3rd Week – Intro to Law kahlil.

apolinar
a. Who exercises legislative powers in the Philippines?
Art. VI, Sec 1. The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall
consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people
by the provision on initiative and referendum.
b. What is legislative power?
Legislative power is essentially the authority under the Constitution to make laws and
subsequently, when the need arises, to alter and repeal them.
It is the peculiar task of the legislature to prescribe general rules for the government of the
society. The legislative function involves the determination of the legislative policy and the
promulgation as a defined and binding rule of conduct through the enactment of law.
c. What is bicameralism?
A bicameral legislature divides the legislators into two separate assemblies, chambers, or houses.
ADVANTAGES: serve as a check to hasty and ill-considered legislation; training ground for future
leaders; provides representation for both regional and national interests; less susceptible to
bribery and control of big interests; and it is the traditional form of legislatibe body dating from
ancient times, thus already proven and tested.
DISADVANTAGES: has not worked out as an effective “fiscalizing” or counter-check machinery;
affords double consideration of bills, no assurance of better delivered or better deliberated
legislation; duplication of efforts; expensive to maintain; only wealthy individuals make it to the
Senate.
d. What is the composition of the Senate?
Art. VI, Sec 2. The Senate shall be composed of 24 Senators who shall be elected at large by the
qualified voters of the Philippines, as ay be provided by law.
e. What are the qualifications of a Senator?
Art. VI, Sec 3. No person shall be a Senator unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines,
and on the day of the election, is at least 35 years of age, able to read and write, a registered
voter, and a resident of the Philippines for not less than 2 years immediately preceding the day
of the election.
f. What is the term of office of a Senator?
Art. VI, Sec 4. The term of office of the Senators shall be 6 years and shall commence, unless
otherwise provided by law, at noon on the 30th day of June next following their election.
No Senator shall serve for more than two consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office
for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption of the continuity of his service
for the full term for which he was elected.
g. What is the composition of the House of Representatives?
The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than 250, unless otherwise fixed
by law. They are elected from legislative or congressional districts and through a party-list system.
The party-list or sectoral representatives are filled by selection or election from the labor, peasant,
etc. and other sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector.
h. Discuss Bagabuyo v. Commission on Elections.
1.)
FACTS:
Cagayan de Oro used to have only one legislative district. But in 2006, CdO Congressman
Constantino Jaraula sponsored a bill to have two legislative districts in CdO instead. The law was
passed (RA 9371) hence two legislative districts were created. Rogelio Bagabuyo assailed the
validity of the said law and he went immediately to the Supreme Court to enjoin the COMELEC
from enforcing the law in the upcoming elections. Bagabuyo was contending that the 2nd district
was created without a plebiscite which he averred was required by the Constitution.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a plebiscite was required in the case at bar.
HELD:
No, a plebiscite is not required in the case at bar. RA 9371 merely increased the representation
of Cagayan de Oro City in the House of Representatives and Sangguniang Panglungsod pursuant
to Section 5, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution; the criteria established under Section 10, Article
X of the 1987 Constitution only apply when there is a creation, division, merger, abolition or
substantial alteration of boundaries of a province, city, municipality, or barangay; in this case, no
such creation, division, merger, abolition or alteration of boundaries of a local government unit
took place; and R.A. No. 9371 did not bring about any change in Cagayan de Oro’s territory,
population and income classification; hence, no plebiscite is required. What happened here was
a reapportionment of a single legislative district into two legislative districts. Reapportionment is
the realignment or change in legislative districts brought about by changes in population and
mandated by the constitutional requirement of equality of representation.
Before, Cagayan de Oro had only one congressman and 12 city council members citywide for its
population of approximately 500,000. By having two legislative districts, each of them with one
congressman, Cagayan de Oro now effectively has two congressmen, each one representing
250,000 of the city’s population. This easily means better access to their congressman since each
one now services only 250,000 constituents as against the 500,000.
2.)
Bagabuyo vs. COMELEC
FACTS:
A representative of the city of Cagayan de Oro file and sponsored a bill (HB No.5859) which later
became a law (RA No. 9371). The said law increased the city’s legislative district from one to
two. COMELEC promulgated a resolution implementing the said law for election purposes.
Herein petitioner, filed a petition against COMELEC arguing that it cannot implement the law
without the commencement of a plebiscite of which is indispensable for the division and
conversion of a local government unit. In relation to this, petitioner prayed for a TRO or writ of
preliminary injunction. Both were not granted, and the National and Local elections proceeded.
ISSUE(S):
Whether or not the law, of which pertains to the legislative apportionment of a city, involve the
division and conversion of a local government unit
HELD:
Petition DISMISSED for lack of merit.
RATIO/DOCTRINE:
Creation, division, merger, abolition, and alteration of boundaries under Art. X Sec. 10
requires the commencement of a plebiscite, while legislative apportionment or reapportionment
under Art. VI, Sec.5 need not. They are related but are different from each other.
Both provisions mentioned above are within the vested authority of the legislature. The
Legislature undertakes the apportionment and reapportionment of legislative districts, and
likewise acts on local government units by setting standards for their creation, division, merger,
abolition and alteration of boundaries and by actually creating, dividing, merging, abolishing local
government units and altering their boundaries through legislation. Other than this, not much
commonality exists between the two provisions since they are inherently different although they
interface and relate with one another.
 In the case at bar, no division of CDO city takes place or is mandated. CDO city politically
remains a single unit and its administration is not divided along territorial line. Its territory remains
completely whole and intact; there is only the addition of another legislative district and the
delineation of the city into two districts for purposes of representation in the House of
Representatives. Thus, Art. X, Sec.10 of the Constitution does not come into play and no plebiscite
is necessary to validly apportion Cagayan de Oro into two districts.
Legislative Apportionment
- the determination of the number of representatives which a State, country or other
subdivision may send to a legislative body
- The allocation of seats in a legislative body in proportion to population; the drawing of
voting district lines so as to equalize population and voting power among the districts
Reapportionment
- The realignment or change in legislative districts brought about by changes in population
and mandated by the constitutional requirement of equality of represenation
i. What are the qualifications of a representative?
1. A natural-born citizen of the Philippines;
2. at least 25 years of age on the day of election;
3. able to read and write;
4. except for a party-list representative, a registered voter in the district in which he shall
be elected; and
5. a resident thereof for a period not less than 1 year preceding the day of the election.
j. Discuss Romualdez-Marcos v. Commission on Elections.
IMELDA ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS, plaintiff vs. COMMISSION OF ELECTIONS, defendant
248 SCRA 300

Facts:
March 23,1995, Cirilo Roy Montejo, filed a petition for cancellation and disqualification with the
COMELEC alleging that Imelda-Romualdez Marcos did not meet the constitutional requirement
for residency. March 29, 1995, Marcos filed a corrected certificate of candidacy changing the entry
“seven” months to “since childhood”. The COMELEC en banc denied petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration declaring her not qualified to run for the position of the member of the House of
Representatives for the First District of Leyte. In a supplemental petition, Marcos averred that
she was the overwhelming winner of the election.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner was a resident, for election purposes, of the First District of Leyte for a
period of one year at the time of the May 9, 1995 elections.
Held:
Residence is synonymous with domicile which reveals a tendency or mistake the concept of
domicile for actual residence, a conception not intended for the purpose of determining a
candidate’s qualifications for the election to the House of Representatives as required by the 1987
Constitution. An individual does not lose his domicile even if he has lived and maintained
residences in different places. In the case at bench, the evidence adduced by Motejo lacks the
degree of persuasiveness as required to convince the court that an abandonment of domicile of
origin in favor of a domicile of choice indeed incurred. It cannot be correctly argued that Marcos
lost her domicile of origin by operation of law as a result of her marriage to the late President
Ferdinand E. Marcos. Having determined that Marcos posses the necessary residence
qualifications to run for a seat in the House of Representatives in the First District of Leyte, the
COMELEC’s questioned resolutions dated April 24, May 7, May11, and May 25 are set aside.
Provincial Board of Canvassers is directed to proclaim Marcos as the duly elected Representative
of the First District of Leyte.

Romualdez-Marcos vs. COMELEC

248 SCRA 300
Facts:
Imelda Romualdez-Marcos, filed her certificate of candidacy for the position of Representative of
Leyte First District. On March 23, 1995, private respondent Cirilio Montejo, also a candidate for
the same position, filed a petition for disqualification of the petitioner with COMELEC on the
ground that petitioner did not meet the constitutional requirement for residency. On March 29,
1995, petitioner filed an amended certificate of candidacy, changing the entry of seven months
to “since childhood” in item no. 8 in said certificate. However, the amended certificate was not
received since it was already past deadline. She claimed that she always maintained Tacloban
City as her domicile and residence. The Second Division of the COMELEC with a vote of 2 to 1
came up with a resolution finding private respondent’s petition for disqualification meritorious.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner lost her domicile of origin by operation of law as a result of her marriage
to the late President Marcos.
Held:
For election purposes, residence is used synonymously with domicile. The Court upheld the
qualification of petitioner, despite her own declaration in her certificate of candidacy that she had
resided in the district for only 7 months, because of the following: (a) a minor follows the domicile
of her parents; Tacloban became petitioner’s domicile of origin by operation of law when her
father brought the family to Leyte; (b) domicile of origin is lost only when there is actual removal
or change of domicile, a bona fide intention of abandoning the former residence and establishing
a new one, and acts which correspond with the purpose; in the absence of clear and positive
proof of the concurrence of all these, the domicile of origin should be deemed to continue; (c)
the wife does not automatically gain the husband’s domicile because the term “residence” in Civil
Law does not mean the same thing in Political Law; when petitioner married President Marcos in
1954, she kept her domicile of origin and merely gained a new home, not a domicilium
necessarium; (d) even assuming that she gained a new domicile after her marriage and acquired
the right to choose a new one only after her husband died, her acts following her return to the
country clearly indicate that she chose Tacloban, her domicile of origin, as her domicile of choice.
k. What is the term of office of a Representative?
The Members of the House of Representatives shall be elected for a term of 3 years which shall
begin, unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on the 30th day of June next following their
election.
l. Distinguish between sectoral representative and party-list representative.
PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE – represents various social, economic, cultural, geographical and
other groups or sectors of our society to have their voices heard in Congress at least in the House
of Representatives an institution normally composed of politicians from the elite social classes.
SECTORAL REPRESENTATIVE – represents various groups, particularly, the marginalized sectors
that have for so long remained unrepresented and voiceless.
m. How does a bill become a law? Discuss the override of a presidential veto.
1. First Reading - Proposal of bill from either of the House, signed by him, for First Reading and
reference to proper committee. It is filed with the Office of the Secretary where it is given a
corresponding number and calendared for first reading. The bill is read by its number and title
and the name/ names of the author or authors.
2. Referral to the Appropriate Committee – After the first reading, the bill is referred to the
proper committee or committees for study and consideration. It may conduct hearings and
meetings. It then approves the bill with or without amendments or recommends substitution or
consolidation with similar bills filed. If the bill is disapproved in the committee, the bill dies a
natural death unless the House decides otherwise following the submission of the report;
3. Second Reading – If the committee reports the bill favorably, it is forwarded to the Committee
on Rules so that it can be calendared for deliberation on Second Reading. At this stage the bill is
read for the second time in its entirety together with the amendments, if any, proposed by the
committee unless the reading is dispensed with by a majority vote of the House;
4. Debates – A general debate is opened after the Second Reading and sponsorship speech of
the author of the bill. Amendments may be proposed by any member of the Congress. The House
may either kill or pass the bill. A bill approved on Second Reading shall be included in the calendar
of bills for the Third Reading;
5. Printing and Distribution – after approval of the bill on Second Reading, the bill is then ordered
printed in its final form or version and copies of it are distributed among the members of the
House three (3) days before its passage except in cases of bills certified by the President;
6. Third Reading – At this stage only the title of the bill is read on the floor: Nominal voting is
held. Upon the last reading of the bill, no amendment thereto is allowed and the vote thereon is
taken immediately thereafter, and yeas and nays entered in this journal. A member may abstain,
as a rule, a majority of the members constituting a quorum is sufficient to pass a bill;
7. Referral to the other House – If approved, the bill is then referred to the other House where
substantially the same procedure takes place. If the other House approved the bill without
changes or amendments, the final version is signed by the Senate President and the Speaker of
the House of Representatives;
8. Submission to joint bicameral committee – Differences, if any, in the House’s bill and the
Senate’s amended version, and vice versa are submitted to conference committee of members of
both Houses for compromise or to reconcile conflicting provisions. If either House accepts the
changes made by the other, no compromise is necessary; and
9. Submission to the President – A bill approved on the Third Reading of both Houses shall be
printed and forthwith transmitted to the President for his action – approval or disapproval that is,
he either signs it into law or vetoes and sends it back with his veto message. If the President
does not communicate his veto of any bill to the House where it originated within 30 days from
receipt thereof, it shall become a law as if he signed it. Bills re-passed by Congress over the veto
of the President automatically becomes a law.
n. What bills must originate from House of Representatives? Discuss each.
1. Appropriation bill – one of the primary and specific aim of which is to make appropriations of
money from the public treasury. A bill of general legislation which carries the appropriation as an
incident thereto to carry out its primary and specific purpose is not an appropriations bill.
2. Revenue bill – specific purpose is to raise revenue.
3. Tariff bill – As used in the Constitution, it has reference to one imposing customs duties for
revenue purposes.
4. Bills authorizing increase of the public debt – one which creates public indebtedness such as
bill providing for the issuance of bonds and other forms of obligations. Such bonds are to be paid
with the proceeds to be derived from taxation and other sources of government revenue.
5. Bills of local application – one affecting purely local or municipal concerns like one creating a
city or municipality or changing its name.
6. Private bill – one affecting purely private interest, such as one granting a franchise to a person
or corporation, or compensation to a person for damages suffered by him for which the
government considers itself liable.
o. Discuss Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, G.R. No. 115455, 25 Aug 1994.
FACTS:
Arturo Tolentino et al are questioning the constitutionality of RA 7716 otherwise known as the
Expanded Value Added Tax (EVAT) Law. Tolentino averred that this revenue bill did not
exclusively originate from the House of Representatives as required by Section 24, Article 6 of
the Constitution. Even though RA 7716 originated as HB 11197 and that it passed the 3 readings
in the HoR, the same did not complete the 3 readings in Senate for after the 1st reading it was
referred to the Senate Ways & Means Committee thereafter Senate passed its own version known
as Senate Bill 1630. Tolentino averred that what Senate could have done is amend HB 11197 by
striking out its text and substituting it with the text of SB 1630 in that way “the bill remains a
House Bill and the Senate version just becomes the text (only the text) of the HB”. (It’s ironic
however to note that Tolentino and co-petitioner Raul Roco even signed the said Senate Bill.)
ISSUE:
Whether or not the EVAT law is procedurally infirm.
HELD:
No. By a 9-6 vote, the Supreme Court rejected the challenge, holding that such consolidation was
consistent with the power of the Senate to propose or concur with amendments to the version
originated in the HoR. What the Constitution simply means, according to the 9 justices, is that
the initiative must come from the HoR. Note also that there were several instances before where
Senate passed its own version rather than having the HoR version as far as revenue and other
such bills are concerned. This practice of amendment by substitution has always been accepted.
The proposition of Tolentino concerns a mere matter of form. There is no showing that it would
make a significant difference if Senate were to adopt his over what has been done.
----
Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance - 249 SCRA 635

FACTS:
Petitioners (Tolentino, Kilosbayan, Inc., Philippine Airlines, Roco, and Chamber of Real Estate and
Builders Association) seek reconsideration of the Court’s previous ruling dismissing the petitions
filed for the declaration of unconstitutionality of R.A. No. 7716, the Expanded Value-Added Tax
Law. Petitioners contend that the R.A. did not “originate exclusively” in the HoR as required by
Article 6, Section 24 of the Constitution. The Senate allegedly did not pass it on second and third
readings, instead passing its own version. Petitioners contend that it should have amended the
House bill by striking out the text of the bill and substituting it with the text of its own bill, so as
to conform with the Constitution.
ISSUE:
W/N the R.A. is unconstitutional for having “originated” from the Senate, and not the HoR.
HELD:
Petition is unmeritorious. The enactment of the Senate bill has not been the first instance where
the Senate, in the exercise of its power to propose amendments to bills (required to originate in
the House), passed its own version. An amendment by substitution (striking out the text and
substituting it), as urged by petitioners, concerns a mere matter of form, and considering the
petitioner has not shown what substantial difference it would make if Senate applied such
substitution in the case, it cannot be applied to the case at bar. While the aforementioned
Constitutional provision states that bills must “originate exclusively in the HoR,” it also adds, “but
the Senate may propose or concur with amendments.” The Senate may then propose an entirely
new bill as a substitute measure. Petitioners erred in assuming the Senate version to be an
independent and distinct bill. Without the House bill, Senate could not have enacted the Senate
bill, as the latter was a mere amendment of the former. As such, it did not have to pass the
Senate on second and third readings.
Petitioners question the signing of the President on both bills, to support their contention that
such are separate and distinct. The President certified the bills separately only because the
certification had to be made of the version of the same revenue bill which AT THE MOMENT was
being considered.
Petitioners question the power of the Conference Committee to insert new provisions. The
jurisdiction of the conference committee is not limited to resolving differences between the Senate
and the House. It may propose an entirely new provision, given that such are germane to the
subject of the conference, and that the respective houses of Congress subsequently approve its
report.
Petitioner PAL contends that the amendment of its franchise by the withdrawal of its exemption
from VAT is not expressed in the title of the law, thereby violating the Constitution. The Court
believes that the title of the R.A. satisfies the Constitutional Requirement.
Petitioners claim that the R.A. violates their press freedom and religious liberty, having removed
them from the exemption to pay VAT. Suffice it to say that since the law granted the press a
privilege, the law could take back the privilege anytime without offense to the Constitution. By
granting exemptions, the State does not forever waive the exercise of its sovereign prerogative.
Lastly, petitioners contend that the R.A. violates due process, equal protection and contract
clauses and the rule on taxation. Petitioners fail to take into consideration the fact that the VAT
was already provided for in E.O. No. 273 long before the R.A. was enacted. The latter merely
EXPANDS the base of the tax. Equality and uniformity in taxation means that all taxable articles
or kinds of property of the same class be taxed at the same rate, the taxing power having
authority to make reasonable and natural classifications for purposes of taxation. It is enough
that the statute applies equally to all persons, forms and corporations placed in s similar situation.