CJ
a wrong that was correctible by this quo warranto petition. Why? Therefore, these two remedies are NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE
Because the issue in the quo warranto proceeding does not touch on remedies. They can proceed simultaneously because of the
the grounds for impeachment, culpable violation of the Constitution, dissimilarity in their purpose and nature.
treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal
of public trust. Ang issue sa quo warranto proceeding is her Is impeachment an exclusive remedy by which an invalidly
qualification to sit on that position in the first place. So, it’s a appointed or invalidly elected impeachable official may be removed
different issue all together. from office? NO.
Also, in so far as the argument na exclusive remedy, the republic CJ Sereno cited all the cases that said impeachable officers are only
argued na it’s not an exclusive remedy. The word used in the removed by impeachment. But the SC said that these are not
constitution is “may” be removed by impeachment. So, in other applicable to your case because none of the cases talked about a
words, one of the many ways na matanggal sila. sitting CJ being removed through a quo warranto proceeding. Ang
mga case na imohang gipang file talked about criminal cases.
What else? The jurisprudence she cited. It’s not appropriate because Criminal cases na dili pwede i-file against an impeachable officer if
none of those cases talked about the qualifications of a person but the penalty would require removal from office because impeachable
rather criminal and administrative proceedings filed against an man ka, dapat impeachable offenses. Administrative offenses that
impeachable officer. So, dili sila related to the matter. would warrant the removal, dili pud nimo pwede ma-file.
Disbarment, dili pud pwede against an associate justice kay required
So, those are the most relevant arguments sa atuang pag-discuss ani man siya to be a lawyer to be able to sit as a justice. So, para
na topic. matanggal siya, impeachment. Kato iyahang mga gipang cite. The
court said, not applicable.
Issue: can the quo warranto proceeding continue despite the
pendency of an impeachment proceeding in the congress? Can an The principle laid down in said cases is to the effect that during their
impeachable officer be removed through a quo warranto? YES. May incumbency, impeachable officers cannot be criminally prosecuted
justices of the SC, impeachable officers be removed through a quo for an offense that carries with it the penalty of removal, and if they
warranto proceeding? YES are required to be members of the Philippine Bar to qualify for their
positions, they cannot be charged with disbarment. The proscription
Ruling: YES. So, the SC discussed the differences sa quo warranto does not extend to actions assailing the public officer's title or right
and impeachment. to the office he or she occupies. Such as in this case. Therefore,
those ruling cannot serve as authority to hold that quo warranto
Impeachment Quo Warranto action can never be filed against an impeachable officer.
Remedy to remove a high- Remedy against usurpers of
82 | P a g e
Also, the court made reference to the PET Rules. The President and The court made a doctrine here in so far as the issue on the
the Vice-President, both of whom are impeachable officers. But qualification is concerned. First, pag justice ka, mas grabe ang
under the PET rules, you can actually file a quo warranto proceeding qualifications nimo under the law. But ang importante diri na i-note
against them. In other words, dili exclusive remedy ang is that katong guidelines na gi set sa court.
impeachment to remove impeachable officers based on majority
opinion. Quo warranto as remedy to oust an ineligible public official may be
availed of, provided that the requisites for the commencement
What else? he language of Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution thereof are present, when the subject act or omission was
does not foreclose quo warranto action against impeachable committed prior to or at the time of appointment or election
officers. relating to an official's qualifications to hold office as to render such
Section 2. The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the appointment or election invalid.
Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions,  So ang period to reckon in quo warranto—during
and the Ombudsman may be removed from office on impeachment appointment or prior to.
for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution,
treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal Acts or omissions, even if it relates to the qualification of integrity
of public trust. All other public officers and employees may be being continuing requirement but nonetheless committed during
removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment. the incumbency of validly appointed and/or validly elected official
cannot be the subject of a quo warranto proceeding, but of
The operative word there is “MAY” which connotes being a impeachment if the public official concerned is impeachable and the
permissive term. In statutory construction, denotes discretion and act or omission constitutes an impeachable offense, or to
cannot be construed as having mandatory effect. It is indicative of disciplinary, administrative or criminal action, if otherwise.
mere possibility, an opportunity or an option. The grantee of that
opportunity is vested with right or faculty which he has the option to Take note of that doctrine. So the sustained the continuation of the
exercise. Therefore, by the tenor of this provision, the court said case against Sereno and ultimately held her unqualified for the
that Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution allows the institution of position.
quo warranto action against an impeachable officer. As it is one of
the many ways by which this officer may be removed from office. August 11. Part 1
After all, quo warranto petition is predicated on grounds distinct
from those of impeachment. We ended last meeting the non legislative power of Impeachment
lodge in congress with the House of representatives as the sole
Does “may” refer to the penalty of removal from office? “may be entity na maka initiate ug impeachment proceeding and the senate
removed”. Dili daw gina-qualify sa “may” ang method by which this as the impeachment court and we discussed the case of
official may be removed but rather ang penalty. Pwede daw siya ma
penalize of any other penalty. Mao daw tong gina-qualify sa “may”. CORONA VS SENATE
Where the court ruled that any constitutional issue regarding the
The court said that, NO. the provision is explicit na one penalty lang impeachment proceeding is not beyond Judicial Review precisely
jud ang mahimo sa imuha after you are convicted. Removal from because naa tay mga standards sa constitution that we must be
office and perpetual disqualification. followed na pwede ma check sa supreme court there for the issue
becomes justiciable. We also discussed the first case the decision of
She also argued that the continuation of this quo warranto the court in Republic vs Sereno
proceeding violate the separation of powers. Congress, naga-
impeach unya naa pud action before the court of quo warranto REPUBLIC VS SERENO
against her. According to her, the power to remove an impeachable where we extensively discussed the difference between the Quo
officer is exclusive to congress. And with the court taking cognizance warranto Proceeding and the Impeachment proceeding. These two
of this quo warranto proceeding against her, it is violative of that proceedings can be independently proceed at each other because
exclusive body’s power. there have different natures, Grounds, Forum, asa nimo gi file etc.
So pwede sila mag proceed independently to each other. There is no
The court said that ot does not violate the separation of powers. encroachment of the separation of powers because separate sila na
Why? Because an action of quo warranto does not touh upon the proceedings. Lahi ilang grounds, Lahi pud ilahang nature that’s why
grounds for impeachment. Again, an action for quo warranto tests they can proceed independently.
the right of person to occupy public position. The issue to be
resolved by the Court is whether or not the defendant is legally The motion for reconsideration of the Former Chief Justice Sereno in
occupying public position which goes into the questions of whether this case is gipoint out niya that the senate issue a resolution. You
defendant was legally appointed, was legally qualified and has already know what happened to her. She was removed from office.
complete legal title to the office. On the other hand, ang power sa Not by way of impeachment, but the result of the Quo Warranto
congress during impeachment is to determine whether or not guilty proceeding.
ba siya of impeachable offences. So, there is no encroachment upon
the powers of this body kay wala man gitanggal tong ilahang powers Also, WE NEED TO TAKE NOTE that, it was emphasize in that case
to impeach. Lahi ang ilahan proceeding, lahi ang issue, lahi pud ang that atleast in the majority of the decision that the Impeachment
quo warranto. In other words, while impeachment concerns actions Proceeding is not the sole way to remove an officer from the office.
that make the officer unfit to continue exercising his or her office, It is just one of the modes na pwede nimo siya matanggal.
quo warranto involves matters that render him or her ineligible to
hold the position to begin with. In June 19, 2018 the decision of the Supreme Court, Motion of
reconsideration ni Sereno. She emphasize or she made mention of
the Senate Resolution No. 738. Nag express ug sentiment ang senate
83 | P a g e
that the may 11, 2018 decision of the Supreme Court set a  the Vice-President
dangerous precedent that transgresses the power of the legislative  the Members of the Supreme Court
branch to initiate, try and decide all cases of impeachment. The  the Members of the Constitutional Commissions
senate is saying that ’Murag naga encroach naka sa among powers  Ombudsman
because this is something that only the senate can do to try What are the grounds?
impeachable officials. This should not be within the powers of the conviction of:
supreme court’. The court said here that there is no encroachment.  culpable violation of the Constitution
In fact, the court emphasize in the first decision na Different ni sila  treason
na proceeding.  bribery
 graft and corruption
In fact, the senate having express this sentiment by way of having  other high crimes or betrayal of public trust
this resolution is in a way an encroachment of the courts power to
decide Quo Warranto cases. The court said that We emphasize that So you would see that the grounds in the provisions are very
the judicial determination of actual controversies presented before nebulous (vague). That is why if want to impeach someone, you
the courts is within the exclusive domain of the Judiciary. Asa ba gi have sufficient leeway to pack arguments so that I will fall any of
file ang Quo Warranto? It was filed before the Supreme court. these grounds.
Therefore, this is already a separation of powers issue in so far as
the senate ruling or expressing its sentiment on the matter that is Office of the ombudsman vs Mojica
concern. The question before the court is that are deputy ombudsmen are
impeachable officials? Because in the previous rulings therefore,
The separation of powers doctrine is the backbone of our tripartite namention didto that the ombudsman and his deputies may be
system of government. It is implicit in the manner that our impeached. So using that rational or rulings by the supreme court,
Constitution lays out in separate and distinct Articles the powers and nag file sila in consistent to that of impeachment proceedings
51
prerogatives of each co-equal branch of government." Thus, the against the ombudsman or kato pung deputy ombudsmen na
act of some of the Senators questioning the Court's judicial action is gikasuhan ug disbarment, ilahang defense is you cannot remove me
clearly an unwarranted intrusion to the Court's powers and from office by this dismarment because we are impeachable
mandate. Ayaw mog pangilabot samua kay we are just doing our officials. We can only be removed by way of impeachment.
job. As the case was filed before us, ana ang supreme court. There is
nothing violative or intrusive of the Senate's power to remove Are deputy ombudsmen impeachable officials?
impeachable officials in the main Decision at all. In fact, in the said NO. What the supreme court decided in the previous cases na
assailed Decision, We recognized that the Senate has the sole power namention didto ang deputy ombudsman, the court ruled it to be
to try and decide all cases of impeachment. Wala mana gitanggal sa obiter dictum. Nasaag lang sa, It is not the mid of the discussion, Dili
supreme court sa senate in that decision and the court emphasized siya ang main issue. This is usually what the court does. If it wants to
that this Court's action never intends to deprive the Congress of its reverse itself without expressly saying na namali sila. That decision
mandate to make a determination on impeachable officials' was obiter dictum. Therefore, it is not binding, precedent or what so
culpability for acts committed while in office. ever. The deputy ombudsmen are not impeachable officals. They
may be removed from office by other things but not through
If the offense is an impeachable offense, by all means the congress impeachment.
can impeach that official and try an official for impeachment. The
court even explained that impeachment and quo warranto may How can you remove therefore deputy ombdumsmen?
proceed independently and simultaneously, albeit a ruling of That is answered in the case of
removal or ouster of the respondent in one case will preclude the
same ruling in the other due to legal impossibility and mootness. So Gonzales vs the office of the president.
the court is saying that, wala man mo gitanggalan ug power. Wala There are two cases here, the 2012 is the first decision of the
man namo mo gistop from proceeding and trying that official in the supreme court. What did it give rise to this case? Remember that
impeachment court. It’s just that, kami pud naa pud mi power to hongkong tourist hostage. There was this policeman na gihostage
decide this quo warranto issue that was filed before us. The quo niya ang mga tourista and then daghan namatay, namatay pud sya.
warranto is not figment of imagination or invention of the court. So Then, the president during that time had to pin the blame on
there is no Violation of separation of powers doctrine. someone. Nakita niya ni si Deputy Ombudsman as well as the special
prosecutor because they were able to see na nabuang diay tong
Who are subject to impeachment? police kay dugay nila giactionan ang motion for reconsideration ani
ARTICLE 11 SECTION II nga police. He was removed from his office, nag Motion for
The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme reconsideration sya, wala gi actionan then Nabuang. Mao sya nag
Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the hostage hostage.
Ombudsman may be removed from office on impeachment for, and
conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, So there was an investigation conducted by the Office of the
bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public president against this deputy ombudsman and the special
trust. All other public officers and employees may be removed from prosecutor during that time. In so far as their negligence is
office as provided by law, but not by impeachment. concerned regarding the case of this police officer. Ultimately, they
were removed from the service by the office of the president. Now,
This is exclusive and it cannot be expanded by legislative by any the deputy ombudsman and the special prosecutor went to supreme
statute or law. court to challenge this actions of the office of the president because
Who are impeachable officers? according to them, the office of the president has no jurisdiction
 The President over them. The office of the ombudsman supposed to be isolated
from the executive department. Precisely, the office has the power
84 | P a g e
to remove officials of the executive department. Dili pwede na kung
kinsa to iyang pwede maremove, mao na hinuon tong nay power na So mao to gitanggal sya from service. This is still pending, ambot
mag remove sa ilaha. In the first decision, the court upheld the kung unsay gihimo ato ni overall deputy ombudsman because ang
powers of the office of the president, administrative and disciplinary jurisprudence is support its position that the office of the president
power over the deputy ombudsman and the special prosecutor in has no authority over him but the office of the president existed.
the first case. Dapat siguro nay precedent ug nay mag decide ani na case so the
In motion of reconsideration, the court reversed its decision and said consign for all is ma decide-an na jud kung unsa man jud. Has the
that the deputy ombudsman may only be removed administratively president have the jurisdiction but in so far as we are concern, since
held liable by the office of the ombudsman. Dili sila under sa wala pay decision ang supreme court sa ana na issue, we stick on
disciplinary jurisdiction under the office of the president. what has been settled by the court here that the deputy
ombudsman are not under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the office
What was the basis of the previous ruling? Because there is a of the president. They are however subject to disciplinary
provision in RA 6770 – The ombudsman act Section 8 paragraph 2 proceedings before the office of the ombudsman itself.
RA 6770 – The ombudsman act Section 8 paragraph 2 The grounds for impeachment as we said earlier (article 11, Section
II). The procedure for impeachment was also been discussed last
A Deputy, or the Special Prosecutor, may be removed from office by meeting, also in article 11, section III. Gi-isa isa nato tanan provisions
the President for any of the grounds provided for the removal of the dri. What I would like to emphasize in this enumeration in this
th
Ombudsman, and after due process. provision is the 5 paragraph.
Article 11, Section 3 – paragraph 5

So because of that, naa man diay provision on RA 6770 that the 5. No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the
president has administrative jurisdiction over these individuals, same official more than once within a period of one year.
deputies and special prosecutor. The court said that provision is
unconstitutional for several reasons. Naga rule ang supreme court in
this case na without power ang president so far as the deputy Dapat wala daw kay i-initiate against the same official more than
ombudsman is concern. In the voting however, wala nakuha sa once within a period of 1 year.
supreme court ang necessary votes in so far as the special what does that mean? Once the impeachment proceeding has been
prosecutor is concern. Nag discuss ang surpreme court na ang initiated, you can no longer initiate another impeachment
reason why the president cannot encroach the power of the proceeding within the same year ato na impeachment proceeding.
ombudsman that is supposed to be independent entity. To subject it Hulaton nimo na mag human ang one year, pag wala gihapon
to the administrative jurisdiction of the office of the president would natanggal sa mga office ang mga taohana nato, then you can file
lessen its independence. Now, nag vote sila and by voting the court again. This is one year bar in so far as the impeachment proceeding
declared that the provision, in so far as the deputy ombudsman is is concern. To clarify this provision, we have many cases to explain it.
concerned to be under the jurisdiction of the office of the president,
to be unconstitutional. Francisco vs NNMP
There was an investigation by the house of representatives that naa
However, they did not get enough votes to have that declaration in daw katiwalian in the spending of supreme court Judiciary
so far the special prosecutor is concerned. The court emphasized Development Fund (JDF). And because of this, there was an
here the independence of the office. That is precisely the reason impeachment complaint filed by the president against the chief
why the ombudsman was established in the first place. Because it justice Davide on june 2, 2003. This impeachment complaint was
has the power to cleanse the ranks, etc of corrupt officials. The referred to house committee on justice on August 5, 2003. Now,
officials that can be removed from office include the officials from later on, the house committee on justice, deliberate and voted to
the executive department. The court said here that allowing the dismiss for being insufficient in substance. Gi basura.
president to have the power to remove this deputy ombudsman, it
will diminish its independence considering that there would be Now, 4 months and 3 weeks since the filing of the first impeachment
officials in the executive or close to the president who are now complaint, another impeachment complaint was filed now. Not by
gikasuhan sa ombdusman, muadto sila sa president, ‘oh gikasuhan an individual or representative of congress but rather 1/3 of all the
ko sa ombudsman, so tanggala ni sya, kani na deputy’. So by that, congressmen. Nag file silag second impeachment complain against
mademinish daw ang independent sa office. the chief justice. So the chief justice went to the supreme court to
challenge that second impeachment complaint arguing that it
There is a very lengthy discussion here as to why the offices to be violates section 3, paragraph 5 of article 11 that prohibits the
remain independent. There is however a pending issue in so far as initiation of impeachment proceeding against impeachable officials
this is concern, naa napuy challenge this on position because this within a period of 1 year from the first impeachment proceeding
was decided by a very thin vote. One justice lang ang deperensya na initiated.
nag break sa tie. Ang original vote was not an unconstitutional
provision and the president has the authority (to remove deputy The house of representatives on the other hand insisted that they
ombdusman). On the motion of Reconsideration, ang isa ka justice only entertain second impeachment complaint pursuant to their
ning baliktad. Mao jud to siya ang nag change sa tie. Now karon, Ang own rules which they defended to be not unconstitutional. Ang ilang
president napod nag take cognizance, administrative, disciplinary rules na gifollow was only crafted pursuant to the provisions of the
proceeding over one of the deputy ombudsman. He was removed constitution. Ang main argument sa house of representatives is that
from office. Ang argument sa office of the president was that this impeachment complaint is not have deemed to be initiated until it
person was a presidential appointee and one of the effects of being has been collectively acted by the plenary. Dapat daw muagi na sa
a presidential appointee is that the appointing authority can remove voting. In other words, humana na siya sa house of committee on
you from office. justice. Nag decide na sufficient in form and substance and then
85 | P a g e
subject siya to voting. That is according to the house is the meaning include it in its order of business. In other words, nagstay didto
of the word initiation. Since wala pa kaabot ato na stage, ang katong sa iyaha ang katong complaint to be included in the order of
first the impeachment complain kay nadismiss man for lack of business. On August 3, 2010, more or less a month, another
substance. Wala pay in other words impeachment complain na na- impeachment complaint was filed against Gutierrez and on the same
initiate. Therefore, katong second impeachment complaint is totally day, gi-transmit tong iyahang impeachment complaint and was also
valid. transmitted to the Secretary of the House and the Speaker directed
nd
to the Committee on Rules to include that 2 impeachment
Who’s correct? The court said here that the chief justice is correct. complaint in the order of business.
Which they defended to be not unconstitutional. Ang ilahang rules Eventually, these 2 impeachment complaints were simultaneously
na gifollow pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution. Ang main referred to the house committee on Justice, and by resolution dated
arguments sa HOR is that the impeachment complaint is not September 1, 2010, the House Committee on both complaints
deemed initiated until it has been collectively acted by the plenary. sufficiently form and eventually it count the 2 complaints sufficient
Dapat daw muagi na sa voting. In other words, humana sa house in substance. So karon, gipatubag na si Ombudsman Gutierrez and
committee and justice, sufficient in substance and form and then i- one of her defences was that the said impeachment complaint filed
subject sya to voting. That is according to the house, is the meaning on August already violated the 1-year probihition against the
of the word initiation. Since wala pa nakaabot ato na stage ang initiation of impeachment proceeding within the period of 1yr after
katong first impeachment kay nadismiss man for lack of substance, the first impeachment proceeding initiated.
wala pay in other words, impeachment complaint na nainitiate.
Therefore, impeachment complaint is totally valid. Who’s correct? Is she correct? Naa bay nainitiate na impeachment proceeding diri to
bar the second impeachment complaint in the first place?
The court said here that, the Chief Justice is correct. The provision The Court said that wala. Remember that in the earlier cases, ang
says no impeachment proceedings shall be initiated that the same initiation of the impeachment proceeding happens after filing and
official more than once within a period of one year. So, unsa ba diay the referral thereof to the house committee and justice. What was
ning meaning aning initiated? Impeachment proceedings shall be happened here was that sabay sila girefer sa House Committee on
initiated – when therefore, is an impeachment proceeding initiated Justice. Nauna na ug file tong first complaint but it was not referred
nd
para magset na ang 1year bar? And the Court discussed here a very immediately to the House Committee. Gihulat tong 2
lengthy discussion that ang impeachment proceeding is deemed impeachment complaint then sabay sila girefer to the House
initiated by the act of filing of writ and referral and the endorsement Committee. It was then at the time that both impeachment
of the complaint to the House Committee on Justice or if it is filed by complaints were referred to the House Committee that would
the 1/3 house of the representatives with the secretary general of initiate the impeachment proceedings. So, wala tay gina-ingon karon
nd
the house. Diba? Pwede man ka mag initiate ug impeachment na 2 impeachment complaint nga barred because isa lang man,
complaint by way of, ikaw as a complainant and muagi ka sa HoR, basically the impeachment proceeding ang na-initiate. By the
muagi na sya ug House Committee on Justice then set for voting. simultaneous referral of both complaints to the House Committee
on Justice.
Pwede pud katong endorse by 1/3 of the HoR already. So, again the
impeachment proceeding is deemed initiated when nakuha na ang So the Court said here to initiate means the filing of the complaint
complaint by the House and then it is endorsed in the House the Congress is taking action of that complaint which is the referral
Committee on Justice. And other way na initiate ang proceeding is of that complaint to the House of Committee on Justice. Even if
when there is a filing by at least 1/3 of the HoR with the Secretary- there is a simultaneous referral, multiple complaints filed. What is
General of the house of that impeachment complaint. Those are the important that there should be only one complaint or case that is –
instances where you can consider that the impeachment proceeding in a year such that once it starts rolling, subsequent complaints can
is deemed initiated. During the time, icount nimo ang 1yr period, no longer prevail. So, very enlightening discussion by the Supreme
and within that period, the HoR should not entertain anymore Court the finding of the impeachment complaint is the lighting of the
impeachment complaints. After 1 year, pwede na kay nahuman na matchstick.
ang 1year period prohibition.
Lighting the matchstick alone however that light up the candle
So take note, filing, referral of the complaint to the house unless the lighted matchstick reaches or torches the candle wick. In
committee of justice or filing by at least 1/3 of the HoR with the other words, Referring the complaint to the proper committee
Secretary General – instances where the impeachment proceeding is ignites the impeachment proceeding. Filing then referral – initiation.
deemed initiated. With the simultaneous referral of multiple impeachment complaints
more than one lighted matchsticks light the candle at the same time
Now, the HoR insisted that it has a sole power to promulgate its own and that is okay. What is important is that there should only be one
rules regarding impeachment, the Court said, the power is absolute. candle that is kindled in a year such that once the candle starts
You have to contend with the provisions of the Constitution, vis-à-vis burning, subsequent matches can no longer rekindle the candle. So
the intent of the framers when they included that provision in the that’s what happened here.
Constitution. Now, another question regarding this 1 year
prohibition was raised in the case of Walay first impeachment proceeding initiated that happened in the
first place to bar another.. Katong first, wala to siya giconsider na
GUTIERREZ vs HOUSE COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE. initiation, kay gisabay man sya ug file.
Why? On July 22, 2010, Riza Hontiveros et al filed an impeachment
complaint against Gutierrez. Gutierrez was then the Ombudsman. Why do we not follow the argument of the Ombudsman? The
Niya, gikuha ang iyahang impeachment complaint by the Secretary Argument was that at the time na nafile na nako akong complaint
General of the house, it was transmitted to the House speaker that is already the initiation of the impeachment proceedings. The
where the house speaker directed the Committee on Rules to Court said, if we follow that, it could be a senseless basis. So ikaw,
86 | P a g e
you are an impeachable officer and nanganganib na ang imohang President and his immunity will still attach to him. Ang iyahang
position kay buang ka, so magsugo dayon ka ug person, magfile ug argument was that considering na wala paman naconclude ang
petition complaint na walay pulos. So, pagfile didto, dismissed so impeachment case/impeachment trial, wala gyud siya na impeach
protected didto – for one year. The Court said that that’s not what is from office, therefore he remains to be immune from suit. Is he
supposed to be protected by that provision. That argument is a correct? Must he first be convicted in the impeachment proceedings
senseless basis. Her stand suggests that whoever files the first before he will be removed from his office/immunities? NO.
impeachment complaint exclusively gets the attention of Congress.
[This 1st complainant na meritorious ang complaint, regardless of ill- If this is granted, if this argument is granted/believed, it will put a
motives or best intentions can wittingly or unwittingly [desecrate] perpetual bar against its prosecution because dili naman
the entire process by the expediency haphazard complaint, out of mareconstitute ang impeachment na court. Such submission is
sheer to be first to ignite]. nothing to command itself for placing in a better situation that a
non-sitting president who was not been subjected to impeachment
What is the reason why is it that impeachable officials are protected proceedings. Na siya, naimpeach na gani, immune pa gyud siya from
by this one **. It is because, one (two-fold), to protect undue or too suit. The Court said that NO. The immunity enjoyed by the President
frequent harassment or to allow the legislature to do its principle only lasts during his tenure in the office, but not beyond. So kung
passed (past?) of legislation. matanggal ka by way of impeachment, then you are no longer the
president and your immunities are also done (or nawala na).
Impeachable officer, high-ranking official, isa sa mga bosses of the
bosses. Katong mga SC Justice, etc. Very important kayo ang So we are done with the cases of impeachment, so let’s go to the
position. He or she was not able to do his/her job if ang iyahang other Administrative Powers of the Congress – act as Board of
himuon is to answer all of these impeachment complaints left and Canvassers for Presidential and Vice-Presidential elections. So yung
right, so dapat tagaan nimo ug rest. So prevent undue or frequent Makita nyo sa TV, election na sila ang mga count sa returns of the
harassment and to allow the legislature to do its principle past which President. Where is that found? Kaning ginahimo sa Congress, It’s in
is to legislate. Kay kung magsige ug file, wala nay trabahong mahimo Section 4, Article VII – The returns of every election for President
ang officer. So, mao tong two-fold function of the one-year bar rule. and Vice-President, duly certified by the Board of Canvassers of each
province or city, shall be transmitted to the Congress, directed to the
What happens if you are found or convicted by the impeachment President of the Senate. Upon receipt of the certificates of canvass,
report? What is the consequence of your impeachment? It’s in the the President and Senate shall, not later than thirty days after the
Article XI – Section 3 (7), Judgment in cases of impeachment shall day of the election, open all certificates in the presence of the
not extend further than removal from office and disqualification to Senate and the House of the Representatives in joint public session,
hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines, but the party and the Congress upon determination of the authenticity and due
convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution, execution thereof in the manner provide by law, canvass the votes.
trial and punishment according to law.
So sila ang magcanvass sa votes for president and vice president,
For example, the president is convicted of – naconvict na siya that’s one of their duties.
matanggal siya sa office and that would be to remove all of his
immunities. You can already sue that person in appropriate BRILLANTES vs COMELEC
tribunals, considering that person is not anymore immune from suit. remember this case na gipa-automate nila ang elections pero wala
Kato pung mga justices, one of the conditions for their continued napush through, It was to be implemented in three phases, since
holding of the office as Justices is the members of the bar, pag wala man to napush through tong first two phases kay ** sa SC ang
matanggal na sila, diba they are impeachable officials, they can only contracts entered into between the COMELEC and Contractor,
be removed by way of impeachment. So pag maimpeach na sila, COMELEC nevertheless insisted on the unofficial electronic quick
wala na silay defense, pwede na ninyo siya ipa-disbar. But you count of the votes using electronic means. Can that be done by the
cannot, in the same proceeding, impeachment trial makaconvict, dili COMELEC?
makapataw ug criminal or civil liability on this impeachable official.
The Court said that No. This act of COMELEC
ESTRADA vs DISIERTO insisting on this activity is a commission of grave abuse of discretion
where former president Estrada was impeached. He was impeached amounting to lack or excess jurisdiction. Why? This act directing
because nafile-an siya ug impeachment case before the Senate, fringes of the authority of the Congress, considering that Section 4,
before the impeachment Court. There is already a case filed against Article VII thereof allows the use of the third copy of the ERs
you in the Senate Impeachment Court. When you say impeach, dili (Election Returns) of the President, Vice President, Senators,
pasabot na natnggal ka huh. Impeach kay naa nakay kaso sa Senate members of HoR, etc) intended for the COMELEC as basis for the
Impeachment Court. canvassing of the votes for the president and vice president and by
Nag-impeach, proceed for trial then there was that controversial doing so, the COMELEC will already canvass ahead the same votes
envelope na wala gipaopen leading to the walkout of the by the President and Vice President ahead of Congress. That cannot
Prosecutors in that case, as well as the , naga-rambol (Battle Royal) be done because it is the prerogative of Congress to count the votes
na ang mga proceedings kay wala nay gusto magpadayon, etc. of the President and Vice President. What about the fact that it is
nd
Meaning as to the 2 people power, eventually, Estrada was being unofficial? Joke joke lang. The Court said that the COMELEC is
resigned from office. It was decided on the other case, nagresign sya proscribed from conducting an official canvassing of the votes of the
so, in other words. So since dili na siya president, he is no longer President and Vice President with no reason nga magconduct sila ug
immune from suit, daghan kayo cases ang gipangfile sa iyaha, unofficial canvass. Kaning tulo nga provisions that are quite
criminal, civil etc. Karon, before the Sandiganbayan, one of his controversial –
arguments to effect the dismissal of the case was that he is an
impeachable official and until and unless the President is impeached, Section 8 of Article VII –
he is convicted in the impeachment court, treated gihapon siya as
87 | P a g e
In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or forty-five days nor later than sixty days from the time of such call. In
resignation of the President, the Vice President shall become the the meantime, si acting president sa ang mag president. Magpasa
President to serve the unexpired term. In case of death, permanent sila ug balaod to [effect] this election. The bill calling such special
disability, removal from office, or resignation of both the President election shall be deemed certified, why? Who will certify it, dba? Kay
and Vice President, the President of the Senate or, incase of his wala pa man president ug vice president, so deemed certified sya.
inability, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, shall then act
as President until the President or Vice President shall have been What happens if deemed certified sya? Kung pwede sya ang kadtong
elected and qualified. [training days ang separate days????] will maybe dispense, so
pwede syang mag [ang training days, in one day????(48:40)]
Section 8 of Article 7 under paragraph 2, Section 26, Article V1 of this Constitution and
shall become law upon its approval on third reading by the Congress.
In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or Appropriations for the special election shall be charged against any
resignation of the President, so permanent ang iyang pagkatanggal current appropriations and shall be exempt from the requirements
pag office, the Vice-President shall become the President to serve of paragraph 4, Section 25, Article V1 of this Constitution. The
the unexpired term. Sya gyud ang mahimong President, the VP. In convening of the Congress cannot be suspended nor the special
case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or election postponed.
resignation of both the President and Vice-President, so wala na tay
president, wala pud tay VP, the President of the Senate or, in case of However, pinaka last na paragraph, No special election shall be
his inability, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, shall then called if the vacancy occurs within eighteen months before the date
act, so meaning acting president lang sya, as President until the of the next presidential election. So, kung nahulog diri tong vacancy
President or Vice-President shall have been elected and qualified. sa both office it would appear, based on this provision, na dili nata
mag pasa ug balaod. 18 months nalang, hutdon nalang ni ni acting
So in the meantime, naga act act sya as president, what should president. So, mao lang na sya ang limitation. If di sya mahulog sa 18
congress do? Mag pasa silag balaod to conduct an election. To elect months, there has to be an election. A law calling for this special
the President and Vice-president, pero si speaker of the house and election.
the senate president, as the case maybe, it will never be president.
They will only be acting president. Anyway, what happens, patay sila What else? Unsa pa ang legislative power sa Congress? It also has
tanan, the 2nd paragraph says: the power to revoke or extend the suspension or privilege of the
Writ of Habeas Corpus or the declaration of Martial Law which we
The Congress shall, by law, provide who shall serve as President in already discuss in Article, in previous cases and this can be found in
case of death, permanent disability, or resignation of the Acting Article 7 Section 18:
President.
xxx The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all
So kinsa gani acting president? Si senate president or the speaker of its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such
the house. So kung mag taichi, mamatay pud sya, in case of death, proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside
disability, resignation of the acting president, who else kinsa pa gyud by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress
ang mga puli sa iyaha. So dapat daw naay balaod. It should be pass may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension
by Congress. So, I think you've read pending bill in the Congress, na for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or
kani, addressing this case. He shall serve until the President or the rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it. xxx What else?
Vice-President shall have been elected and qualified, and be subject Naa puy power ang congress to approve presidential amnesties, it's
to the same restrictions of powers and disqualifications as the Acting in Article 7 Section 19: (Under ni sya sa executive department)
President. So, kato.
xxx He [referring to the president] shall also have the power to grant
Section 9 amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of
Whenever there is a vacancy in the Office of the Vice-President, so the Congress. xxx
meaning buhi si president dili vacant ang office of the president, but
the office of the vice president is vacant, unsay example ani? Katong So, kung mag discuss ta, this is a matter in the executive
nahitabo kay GMA. She was the vice president, na impeach si department. So, didto ang atong extensive discussion. What is an
Estrada, so nag succeed sya so nabakante ang office of the vice amnesty? This amnesty is a part the executive clemency, pardoning
president. So, this provision applies. Whenever there's vacancy in powers of the president. This pardoning power of the president is
the office of the vice president during the term for which he was discretionary and as a rule, cannot be controlled by the legislature or
elected, the President shall nominate a Vice-President from among reverse by the supreme court, or any court. Unless, naay violation sa
the Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives who constitution. So, what is this amnesty? This amnesty is a presidential
shall assume office upon confirmation by a majority vote of all the pardon given to political offenses, and is granted to a class or classes
Members of both Houses of the Congress, voting separately. So of people. It is not even required to be accepted by such class of
kato, si Guingona iyang gi select and then gi confirm sya by both people. It requires the concurrence of congress, however, and it is a
houses. public act. So, those are the characteristics of an amnesty. Mag
discuss pa ta ani in the executive department. So, unsa lang to sya,
Section 10 introductory.
The Congress shall, at ten o'clock in the morning of the third day
after the vacancy in the offices of the President and Vice-President What else? Congress also has the power to confirm a certain
occurs, so wala na noh, na vacant na ang duha ka offices, what do appointments. Diba we discuss the creation of the Commission on
Congress do? Convene in accordance with its rules without need of Appointments previously more on the cases on this body, when we
a call and within seven days, enact a law calling for a special election go to the executive department. But, when do you find these act,
to elect a President and a Vice-President to be held not earlier than
88 | P a g e
kani na provision, katong CA, Commission on Appointments in the impending expiration of the Military Base Agreement in 1991,
Section 16 of Article 7: nag-attempt ang United States ug Philippines to enter into another
The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the agreement. And ultimately the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) was
Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads of the executive forged, the President during that time; Ramos, approved the Visiting
departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, or Forces Agreement, which was signed by Secretary Siazon and the
officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval United States Ambassador in 1998.
captain, and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in The next president; Estrada, ratified the Visiting Forces Agreement
this Constitution. xxx and thereafter, had it transmitted to the Senate of the Philippines
for concurrence, pursuant to the provisions of Article VII, Section 21.
We will discuss each of these categories of appointees when we go Kailangan treaty man siya, so, inyoha ning i-concur.
to Article 7. So, kelangan ni sila i-confirm sa Commission on
Appointment otherwise, void ang ilahang appointment. xxx He shall Now, ni-concur karun ang Senate through Senate Resolution No. 18;
also appoint all other officers of the Government whose whereby votes of more than two thirds (2/3) of the members of the
appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, and those Senate they concurred in with the treaty.
whom he may be authorized by law to appoint. The Congress may, So, gi-challenge karun ang Visiting Force Agreement (VFA) for
by law, vest the appointment of other officers lower in rank in the several grounds of constitutionality. What is the Visiting Force
President alone, in the courts, or in the heads of departments, Agreement (VFA) anyway? It is an agreement which defines the
agencies, commissions, or boards. treatment of the United States troops and personnel visiting in the
What else? Unsa pa na mga appointments ang gina confirm sa Philippines, visiting forces gani. It provides for guidelines to govern
Congress? It's in Article 7 Section 9: Kadtong ganina, vacancy, notice such visits of military personnel and further defines the rights of the
of the vice president, oh i-confirm pud nila kung kinsa ang gipili ni United States in the Philippines in the matter of criminal jurisdiction,
president from the members of congress. Kelangan pa sya ug movement of vessels and aircraft, importation and transportation of
majority vote from both houses, voting separately. So, in a way they equipment, materials, and supplies. So, karun since we are talking
are also confirming that appointment by the president. Also, the about a treaty, what are the provisions of the Constitution that must
very important power of Congress is the power to concur in treaties, be taken into consideration? Article VII, Section 21, katong
particularly the senate. And where do you find this general provision concurrence of at least two thirds (2/3) of the members of the
in the Constitution? Senate, and more importantly, because we are dealing with foreign
military forces we also have to deal with Article XVIII, Section 25, the
Article 7 Section 21: provision that foreign military bases, troops, and facilities shall not
No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective be allowed, except under a treaties during concurred in by the
unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.
Senate.
Now, ang question is, asa na provision ang mag-apply? Kani bang
So dapat, kung mu-enter ka into a treaty dapat i-concur sya but Article VII, Section 21? Or Article XVIII, Section 25? Since we are
2/3rds of all of the members of the senate. In that case, 2/3rds of talking about armed forces dapat Article XVIII, Section 25 daw.
24, how many is that? 16 senators must concur with the treaty However, Article XVIII, Section 25 is silent as to the number of votes
ratified by the president. Naa pay special provision in so far as a na kailangan niya ma-achieve para maging valid siya; ma-concur siya;
specific activities are concern. Article 18 Section 25 deals with the validly concurred siya by the Senate as a treaty. And that is why, we
entry of foreign military bases. And here, it is provided that: refer Article VII, Section 21 in so far as the number of senators that
are required to concur with that treaty. So, in other words these
xxx foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in provisions are not against each other, in fact, they compliment each
the Philippines [so that's the general rule] except under a treaty duly other. When we talk about foreign military bases, the primary
concurred in by the Senate and, when the Congress so requires, provision is Article XVIII, Section 25 but the manner of voting and the
ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national number of votes required we refer to Article VII, Section 21.
referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the
other contracting State. So, Article VII, Section 21 deals with the general rule on treaties and
So, when we're talking about entry of foreign military bases, mu-agi international agreements which if the treaty entered into, dapat
pa gyud sila aning treaty. So, in other words, the constitution does concurred by the Senate of two thirds (2/3) vote. But Article XVIII,
not, in so far as executive agreements, international agreements are Section 25 is a more specific provision in so far as the entry of
concern, walay gina mandate ang constitution, except for this foreign military base is concerned. So, kana siya i-apply nato na siya
specific provision na dapat kani na agreement should be a treaty but in this case because that is precisely the subject matter of this
when we're talking about on military bases, dapat sya in a treaty, treaty, that provision nevertheless requires also the Senate’s
okay? concurrence, so, we refer to Article VII, Section 21 as to the number
of votes.
The specific roles of the Senate insofar as treaties are concerned.
We have cases on the matter, and the first case here is: So, what are the general? What are the requirements anyway before
the foreign military troops, bases, or facilities may be allowed in our
[BAYAN v. ZAMORA] country under Article XVIII, Section 25, unsa ang requisites?
Which touches on the issue of whether or not the Visiting Forces (1) It must be in a treaty;
Agreement (VFA) is valid. Is it valid? or it is unconstitutional? So, (2) The treaty must duly concur in by the Senate and that so
there is a history of this case, of this Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) required by Congress pwede siya ma-ratify by majority
mentioned in the case. votes of the people if required by Congress; and
It started in March 1947, when Philippines and United States (3) The treaty must be recognized as such by the other
entered into a Military Base Agreement. And thereafter, nag-enter contracting state.
napud ta in a mutual defense treaty on August 13, 1951. In view of
89 | P a g e
Here, na-comply ba ang tulo ka requirements? The court said yes, it pursuant to the provisions of Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) gi-
must be in a treaty; the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) is a treaty. detain siya sa appropriate place. However, mentioning the Regional
Was it concurred in by the Senate? Yes, they issued a resolution Trial Court (RTC) kung asa gi-file ang case against this person held
voting, having more than two thirds (2/3) votes for its total him guilty of the charges and he was ordered to be detained in the
composition agreeing, concurring to the Visiting Forces Agreement Makati City Jail. Eventually, however, Smith was taken out of the
(VFA). Third, was the treaty recognized by the other contracting Makati City Jail, by the law enforcement agents under the
state? This is the issue now, because those who are against the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) because naa
Visiting Force Agreement (VFA), claim that this instrument must be daw Romulo – Kennedy Agreement na gi-enter into ang atoang
submitted to the United States Senate for its concurrence as well. representative sa country and ang United States governing the
Kailangan pa ba i-concur sa United States Senate kaning Visiting detention of Smith. So, gi-adto siya sa lain na lugar, not in the Makati
Forces Agreement (VFA) for it to be binding for both countries? the City Jail.
court said that no, but before we go there, balik sa ta sa second
requirement katong concurrence by the Senate. Dapat two thirds So, nagreklamo karun katong mga relatives sa rape victim insofar as
(2/3) vote where do you recon? Twenty-four (24) senators multiply the act is concerned. One of the issues raised in this case is the
it by two thirds (2/3), dapat makakuha ka ug sixteen (16) votes for validity of the Visiting Force Agreement (VFA). The court said that
this treaty to be concurred; validly concurred. Now, balik ta sa third there is no need to overturn its ruling by Bayan v. Zamora, valid ang
issue, which is the third requirement daw na dapat the instrument Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA). It has already been determined by
should have been presented to the United States Senate and also the court as valid in Bayan v. Zamora. Now, ang question is what
concurred in by its Senate, similar to the Philippines. about the Romulo - Kennedy Agreement, katong pag-remove kay
Smith sa Makati City Jail pursuant to such agreements. Was it in
The court said there is no need to submit the Visiting Forces conformity with the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA)? Now, take
Agreement (VFA) to the United States Senate. To require that note that the Visiting Force Agreement (VFA) is already valid and is
requirement it would to accord a strict meaning to this phrase or also enforced by the two countries. Therefore, ang compliance
requirement, it inconsequential whether the United States treats thereof must be observed by two countries. So, dili ka pwede mag-
this treaty, this Visiting Force Agreement (VFA) as an executive deviate sa provision of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) precisely
agreement, because executive agreements are nonetheless binding because it binds you both. Now, the court found here that this
as a treaty. Pareha ilahang binding force, to be sure as long as the Romulo-Kennedy Agreements were not consistent with the
Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) possesses the elements of an provisions of the Visiting Force Agreement (VFA). Makita pud ninyo
agreement under international law the said agreement shall be na this Romulo-Kennedy Agreements deal with the implementation
taken equally as a treaty. So, in other words, di na daw kailangan as of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA). Diba? Because it talks about
long as gi-recognize na ni sa United States as binding that is already the provisions in the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) not again
enough for the third requirement to be fulfilled. purportedly followed and it is not contained in a treaty, if you would
observe it was just an agreement.
In this case, the United States Government through its ambassador
stated that the United States Government has fully committed to We will go to that later, but insofar as the validity of this agreements
live up to the terms of the Visiting Force Agreement (VFA). So, for as is concerned the court said this is not consistent with the provisions
long as the United States accepts or acknowledges the Visiting Force of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA). Valid na gani ang Visiting
Agreement (VFA) as a treaty and binds itself further compliance with Forces Agreement (VFA) di pa jud ninyo i-follow. Why? What is the
its application under said treaty there is indeed a valid compliance of applicable provision? So far as convicts of, convicted na ka in our
the said requirements. So, mao to na-comply and tulo ka country for a criminal offense and you’re a member of the armed
requirements, therefore the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) is not forces. Naay article in the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) that
unconstitutional. applies to Article V, Section 10;
The court also made a discussion as to the power of the president. Article V, Section 10. “The confinement or detention by Philippine
Kinsa ba ang naay power to ratify? Kinsa ang naay power to concur? authorities of United States personnel shall be carried out in facilities
Does the Senate ratify? Or the president? The court said that by appropriate Philippine and United States authorities.”
ratification is not a legislative act. It is not an act of the Senate but
rather an executive act; act of the president. It is the president that So, meaning kinsa ang mag-detain sa imuha? Philippine authorities.
ratifies the treaty. Undertaken by the head of the state or in other words, ang mag-detain sa imuha is ang Philippine
government as a treaty through which the formal acceptance of the authorities but what happened here is by way of Romulo-Kennedy
treaty is proclaimed. In our jurisdiction, the power to ratify is vested Agreements gibalhin ang detention ni Smith which was not
in the president and not in the legislature. Unsa ang trabaho ni consistent with its provision. It is clear that the parties to the Visiting
Senate? Mag-concur siya sa treaty. What happens when there is Forces Agreement (VFA) recognize the difference with the custody
already ratification and thereafter concurrence by the Senate the during trial and detention after conviction because they provided for
treaty now becomes obligatory, it becomes incumbent in the a specific arrangement to cover detention. Who carries out the
contracting parties to comply with its obligations. So, the Visiting detention of the convicted armed forces personnel under the
Forces Agreement (VFA) is not unconstitutional considering that all Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA)?
requirements for it to be effective have been complied with.
The Philippine authorities. and this specific arrangement clearly
Now, the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) was again mentioned or states not only that the detention shall be carried out in facilities
was raised; challenged in the case of: agreed on by authorities of both parties but also that the detention
shall be by Philippine authorities. So, dili pwede na ibalhin nimo siya
[NICOLAS v. ROMULO] sa United States na comfortable in life, dapat you comply with the
Here, we have United States armed forces member; Smith raping provisions of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA). Therefore,
Nicolas, a Filipina, sometime in 2005. While the case was pending Romulo-Kennedy Agreements are not in accord with the Visiting
90 | P a g e
Forces Agreement (VFA) because such detention was not made by need to be in a treaty. Why? The president may enter into executive
the Philippine authorities. agreements on military force or military bases, troops , or facilities if,
(1) it is not the instrument that allows the presence of foreign
Now we go to the case of: military troops, bases, or facilities; and (2) if it merely aims to
implement an existing an existing law or treaty. So, in other words,
[SAGUISAG v. OCHOA] the court is saying that treaty requirement for foreign military
This talks about the constitutionality of the Enhanced Defense troops and bases only requires to be initial entry of the foreign
Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) within the Philippines and United troops in the country.
States. It authorizes the United States forces to have access to and
conduct activities within agreed certain conditions in the country. So, karun kung mag-execute ka ug Enhanced Defense Cooperation
This Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) however, Agreement (EDCA) which is only to enhance and implement of an
was entered between the Philippines and United States by way of an existing treaty you need not have those agreements to execute the
executive agreement and not a treaty. It was not in fact submitted to provisions of existing treaties in treaties as well. What is required is
the Senate on the executive’s understanding that to do so was no kung pasudlon nimo sila for the first time in our country, kato ang
longer necessary. Naa nay executive agreement and dili na kailangan kailangan ug treaty. Since the Enhanced Defense Cooperation
i-contain in a treaty, therefore we did not have the Senate concur Agreement (EDCA) does not allow that, does not have that effect
with this treaty. because they were already allowed entry in the Philippines by other
treaties, the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA)
Accordingly, all the formalities to have this agreement take effect need not to be in a treaty. Why? Unsa ang reason sa Supreme
have been complied with and nag-perform na sila sa ilahang mga Court?
obligations under the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement Here, a plain textual reading of Article 18 Section 25 leads to the
(EDCA) and there were several cases filed before the Supreme Court conclusion that it applies only to a proposed agreement between
assailing to the constitutionality of this agreement. One of the major our government and foreign government whereby military bases,
points of discussion in this case is the requirement of the Enhanced troops, or facilities of such foreign government would be allowed or
Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) to be in a treaty. Do we would bring entry to Philippine territory. Hence, the constitutional
have to contain this agreement in a treaty? take note that foreign restriction to the authority pertains to the entry of the bases, troops,
armed forces entering the country. As we discussed earlier, Article and facilities and not to the activities to be done after the entry.
XVIII, Section 25 such must be in a treaty. Karun ang gihimo sa
executive, agreement lang walay treaty. And the treaty must be duly So what is the restriction again? –refers solely to the initial entry of
concurred in by the Senate under Article VII, Section 21. So, wala foreign military bases troops or facilities. Once the entry is
daw to gi-follow therefore this agreement is unconstitutional. authorized, the subsequent acts are thereafter subject only to the
limitations provided by the rest of the Constitution and Philippine
So, the court ruled in favor of the validity of the Enhanced Defense Law and not to the Article 18 Section 25.
Cooperation Agreement (EDCA). It is not unconstitutional and in Now the question is, okay dile na kailangan mag EDCA, but How will
discussing padulong sa ending sa decision, daghan gi-discuss ang these bases, troops, and facilities be allowed entry in the Philippines
court na mga concepts. First of all, the court gives due deterrence to in the first place? – it was done by the way of VFA. Dile lang VFA,
power the executive department to enhance the defense of our Mutual Defense Treaty pud. So katong mga treaties were already
country. So, as a rule, dili dapat nila idagdag ang prerogative sa exisiting and they allowed they allowed the entry of these military
president na mag-improve sa atong facilities to form a combat bases, troops, and facilities in the Philippines. And the EDCA was
against external evils such as terrorism, etc. so, naay due deterrence, only by, entered into between our Country and the US, to what?
nevertheless despite the power of the president which is plenary Find tune the provision of the VFA. Considering that there is already
naay limitations gihapon na ginabutang not according to the an initial entry allowed by treaty is concerned in this case, di nato
Supreme Court but the Constitution. Which is kaning sa entry of kailangan ang EDCA to enter into a treaty. The VFA has already
foreign military forces, bases, troops, and facilities, there are express allowed the entry of troops in the Philippines.
provisions under the Constitution that requires compliance before
these can be effected, before we can allow these troops to enter in Therefore, the president, they entered into an executive agreement
the Philippines. So, mao to ang Constitution mismo ang naga-limit. subject to limitation defined by the Constitution and made the
furtherance of the treaty already concurred in by the Senate. The
In other words, this issue is not beyond the power of the courts to power of the president to enter into binding executive agreement
resolve because there is a constitutional provision involve. And the without Senate’s concurrence is already well-established in our
matter is whether or not there is compliance with those jurisdiction.
constitutional provisions. The plain meaning of the constitution is
that it prohibits the entry of foreign military bases, troops, and There is also a discussion here as to the difference between treaties
facilities as general rule. Except by a way of a treaty concurred in by and executive agreements.
the Senate and this is a clear limitation of the president’s dual role First, Executive Agreements must remain under the constitution,
as the head of the state and the sole authority to handle foreign statutes, or treaties, the absence of these resilience, puts the validity
relations. Diba as a general rule, if you can recall the case of and effectivity of an executive agreement under serious question.
Binuya(?) that talks about the exercise of the president of his Second, executive agreement cannot create international
diplomatic powers, diba due deterrence is given to the president as obligations that are not expressly allowed by those instruments –the
due discretion dili na dapat hilabtan sa Supreme Court. But here we law, constitution, and statues.
have a specific provision that limits such power, so we have to
contend with compliance. Was there compliance with these Treaties are, by their very nature, considered to be superior to their
provisions? executive agreements. Treaties are the products of the acts of the
So, going to the main issue, does the Enhanced Defense Cooperation executive and the Senate, unlike the executive agreement –which is
Agreement (EDCA)have to be in a treaty? The court said, it did not solely an executive actions. Because of the legislative participation,
91 | P a g e
who is the Senate, the treaty is regarded as on the same level as a Ruling: Yes. Who ahs the power to determine WON this agreement
statute. should be entered into by way of an EA or treaty? Who is our
diplomatic – it is the Executive Department through the Department
The main difference is: executive agreements need not to be of Foreign Affairs. And DFA under EO 5459, initially is given the
concurred in by the Senate. So the President may enter into that EA power to determine whether an agreement is to be treated as a
without Senate concurrence. treaty or and executive agreement. So the discretion is given to the
executive agreement.
Here, the President had the choice to enter into the EDCA by way of
EA or a treaty. And no court can tell the President to desist from Is there a requirement na tanan agreements should be in a treaty?
choosing either, unless the case falls squarely under article 18 Isa lang sa constitution diba and that is when we talk about foreign
Section 25. military troops, bases and facilities. In so far as other matters are
concerned, there is no expressed requirement in the constitution na
So the guidelines was enumerated by the court here Sec 25 Art 18 kani na executive international agreement should be in a treaty. In
contains stringent requirements that must be fulfilled by the other words, naa ang discretion sa executive department to
international agreement allowing the presence of foreign military determine what instrument will be used to enter into such
bases, troops and facilities in the Philippines. international agreement.
1. The agreement must be in a form of treaty and must be
duly concurred in the Senate Here, we are talking about intellectual property, so the court
2. If the agreement is not covered by the above situation, reviewed jurisprudence in so far this is concerned. Can we, in so far
then the President can choose the form of agreement as matters involve intellectual property, enter into an executive
(either and executive agreement or a treaty) provided that agreement with other states? Yes from the early days of our history,
the agreement dealing with foreign military bases, troops, we have entered into executive agreements covering subjects such
or facilities is not the principal agreement that first allows as commercial and consular relations, patents rights, trademark, and
presence in the Philippines (because if that is the case dile copyright protection etc and the validity of these has never been
na pwede mu enter into a mere EA, there must be a treaty, questioned by the courts. Agreements with respect to the
basta initial entry ha) registration of trademarks have been concluded by the executive
3. The executive agreement must not go beyond the with various countries using executive agreement as an instrument.
parameters, limitations, and standards set by law and or
the treaty that the formers purports to implement and Therefore, there is jurisprudence supporting that we can, in so far as
must not unduly expand the international orientation intellectual property is concerned, can accede to such instruments
expressly mentioned or necessarily implied in the law or by way of an executive agreement and not necessarily by treaties. In
the treaty short, the Registration of trademarks and copyrights has been the
4. And finally, the executive agreement must be consistent to subject of executive agreements entered into even without the
the Constitution as well as with the existing laws and concurrence of the Senate.
treaties.
Nevertheless, the court also gave a caveat that there are no harms in
And because of that, the EDCA is not unconstitutional. the propriety of entering into a treaty or EA on the given subject as
an instrument of international relations.
IPAC VS OCHOA (2016)
Facts: Intellectual Property Association of the Philippines vs Ochoa Declaration of War and Delegation of Emergency Powers
talks about the Madrid Protocol Congres also has the power to declare war and delegate emergency
powers on the President under Article 6 section 23
So the Madrid System or the International Registration of Marks was In section 23 Congress cannot wage war, it can only declare the
established governed by the Madrid Agreement in 1891 and the existence of the state of war
Madrid Protocol was concluded in 1989. This protocol was adopted Article VI Section 23
(body protocol lahi ni sya sa Agreement ha) in order to remove (1) the congress by vote of two-thirds of both Houses in joint
challenges compelling some countries na mag (inaudible*) to the session as assembled, voting separately, shall have the
Madrid Agreement. sole power to declare the existence of a state of war
(2) in times of war or other national emergency, the Congress
In 2004, this intellectual property office of the Philippines began may, by law, (should pass a law) authorize the President,
considering the country’s accession to the Madrid Protocol. So, the for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it
DFA, after review, expressed its accession to the Madrid Protocol by may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to
way of and executive agreement. So we accede to this protocol. So carry out a declared national policy, to exercise powers
there is an issue why gi execute ni na executive agreement. This was necessary and proper to carry out a declared national
ratified byt he President and it took the Madrid Protocol eventually policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the
entered into force with the PH because of that ratification. Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next
adjournment thereof.
Now, IPAC challenged the entry of this Madrid Protocol by way of Because in a state of war the congress can authorize the president,
this executive agreement on the premise that this cannot contained by way of law, to exercise emergency powers. Anyway, this provision
by mere executive agreement. Our accession to the Madrid Protocol was discussed in David vs Macapagal Arroyo
must be in a treaty, not in a mere EA. Hence, the DFA here acted
with grave abuse of discretion when they allowed that to happen. DAVID VS MACAPAGAL ARROYO
Dealt with the constitutionality of the Presidential proclamation
Issue: Is our accession to this Madrid Protocol through EA valid? 1017 – declaration of state of emergency and General Order No. 5
92 | P a g e
(But to out purposes, this will be extensively discussed in the
executive department.) Congress also has the power with regard to the utilization of natural
resources under Article 12 Section 2.
We deal with the delegated emergency powers granted to the
President which is one of the powers purportedly granted by the
President to herself, in this case. so pag issue niya sa PP 1017, there - END OF LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT –
are three lumps of provisions that were studied by the Supreme
Court. One of which is the 3d provision as provided in Sec 17 Article
12 of the Constitution: she declared a state of national emergency.
In the course thereof, the imports of the provision, is that the
president during the state of national emergency, can call the
military not only to enforce obedience to all the laws and decrees
but also to act pursuant to Article 12 Sec 17, what is the effect? In
Article 12 Sec 17, in times of national emergency, the state may,
during the emergency, at under reasonable terms prescribed,
temporarily takeover or direct the operation of any private or public
utility or business affected with public interest.
So in other words, in times of national emergency, pwede i-take

over ni President ang mga ie PAL, Cebu Pacific, and other
enterprises, by way of this Presidential Proclamation. Is it automatic
na the President issues PP stating that there is national emergency
na mag take over na siya sa mga businesses? Or is there any other
requirement?
The court said that it cannot be. This provision has to be read in
relation to Article 6 Sec 23 where there must be an intervention by
the Congress. What could be the reason why the President invoked
this Article 12 Sec 17? That is to grant her, without any authority or
delegation from the Congress, the power to takeover or direct
operation of these privately owned businesses. Again, this power is
subject to Article 6 Section 23. That in the exercise of national
emergency powers, it requires a delegation from the Congress.
There must be a law passed by the Congress giving the president
such power to takeover.
Requirements:
1. there must be a war or other emergency
2. the delegation must be for a limited period (meaning there
is law delegating such power to the President)
3. the delegation must be subject to restrictions that
congress may prescribe and the power must be exercised
to carry national policy declared by the Congress
Again, the president is not automatically empowered to take over
these businesses unless the Congress passes a law.
Power to be the judge of the President’s physical fitness or capacity

The congress also has the power to be the judge of the President’s
physical fitness or capacity. This was already discussed before. Sec
11 of Art 7. President transmits to the President of the Senate and
Speaker of the house that he is not able to perform his functions,
and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary,
the Vice president will act as a President.
Whenever a majority of all the Members of the Cabinet transmit to

the President of the Senate and to the speaker of the House that the
President can no longer fulfil his duties, the Vice President shall act
as the President. When the president transmits to the President of
the Senate and the speaker of the house his written declaration that
no inability exists, he shall reassume office. And if the cabinet insists
the President is not able to discharge, transmit within 5 days to the
President of the senate and speaker of the house, their written
declaration that the president is not able to do that function, the
congress shall decide the issue. The congress shall convene, if it is
not in session, within 48 hours, in accordance with its rules and
without need of call.
93 | P a g e

Consti1 2nd Exam Manre

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consti1 2nd Exam Manre

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

Consti1 2nd Exam Manre

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consti 1 2nd Exam TSN Compilation1-Manresa

How is domicile lost?/ How to effect successfully a change in Caballero v COMELEC

SYNCHRONIZED TERMS OF OFFICE 4. Preventive suspension is not a term-interrupting event as the

Abundo v COMELEC 6. When an official is defeated in an election protest and said

Forbidden Office Vs. Incompatible Office CASE: LIBAN VS GORDON

INTERNAL GOVERNMENT OF CONGRESS

Martinez vs. HRET --------------------------------Geronga-------------------------------

US vs. Panlilio (1914) [37:43] People v. Dacuycuy (1989) [42:32]

It must be particular, unambiguous and appropriate. Why?

LUNG CENTER vs. QUEZON CITY

CHAVEZ vs. PCGG a. statute creating the enterprise

Naa silay duty to inform which is in Article VI, Sec. 12.

Article 11, Section 3 – paragraph 5

So in other words, in times of national emergency, pwede i-take

Power to be the judge of the President’s physical fitness or capacity

Whenever a majority of all the Members of the Cabinet transmit to

You might also like