Legislative Department, Contilaw

8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw

1/98

The Legislative

Department

Article VI, 1987 Constitution


2/98

Kinds of Legislative power:

original legislative power this power is possessedby the sovereign people.

derivative legislative power the power which hasbeen delegated by the sovereign people to legislativebodies i.e., Congress.

constituent legislative power the power to amend

or revise the Constitution.

ordinary legislative power the power to passordinary laws.


3/98

Section 1 Who can exercise

legislative power? Legislative power is vested in Congress.

Congress is consist of two houses:

- upper house or Senate- lower house or House of Representatives

The sovereign people has reserved legislative

power (initiative and referendum)


4/98

Initiative and referendum:

Sec. 32, Art. VI also recognized the power of thepeople called initiative and referendum which isfirst mentioned in Sec. 1, Art. VI.

This is the power to directly propose and enactlaws or approve or reject any act or law or partthereof passed by Congress or local legislativebody.

The mechanics in the exercise of this power isnot stated in details in the Constitution but isprovided by law Republic Act No. 6735


5/98

R.A. 6735 definition ofInitiative:

Initiative is the power of the people to propose amendmentsto the Constitution or to propose and enact legislationsthrough an election called for the purpose.

There are three (3) systems of initiative, namely:

1. Initiative on the Constitution which refers to a petitionproposing amendments to the Constitution;

2. Initiative on statutes which refers to a petition proposing

to enact a national legislation; and

3. Initiative on local legislation which refers to a petitionproposing to enact a regional, provincial, city, municipal, orbarangay law, resolution or ordinance.


6/98

How is local initiative conducted?(SBMA vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 125416, Sept. 26, 1996)

Initiative is resorted to (or initiated) by the people directlyeither because the law-making body fails or refuses to enactthe law, ordinance, resolution or act that they desire orbecause they want to amend or modify one already existing.Under Sec. 13 of R.A. 6735, the local legislative body is giventhe opportunity to enact the proposal. If its refuses/neglectsto do so within thirty (30) days from its presentation, theproponents through their duly-authorized and registeredrepresentatives may invoke their power of initiative, givingnotice thereof to the local legislative body concerned. Should

the proponents be able to collect the number of signedconformities within the period granted by said statute, theCommission on Elections shall then set a date for theinitiative (not referendum) at which the proposition shall besubmitted to the registered voters in the local government

unit concerned.


7/98

R.A. 6735 definition of Referendum:

Referendum is the power of the electorate to approveor reject a legislation through an election called for thepurpose.

Two classes of Referendum:1. Referendum on statutes which refers to a petition toapprove or reject an act or law, or part thereof, passedby Congress; and

2. Referendum on local law which refers to a petition toapprove or reject a law, resolution or ordinanceenacted by regional assemblies and local legislativebodies.


8/98

Garcia vs. ComelecG.R. No. 111230, Sept. 30, 1994

Issue:

Does an exercise of local initiative includes as subjecta resolution and not just an ordinance?

Ruling:

Sec. 32, Art. VI of the Constitution clearly includes notonly ordinances but resolutions as appropriate subjects

of a local initiative. The term act found thereinincludes resolution. Thus, Sec. 3 of R.A. 6735 expresslystated the term resolution in the definition ofinitiative on local legislation.


9/98

Santiago vs. ComelecG.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997

Facts: PIRMA (Peoples Initiative for Reforms, Modernizationand Action) filed a petition before the Comelec to amend thesome provisions of the Constitution relying on R.A. 6735.

Issue: Does R.A. 6735 provides sufficient mechanism for the

conduct of initiative on the Constitution?

Ruling: The Court ruled that the constitutional provisiongranting the people the power to directly amend theConstitution through initiative is not self-executory. Anenabling law is necessary to implement the exercise of thepeoples right. Examining the provisions of R.A. 6735, theCourt held that said law was incomplete, inadequate, orwanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative

on amendments to the Constitution is concerned.


10/98

Initiative and referendum, distinguished(SBMA vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 125416, Sept. 26, 1996)

Initiative is entirely the work of the electorate whilereferendum is begun and consented to by the law-makingbody.

Initiative is a process of law-making by the people themselves

without the participation and against the wishes of theirelected representatives, while referendum consists merely ofthe electorate approving or rejecting what has been drawn upor enacted by a legislative body.

Hence, the process and the voting in an initiative isunderstandably more complex than in a referendum whereexpectedly the voters will simply write either "Yes" or "No" inthe ballot.


11/98

Sanidad vs. ComelecG.R. No. 90878, January 29, 1990

Referendum is merely consultative in character.It is simply a means of assessing public reactionto the given issues submitted to the people for

their consideration.

If the issue submitted to the people is intendedto work more permanent changes in the

political structure like a proposal to amend orratify the Constitution, it is to be done througha plebiscite.


12/98

Non-delegability of legislative power:

Rule: Congress cannot delegate its legislative power.

The powers which Congress is prohibited from delegating

are those which are strictly, or inherently and exclusively,

legislative. Purely legislative power, which can never be

delegated, has been described as the authority to make a

complete law complete as to the time when it shall

take effect and as to whom it shall be applicable and to

determine the expediency of its enactment. (ABAKADA

vs. Eduardo Ermita, G.R. No. 168056, September 1, 2005)


13/98

Exceptions to the Non-delegability of legislative power:

1. delegation of tariff powers to the President (Sec. 28 (2),Art. VI);

2. delegation of emergency powers to the President (Sec.23(2), Art. VI);

3. delegations to administrative agencies Congress findsits necessary to entrust to administrative agencies theauthority to issue rules to carry out the general provisionsof a statute. (Power of subordinate legislation)

4. delegation to local legislative bodies Congress admitsthat local legislative bodies are more knowledgeable onmatters of purely local concern and are therefore in abetter position to enact legislations peculiarly affectingthem.


14/98

Two tests of valid delegation:

completeness test the law must be complete

in all its terms and conditions such that when

it reaches the delegate the only thing that he

will have to do is to enforce it.

sufficient standard test the law must have

adequate guidelines and limitations to map

out the boundaries of the delegates authorityand prevent the delegation from running riot.


15/98

ABAKADA vs. Eduardo ErmitaG.R. No. 168056, September 1, 2005

Facts: Sections 4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Sections 106, 107and 108, respectively, of the NIRC give the President the stand-byauthorityto raise the VAT rate from 10% to 12% when certain conditionsare met.

Issue: Does this constitute undue delegation of legislative power?

Ruling: It is not a delegation of legislative power. It is simply a delegation of

ascertainment of facts upon which enforcement and administration ofthe increase rate under the law is contingent. The legislature maydelegate to executive officers or bodies the power to determine certainfacts or conditions, or the happening of contingencies, on which theoperation of a statute is, by its terms, made to depend, but thelegislature must prescribe sufficient standards, policies or limitations on

their authority.While the power to tax cannot be delegated to executive agencies,

details as to the enforcement and administration of an exercise of suchpower may be left to them, including the power to determine theexistence of facts on which its operation depends.


16/98

Tio vs. Videogram Regulatory BoardG.R. No. 75697, June 18, 1987

The grant in Section 11 of the P.D. 1987 ofauthority to the BOARD to "solicit the directassistance of other agencies and units of the

government and deputize, for a fixed and limitedperiod, the heads or personnel of such agenciesand units to perform enforcement functions forthe Board" is not a delegation of the power to

legislate but merely a conferment of authority ordiscretion as to its execution, enforcement, andimplementation.


17/98

Case law on non-delegation of

legislative power:

Eastern Shipping Lines vs. POEA (166 SCRA 533)

- The provisions of the MC No. 2 of the POEA whichprescribes a standard contract to be adopted by both

foreign and domestic shipping companies in the hiringof Filipino seamen for overseas employment is upheldas a valid delegation of legislative power based on thestandard imposed by Executive Order No. 797 whichcreated the POEA.

- The standard provided by law is for POEA to protectthe rights of Filipino overseas workers to fair andequitable employment practices.


18/98

People vs. Dacuycuy (G.R. No. L-45127, May 5, 1989)

Facts: Sec. 32 of R. A. No. 4670 (Magna Carta for Public School Teachers)provides:

"Sec. 32. Penal Provision. - A person who shall wilfully interfere with, restrainorcoerce any teacher in theexercise of his rights guaranteed by this Act or whoshall in any other mannercommit any act to defeat any of the provisions of this

Act shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not less than one hundredpesos nor more than one thousand pesos, or by imprisonment, in the discretion

of thecourt.

Issue: Is this a valid delegation of legislative power?

Ruling: It is not for the courts to fix the term of imprisonment where nopoints of reference have been provided by the legislature. What validdelegation presupposes and sanctions is an exercise of discretion tofix the length of service of a term of imprisonment which must beencompassed within specific or designated limits provided by law, theabsence of which will constitute such exercise as an unduedelegation. Thus, the penalty of imprisonment should be, as it hereby,declared unconstitutional.


19/98

PHILCOMSAT vs. Alcuaz, NTCG.R. No. 84818, Dec. 18, 1989

Delegation of legislative power may be sustained only upon theground that some standard for its exercise is provided and thatthe legislature in making the delegation has prescribed themanner of the exercise of the delegated power. Therefore,when the administrative agency concerned, respondent NTC in

this case, establishes a rate, its act must both be non-confiscatory and must have been established in the mannerprescribed by the legislature; otherwise, in the absence of afixed standard, the delegation of power becomesunconstitutional. In case of a delegation of the rate-fixing

power, the only standard which the legislature is required toprescribe for the guidance of the administrative authority is thatthe rate be reasonable and just. However, it has been held thateven in the absence of an express requirement as toreasonableness, this standard may be implied.


20/98

Ynot vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtG.R. No. 74457, March 20, 1987

Facts: Under EO 626-A, it is authorized that the seized property shall "be distributed to

charitable institutions and other similar institutions as the Chairman of theNational Meat Inspection Commission may see fit, in the case of carabeef, and to

deserving farmers through dispersal as the Director of Animal Industry may see fit,

in the case of carabaos.

Issue: Is this valid delegation of legislative power?

Ruling: The phrase "may see fit" is an extremely generous and dangerous condition. It

is laden with perilous opportunities for partiality and abuse, and even corruption.

One searches in vain for the usual standard and the reasonable guidelines, or

better still, the limitations that the said officers must observe when they make

their distribution. There is none. Their options are apparently boundless. Who

shall be the fortunate beneficiaries of their generosity and by what criteria shall

they be chosen? Only the officers named can supply the answer, they and they

alone may choose the grantee as they see fit, and in their own exclusive discretion.

Definitely, there is here a "roving commission," a wide and sweeping authority that

is not "canalized within banks that keep it from overflowing," in short, a clearly

profligate and therefore invalid delegation of legislative powers.


21/98

Lokin vs. ComelecG.R. No.179431-32, June 22, 2010

To be valid, therefore, the administrative IRRs must comply with thefollowing requisites to be valid:

1. Its promulgation must be authorized by the Legislature;

2. It must be within the scope of the authority given by the Legislature;

3. It must be promulgated in accordance with the prescribed procedure;and

4. It must be reasonable

IRRs must not be ultra vires as to be issued beyond the limits of the

authority conferred.It is basic that an administrative agency cannotamend an act of Congress, for administrative IRRs are solely intended to

carry out, not to supplant or to modify, the law. The administrative

agency issuing the IRRs may not enlarge, alter, or restrict the provisions

of the law it administers and enforces, and cannot engraft additional

non-contradictory requirements not contemplated by the Legislature.


22/98

Magtajas vs. Pryce PropertiesG.R. No. 111097, July 20, 1994

Facts: The Sangguniang Panglungsod of Cagayan de Oro City enacted an ordinance

that prohibits the entry of casino in the city. However, PD 1869, the charter ofPAGCOR, allows PAGCOR to operate casinos within the territorial jurisdiction of

the Philippines.

Issue: Is the city ordinance of the Cagayan de Oro valid?

Ruling: No. To be valid an ordinance must conform to the following requirements:

1. it must not contravene the Constitution or any statute;

2. it must not be unfair or oppressive;

3. it must not be partial or discriminatory;

4. it must not prohibit but may regulate trade;

5. it must be general and consistent with public policy;

6. it must not be unreasonable.

Municipal governments are only agents of the national government. Local

councils exercise only delegated legislative powers conferred only them by

Congress as the national lawmaking body. The delegate cannot be superior to

the principal. The ordinance violate PD 1869 which has the character and force

of a law, thus, the ordinance is invalid.


23/98

Senate: (Sections 2,3 & 4, Art. VI)

consisting of 24 senators who are elected atlarge;

the term of office of senators is 6 years;

no senator shall serve for more than two

consecutive terms; qualifications of the office:

1. citizenship natural born Filipino

2. age at least 35 years of age

3. literacy able to read and write4. registered voter

5. residency at least two years immediately before theday of election


24/98

Social Justice Society vs.DDB & PDEAG.R. No.157870, November 3, 2008

Facts: On December 23, 2003, the Comelec issued Resolution No. 6486,requiring the mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office inconnection with the May 10, 2004 synchronized national and localelections. The said resolution was issued in order to implementSection 36 (g) of Republic Act No. 9165 provides that All candidatesfor public office x x x both in the national or local government shallundergo a mandatory drug test.

Issue: Is the said provision of R.A. 9165 constitutional?

Ruling: Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 should be, as it is hereby declared as,unconstitutional. It is basic that if a law or an administrative rule

violates the Constitution, that issuance is null and void and has noeffect. The Constitution is the basic law to which all laws mustconform; no act shall be valid if it conflicts with the Constitution.Congress cannot require a candidate for senator to meet suchadditional qualification not stated in Sec. 3, Art. VI and the COMELECis also without such power.


25/98

House of Representatives:

Two kinds of membership in the House: District representatives those representing the different

legislative districts.Qualifications:

1. citizenship natural born Filipino

2. age at least 25 years old3. literacy able to read and write

4. registered voter in the district

5. residency at least one year immediately before the election

Party-list representatives those representing the marginalizedand underrepresented sectors.

Qualifications:

Same as above-mentioned and he must be a bona fide member of theorganization which he seeks to represent. (Sec. 9, R.A. 7941)


26/98

Four parameters of party-list election:

1. Twenty percent allocation the combined number of allparty-list congressmen shall not exceed twenty percent ofthe total membership of the House including those electedunder the party-list.

2. Two percent threshold only those parties garnering aminimum of two percent of the total valid votes cast for theparty-list system are qualified to have a seat in the House.

3. Three-seat limit each qualified party, regardless of thenumber of votes it obtained, is entitled to a maximum of

three seats.

4. Proportional representation the additional seats which aqualified party is entitled to shall be computed inproportion to the total number of votes.


27/98

Ang Bagong Bayani vs. ComelecG.R. No. 147589, June 26, 2001

only those Filipinos who are marginalized andunderrepresented will become members of Congressunder the party-list system.

Sec. 5 of R.A. 7941 enumerates the marginalized andunderrepresented sectors: labor, peasant, fisherfolk,

urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly,handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseasworkers, and professionals.

the enumeration in Sec. 5 is not exclusive, themarginalized and underrepresented in our midst arethe majority who wallow in poverty, destitution andinfirmity.


28/98

Grounds for disqualification of a party:

1. It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or

association organized for religious purposes;

2. It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal;

3. It is a foreign party or organization;

4. It is receiving support from any foreign organization;

5. That the party must not be adjunct of, or a projectorganized or an entity funded or assisted by thegovernment;

6. That the party must really be representing any of themarginalized and underrepresented sector;

7. The nominees of the party must also belong to themarginalized and underrepresented sector whom it/hewish to represent.


29/98

How will the party-list seats be allocated?Sections 11 &12 of R.A. 7941

Section 11. Number of Party-List Representatives. x x x

In determining the allocation of seats for the second vote, the followingprocedure shall be observed:

(a) The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked from thehighest to the lowest based on the number of votes they garnered duringthe elections.

(b) The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least twopercent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitledto one seat each: Provided, That those garnering more than two percent(2%) of the votes shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to theirtotal number of votes: Provided, finally, That each party, organization, orcoalition shall be entitled to not more than three (3) seats.

Section 12. Procedure in Allocating Seats for Party-List Representatives.

The COMELEC shall tally all the votes for the parties, organizations, orcoalitions on a nationwide basis, rank them according to the number ofvotes received and allocate party-list representatives proportionatelyaccording to the percentage of votes obtained by each party, organization,or coalition as against the total nationwide votes cast for the party-list

system.


30/98

BANAT vs. ComelecG.R. No. 179271, April 21, 2009

xxx in computing the allocation ofadditional seats, the continuedoperation of the two percent threshold for the distribution of theadditional seats as found in the second clause of Section 11(b) of R.A.No. 7941 is unconstitutional. This Court finds that the two percentthreshold makes it mathematically impossible to achieve the maximumnumber of available party list seats when the number of available party

list seats exceeds 50. The continued operation of the two percentthreshold in the distribution of the additional seats frustrates theattainment of the permissive ceiling that 20% of the members of theHouse of Representatives shall consist of party-list representatives. Wetherefore strike down the two percent threshold only in relation to thedistribution of the additional seats as found in the second clause ofSection 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941. The two percent threshold presents anunwarranted obstacle to the full implementation ofSection 5(2), ArticleVI of the Constitution and prevents the attainment of the broadestpossible representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the Houseof Representatives.


31/98

What does total votes cast mean?

Sec. 10, R.A. 7941 provides that the votes cast for aparty, a sectoral organization or a coalition not entitledto be voted for shall not be counted.

Thus, the votes garnered by those disqualified party-list

groups will be subtracted from the total votes cast underthe party-list system.

This means that the two percent threshold can be moreeasily attained by the other qualified parties, thusincreasing and broadening the number ofrepresentatives from these sectors.

(Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs. Comelec

G.R. No. 147589, June 25, 2003)


32/98

BA-RA 7941 vs. ComelecG.R. No. 177271, May 4, 2007

Facts: Loreta Ann Rosales requested the Comelec to reveal the names ofnominees of some party-list groups. However, the Comelec refused.

Issue: Can the Comelec be compelled to reveal the names of nominees?

Ruling: Yes. The right to information and its companion right of access toofficial records are not absolute. The peoples right to know is limited to

matters of publicconcern and is further subject to such limitation asmay be provided by law. Similarly, the policy of full disclosure isconfined to transactions involving public interestand is subject toreasonable conditions prescribed by law. Too, there is also the need ofpreserving a measure of confidentiality on some matters, such asmilitary, trade, banking and diplomatic secrets or those affecting

national security. As may be noted, no national security or like concernsis involved in the disclosure of the names of the nominees of the party-list groups in question. Doubtless, the Comelec committed grave abuseof discretion in refusing the legitimate demands of the petitioners for alist of the nominees of the party-list groups subject of their respectivepetitions. Mandamus, therefore, lies.


33/98

Lokin vs. ComelecG.R. No.179431-32, June 22, 2010

Facts: CIBAC party submitted the names of its nominees with the Comelec and

Lokin is the second nominee. After the Comelec had published the names ofnominees of all the party-list groups, CIBAC withdrew the names of three ofits nominees including Lokin which the Comelec had favorably acted upon.

Issue: Is the act of CIBAC in withdrawing the names of its nominees which wasapproved by the Comelec valid and legal?

Ruling: No. The provisions ofSec. 8 of RA 7941 is daylight clear which readsNo change of names or alteration of the order of nominees shall be allowedafter the same shall have been submitted to the COMELEC except in caseswhere the nominee dies, or withdraws in writing his nomination, becomesincapacitated in which the name of the substitute nominee shall be placedlast in the list.

Allowing the party-list organization to change its nominees throughwithdrawal of their nominations, or to alter the order of the nominationsafter the submission of the list of nominees circumvents the voters demandfor transparency. The lawmakers exclusion of such arbitrary withdrawal haseliminated the possibility of such circumvention.


34/98

District representatives(Apportionment of legislative districts)

The territories (towns) comprising each

legislative district must be contiguous,

compact and adjacent. No gerrymandering

is allowed.

Each province irrespective of the population is

entitled to one representative.

Each city with a population of at least 250,000

is entitled to at least one representative.


35/98

Residence qualification:

Rationale:

The manifest intent of the law in fixing a

residence qualification is to exclude a stranger

or newcomer, unacquainted with the

conditions and needs of a community and not

identified with the latter, from an elective

office to serve that community...(Gallego vs. Vera, G.R. No. L-48641, Nov. 24, 1941)


36/98

Residence means domicile:

The term residence is synonymous with domicile.

Domicile of origin has two elements:

1. fact of residing or physical presence, and

2. intention to remain (animus manendi) or

whenever absent, there is intention to return(animus revertendi)

In order to acquire a new domicile (domicile of choice) ,three (3) elements must concur:

1. residence or bodily presence in a new locality;2. an intention to remain there (animus manendi), and

3. an intention to abandon the old domicile (animusnon revertendi)


37/98

Romualdez-Marcos vs. Comelec(G.R. No. 119976, Sept. 18, 1995)

Facts: Imelda R. Marcos was born and raised in Tacloban,Leyte. In 1952, she went to Manila. In 1954, she marriedFerdinand Marcos and they lived in San Juan, M.M. WhenFerdinand became President, they lived in MalacanangPalace, part ofSan Miguel, Manila. In 1986, they were

exiled in Hawaii. In 1995, she filed her certificate ofcandidacy for Congress in First district of Leyte.

Issue: Is Imelda qualified to run for Congress in Leyte?

Ruling: Yes, she possesses the residence qualification.

Although Imelda held various residences for differentpurposes during the past four decades, none of thesepurposes unequivocally point to an intention to abandonher domicile of origin in Tacloban, Leyte.


38/98

Aquino vs. Comelec(G.R. No. 120265, Sept. 18, 1995)

Facts: Butz Aquino, after his stint in the Senate, decided torun for Congress in Makati. He resided in Makati byrenting a condo unit. But Butz Aquino was born inConcepcion, Tarlac and this is his domicile of origin while

he was in theSenate.

In 1995, he filed his certificate ofcandidacy for Congress in the 2nd district ofMakati.

Issue: Is Butz qualified to representMakati in Congress?

Ruling: No, Aquino is not considered a resident ofMakati.

There is no proof that he has abandon his domicile oforigin which is Tarlac. He has no intention to establish anew domicile in Makati. His act of just leasing a condo unitdoes not engender the kind of permanency required toprove abandonment of ones original domicile.


39/98

Domino vs. Comelec(G.R. No. 134015, July 19, 1999)

Facts: Juan Domino resides in Quezon City but he also rented ahouse in Alabel Sarangani. He registered as a voter in QuezonCity. However, the MeTC of Quezon City in an exclusionproceedings declared that Domino is not a resident of QuezonCity but he is a resident ofSarangani. Domino ran for Congressin Sarangani.

Issue: Is he qualified to run for Congress in Sarangani?

Ruling: No, he is not a resident ofSarangani but he is a resident ofQuezon City. The determination of the MeTC of Quezon City inthe exclusion proceedings as to the right of Domino to be

included in the list of voters does not preclude the Comelec indetermining Dominos qualification as a candidate, to pass uponthe issue of compliance with the residency requirement. Inshort, the findings of the MeTC is not conclusive or binding onthe Comelec.


40/98

Citizenship requirement:

must be a natural born Filipino

- Sec. 2, Art. IV: Natural-born citizens are those

who are citizens of the Philippines from birthwithout having to perform any act to acquire orperfect their citizenship. Those who electPhilippine citizenship in accordance with

paragraph 3 hereof shall be deemed naturalborn citizens.


41/98

Who are citizens under the 1935 Constitution?

Sec. 1, Art.

IV of the 1935 Constitution provides:

Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:

(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at thetime of the adoption of this Constitution;

(2) Those born in the Philippines Islands of foreign parentswho, before adoption of this Constitution, had beenelected to public office in the Philippine Islands;

(3) Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines;

(4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippinesand, upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippinecitizenship;

(5) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.


42/98


Sec. 1, Art. III of the 1973 Constitution provides:Section 1. The following are citizens of thePhilippines:

(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippine at the

time of the adoption of this Constitution;(2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens ofthe Philippines;

(3) Those who elect Philippine citizenship pursuantto the provisions of the Constitution of nineteenhundred thirty five;

(4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with

law.


43/98


Sec. 1, Art. IV of the 1987 Constitution provides:Section 1. The following are citizens of thePhilippines:

(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippine at the

time of the adoption of this Constitution;(2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens ofthe Philippines;

(3) Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipinomothers, who elect Philippine citizenship uponreaching the age of majority; and

(4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with

law.


44/98

Jus sanguinis principle:

This principle ofjus sanguinis is citizenship by

blood, meaning a child follows the citizenship of

his parents regardless of the place of his birth.

This was first adopted by the 1935 Constitution.


45/98

Co vs. HRETG.R. No. 92191-92, July 30, 1991

Facts: Jose Ong, Jr. was born in 1948 in Samar of a Chinesefather and a Filipina mother. When he was 9 years old, hisfather had been naturalized. In 1987, he ran for Congressin the 2nd district of Northern Samar.

Issue: Is he a natural-born Filipino and thus, qualified to runfor Congress?

Ruling: Yes. Since his mother is a Filipino, he would beconsidered a natural born if he elected Philippinecitizenship upon reaching the age of majority. However,since his father became a naturalized Filipino when he wasstill 9 years old, the effect of this is that it was the lawitself that had already elected Philippine citizenship forhim. Besides, his exercise of his right to suffrage constitutea positive act of election of Philippine citizenship.


46/98

Bengzon vs. CruzG.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001

Facts: Teodoro Cruz was born in Tarlac in 1960 of Filipinoparents. In 1985, he was enlisted in the USMarine andthus, he lost his Philippine citizenship. In 1994, hereacquired his Philippine citizenship through repatriation

under R.A. 2630. In 1998, he ran for Congress inPangasinan and won against his rival Bengzon.

Issue: Is he a natural born Filipino?

Ruling: Yes. His repatriation results in the recovery of hisoriginal nationality. Cruz is deemed to have recovered hisoriginal status as a natural born citizen, a status which heacquired at birth as the son of Filipino parents.


47/98

HoR term of office:

Members of the House (district and party-list)

have a term of three years

No member of the House shall serve for more

than three consecutive terms


48/98

vacancy in the Senate or House:

Sec. 9, Art. VI provides that in case of vacancyin the Senate or in the House, a special

election may be called to fill such vacancy

But the Senator or member of the House thus

elected shall serve only for the unexpired

term.

l l


49/98

Tolentino vs. ComelecG.R. No. 148334, January 21, 2004

Facts: After PGMA succeeded the presidency in January, 2001, she

nominated Sen. Teofisto Guingona as Vice-President. WhenGuingona ultimately assumed the vice-presidency, it created a

vacancy in the Senate. In the May, 2001 elections, the Comelec

proclaimed Gringo Honasan, the 13th placer in the senatorial race as

the one to serve the unexpired term ofSen. Guingona.

Issue: Was there a valid special election for the Senate vacant seat?

Ruling: The calling of an election, that is, the giving of notice of the time

and place of its occurrence is indispensable to the elections validity.

S

ec. 2, R.A. 6645 provides that in case of vacancy in theS

enate, thespecial election to fill such vacancy shall be held simultaneously with

the next succeeding election. Thus, the law charges the voters with

knowledge of this statutory notice and the Comelecs failure to give

the additional notice did not negate the calling of such special

election, much less invalidate it.

Di Mi


50/98

Dimaporo vs. MitraG.R. No. 96859, Oct 15, 1991

Facts: Dimaporo was elected representative of the 2nd district of Lanao del

Sur in the 1987 elections. He then took his oath and discharges his dutiesas a member of Congress. However, on January 15, 1990, he ran for the

position of Governor for the ARMM. However, he lost and when he went

back to Congress to resume his duties, Speaker Mitra refused to accept

him since his name has been dropped from the roll of members.

Issue: Does the act of Dimaporo in filing his certificate of candidacy forgovernor created a vacancy of his seat in Congress?

Ruling: Yes. Sec. 67, Art. IX ofB.P. Blg. 881 provides: Any elective official

whether national or local running for any office other than the one which

he is holding in a permanent capacity, except the President and Vice-

President shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon thefiling of his certificate of candidacy. The mere fact of filing of a

certificate should be considered the overt act of abandoning or

relinquishing his mandate to the people and that he should therefore

resign if he wants to seek another position which he feels he could be of

better service.


51/98

Farinas vs. Executive SecretaryG.R. No. 147387, Dec. 10, 2003

Facts:S

ec. 14 of RA 9006 expressly repealsS

ec. 67 ofB

P 881. Thepetitioners questioned the constitutionality of RA 9006. They

argued that Sec. 67 ofBP 881 is a good law since it is based on the

principle of accountability of public officers. Thus, the repeal of this

law is a bad policy.

Issue: Is RA 9006, the repealing law unconstitutional?

Ruling: No. Government policy is within the exclusive dominion of the

political branches of the government. It is not for this Court to look

into the wisdom or propriety of legislative determination. Indeed,

whether an enactment is wise or unwise, whether it is based onsound economic theory, whether it is the best means to achieve

the desired results, whether, in short, the legislative discretion

within its prescribed limits should be exercised in a particular

manner are matters for the judgment of the legislature.


52/98

Parliamentary immunities:(Section 11, Article VI)

1. Immunity from arrest any member of Congress (Senatoror member of the House) cannot be arrested in alloffenses punishable by not more than six years ofimprisonment while Congress is in session.

2. Privilege of speech and debate No member of Congresscan be questioned nor be held liable for any speech orutterance he made while in session in Congress or in anycommittee thereof.

Purpose: To make the legislator unimpeded in theperformance of his duties and protect him againstharassment which will keep him away from legislativesessions


53/98

People vs. JalosjosG.R. No. 132875-76, February 3, 2000

Facts: Romeo Jalosjos, a member of the House, was confinedat the national penitentiary upon his conviction of rapeand acts of lasciviousness. While his case is on appeal, heasked that he be allowed to attend sessions in Congressand perform his duties as congressman.

Issue: Can his immunity from arrest justify his release?

Ruling: No. A congressman convicted under Title 11 of theRPC could not claim parliamentary immunity from arrest.One rationale behind confinement, whether pending

appeal or after final conviction is public self-defense.Society must protect itself. It also serves as an exampleand warning to others. The performance of legitimate andeven essential duties by public officers has never been anexcuse to free a person validly from prison.


54/98

Jimenez vs. CabangbangG.R. No. L-15905, August 3, 1966

Facts: Bartolome Cabangbang, a congressman from Boholcaused the publication of an open letter to the Presidentof the Philippines in several newspapers. The persons whoclaimed to have been maligned by the letter filed anaction for damages against the congressman.

Issue: Whether or not the publication is privileged?

Ruling: The publication of such communication is notprivileged. The phrase speech or debate therein refers toutterances made by congressmen in the performance of

their official functions, such as speeches delivered,statements made, or votes cast in the halls of Congress,while the same is in session. In causing the communicationto be published, the congressman was not performing hisofficial duty.


55/98


56/98

Osmena vs. PendatunG.R. No. L-17144, Oct. 28, 1960

Facts: Congressman Sergio Osmena, Jr. delivered a privilegedspeech in the House wherein he made serious accusationsagainst President Carlos P. Garcia. The majority members of theHouse loyal to the President questioned his speech. He wasordered to substantiate his charges. When he refused, he wasdisciplined by suspending him for 15 months. Osmena went tothe Supreme Court and questioned the legality of hissuspension.

Issue: Would his suspension violate his parliamentary immunity?

Ruling: No. The parliamentary immunity guarantees the legislator

complete freedom of expression without fear of being maderesponsible in criminal and civil actions before the courts or anyother forum outside of the congressional hall. But it does notprotect him from responsibility before the legislative body itselfwhenever his words and conduct are considered by the latter

disorderly or unbecoming a member thereof.


57/98

Duty on conflict of interest:Sec. 12, Art. VI

All members of Congress shall, upon

assumption of office, make full disclosure of

their financial and business interests.

They shall notify the House concerned of a

potential conflict of interest that may arise

from the filing of a proposed legislation of

which they are authors.


58/98

Incompatible office:First sentence, Sec. 13, Art. VI

No Senator or Member of the House of Representativesmay hold any other office oremployment in the

Government, or any subdivision, agency, orinstrumentality thereof, including government-owned orcontroll

edcorporations or th

eir subsidiari

es, during histerm without forfeiting his seat.

- The prohibition from holding this office is not absolute,what is not allowed is simultaneous holding of that office

and the seat in Congress.

- When the legislator opted to hold an incompatible office,his seat in Congress will automatically be forfeited.


59/98

Adaza vs. Pacana135 SCRA 431

Facts: Adaza, the governor ofMisamis Oriental and Pacana, thevice-governor, both ran for the Batasang Pambansa election.Adaza won while Pacana lost. After Adaza took his oath asmember of the Batasang Pambansa, Pacana assumed the

governorship. Adaza objected, saying that no vacancy is createdin the position of governor since he could concurrently serve asgovernor and member of the Batasan.

Issue: Can Adaza simultaneously hold these two positions?

Ruling: No. When Adaza took his oath as member of the BatasangPambansa, he automatically forfeited the govenorship ofMisamis Oriental. The office of the governor is an incompatibleoffice to the position of being a member of the legislature.

Liban vs Gordon


60/98

Liban vs. GordonG.R. No. 175352, July 15, 2009

Facts: Senator Richard Gordon, during his term as Senator, was elected as

chairman of the board of the Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC).

Issue: Did Gordon forfeit his Senate seat upon his acceptance to the PNRCChairmanship post?

Ruling: No. PNRC is a private organization merely performing publicfunctions and that the PNRC Chairman is not a government official oremployee. Not being a government office, the PNRC Chairmanship maybe held by any individual, including a Senator or Member of the Houseof Congress. PNRC is autonomous, neutral and independent of thePhilippine Government. It is a voluntary organization that does not havegovernment assets and does not receive any appropriation from thePhilippine Congress. The PNRC is not a part of any of the government

branches. PNRC is neither owned nor controlled by the Government.The PNRC Charter provides that The President has no control in thedecisions nor actions of the PNRC Chairman. The lack of Presidentialsupervision proves that the PNRC Chairman is not an official oremployee of the Executive Branch or any of the remaining branches ofthe government, but rather, a private official.


61/98

Forbidden Offices:Second sentence, Sec. 13, Art. VI

Neither shall he be appointed to any office which

may have been created or theemoluments

thereof increased during the term for which he

was elected.- the prohibition is absolute since even if a

member of Congress is willing to forfeit his seat,he cannot be appointed to this kind of office.

- the prohibition exist only during the term of themember of Congress when the said office iscreated or its emoluments were increased.

h b


62/98

Prohibitions:Sec. 14, Art. VI

Not to personally as counsel before any court ofjustice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other administrative bodies;

Not to, directly or indirectly, be interested financially

in any contract with, or in any franchise or specialprivilege granted by the Government, or anysubdivision, agency or instrumentality thereofincluding GOCCs or its subsidiary;

Not to intervene in any matter before any office ofthe Government for his pecuniary benefit or wherehe may be called upon to act on account of hisoffice.

P t D G J


63/98

Puyat vs. De Guzman, Jr.113 SCRA 31 (1982)

Facts: Assemblyman Estanislao Fernandez appeared ascounsel of a party in a case before the SEC. Puyat, theopposing party, objected to the appearance ofAssemblyman Fernandez. However, Fernandez purchasedten shares of the company of his client and proceeded tointervene in the case.

Issue: Whether or not Fernandez violated the constitutionalprohibition not to appear as counsel?

Ruling: Yes, Fernandez is in effect appearing as counsel,albeit indirectly, before an administrative body incontravention of the constitutional provision. His act ofacquiring shares of the company was done after the factand his intervention was an afterthought to enable him toappear actively in the proceedings in some other capacity.


64/98

Legislative sessions:Sec. 15, Art. VI

The two houses of Congress hold their session on separate venues.- Senate building is in Pasay City

- Batasan complex is in Quezon City

Each house will convene every year on the 4th Monday of July andsince then it shall continue to be in session until it will adjourned amonth before the opening of its next regular session.

However, the President may call a special session any time.

Congress itself will hold special session on its own initiativewithout the Presidents call when necessary such as in thefollowing cases:- to canvass presidential elections (Sec. 4, Art. VII)

- to call a special election when both the Presidency and the Vice-Presidency are vacated (Sec. 10, Art. VII)

- to initiate impeachment case


65/98

Officers of both houses:Sec. 16 (1), Art. VI

Senate is headed by the Senate President House of Representatives is headed by its Speaker

The Senate President and the Speaker do not have afixed term and they may be replaced anytime at the

pleasure of the majority of all the members of eachhouse

The Senate will elect also a Senate Presidentprotempore and the HoR its Speakerpro tempore

Other officers in the Senate and in the HoR are:1. Majority Floor Leader;

2. Minority Floor Leader and

3. Chairmen of different committees


66/98

Quorum requirement:Sec. 16 (2), Art. VI

A majority of all members of each house shall

constitute a quorum to do business.

A smaller number may adjourn from day today and may compel the attendance of absent

members in such manner, and under such

penalties, as such house may provide.

A li C


67/98

Avelino vs. CuencoG.R. No. L-2821, March 4, 1949

Facts: On Feb. 21, 1949, the Senate had its session with SenatePresident Avelino presiding. During the session, Avelino ignoredSenator Taada who was prepared to deliver his speech whichwould enumerate charges against him. Avelino finally adjournedthe session and walked out with his followers. However, the 12senators who were left behind continued the session and

passed a resolution which declared the position of the SenatePresident vacant and elected Senator Cuenco as Acting SenatePresident.

Issue: Is the act of the remaining 12 senators in continuing withthe session and in electing an acting Senate President valid?

Ruling: The constitutional grant to the Senate of the power to electits own president should not be interfered with nor taken overby the judiciary. The continuation of the session was valid sincethe twelve senators constitute a quorum of 23 senators since

one senator was outside the country at that time.

Santiago vs Guingona


68/98

Santiago vs. GuingonaG.R. No. 134577, November 18, 1998

Facts: During the Senates first regular session on July 27, 1998, by a vote of20 to 2, Senator Fernan was elected Senate President as against SenatorTatad. Tatad and Senator Santiago, the one who voted for him insistedthat they would constitute the minority and those who voted for Fernanwould constitute the majority. Thus, the election ofSenator Guingona asthe minority floor leader is illegal since he did not belong to the minority.

Issue: Who constitute the majority? Who constitute the minority?Ruling: While the Constitution mandates that the Senate President must be

elected by a number constituting more than one-half of all membersthereof, it does not provide that the members who will not vote for himshall ipso facto constitute the minority, who could thereby elect theminority leader. Verily, no law or regulation states that the defeated

candidate shall automatically become the minority leader. The majorityin either house of Congress refers to the political party which has themost numbers of lawmakers while the minority normally referred to aparty with a lesser number of members. In a government with multi-party system such as in the Philippines, there could be several minorityparties, one of which has to be identified as dominant minority party.

P t l t l f it


69/98

Power to promulgate rules of its

proceedings (Sec. 16 [3], Art. VI):

one of the most basic powers of each house of

the legislature is to formulate and implement its

own rules of proceedings

as a rule, the interpretation and the

enforcement of these rules of proceedings lies

within the exclusive discretion of each house

Thus, unless such rules violate fundamental orindividual rights, they may not be inquired into

by the courts


70/98

P t di i li b


71/98

Power to discipline members:Sec. 16 (3), Art. VI

Ground: disorderly behavior the interpretation of this phrasedisorderly behavior is a prerogative of Congress and cannotbe judicially reviewed.

Required vote: majority vote of all members for censure orreprimand and 2/3 vote of all members for suspension or

expulsion. Suspension shall not exceed 60 days.Kinds of punishment: Punishment by way of reprimand or fine

vindicates the outraged dignity of the House without deprivingthe constituency of representation; expulsion, whenpermissible, likewise vindicates the honor of the legislative

body while giving to the constituency an opportunity to electanew; but suspension deprives the electoral district ofrepresentation without that district being afforded any meansby which to fill the vacancy. By suspension, the seat remainsfilled, but the occupant is silenced.


72/98

Journals and Records of proceedings:Sec. 16 (4), Art. VI

Journal is only a resume of minutes of what

transpired during a legislative session.

Record is the word-for-word transcript of theproceedings taken during the session.

United States vs Pons


73/98

United States vs. Pons34 Phil. 729 (1916)

Facts: Pons was charged for having violated Act No. 2381.However, his counsel argued that the law is null and void forthe same was passed beyond the last day of special session ofthe Philippine Legislature in 1914. The legislature can validlyhold session only until midnight of February 28, 1914 however,

the law was approved only on the next day March 1, 1914.Issue: How will the true date of adjournment of the legislature be

proved?

Ruling: The journal clearly showed that the legislature adjournedat midnight of February 28, 1914. The journals are notambiguous or contradictory as to the actual date ofadjournment. Thus, the court will take judicial notice of thelegislative journals . The contains of the journals are conclusiveevidence as to the date of adjournment.


74/98

Enrolled bill doctrine:

In the case of acts of the Philippine legislature,when there is in existence a copy signed by thepresiding officers and secretaries of said bodies, itshall be conclusive proof of the provisions of such

acts and the due enactment thereof.

This doctrine is based on the respect due to co-equal and independent departments which

requires the judicial department to accept ashaving passed by Congress all bills authenticatedin the manner stated.

Casco Philippine Chemical Co vs Gimenez


75/98

Casco Philippine Chemical Co. vs. Gimenez7 SCRA 347 (1963)

Facts: Sec. 2 of RA 2609 provides that the product urea formaldehyde

is exempted from payment of margin fee. The petitioner companyinsisted that the term urea formaldehyde in the law should be

construed as urea and formaldehyde citing a statement made on

the Senate floor, thus, Congress intended to also exempt urea and

formaldehyde from the payment of margin fee.

Issue: Whether or not urea and formaldehyde are exempt?

Ruling: It is well settled that the enrolled bill which uses the term urea

formaldehydeis conclusive upon the courts as regards the tenor of

the measure passed by Congress and approved by the President. If

there has been any mistake in the printing of the bill before it was

certified by the officer of Congress and approved by the President

on which the court cannot speculate without jeopardizing the

principle of separation of powers, the remedy is by amendment or

curative legislation, not by judicial decree.


76/98

Journal entry rule:

The court may consult the recitals of the journalsof the legislature in order to verify mattersrelating to the passage of a bill such as the realtext of a bill as approved by both houses orwhether the required number of votes for theapproval of the bill was really obtained.

The court respect the entries of legislative

journals these being acts of the Government andthus, court will not inquire into the veracity of the

journals.

Astorga vs Villegas


77/98

Astorga vs. Villegas56 SCRA 714 (1974)

Facts: House Bill No. 9266 was passed by Congress and was signed into law,

thus, it became R.A. 4065. However, Senator Tolentino issued a pressstatement that the enrolled copy of House Bill 9266 which was signed bythe President was a wrong version of the bill actually passed by theSenate because it did not embody the amendments introduced by himand approved on the Senate floor. The Senate President confirmedTolentinos statement and he withdrew his signature therein. The

President of the Philippines also withdrew his signature on the bill.Issue: Which will be the basis in determining whether the bill was validly

passed by Congress, the enrolled bill or the entries of the journals?

Ruling: Since the signature of the Senate President was withdrawn, theattestation is now lacking and there is practically no enrolled bill to speak

of. Thus, the court will have to go to the journals. The Senate journalreveals that substantial and lengthy amendments were introduced on thefloor and approved by the Senate but were not incorporated into theprinted text sent to the President and signed by him. Thus, it is clear thatthe bill was not validly enacted.


78/98

Electoral Tribunals:Sec. 17, Art. VI

Each house will have an Electoral Tribunal. This is aconstitutionally-created body

The Electoral Tribunals shall be the sole judge of allcontests relating to the election, returns, and

qualifications of their respective members.

Composition: total of 9 members, 3 SC justices and 6senators or representatives chosen on the basis ofproportional representation.

The Electoral Tribunals have implied powers topromulgate their own rules of procedure necessary in theproper exercise of their express powers. (Angrara vs.Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 134)

Abbas vs Senate


79/98

Abbas vs. Senate166 SCRA 651 (1988)

Facts: During the May 11, 1987 elections, some losing senatorial candidates

filed an election protest before the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) against22 proclaimed senators. Since the 6 senator-members of the SET wererespondents, thus, the petitioners moved to disqualify them all and theyproposed that the rules of procedure of the SET be amended to allowthat only the 3 justices-members will validly decide the case.

Issue: Would this proposed amendment be legally allowed?

Ruling: No. The Constitution ordains the composition of the ElectoralTribunal to be staffed by both justices of the Supreme Court andmembers of the Senate. It intended that both the judicial andlegislative components commonly share the duty and authority ofdeciding all contests relating to election, returns and qualifications of

Senators. Said intent is even more clearly signalled by the fact that theproportion of senators to justices in the prescribed membership of theSET is 2 to 1 an unmistakable indication that the legislative componentcannot be totally excluded from participation in the resolution ofsenatorial election contests, without doing violence to the spirit andintent of the Constitution.

Bondoc vs Pineda


80/98

Bondoc vs. PinedaG.R. No. 97710, September 26, 1991

Facts: In the congressional race in the 4th district of Pampanga, Pineda wasproclaimed as winner. Bondoc filed a protest before the HRET. When theHRET heard the case, Bondoc actually won over Pineda. Cong. Camasura,a member of HRET and a partymate of Pineda in the LDP voted in favorofBondoc and this angered the LDP leadership in the House that he wasexpelled from the party for disloyalty and ultimately he was removedfrom the HRET.

Issue: Is the termination of Cong. Camasura from the HRET valid and legal?

Ruling: No. As judges, the members of the tribunal must be non-partisan.They must discharge their functions with complete detachment,impartiality and independence even independence from the politicalparty to which they belong. Hence, disloyalty to party and breach of

party discipline are not valid grounds for the expulsion of a member ofthe tribunal. In expelling Cong. Camasura from the HRET for having cast aconscience vote in favor ofBondoc, the House of Representativescommitted a grave abuse of discretion and in justice and a violation ofthe Constitition.

Guerrero vs Comelec


81/98

Guerrero vs. ComelecG.R. No. 137004, July 26, 2000

Facts: Before May 11, 1998 elections, a petition to disqualify Farinas ascandidate for congress was filed with the Comelec. On election eve,Comelec dismissed the case. Farinas came out as winner in the electionand was proclaimed and later, he took his oath of office as member ofCongress. A motion for reconsideration was filed with the Comelec butthe Comelec denied the motion on the ground that the issue on validityof the certificate of candidacy of Farinas is already within the jurisdiction

of the HRET.

Issue: Is the Comelec correct that it has no more jurisdiction over the issue?

Ruling: Yes. While the Comelec is vested with the power to declare valid orinvalid a certificate of candidacy, its refusal to exercise that powerfollowing the proclamation and assumption by Farinas to the position as

member of Congress is a recognition of the jurisdictional boundariesseparating the Comelec and the HRET. Once a winning candidate hasbeen proclaimed, taken his oath and assumed office as member of theHouse of Representatives, Comelecs jurisdiction over election contestsrelating to his elections, returns and qualifications ends and the HRETsown juridiction begins.

Commission on Appointments:


82/98

Commission on Appointments:Sec. 18, Art. VI

The CA is a constitutionally-created body which willcheck the appointing power of the President

Composition: Senate President ex-officio chairman;

members 12 senators and 12 congressmen

However, it is not mandatory to elect 12 senators to theCA. The Constitution does not contemplate that the CA

must necessarily include 12 senators and 12

congressmen. What the Constitution requires is that

there be at least a majority of the entire membership.

The senator-members and the congressmen-members

constitute a body and they will vote jointly and not

separately.

Appointments that requires CA approval:


83/98

Appointments that requires CA approval:Sec. 16, First Sentence, Art. VII

The President shall nominate and, with the consent

of the Commission on Appointments, appoint

1. the heads of the executive departments,

2. ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls,3. officers of the armed forces from the rank of

colonel or naval captain, and

4. other officers whose appointments are vested in

him in this Constitution.

Guingona vs. Gonzales


84/98

gG.R. No. 106971, Oct. 20, 1992

Facts: After the May 11, 1992 elections, the Senate composition as to

party affiliation and corresponding proportional membership and itselection of CA members is as follows:

LDP 15 senators 7.5 8 members elected

NPC 5 senators 2.5 2 members elected

LAKAS-NUCD 3 senators 1.5 1 member electedLP-PDP-LABAN 1 senator .5 1 member elected

Issue: Is the rule of proportional representation strictly followed in filling

up membership in the CA?

Ruling: No. There is a violation ofSec. 18 on the rule on proportional

representation. This provision is mandatory in character and does not

leave any discretion to the majority party in the Senate to disobey or

disregard this rule. In the Senate, a political party must have at least

two duly elected senators for every seat in the Commission on

Appointments.

Matibag vs. Benipayo


85/98

Matibag vs. BenipayoG.R. No. 149036, April 2, 2002

Two modes in appointing officials who are subject to confirmation by the CA:

First, while Congress is in session, the President may nominate the

prospective appointee, and pending consent of the CA, the nominee cannot

qualify and assume office.

Second, during recess if Congress, the President may extend an ad interim

appointment which allows the appointee to immediately qualify andassume office. An ad interim appointee disapproved by the CA can no

longer be extended a new appointment. The disapproval is a final decision

of the CA in the exercise of its checking power on the appointing authority

of the President. However, an ad interim appointment that is by-passed by

the CA because of lack of time or failure of the CA to organize is anothermatter. A by-passed appointment is one that has not been finally acted

upon on the merits by the CA at the close of the session of Congress.

Absent of such decision, the President is free to renew the ad interim

appointment of a by-passed appointee.

The power of inquiry


86/98

The power of inquirySec. 21, Art. VI

The Senate or the House or any of itscommittees may conduct inquiries in aid of

legislation.

The inquiry or investigation must be:

1. made in accordance with Senate or House

duly published rules of procedure and

2. the rights of the persons appearing in or

affected by such inquiries must be respected.


87/98

Bengzon vs. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee


88/98

Bengzon vs. Senate Blue Ribbon CommitteeG.R. No. L-89914, Nov. 20, 1991

Facts: Bengson was requested to testify before the Senate hearing on the

alleged sale of Romualdez assets to Ricardo Lopa, a relative of President

Cory Aguino. These Romualdez assets are subject of sequestration by

the PCGG.

Issue: Can the Senate compel Bengzon to appear and testify?

Ruling: No. The power of both houses of Congress to conduct inquires isnot absolute or unlimited. The investigation must be in aid of legislation

meaning such inquiries may refer to the implementation or re-

examination of any law or in connection with any proposed legislation or

the formulation of future legislation. However, the purpose of inquiry to

be conducted by the Senate is to find out whether or not the relative ofthe President has violate the law which is not really in aid of legislation.

Besides, there is already a case filed before the Sandiganbayan involving

this issue, thus, the Senate investigation would be an encroachment into

the exclusive domain of judicial jurisdiction.

Senate Blue Ribbon vs. Judge Majaducon


89/98

g jG.R. No. 136760, July 29, 2003

Facts: The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee conducted an inquiry on the

alleged fund irregularities of the Armed Forces Retirement and

Separation Benefits System (AFP-RSBS). It subpoenaed Atty. Flaviano

to appear before it. Atty. Flaviano secured a TRO against the Senate

issued by Judge Majaducon of RTC-23 of General Santos City.

Issue: Is the TRO issued by the Judge ordering the Senate to cease anddesist from proceeding with its heaing valid?

Ruling: No. The principle of separation of powers essentially means

that legislation belongs to Congress, execution to the Executive and

settlement of legal controversies to the Judiciary. Each is preventedfrom invading the domain of the others. The RTC of General Santos

or any court for that matter, had no authority to prohibit the Senate

committee from requiring the respondent (Atty. Flaviano) to appear

and testify before it.

Question Hour under the 1987 Constitution


90/98

Sec. 22, Art. VI

Two ways of conducting the Question Hour, Philippine style:

1. Appearance upon initiative of Department Head - When a

department head desires to appear before either house of

Congress on any matter pertaining to his department, he may,

with the consent of the President, notify the house in Congress

where he intends to appear.

2. Appearance upon request of the House - A department head may

be requested to appear before either house and be heard on any

matter pertaining to his/her department. The request shall state

specifically the questions to be answered and the date and hourfor his/her appearance.

Purpose: The appearance during question hour is for Congress to be

informed on how department heads are implementing the

statutes which it had enacted .

Senate vs. Executive Secretary Ermita


91/98

yG.R. No. 169777, April 20, 2006

Facts: Pres. Arroyo issued EO 464 and under Section1 thereof, it

requires all heads of departments of the Executive branch to

secure the consent of the President prior to appearing before

either house of Congress.

Issue: Is EO 464 valid and constitutional?

Ruling: The requirement to secure presidential consent under Sec. 1is valid if the appearance of the department secretary before

Congress is under the question hour. The attendance of the

department heads is discretionary during question hour. However,

if the appearance of the department head is sought during ahearing in Congress in the exercise of its power of inquiry in aid of

legislation, the appearance is mandatory with or without

presidential consent. The only way for department heads to

exempt themselves is by a valid claim of executive privilege.

Wh i i i il ?


92/98

What is executive privilege?

Executive privilege is the power of the President andhigh-level executive branch officers to withhold

information from the public, the courts, and the

Congress.

The matters covered under executive privilege include:

(1) Information between inter-government agencies prior to

the conclusion of treaties and executive agreements;

(2) Presidential conversations, correspondences, anddiscussions in closed-door Cabinet meetings; and

(3) Matters affecting national security and public order.


93/98

k l ?


94/98

How to invoke executive privilege?

When an official is being summoned by Congress on a matterwhich, in his own judgment, might be covered by executive

privilege, he must be afforded reasonable time to inform the

President or the Executive Secretary of the possible need for

invoking the privilege. This is necessary in order to provide the

President or the Executive Secretary with fair opportunity to

consider whether the matter indeed calls for a claim of executive

privilege.

If, after the lapse of that reasonable time, neither the

President nor the Executive Secretary invokes the privilege,Congress is no longer bound to respect the failure of the official

to appear before Congress and may then opt to avail of the

necessary legal means to compel his appearance.


95/98

Power to declare the existence of a state of war:Sec. 23 (1), Art. VI

The power to wage war is lodged in the President,

he being the commander-in-chief of the armed

forces. In other words, the power of the sword

is in him. He can wage war only in defense of thestate and the people.

However, when a war has been waged already,

Congress has to declare the existence of a state ofwar in order to justify the appropriation of money

to finance the war since the power of the purse

is vested in Congress.


96/98

Steps in the passage of a bill in Congress:


97/98

1. A bill may be introduced in the House of Representatives or the Senate.

2. On 1st Reading, the title and number of the bill is read, and then, it is

referred to the appropriate committee.

3. A committee studies the bill and conducts hearings on it. Thereafter, a

committee report is prepared on the bill.

4. The committee report is read in open session, and together with the bill, it

is referred to the Rules Committee. The Rules Committee can place the billin the 2nd Reading Calendar or in the Calendar of Unassigned Business.

5. On 2nd Reading, a bill is subject to debate and amendment before being

placed in the 3rd Reading Calendar for final passage.

6. After its passage by one house, the bill goes through the same process in

the other house.

7. If amendments are made in one house, the other house must concur.

8. When the bill is passed by both houses, it is signed by their respective

leaders and sent to the President for approval.


98/98

Documents

Legislative Department, Contilaw