CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
ATTY. ROVYNE JUMAO-AS
Intellectual Property of: Andoy, Aspilla, Astillo, Dela Cruz, Faustino, Gido, Miles, Muñoz , Pandita, Pinili
Second Exam Transcriptions
When the world says, "Give up,"
Hope whispers, "Try it one more time."
~Author Unknown
AUG. 1, 2013
MICHELLE & MARLIE
The coverage of second exam: After the discussion on the
preliminaries, we are going to those main departments of the
government. Now one distinct feature of our government is the
principle of the separation of powers. It is instituted in fact in the
Constitution. When we say separation of powers, each of the
different departments have exclusive cognizance of the matters
or functions that are inherit in them and supreme of all of this
matters fall within their jurisdiction. In other words, they are
supposed to have expertise in their own duties. So the essence
of separation of power means that legislation should just belong
to the congress, the execution of the laws which the congress
legislated should be just belong to the executive department
and the determination of whether or not the laws are valid or
the implementation is valid is within the realm or expertise of
the judiciary . So it suppose to be independent, the idea is that
each is prevented from invading in the domain of others,
separation of powers. This principle is brought about to prevent
the concentration of powers to one department especially if that
person is capable of tyranny of power and abuse. So, that’s way
we said that the Constitution itself is the instrument which not
only identifies the powers but which distributes it among the
different departments for their more safe and effective exercise
so that’s separation of powers.
But in reality there is no really absolute separation because we
have that interdependence of powers, separation is not total.
We still need to have the system of check and balance. Because
if we leave it to one department to do their work chances are
there be no way of determining whether or not they have abuse
their powers. So corollary to separation of powers is also the
principle of check and balance its also in the Constitution. For
example in the enactment of laws, which department does that?
The legislative department but after the act of the congress is it
consider to be a law? Not yet. It has to go with the approval of
the president. And if the president does not approve of it or
vetoes it, is it the end of it? For example the president abuses its
authority in approving the law, he does not like it for some
reason or another. Is that the end of it? There is still a system of
checks and balance. The congress can still override the veto. In
some instances the president could not complete an act without
the participation of congress. For example in entering
international agreements or treaties, it is not complete without
the concurrence of the senate.
How about the judiciary? Where does it come in? Before
because of this separation of powers, the judiciary cannot
actually check other departments because of respect to that
principle of separation of powers that is until the 1987
Constitution. Because under the 1987 Constitution the power of
judicial review would now include the power to determine if
there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
jurisdiction on the part on say of the president or congress.
Other than the 1987 Constitution, it’s not really clearly defined
because if the question is raised attacking the validity of an
action of say the president or the congress, usually the Supreme
Court will not confront it and will evade the constitutional
question on the ground of political question because when we
MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^
1
say political question what does that mean? Decided by people
to the department who has that exclusive authority to
determine that. So usually they would evade that question on
the ground of political question. Now, its within the realm of let
us say of that executive or the congress, it is not for the judiciary
to dictate upon the congress on what law they would act that’s
a political question. But now, under the 1987 question we now
have that extended or expanded judicial power. Supreme Court
can now determine the validity of action of the president or the
congress. Not to overturn their actions or replace their decision
as to decision of the Supreme Court but just to determine
whether or not such department has gravely abuse its discretion
amounting to lack or excess jurisdiction. No again, although we
have the principle of powers is neutralized by the principle of
check and balance. So it is not absolute independence by each
department but more of interdependence.
What are the three departments?
 Legislative Department
 Executive Department
 Judiciary Department
We start with the LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT on Article VI..
So Article 6 starts with the statement the legislative power shall
be vested in whom? The congress of the Philippines constitutes
of two parts – the senate and the house of representatives.
Actually senators are also congressman technically
because both of them are part of the congress.
Section 1. The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress
of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of
Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by
the provision on initiative and referendum.
Let’s go back to the principle on who frame the Constitution.
Who are supposed to be the author of the Constitution? The
people. And since we are republican state meaning
representative kind of state, who represents s the people in
legislating? Under Sec. 1, Article 6 it is the congress. As you can
see in the dynamics it is the people which have original
legislative authority, the original power to legislate is lodge with
the people because we are a republican state, we elect the
representatives who can do that for us then it is the congress. In
other words the legislative power of the congress is merely
DERIVATIVE/ DELEGATED. You can now distinguished original
legislative power from delegated or derivative legislative power.
That is one way of classifying legislative power.
Another way is ordinary legislation and constituent legislative
power, when you say ordinary it is just enacting ordinary laws
but when what is enacted/amended/repealed now involves the
Constitution. It is now the exercise of constituent legislative
power. So there you have the classifications of legislative
powers: ordinary, constituent, original or delegated/derivative.
Again, the power of the congress is merely a delegated
legislative power. The original power belongs into the people
that is why in the last phrase of sections says “except to the
extent reserved to the people by the provision on initiative and
referendum.” So what is the extent of legislative power of the
congress? It said to be plenary. When you say plenary and it is
granted by the Constitution what is deemed to be legislative
usage and traditions it is necessarily possessed by congress
unless the organic act has lodged it elsewhere. In other words, a
state legislature having plenary law making power has authority
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
ATTY. ROVYNE JUMAO-AS
Intellectual Property of: Andoy, Aspilla, Astillo, Dela Cruz, Faustino, Gido, Miles, Muñoz , Pandita, Pinili
to enact laws over all subjects, any subject whether persons or
things under the territorial jurisdiction of the state. So,
legislative power is in authority to make laws and to alter laws
and to repeal laws. All of these comprise legislative power –
make, alter, repeal. In other words, if one of this is removed, it is
in essence LIMITING LEGISLATIVE POWER. Now again, legislative
power is plenary it’s supposed to be whatever legislative in
character is lodge in the legislature. It can legislate in any subject
matter. It has no limit by way of enumeration on what laws to
enact if you browse the Constitution there are no enumerations
on what are the laws that congress could enact or could not
enact except only on some portions and provisions and that only
the Constitution can limit that legislative power.
So plenary, to better understand plenary power let us look at the
cases of league of cities.
Did you attempt to somehow attempt to read those cases
because I think you’re curious about these cases because you
heard I bet of those municipalities turned into cities and then
went back to being municipalities and became city again and
finally they became cities ultimately. What happen in these
cases? The case was originally cited in 2008. In 2009, there was a
motion for reconsideration the motion was resolved changing
the decision of the Supreme Court in 2008. Something happen,
there was a second motion for reconsideration through
technicality they were able to somehow re-file or re-submit the
same matters, what supposedly the general rule is that motion
for reconsiderations are allowed with the Supreme Court if and
only if that is allowed, the general rule is only one motion for
reconsideration is allowed. Let us not go to the technicalities of
it. You can appreciate it in your second year. But just go to the
constitutional issue, so:
2008 - decision invalid cityhood laws
2009 - reversed the decision valid cityhood laws
2010 - reversed the decision go back to 2008 invalid cityhood
laws
2011 - reversed again go back to 2009 decision valid cityhood
laws
And ultimately the last decision, the Supreme Court said that the
cityhood laws are valid.
What is the essence of all these decisions? The Supreme Court is
focusing on the extent of legislative power of the congress to
what extent a congress can enact a law and then enact another
law violating the law that it enacted earlier would it still be
valid? What happened to this case? Under the Constitution in
the creation of municipalities and cities, they should be
governed by the local government code that’s under the 1987
Constitution Article 10, right? So the congress enacted the local
government code in 1991 that suppose to be the governing law
pursuant to the Constitution on when it comes to the creation of
cities or conversion of municipalities to cities. Now under the
local government code, there are three determinants to decide
whether or not a municipality is ready to be converted as a city.
What are these?
Land, population and income.
Under the local government code the income requirement is
only 20 million so you can apply for cityhood. There are several
applicants for the bills who are pending. Around 2001, congress
enacted a law amending the income requirement form 20
million to 100 million. After the enactment, 16 cityhood bills
were filed and approved but the problem with these
municipalities they did not qualify as to income requirement,
they did not reach the 100 million mark. But how did they
become cities? In the creation or conversion, there are specific
MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^
1
laws for each of them. Say Mati, a law converting the
municipality of Mati to city, another city, Bislig. So there are 16
laws, all of them has common provisions were in it is stated that
they are exempted from the income requirement. Who provided
for the criteria? Congress. Who enacted these laws exempting
them from the criteria? Congress. So that is where the argument
has been revocate.
In the first decision of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court
said that the criteria for creating cities is with the local
government code as mandated by the Constitution in other
words to provide for uniformity on determinants on when a
municipality can become a city you should follow one law that is
the local government code in this case, as amended by the
income requirement from 20 million to 100 million. The
exemption therefore cannot be located somewhere else except
in the local government code as amended. If at all it was the
intention of the congress to exempt, to provide for exemptions
that will be applicable to future situations contingent to some
conditions it should be placed in the local government code and
its amendment now congress therefore cannot enact a law
disregarding the criteria of the local government code because
the Constitution says it should just comply with the
requirements of the local government code. That is why, the
cityhood bills or laws as far as that section is concerned that
they are exempted from the 100 million area is concern is
invalid because it is now provided for an exemption which is not
found in the local government code. So motion for
reconsideration, dun parin ang argument nila.
By 2009 the Supreme Court said ah we are mistaken so the
cityhood laws are no different fr0m the amendatory law of the
local government code. Since the power of the congress is
plenary meaning the enact laws or any subject matter it has no
limits therefore as to what subject matter to enact . So based on
the discussion that the congress power legislation is plenary, this
is the local government code, this is the amendment of the local
government code the cityhood bills are also the amendment to
the amendment of the local government code. That is the
decision of the Supreme Court, another motion.
In 2010, wrong again the Supreme Court said that the congress
exceeded and abused its law making powers rendering the
cityhood laws void for being violative of the Constitution.
Because we said congress power is plenary except as to the
limitations provided in the Constitution. Plenary means that
congress cannot enact laws that can limit its power but the
limits can be found in the Constitution. What would be the
limits? There would be substantive limits so there would be
some provisions that would limit it. For example, under bill of
rights there are lots of limits there. Congress cannot enact laws
establishing religion or giving titles kings or queens or whatever.
So, this our substantive limits which are found in the
Constitution itself. Another kind of limit is procedural. How a bill
becomes a law. So these are the only limits. In other words, in
this case since it is the Constitution which provided for that limit
the congress abused its authority. That was the 2010 decision.
But in 2011, the ultimate and final decision of the Supreme
Court said because the power of congress is plenary, it is not an
abused of discretion.
“The enactment of the Cityhood Laws is an exercise by
Congress of its legislative power. The grant of
legislative power to Congress is broad, general, and
comprehensive. Without doubt, the LGC is a creation of
Congress through its law-making powers. When
Congress enacted the LGC in 1991, it provided for
quantifiable indicators of economic viability for the
creation of local government units—income,
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
ATTY. ROVYNE JUMAO-AS
Intellectual Property of: Andoy, Aspilla, Astillo, Dela Cruz, Faustino, Gido, Miles, Muñoz , Pandita, Pinili
population, and land area. Congress deemed it fit to
modify the income requirement with respect to the
conversion of municipalities into component cities
when it enacted R.A. No. 9009, imposing an amount of
P100 million, computed only from locally-generated
sources. However, Congress deemed it wiser to exempt
respondent municipalities from such a belatedly
imposed modified income requirement in order to
uphold its higher calling of putting flesh and blood to
the very intent and thrust of the LGC, which is
countryside development and autonomy, especially
accounting for these municipalities as engines for
economic growth in their respective provinces.”
However I am not comfortable with the decision of the Supreme
Court. Because the idea of the local government code in the
basis of creation of cities is again to provide the uniformity in
standards in creating cities, creating municipalities and
converting municipalities to cities. In fact it is the Constitution
which provided that it is just be the basis. What will prevent
congress later on to disregard the provisions of the Local
Government Code? Citing this decision its power is plenary
although it amended the Local Government Code it is not
prevented from disregarding its provisions. The reality is that
and that is also the reality of practice there will always be
politics and I hope you’re ready with that because time will
come you will be disappointed. So this is one decision that will
only history will judge flip flopping on the part of the Supreme
Court. But who will determine grave abuse of discretion of the
Supreme Court? Yan ngayon ang million dollar question. But
since we are now studying law, might as well study how
Supreme Court decides cases. That is just how the principle of
plenary power/ legislative power of congress is applied by the
Supreme Court in this case para makalusot sila. Siguro. There are
some personalities involve. If you read the background, then
Mendoza who self professed that most of the Supreme Court
Justices are his students. I might as well use that power when
you become Supreme Court Justices. (lol!)
Corollary to that plenary power, the congress cannot pass
irrepealable laws. What do you mean by that? Congress will
enact a law today providing the provisions that this law cannot
be repealed. Why is that not allowed? Because it will limit the
power of the next congress. Now if it limits, it is suppose to be
plenary then it cannot enact laws touching that subject matter
then it is limitation to that matter. So if it is limiting the power
then it is ultimately amending the Constitution when it says that
it supposed to be plenary. The effect will be a reduction or
limitation of the legislative power of the Congress which
suppose to be plenary.
Case: City of Davao vs. RTC
City of Davao vs RTC
FACTS: We have the GSIS act provides for tax exemptions
provided by the GSIS. Thereafter, so GSIS act is enacted by the
congress. By the 1991, congress enacted the LGC. Under LGC,
the congress moved the tax exemptions enjoyed by the
corporations such as the GSIS. Now, the GSIS is arguing that the
portion is an amendment of a particular provision of a GSIS act
which says that this provision on tax exemption cannot be
amended unless
(1) that Section 33 be expressly and categorically
repealed by law; and (2) that a provision be enacted to
substitute the declared policy of exemption from  any  What is delegated to the administrative bodies or the executive
and  all  taxes  as  an  essential  factor  for the
solvency  of  the    GSIS    fund.
MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^
1
In other words, in the GSIS act, it is safe to say that that
provision cannot be amended by following certain conditions.
What’s the condition? There has to be a law expressly and
specifically amending that section so an act amending Section 33
of PD 1126. So that’s the requirement of this law. The LGC
according to GSIS is not that law, because that law is a general
removal of the tax exemption whether or not you are a GSIS, SSS
or sino ka pa man. It is a general statement so that is the GSIS is
arguing that the removal of tax exemption of the LGC is invalid
or not following the provision of the GSIS act. Is it correct?
RULING: The Supreme Court said that provision is in effect
providing for a mode of repeal. It is dictation upon the next
congress even the same congress on how to repeal that law or
enact that law. So, it is ultimately a limitation of the legislative
power of congress. Again, the power of the congress is plenary,
it will violate that principle if this congress will provide a mode
of repeal or will limit the power or the next congress or even
the same congress.
Case: Kida vs. Senate
Kida vs Senate
FACTS:
We‘ll zero in on plenary power. RA 9054 is an act governing
ARMM. Now, in that law, there is a provision that states
that any amendment to that law would require a vote of 2/3 of the
Congress. Is the provision valid?
Under the Constitution, Congress cannot amend a law, or repeal a
law with only a vote of majority, provided that there
is a quorum. In fact, it is majority of the quorum. So it is the
simple majority is required to amend a law. But what do we have
here? Now, RA 9054 is stating that in case of amendment, the voting
required is 2/3. The SC called it the super-majority. Is this
provision valid, if you relate is the plenary power of Congress?
No. Why? It is limiting the plenary authority. It is providing for
another requirement not provided in the Constitution.
Ordinarily, Congress can amend law with only a majority vote. So if
you connect it with the Constitution, RA 9054 is amending
the Constitution. While the Constitution says 2/3, it is requiring 2/3
vote. So it is in a way amending the Constitution via ordinary
legislation. So, it is unConstitutional.
Another corollary to that principle of plenary. So the first principle is
that Congress cannot make irrepealable laws. The second is that the
Congress cannot delegate its legislative authority. So the principle
of non-delegabilty of legislative authority.
Why can‘t it be delegated?
Reasons: (1) separation of powers, (2) principle of delegata potestas
non potes delegari (what has been delegated
cannot be further delegated).
However, legislative authority can be delegated to (1) president in
emergency, (2) people through initiative and referendum, as
mandated by the Constitution.
Also, through time and immemorial practice the delegation to the
Local Sanggunian has been considered as permissible
delegation. Now, who authorized the Local Sanggunian to enact
ordinances? Congress through the LGC.
There is what we call the power of subordinate legislation. This is
not the power of delegating legislation. But
delegating subordinate legislation.
What is the distinction to the power to make law and law-execution?
department is merely to supplement it or to provide for
the details of its implementation. The power to subordinate
legislation therefore, allows supplementary legislation, which is to
fill
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
ATTY. ROVYNE JUMAO-AS
Intellectual Property of: Andoy, Aspilla, Astillo, Dela Cruz, Faustino, Gido, Miles, Muñoz , Pandita, Pinili
up the details of the law. Or contingent legislation, which is that
brings the law into actual operation.
It is not the actual law-making authority that is being delegated but
the authority to fill up the details and to determine
the assistance of tax, which are all rule-making authority and not
law-making authority.
The law involve is the second organic act creating the ARMM.
They were arguing the validity of the postponement of the
election in 2011 so it could coincide with the local and national
election in 2013. Now, there was a provision in this law creating
the ARMM which provides that any amendment to this law can
only be done via super majority vote; the required vote is 2/3.
Under the Constitution, the congress cannot act, amend or
repeal laws requiring only majority votes provided that there is
quorum. This law provides that it no longer is majority vote but
2/3 votes – they call it super majority vote. [aw.haha]
ISSUE: Is this provision valid? How can you attack the invalidity
of this provision, based on the plenary legislative power?
RULING: It is essentially limiting the power of the congress.
When the Constitution states that it can already enact, repeal or
amend laws by majority vote, this law is requiring 2/3 votes
which now requires a limitation of that plenary power. You see if
you draw a line directly with this law connecting it directly to the
Constitution it is now essentially amending the Constitution
because it only requires a majority provided that there is a
quorum. It also limits the legislative power of the congress which
is supposed to be plenary.
Another corollary to that principle that legislative power is
plenary is the principle of non delegability of legislative power.
So what the first corollary since the legislative is plenary
congress cannot enact irrepealable laws or laws which limit or
provide a mode for repeal or amendment of law. The other
corollary is that it cannot be further delegated, principle of non
delegability of legislative power.
Now congress alone can make laws and congress may not
delegate its law making powers. What’s the first reason?
Because we believe in the principle of separation of powers.
Enactment of laws is with congress, implementation is with the
executive department, determination of validity is with the
judiciary. Why would we establish or even institutionalized that
separation of powers when we just allow say executive to enact
laws, it cannot be delegated! It would be a breach of the
Constitution if congress would give up its legislative power and
allow other departments to exercise its power. Another
reason/rational for that is the principle delegata potestas non
potest delegari (Latin) states that ‘no delegated powers can be
further delegated’. That is based on an ethical principle that
such delegated power constitutes not only a right but a duty to
be performed the delegate through instrumentality of his own
judgment and not through the intervening mind of another. The
people are the original legislative authority and it delegated that
authority to the congress. It would be unethical on the part of
the congress if it would further delegate that power to another.
So here, what type of power that is prohibited to be delegated
are those strictly legislative power because we will see later on
that there are some aspects of that sub powers which can be
delegated. What cannot be delegated are purely legislative
powers meaning that the authority to determine on what law to
enact, the subject matter of it, when would be effective, the
authority to make a complete law. But if you look at the
Constitution, there are provisions which allow some other
authorities to enact laws and this is permissible delegation.
Why? Because this is the Constitution itself which delegated the
law making authority to another.
MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^
1
Example, under the Constitution the president can exercise tariff
powers and can enact laws pertaining to it. He can also enact
laws pertaining to emergency powers. It is the Constitution
which provided with these exceptions. It is the Constitution
which delegated the legislative authority also don’t forget the
people through initiative and referendum. For me it is not
delegation, it is original legislative authority.
Now, you know that LGU through the Sanggunian can enact laws
right? The laws are called ordinances.
Is this a delegation of legislative authority? Yes. This is exactly
what they are doing. They are enacting laws on local matters. Is
this delegation allowed or provided in the Constitution? It is not.
The Constitution did not provide but owing to time and
immemorial practice and acceptance, the delegation of
legislative authority to local government unit s could enact laws
on local matters is a permissible kind of delegation. The basis is
not the Constitution but to time and immemorial practice. That’
why, what congress enacted that the LGC and their provided
that the local government units can enact laws and it was not
objected on the ground of unconstitutionality or invalid
delegation of legislative power because it was already accepted
through time and immemorial practice. The delegation is
contained in the Local Government Code and not in the
Constitution.
How about delegation to the executive department? Isn’t it that
the executive department, let us say the department of health
and etc. isn’t it that they have issuances? And when you read
them they are like laws. Is this delegation of legislative
authority? Now, there is a technical line there. It is not purely
legislative power that has been delegated to them but rule
making power. This is called power of subordinate legislation.
Congress is not actually delegating to them the authority to
enact laws but to fill up the details of a statute, you call that
supplementary legislation. And you know that in the form of
implementing rules and regulations. Another purpose is to leave
to another body the business of ascertaining the facts necessary
to bring the law into actual operation that is called contingent
legislation. That is to determine some facts or state of things
upon which the enforcement of law depends. So Congress may
enact a law saying that the increase of fare would be dependent
on this fund and if this happen it will now be increased, what
you can see there is not really enactment of laws but
implementation of laws. That’s why, what is given to the other
department s is not legislative authority or law making authority
but rule making authority so that they can enact
supplementary legislations or contingent legislations.
This is because the power of subordinate legislation is allowed
because of the increasing complexities of the task of the
government and growing ability of the legislator to cope directly
with the demand of time. For example, they would like to enact
on laws involving on computers, I don’t think that they are
expert in that field. So what will happen now? They will enact a
law providing for that subject matter, how can they be affected
and etc. and the other details will be provided by a certain
department in the executive branch and that is allowed. What
the other is dong is simply providing for the details. The true
distinction is between the delegations of power to make the law
which necessary involves discretion on what it shall be, as to its
execution to be exercised under and in pursuance to a law. Now,
the delegation of power to make the law cannot be allowed. But
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
ATTY. ROVYNE JUMAO-AS
Intellectual Property of: Andoy, Aspilla, Astillo, Dela Cruz, Faustino, Gido, Miles, Muñoz , Pandita, Pinili
the discretion as to its execution how it be implemented is
allowed. That is how far subordinate legislation.
Example, Congress enacted the VAT reform act, now there is a
provision there that the president upon the recommendation of
the secretary finance shall be effective on January 1, 2006
raised the value added tax to 12% after any of the following
votations has been satisfied. The VAT reform act provides for a
10% increase in the vat but there is a provision which grants the
president to increase it to 12% upon the recommendation of the
secretary xxx. The objection was the law in unconstitutional as it
constitutes abandonment by the congress of its exclusive
authority o fix tax rates and then there is undue delegation to
the president because it is now the president who will exercise
discretion on whether or not to increase it to 12%. Is there an
invalid delegation authority? Now we said that in the
subordinate power of legislation, the congress can delegate into
the other department what kind of legislation? Supplementary
legislations and contingent legislations. So what kind of
legislation we have here? If you observe the law is already there
it’s about VAT. What is the subject of the VAT? The rate? It is
already there. In fact, there is an effectivity date. The president
has no discretion whether or not to increase it or just remain it
to 10%. The only required by the president is to determine the
existence of certain conditions which are also stated already in
the law after any if the following conditions have been satisfied:
1.xxx 2.xxx [not necessary to include all about GDP] It is just
delegating the power of existence of this contingencies , it is not
actually delegation of legislative power but contingent
legislation.
So the issue here is not delegation of legislative power it is
simply a delegation of ascertainment of facts upon which
enforcement in the administration of the increase rate under the
law is contingent the operation of the 12% rate is in fact already
determine by the congress is to be effective on January 1, 2006.
So here, there is no undue delegation of undue power but only
of the discretion as to the execution of laws. So you read further
KMU vs, Garcia Jr., Echegaray vs. Secretary, that’s for
permissible delegation.
AUG 2
KIRSTIN & CHARITY
…This is when the judge imprisons the accused for such case, or
years, he is performing a legislative function because he is
legislating as to what proper penalty, proper period of
imprisonment would be merited to the accused. This is an
invalid delegation of legislative authority. Supposed to be, when
Congress enacts a law, or penalizes an act, then it should file for
the minimum and the maximum period of imprisonment and the
judge can exercise his discretion based only on the standards
that are given by law.
In Beltran vs Secretary
Beltran vs Secretary
It is about the phasing out of commercial blood banks because
Statistics would show that commercial blood banks are unsafe.
People, because of his need for money, and regardless of his
health, would sell his blood. Diba? In that case, the Congress
found it as the policy of the state to just disallow commercial
blood banks and recognize only public blood banks. Blood banks
that are voluntarily sourced, so hindi yung pinagbibili na blood.
So, in this case, the phasing out of boodbanks would be within 2
years. But the secretary of health is given discretion to further
MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^
1
extend this prior to absolute phasing out, so it was extended to 2
more years. Now it has been argued that the law is invalid for
there is no sufficient law for the secretary to base his discretion
whether or not to extend the allowance of commercial blood
banks.
And the Supreme Court said that policies stated in the law itself
is standard, the policy is safe blood for the public and based on
supply and demand. This, according to SC, is sufficient standard
for the secretary to exercise his discretion WON to extend
before fully phasing out blood banks.
Tatad vs secretary, this is the deregulation of downstream oil
industry. Before, students of Ateneo are marching along the
Freedom Park, shouting “deregulate the oil!!” Now, the oil
industry is very much free to dictate the price of oil in the
market, they are now shouting “regulate the oil!!” This was in
1997, uy college pa ako nun, some of classmates joined the rally
kasi around 95. So here, a law was enacted mandating the
department of energy, upon the approval of the president, to
implement full deregulation of downstream oil industry not later
than March 1997. The law sets the standard for the department
to find the deregulation as far as practicable, as the oil and other
petroleum products are declining in the world market, and that
the price of dollar to peso is stable. What you have here is a law
granting the department of energy upon the approval of the
president, to implement full deregulation. In other words, it
does not directly say that oil industry is already deregulated. So
the full deregulation will be implemented by the executive
department. So the standards are also provided: as far as
practicable when the prices of crude oil are declining in the
world market and the peso to dollar is stable. Now the
petitioners say that these are not clear standards, these are
vague. What do you mean by as far as practicable? And when
would you say that the market is declining? When would you say
that the peso to dollar is stable? So that is the argument of the
petitioners. In other words, they are as saying that this is an
invalid delegation of authority to the department of energy and
the president.
And the SC said that the argument is a stubborn submission. As
far as practicable has clear meaning in the dictionary, it means
when it is permissible or capable of being performed, possible to
practice or perform. Declining, of course, is when the prices are
going down. Stable means that it is established. So the SC said
that these terms have definite meanings and are sufficient
standards. Besides, the secretary and the president is not even
given the full discretion WON to fully deregulate the industry.
Why? It provides for a deadline, not later than mar 1997. The
deregulation given to them is only to advance the deregulation
should these conditions exist. So it is a valid delegation of rule-
making authority.
I forgot to discuss to you review center versus executive
secretary.
Review Center vs Ermita
FACTS: This involves review centers for nurses. Sometime in
2006, the board was marred by leakage. There is an allegation
which was proven to be true. Unfortunately, it came from
review centers where one of the owners is a member of the
board of nursing. Yung kay Gapuz. So the leakage was traced to
be from one of his review centers. And among other members of
the board of nursing, so he is not alone. Because of that, that is a
slap on the face of PGMA. So she issued an EO mandating CHED
to check review centers. CHED was created pursuant to a law.
The jurisdiction is to govern higher education. Now what about
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
ATTY. ROVYNE JUMAO-AS
Intellectual Property of: Andoy, Aspilla, Astillo, Dela Cruz, Faustino, Gido, Miles, Muñoz , Pandita, Pinili
review centers?
ISSUE: Can the president through an executive order expand the
power of CHED?
RULING: The EO is actually expanding the jurisdiction from
higher education (or colleges) to include review centers. SC said
you cannot include review centers to the jurisdiction of higher
education because review centers do not grant diplomas. There
is no checking of attendance, there are no exams given, there is
therefore no determination whether the reviewer has passed or
failed. A person is not eve required to take reviews before he is
allowed to take the exam. On other words, this is not a part of
education system, much less, higher education.
So, how can you object to the action of Arroyo? If you’re talking
about invalid delegation of legislative authority, then the
objection would be usurpation of legislative authority. She is not
performing an act which is supposedly an exclusive function of
the legislative body. So here, there is no basis for here executive
order. What we said about the powers of subordinate legislation
is that the administrative (?) bodies can make issuances but
these must comply with an existing law. in this case, there is no
law granting the president and CHED to regulate review centers.
So the act is invalid.
Let’s go to section 2:
Section 2. The Senate shall be composed of twenty-four Senators
who shall be elected at large by the qualified voters of the
Philippines, as may be provided by law.
Section 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 thirty-five years of age, able to read and write, a
registered voter, and a resident of the Philippines for not less
than two years immediately preceding the day of the election.
So we are now studying each house of the Congress. SO let’s
start with the Senate.
Senate is composed of just 24 people. They are elected by
through national election. It is from national and not parochial
perspective. So the requirements are: he must be a natural-born
citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at
least thirty-five years of age, able to read and write, a registered
voter, and a resident of the Philippines for not less than two
years immediately preceding the day of the election.
In Pimentel vs Comelec
Pimentel vs Comelec
FACTS: Comelec issued a resolution wherein it was provided that
all candidates, both in the national and local government shall
undergo a mandatory drug test. So this Pimentel is candidate for
senator, he is the one questioning the validity of the law.
ISSUE: Is this constitutional?
Ruling: So under section 2, it has been provided what should be
the requirements. The Congress is expanding the qualifications
provided by the constitution, is this unconstitutional? Is it
exclusive? SC said yes, because if you add further qualifications
that would lead to a person being disqualified, then you are
enlarging the limits provided for by the constitution. (So, drug
MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^
1
addict or drug-free, you can run for senate or any public office
for that matter. Yehey!!!)
Section 4. The term of office of the Senators shall be six years
and shall commence, unless otherwise provided by law, at noon
on the thirtieth 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 in the continuity of his
service for the full term of which he was elected.
The term is 6 years. And if you observe, all terms of office
commence at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following
their election. It is applicable to all public officers. When they
increase term of 6 years, like he resigned, it should not be
considered as an interruption of the term. Therefore the
following term, say that is his second term, can he still run if say
he resigned after 2 years of service? No. voluntary renunciation
shall not be considered as an interruption of term. Now suppose
we have elections every 3 years because we observe staggered
terms, under the constitution, in the transitory provision, the
first elect senators, meaning the first half of the senators, they
would serve for 6 years, the second half would serve for 3 years.
And every 3 years, we will elect the second half to compose the
full senate, so it is staggered in term. That is why, if your second
term ended this time, and there would be an election 3 years
after, do u have to wait for 6 years before you are allowed to
run? No. you only have to wait 3 years.
Now there’s a question on WON the senate is a continuing body.
Why is it relevant? In one case, Arnault vs Nazareno:
Arnault vs Nazareno
FACTS: Nazareno was the sergeant of arms. This happened in
1950, so it is under the 1935 Constitution. Under this consti,
although we have the same set, they are divided into 3 sets. Full
term would be 4 years and every 2 years, there will be an
election. They are also observing staggering terms. Every 2
years, the one set is replaced. Sa atin, half-half lang. Sa kanila,
the one set is replaced. So everytime, 2 terms would remain. In
this case of Arnault, in this particular set of senators, they cited
Arnault for contempt and imprisoned him until he would
disclose in a legislative inquiry. There would be an election come
May 18, 1950. Arnault contends that after May 18, 1950, that
set of senators loses jurisdiction. So they cannot cite him for
contempt because they are a new set of senators.
ISSUE: WON the senate is a continuing body.
RULING: If it is, then the terms are continuing. If not, then the
term ends in 1950. The SC said that only one court is replaced,
and everytime, the 2/3 remain, then senate would be
considered as a continuing body. Its orders are not considered
terminated at the end of the term of 1/3 of the set. Therefore,
there is no merit to the contention of Arnault that he should be
set free. The order still remains and still continues. The SC
further said that had it been the house of representatives that
incarcerated him or ordered him detained, by the end of the
term, then it would be a new set of congressmen. Therefore, his
order of contempt would terminate as of the end of the term of
the House of Rep.
Now fast forward to the case of Garcillano vs House of
representatives, this is the hello garci scandal. Based on this
(Arnault) discussion, nakalusot si garcillano. Based on legislative
inquiry, it was terminated. This time, the SC said that under the
1987 constitution, is no longer a continuing body because every
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
ATTY. ROVYNE JUMAO-AS
Intellectual Property of: Andoy, Aspilla, Astillo, Dela Cruz, Faustino, Gido, Miles, Muñoz , Pandita, Pinili
time we elect a new set, how many would be left? One half.
Under the constitution, the senate can conduct legislation if
there is quorum. One half is not a quorum. Therefore, everytime
the term ends, senate is no longer a continuing body. Under the
new procedures, unfinished businesses shall terminate upon the
end of the term of the congress. What may be taken are those
which would be taken for the first time, so back to zero ang mga
unfinished businesses. So SC is mindful to state the case of Neri
vs Senate that to be clear, the senate as an institution is a
continuing body. We established them under the 1935
constitution. So it is continuing as an institution but not as to its
day to day process. It does not bind the acts of the prior senate
and the new set of senate.
League of Cities, we have 4 cases under this. The argument is
that the Congress in its entirety is not a continuing body. This is
relevant because it was during the 11 th congress where
deliberations were made WON to make these municipalities as
cities. There were 57 of them and only 34 were converted to
cities. There is 20 plus not converted. Now under the 12 th
congress, new set na naman. There was a new deliberation but
the session ended. On the 13 th congress, a law was enacted
exempting them but there was no deliberation as to why. So
they used the deliberation done on the 11th and 12th congress.
SC said it is not a continuing body so the deliberation prior to the
session cannot bind the acts of this current congress to the prior
congress. But with the later decision of the SC overturning itself,
it said the WON it is a continuing body is already irrelevant. SC
said that when we try to understand is vague, we go back to the
deliberations of the Congress in order to understand the
meaning of the Congress. So that was the statement of SC. But
for me, since the deliberation did not happen when the law was
enacted, then it could not explain the reason behind the
exemption. And the principle remains, opinion ng mga past
congress does not bind the current members. So it is not a
continuing body in so far as the day- to-day business is
concerned but as an institution it is a continuing body. It is the
same congress which enacts laws.
AUG. 7, 2013
CHA & ZAR
Zar
Last time we were talking about the composition of congress.
There are 2 compositions:
1. House of the Senate
a. There are 24 members
2. House of representatives
Section 5
(1) The house of representative shall be composed of
not more than 250 members unless otherwise
fixed by law.
Atty. Jumao-as
This gives you an idea that initially when the constitution took
effect the house of representative has a composition of 250
members, initial composition. Can it decrease? Can it increase?
The answer to both question is YES. It can be increased because
it is provided in the constitution, “otherwise fixed by law” –
meaning that the congress is given the authority to increase the
MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^
1
number of membership in the house of representative. Why did
I say increase? Because based on its membership; how they are
apportion; as we would see later on, there is no way that it could
decrease. Because the overall consideration is usually
population.
Who shall be elected? So we are talking about membership
which shall be elected from legislative districts apportion among
provinces, cities with metropolitan in accordance with their
respective inhabitants ad on the basis of a uniform and
progressive ratio – as you can see that is based from population -
based on the number of their inhabitants on the basis of
uniform and progressive ration. So it is easier to conclude that it
is more likely to increase than to decrees. And those who as
provided by a law shall be elected through a partylist system
have registered national, regional and sectoral partylist or
organization. Inside this provisional law you can see that there
are further composition of the house of representatives. It
consist of district representatives and partylist representatives
Diagram of membership in the congress
A.
District Representatives
- Those representing a legislative district
Q: 1.)How is a legislative district apportion?
2.)where can you get a legislative district?
We know that Local Government Units consist of provinces,
cities, municipalities. A legislative district is NOT a local
government unit. Its a district entitled to one representative
in the congress.
Now as to rules on apportionment:
First Rule
under par. 1 of section 5:
“each of the apportion among provinces, cities and
metropolitan Manila area in accordance with their respective
inhabitants and on the basis of uniform and progressive ratio.”
You have an idea therefore that a province is entitled to a
district, a city is entitled to a district. A legislative district
therefore form out of provinces, cities, and metropolitan area.
Each legislative district – (under paragraph 3) shall comprise as
far as practicable contiguous, compact and adjacent territory.
For example in the province - if a province is to be apportion as
one legislative district its members are usually municipalities and
component cities, if there are two legislative districts in one
province your divide into two - the members should be at least
contiguous, compact and adjacent. (In other words if you are
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
ATTY. ROVYNE JUMAO-AS
Intellectual Property of: Andoy, Aspilla, Astillo, Dela Cruz, Faustino, Gido, Miles, Muñoz , Pandita, Pinili
one district you cannot be formed from municipality A from the
southern end portion and municipality x from other extreme end,
they are very far from each other.) Reason is one, they might
have different interest or concerns, unlike when all are compact.
The basic intent of the law however is to prevent that practice
of “gerrymandering”. Gerrymandering - is a practice of
apportioning legislative district out of separate portions of
territory for the purpose of favoring a candidate.
Second Rule
“each city with a population of at least 250,000 for each
province shall have at least 1 representative”
Now you have an idea that for each city a requirement of 250,00
on its population is needed to be entitles to one legislative
district. For provinces however you cannot seek 250,00
population.
In Davao city alone although it is one city it has 3 districts. This is
based on the apportionment based on the number of respective
inhabitants - within 3 years following the census that’s in the last
paragraph of section 5 the congress shall make a
reapportionment of the legislative districts based on the
standards provided in this section.
- What the last rule is saying it’s not every three years,
it’s within 3 years after the return of every census.
Congress is mandated to make a reapportionment of
district to check for - maybe there are some
constituents that are deprived of district
representatives. And this may be a result of growth in
population or movement in population. So to regularly
check on the sufficiency of the number of legislative
district. Or whether or not there is a need to increase
the legislative districts. Congress is mandated to
regularly enact a general law of reapportionment of
legislative district that’s when they have to increase the
number of legislative districts nationwide.
In the case of:
Mariano vs COMELEC (1995)
Facts:
This involves the enactment of the city charter of Makati. This
charter converted the component city of Makati into a highly
urbanized city. Along with that conversion is an increase in its
legislative districts. From one district to two districts and divided
the barangays within the city between this two legislative
districts. The case was filed because petitioner is objecting to the
creation of a new district. His contention is that:
1st an increase of legislative district can be done only through the
general reapportionment law(last par. Of section 5), it cannot be
done through a special law.
In other words they have to wait for the general
reapportionment law - Now in this case the charter of Makati
city was that law increasing - is a special law.
2nd they are contending that the increase in the legislative
district in unconstitutional - because as of that time the
population of Makati was just around 450,00. Under the
constitution each city with a population of 250,00 is entitled to
one legislative district of congressional representative.
In other words it was the petitioners idea that since the other
district did not reach the 250,00 mark then it is not entitled to a
legislative district.
Is he correct?
Ruling:
The supreme court said;
as to the 1st contention
MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^
1
The reapportionment of legislative districts can be done
through a special law (that law is the charter of the new city). As
thus worded in the constitution (it did not preclude the congress
from increasing its membership by passing a law other than a
general reapportionment law), as worded in the constitution
“the membership in the congress in 250 unless otherwise fixed
by law” it did not say that only one law can increase the general
reapportionment of this legislative districts. So in enacting the
charter of Makati it is that law that increases the number of
legislative districts. Now to hold that reapportionment can only
be made by a general apportionment law with a review upon
the legislative districts allotted to which LGU nationwide - would
create an inequitable situation wherein a new city or province
created by congress will be denied legislative representation for
an indeterminate period of time. Why? if you say that is only
through a general apportionment law (and we say it’s not every
3 years, we have to wait for the return of the census and after
the deadline is within 3 years pa talaga) it means that a newly
created city will have to wait for that general apportionment in
order to be entitled or represented in the congress. This
situation will deprive the people, the new city or province a
particle of their sovereignty. Sovereignty cannot be made of any
subtraction, it is indivisible it must be forever whole or it is not
sovereignty.
2nd Contention
in this case the supreme court limited the application of the
250,00 population requirement only as to the initial creation of
legislative districts. In other words if a city has attained that
250,00 it is now entitled to a legislative district, in fact it does
not therefore mean for additional legislative districts there
should be another 250,000 in the population. The constitution
is not worded as such, for every 250,000 there should be 1
legislative district. In fact in the ordinance appended in the
constitution its provided there that a city which has a
population more than 250,000 is entitled to at least one district
representative, not discounting the fact that it could have more
than one because the proviso says at least one. So again as to
the 250,000 requirement under the constitution is only for the
initial creation of the legislative district for a city. As to the
additional legislative district it does not need to attain the
250,000 requirement. So even granting with the population of
Makati, its more than 250,000 its legislative district may still
increase since it has met the minimum population requirement
of 250,000. The constitution has an ordinance appended to it
which provides that the city’s population has increase to more
than 250,000 should be entitled to one congressional
representative.
You have that case of
Aldaba vs COMELEC (2010)
Facts:
It involves the city of Malolos. Mololos city as of 2007 has a
population of around 223,000. Now it has a projection based on
the annual growth rate of its population that by 2010 it will have
a population of 254,000 more or less (there was an issue
whether or not that document is valid because the projection
was only made by the regional director of NSO - but that’s
beside the point). The supreme court said, whether actual or
projected population the issue is - does Malolos city have the
population of 250,000 and is it entitled to have its own
legislative district in time for the may 2010 election. This is
relevant because they said that by 2010 they will have a
population of 254,000 and they would want to elect their
representative by May 2010.
Ruling:
The supreme court said that a city that has attain a population
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
ATTY. ROVYNE JUMAO-AS
Intellectual Property of: Andoy, Aspilla, Astillo, Dela Cruz, Faustino, Gido, Miles, Muñoz , Pandita, Pinili
of 250,000 is entitled to a legislative district only in the
immediately following election. In short, the city must first
attain the 250,000 and then after you are entitled to
congressional representation.
What’s the problem with this case? We have a projection of
250,000 let’s just say that projection is allowed. 250,000 for the
entire 2010 in other words that’s the projection for the entire
year, the election is gonna be much earlier, not even half of the
year it’s on May of 2010 - therefore it cannot be concluded that
by May 2010 they have already attained the 250,000 population.
So a city entitled to a representation only when it had attain the
250,000.
You have that case of
Aquino vs COMELEC
This clarifies what we said earlier about the requirement of
250,000 in the population to be entitled to a district
representative or to be apportion a legislative district. What do
you mean by the provision the constitution that each city with a
population of at least 250,000 or each province shall have at
least one representative?
Facts:
You have this case of a law enacted increasing the legislative
districts of the province of Camarines Sur, (compared to Mariano
case -Mariano involves a city, now in this case of Aquino vs
COMELEC involves a province). Now from 4 legislative districts
the law increase it into 5 legislative districts. - The alleged reason
for that is to accommodate Datu Macapagal Arroyo, because he
is intending to win not run to win one legislative district of that
province, he cannot be accommodated because there are
already political main runners in the district so the solution gawa
ng isang legislative district. -
Now based on that alleged sinister objective PiNoy with Lobredo
filed this case questioning the validity of that particular district.
Why? When it increase the number of legislative districts in this
province of Camarines Sur, four of the districts have reached the
250,000 population requirement some even reached more than
400,000 but one district, worst the 1st district pa talaga turned
out to have a population of 176,000. In other words hindi
umabot ng 250,000 now it is the contention of PiNoy that each
legislative district must be supported by at least 250,000 in its
population in order to be qualified to have a district
representative, same in cases of newly created provinces. That
was of his contention that for every legislative district there
must be a population of 250,000 .
Ruling:
The provision of the constitution draws a plain and clear
distinction between an entitlement of a city of a district in one
hand and an entitlement of a province to a district on the other.
For when a province is entitled to a at least a representative
with nothing mentioned about population a city must first
meet a population the minimum is 250,000 in order to be
similarly entitled. The use by subject provision of a comma;
that’s statutory construction. Therefore the constitution
requires the 250,000 minimum population only for a city to be
entitled to a representative but not so for province. If there’s a
newly created province regardless of population it is entitled to
one legislative district, as to a city not all cities are entitled to a
congressional representative. Why? Because the constitution
require that it has attain at least a minimum of 250,000
population. But if you compare Mariano and Aquino - when
talking about additional legislative district both are the same -
in that in both the ruling is that for additional legislative district
there is no need to comply with the 250,000 requirement in the
population - same sila, what is the distinction is the emphasis
that when it comes to a province there is no population
requirement - when it comes to cities there is a population
MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^
1
requirement but only to its initial legislative district.
Let’s go to the second composition of congressional
representatives. That is the Partylist representatives.
Partylist Representative
Section 5:
(1) The house of representatives shall be composed of xxx,
and those who, as provided by law , shall be elected
through a party-list system of registered national,
regional, and sectoral parties or organization.
The second paragraph of section 5 is also relevant to party-
list representatives in where that it provides for the ratio of
district representatives as to party-list representatives in
the entire membership of the House of Representatives.
The party-list representative shall constitute the 20 percent
of the total number of representatives including those
under the party-list. So you are going to do some math
under this provision.
Since the constitution mandate the congress to enact a law
implementing the party-list system, congress enacted
republic act 7941 - providing for the “election of the party-
list representatives with the party-list system and
appropriating funds therefore”. This was enacted in 1995,
the constitution took effect in 1987 the implementing law
was enacted 8 years later. We are now in 2013 and still we
are in dilemma of what a party-list system really is in the
Philippines, because if you observe the Supreme Court have
been changing its interpretation of the provisions of the
constitution and the law on what really is a party-list system
in the Philippines. Who is allowed to participate, how is it to
be computed. So from 1987-2013 - I hope we are now
starting to establish what should be the interpretation of
party-list system. What is party-list system in the Philippines
based on deliberation of the constitutional commission
particularly those that were given out by its main
proponents – the main proponent of the part-list system to
be written out in the constitution – commissioner Munsod –
his idea is that the party-list system would open up the
system, the political system to a pluralistic society through a
multi-party system. His idea is to have a multi part system in
the congress. Now this cannot be done because usually only
major political parties would dominate the election. We are
not like the US where they only have 2 parties, here we are
encouraging multi-parties. But more often than not it’s just
2 or 3 parties that are buying for the position. Now that was
his introductory speech, to open up the political system to a
pluralistic society through a multi-party system. We are
opening up the system and we would like very much for the
sectors also to be there, that was his speech. Now the idea
was that for legislative districts to constitution is only
requiring a constituent of 250,000, there are parties which
regularly participate in legislative district election but
regularly places in the 3rd or 4th place hindi talaga sila maka
abot ng 1st or 2nd but if you take all their votes- nationwide
votes, you would see that some of this parties have
constituency of not just 250,000 but more than that. Some
will have 500,000 votes taken together nationwide. Some
millions of vote. So if a person is entitled to represent
250,000 constituents why not another persons or another
party representing this 500,000 or more constituents. But
this cannot be done through legislative district election
because as I’ve said it’s been dominated by some parties. So
the idea is again to open up the system para maramin ang
makasali. That’s the idea of munsod ha –I’m talking about
the idea of munsod the proponent. So based on that the
party-list is supposed to be intended to democratize
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
ATTY. ROVYNE JUMAO-AS
Intellectual Property of: Andoy, Aspilla, Astillo, Dela Cruz, Faustino, Gido, Miles, Muñoz , Pandita, Pinili
political power by giving political parties that cannot win in
a legislative district election, a chance to win seats in the
House of Representatives. That’s the basic idea. Now under
the part-list system the voter elect two representatives in
the house. One for his legislative district, and another for
his or her party-list group or organization of choice. What
would that organization be?
CHA
What would that organization be? Now, should it be a sector?
The deliberation actually revolved around sector. That is why
nagkalito-lito ang interpretation ng supreme court. Anyway, ah…
I forgot the term but ah…. Modern times will have multifaceted
persons like for example a person can be both a farmer and a
lawyer. So, he you cannot say that he is, can he say that he
represents a farmer or would he be under the law, not a farmer
but a lawyer? So the idea is that, it would that be up to that
person to determine whether he is a farmer or a lawyer or
farmer-doctor, fisherman-doctor. So, that’s why, open that
system, it’s up to that person to choose his party or group okay.
Now, as I’ve said, there has been a problem on the
interpretation on this party list system. When congress enacted
RA 7941, it also initiated there the policy of enacting the law. But
policy as stated, would be that the party list system is a social
justice tool designed not only to give more law to the great
masses of our people but thus in line, but also to be enable them
to become veritable lawmakers of such empowered to
participate the relocated enactment of laws designed to better
them with the intents to make the marginalized and
underrepresented not merely passive recipients of the state
nevertheless but active participants in a mainstream of
representative democracy that as that’s the policy as describe in
the case of Ang Bagong Bayani vs. COMELEC decided in 2001. So,
relatively the case it’s a social justice tool for those who have
less in life. To give them more in law not just become recipients
of the law but to become lawmakers themselves. The policy is in
good cover the marginalized and the underrepresented. That’s
the policy. As understood by the supreme court in the 2001 case
of Ang Bagong Bayani vs. Comelec, so who may participate in the
party list election? So that’s a hundred dollar question! Pertinent
to this question are the following cases, we discuss this issue on
who may participate this would be the cases you have to
remember. Ang Bagong Bayani decided in 2001, Banat case
decided in 2009 and more recent case of Ang Atong Paglaum in
2013. The latter case was decided just as in time for the 2013
election.
Who may participate in the party list election? Let’s talk about
the 2001 case first. That’s the first case that the Supreme Court
interpreted the constitution vis-à-vis or on who may participate.
That this is the interpretation of the SC, the intention of the
Constitution is clear to give genuine power to the people not
only to give more law to those who have less in life but more so
by making them to become the lawmakers themselves so
consistent to this system. The policy implementing though may
repeal is likewise clear that they may call Filipino citizens
belonging to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors or
organizations and parties to become members of the house of
the representatives. For the language of that it is clear that it
must be according to its clusters. As far as the Supreme Court is
concern, at the time the language of the law is clear. So
precluded the party list system is only available to the
marginalized and the underrepresented. So who would be that
those marginalized and underrepresented? They would refer to
sectors as defined in Section 5 of that law. Section 5 provides for
registration, any organized group may register, etc. etc., the last
sentence has a proviso, provided that the sector shall include
the labor, peasant, fisher folk, urban poor, indigenous culture
MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^
1
and communities, elderly, women, youth veterans, overseas
workers and professionals. So while the nomination here, is not
exclusive, it gives us, a clear idea that the clear intent of the law
not all sectors can be represented under the party list system. So
it only refers to the marginalized and underrepresented.
Therefore, it cannot include bankers, industrialist or sugar-
planters. While business smuggles and mega rich only in the
Philippines the Supreme Court will use, ano yun? ano yun last
time? Supermajority? Now here Mega rich… are numerically
speaking are telling minority they are marginalized now
underrepresented or start reality that their economic sprout
engenders political power, MORE AWESOME on their numerical
(katawa ang class kay gi-emphasize ang more awesome wan a ko
kasabot). In other words, if your party AKO BISAYA, anopa yung
mga ano, AKO BICOLANO, mostly with ako.. because initially.
Do you ever wonder why the names of the parties always start
with an A? Because initially the listing in the ballot is in
alphabetical order, kaya in 2013 as you observed hindi na
alphabetical (Kasi lahat ng A.. ako titser, ako student, ako intsik
na sunod). So, if you say the sector is representing one particular
cultural group like the tagalogs, it cannot be said that they are
marginalized and under this interpretation, they cannot
participate in the party-list system.
Q: Corollary to that, may political parties participate in the party-
list elections?
A:Yes! That is decided in the case of Ang Bagong Bayani vs.
COMELEC 359 S 698 (2002). Why? It is provided in Section 5,
Article 6 of the 1987 Constitution –
Section 5. (1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of
not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise
fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts
apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan
Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective
inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio,
and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a
party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral
parties or organizations.
It mentioned parties. Now, even the proponents stated that the
purpose of the party is to open up the system to political parties
in order to give a chance to parties *** to win a seat in the
Congress. Also under the law, R.A. 7941, it also defined what a
party is. A party that can participate in the party-list election - A
party means either a political party or a sectoral party or a
coalition of parties. In other words, a political party can
participate in the party-list election. A political party is also
defined under the aforestated law - (c) A political party refers to
an organized group of citizens advocating an ideology or
platform, principles and policies for the general conduct of
government and which, as the most immediate means of
securing their adoption, regularly nominates and supports
certain of its leaders and members as candidates for public
office.
But there is a big BUT there, that political parties may participate
in the party-list election does not mean that any political party
or any organization or group for that matter may do so. Why,
this is the same case that interpreted that the party list system
as to be one which is available only to the marginalized and
under represented. So if you are a political party, you must
belong to the marginalized or under represented, which is
impossible to achieve. So this interpretation already disqualifies
political parties. Now this interpretation is further stretched by
Banat vs. COMELEC(2009).
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
ATTY. ROVYNE JUMAO-AS
Intellectual Property of: Andoy, Aspilla, Astillo, Dela Cruz, Faustino, Gido, Miles, Muñoz , Pandita, Pinili
REPUBLIC ACT No. 7941
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE ELECTION OF PARTY-LIST
REPRESENTATIVES THROUGH THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM, AND
APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR
Section 3.  Definition of Terms.  (a) The party-list system is a
mechanism of proportional representation in the election of
representatives to the House of Representatives from national,
regional and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions
thereof registered with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC).
Component parties or organizations of a coalition may
participate independently provided the coalition of which they
form part does not participate in the party-list system.
(b) A party means either a political party or a sectoral party or a
coalition of parties.
(c) A political party refers to an organized group of citizens
advocating an ideology or platform, principles and policies for
the general conduct of government and which, as the most
immediate means of securing their adoption, regularly
nominates and supports certain of its leaders and members as
candidates for public office. Xxx
Banat vs. COMELEC 586 S 211(2009)
8 years later (from the case earlier case discussed), in the case of
Banat vs. COMELEC, the court held that yes political parties may
participate in the party list election. If you read RA 7941 and
Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution, it states that major
political parties are allowed to participate. Now in the present
case, major political parties were allowed to establish coalitions
with sectoral organizations for political purposes. There should
not be a problem if for example the liberal party participates in
the party-list election through Kabataang Liberal ng Pilipinas.
Now the major polical parties can just organize or affiliate with
other sectoral organizations.
In other words, if you are a political party, you can participate in
the party-list election but through your sectoral wing. You have
to establish your own sectoral wing, that wing must represent
the marginalized and the under represented. BUT, by a vote of 8
to 7, the SC decided to continue the ruling in Veterans,
disallowing major political parties from participating in the party
list elections directly or indirectly.
In veterans, the SC held that since it is provided by law that for
the first 3 consecutive terms the first *** major political parties
are disqualified or not allowed to participate, that is in view of
the fact that they regularly dominate the election and to give
other political parties a time to cope with this major political
parties binawalan muna sila for that particular election in 1998.
But the SC continued the disallowance by vote of 8 to 7,
disallowing major political parties from participating in the party
list elections directly or indirectly. Meaning even if they form
sectoral wings, they are still not allowed yet to participate. Now
this is compounded with the fact that the COMELEC did not
accredit the sectoral wings of major political parties so they
were not allowed to participate in the party-list election.
MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^
1
So as to the question on WON major political parties may
participate in the party-list election, the answer is Yes! But they
cannot yet participate.
Q: May major political parties participate?
A: Yes, through their sectoral wings, BUT they are still
disqualified and not allowed to participate.
Now we have another ruling, decided on 2013. The
case of…
Atong Paglaum vs. COMELEC G.R. 203766, April 2, 2013
The political parties here want to participate in the
party list election. They are contending that the interpretation of
the SC is really wrong that the party-list system is limited only to
those representing the marginalized and the under-represented.
So they filed this case – Atong Paglaum decided on April 2,
2013. It’s shocking the most, because this time the SC is saying
that it’s not limited only to the marginalized and the under-
represented, anyone may participate in the party-list election. If
you have a copy of the case, the first ¼ pages of the cases would
constitute the title of the case, because it is actually a
consolidation of 50+petitions. The SC consolidated it in one
decision, because the question is who can participate in the
party list election.
The SC overturned its earlier 2001 decision, it is now saying, that
the clear intent and express wording of the party-list structure,
under Section 5 of Article 6 of the Constitution, cannot be
disputed. The party-list system is not only for sectoral parties.
Let us read Section 5 paragraph 1 again. It states that there shall
be a party-list system of …
xxx national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations or
coalitions thereof registered with the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC). xxx
Based on that, the party list system under the Constitution is
composed of three different groups – the national parties or
organizations, regional parties or organizations and sectoral
parties or organizations. It did not say registered national and
regional sectoral parties organization. It cannot be interpreted to
mean, national sectoral party or regional sectoral party because
each word is separated by a comma that is a basic statutory
construction. So in other words, a national party is different
from a regional party and from a sectoral party or organization.
National Liberal Parties or organizations are different from
Sectoral Parties or organizations. National parties or
organizations need not be organized along sectoral lines and
need not represent any particular sectors because they are
different from each other. If you are a national party, you need
not represent a sector because there is a different category for
sectoral parties. Basic and simple interpretation of the
Constitution would really come to the conclusion that the party-
list system is not only for sectoral parties or the marginalized or
the under-represented; the economically marginalized and
under-represented at that.
The law itself, RA 7941 does not require, national and regional
parties or organization to represent the marginalized and under-
represented sectors. Why? Isn’t it that the law provides for
definitions of political and sectoral parties. They are defined
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
ATTY. ROVYNE JUMAO-AS
Intellectual Property of: Andoy, Aspilla, Astillo, Dela Cruz, Faustino, Gido, Miles, Muñoz , Pandita, Pinili

under different paragraphs. Since they have different definitions,

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

Under Section 3( c) of RA 7941,,

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

advocating an ideology or platform, principles and policies for
the general conduct of government xxx

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

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

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

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

The economic status is not supposed to be the qualifying factor

for a group whether it be a party or organization to participate in
the party-list election. So, ideology based and cause oriented
political parties may now participate. For example in this case of
Atong Paglaum, although the ultimate decision of the SC that it’s
changing the rules and the interpretation, it remanded all the
applications to the COMELEC based on the new criteria. So, wala
pa decision as to each case, WON they are allowed to
participate. But what’s the *** for me, for example [Green
Cross?] is a party advocating environmental protection; the
COMELEC disqualified it because it does not represent any
sector which is true. What does it represent? The mammal
sector or the reptile sector? It is an advocacy group. Now based
on the prior interpretation of the SC, the COMELEC did not
abuse its discretion, because under the prior interpretation of
the SC, it does not represent a marginalized or under
represented sector. It is an advocacy group. But under the new
interpretation, it may now be allowed.

So, if you say, ma’am I will form my own political party. We are
for the - we go back to the American style.. that is the ideology,
can you participate as a political party? The answer yes! There is
no need to represent a particular sector. In fact when you say a
sector of professionals, you cannot say that they are under-
represented and marginalized. So a group of professionals can
already participate (as a political party??). Now I’m thinking, the
IBP of the Philippines can now participate in the party-list
election. Diba? It is a group of professionals. So next election,
expect not only some 100+ applications, but siguro aabot yan ng
500 because of this new ruling.

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

WON a major political party may participate in the party-list
election! **yehey! :D

MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^

1
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
ATTY. ROVYNE JUMAO-AS
Intellectual Property of: Andoy, Aspilla, Astillo, Dela Cruz, Faustino, Gido, Miles, Muñoz , Pandita, Pinili

are marginalized will facilitate the entry of the marginalized in

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

1
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
ATTY. ROVYNE JUMAO-AS
Intellectual Property of: Andoy, Aspilla, Astillo, Dela Cruz, Faustino, Gido, Miles, Muñoz , Pandita, Pinili

sectors whthere you represent the NMUs either must

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

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

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

Nagjoke na si mam diri citing the meaning of the party

list names registered in COMELEC.

MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^

1
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
ATTY. ROVYNE JUMAO-AS
Intellectual Property of: Andoy, Aspilla, Astillo, Dela Cruz, Faustino, Gido, Miles, Muñoz , Pandita, Pinili
AUG 9 HOLIDAY
AUG. 14, 2013
JETRO & DANIELLE
ART 6 paragraph 2
Section 5 - the party-list representatives shall constitute 20% of
the total number of representatives including those under the
party list.
The allocation of party list is 20% of the total number of seats in
the house. We discussed how the 20% is solve using simple
mathematical equation. The problem now is now that we have
the 20%, how do we allocate them? Who shall be considered as
nominees? Who shall be considered to be given seats?
The prevailing law is RA 7941. Under sec 11, the congress
provides:
“the parties, organizations and coalitions receiving at least two
percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list system shall
be entitled to one seat each provided that those garnering more
than two percent ( 2%) of the votes shall be entitled to
additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes
provided finally that each party, organization, or coalition shall
be entitled to not more than three 3 seats”
So how do we put this in actual application?
In the case of VETERANS, the decision is iterated in CIBAC.
BANAT somehow change the decision in veterans. But in all
these cases, the SC is one in saying that there 4 inviolable
parameters when we allocate seats:
st
1 , the 20% allocation – the combined number of all party-list
congressmen shall not exceed 20% of the total membership of
the house of representatives including those elected under the
party list.
Is it mandatory? Its been decided in veterans that it is not
mandatory . it is only a ceiling. Further, in the case of Banat still
its not mandatory. What it means is that PARTY LIST
REPRESENTATIVES cannot be more than 20% of the members of
the house of representatives.
2nd, the two percent threshold – only those parties garnering a
minimum of two percent of the total valid votes cast for the
party-list system are “qualified” to have a seat in the house of
representatives.
In veterans and banat, they are one in interpreting those parties
which obtained at least 2% are entitled to 1 seat each and that is
also true in the case of banat. All 2% percent or more are
entitled to at least 1 additional seat. But in the case of veterans,
the SC clarifies it that this entitlement means only a guaranteed
seat. Now after that the 3rd parameter – the 3 seat limit.
3rd, the three seat limit-each qualified party regardless of the
number of votes it actually obtained, is entitled to a maximum of
three seats, that is one “qualifying “ and two additional seats.
4th, proportional representation- the additional seats which a
qualified party is entitled to shall be computed “in proportion
to their total number of votes”.
So proportional representation would mean the additional seats.
The additional seats is computed in proportion to this total
number of votes. Dito nagkaiba ang VETERANS AND BANAT.
MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^
1
In veterans and banat, 2% entitled to 1 seat- same.
The additional seat:
In veterans for example, 52 seats are available. Only 17 seat
were qualified. How about additional seat? The SC said here you
consider proportional representation. The SC interpreted this as
the vote of the 2nd party in proportion to the first party.
Meaning, if the 1st party has 50% more of the votes of the 2 nd,
the seats of the 2nd party should not equal to the 1 st party. The
SC look for way that the result could not equal to the seats of
the 1st. there can be no equal seat for the 1 st and 2nd party.
Meaning the seats for the 3rd, 4th, 5th is always much lower.
For example, I have 20% votes – 1 st party. I am entitled to 3
seats, the 2nd party has 8%, but because of the 3 seat limits, how
many seats has the 2nd party? 3 seats because of the 3 seat
limit. The SC interpreted if you have 2% - 1 seat , 4% - 2 seats ,
6% - 3 seats. If you have 8% - just 3 seats because the maximum
is 3 seats. The SC did not like that. If you read veterans, there
are 2 applications:
1st - computation for the 1st party
2nd - a new formula for the rest of the parties
For example, 1st ranking has 3 seats
2nd ranking- 5% - the result would always be lower.
In that case, only those with 2% and higher are entitled to a
seat. When it comes to additional seat, the additional seats are
computed in relation to the total votes of 1 st ranking. How many
% is your vote in relation to my vote?
Something is wrong with the computation. The law provides
that it would be the percentage of the a party list votes gathered
in relation to the total number of votes cast in the election.
What does it mean?
BAGONG BAYANI VS COMELEC
152 parties participated but after the election, it was resolved by
comelec that only 46 were qualified. If we include all the votes
including all those disqualified, they were around 15M votes
total. If you remove the disqualified, there are only 6M votes.
Now if we solve the percentage:
What do we mean total votes cast? The SC said that only those
votes cast under the qualified parties. Only the 6M votes.
Going back to Veterans, if that was the formula it would be easy
to deduced that only very would qualify to those seats.
1. Only those garnering 2% and up
2. Only those 2% - 1 seat , 4%- 2 seats , 6%- 3 seats for
first party – entitled to additional seats
3. How about the 2nd ranking? It depends how much is
your vote in proportion to the 1st party.
In the case of Banat, the SC simplified the formula.
What is the difference?
1. They rank the parties
2. Those 2% parties are guaranteed 1 seat
3. The additional seat:
The SC said the 2nd portion of the law which says
provided that those garnering more than 2% if votes
shall be entitled to additional seat in proportion to the
total number of votes: this time the SC declared this
portion is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
ATTY. ROVYNE JUMAO-AS
Intellectual Property of: Andoy, Aspilla, Astillo, Dela Cruz, Faustino, Gido, Miles, Muñoz , Pandita, Pinili
This PORTION means that only those 2% and up are
entitled to additional votes. The SC said if we stick to
that interpretation, then there is no way we could fill
the 20% of the seats. Sayang din. The SC held it
unconstitutional.
This time, the SC considered everyone in the additional seat. As
to those 2% and up, they will get this percentage in relation to
the total number of votes. Same pa rin. But you multiply it with
the no. of remaining seats.
In veterans, ilan ang percentage ko in relation sa boto ng 1 st
party and seats ng 1st party.
In banat, ang percentage in relation to the remaining seats.
55-17 = 38 remaining available seats
So if I have 5%- what is 5% of the 38 remaining seats?
So review:
1. All 2% and up have 1 guaranteed seat
2. As to the additional seat, everyone is a candidate. For
2% and up, their percentage in relation to the no of
seats remaining.
So what happens if after there are still seats available?
The SC said the 20% allocation is not mandatory but its not
prohibited. They said after giving the 2% guaranteed and
additional seats, the additional seats is not limited to the 2%. So
even if you have % lower than 2, don’t lose hope. You might
still get a seat depending in the ranking until all seats are filled
up because the original computation in veterans did not qualify
them. The conclusion in Banat, the limit of 2% is not used in
solving the additional seat.
Is the 2% threshold constitutional?
Yes as to the guaranteed seat but not to the additional seat.
Is the 3 seat limit constitutional? ( both in banat and veterans)
Yes it is constitutional. We need to have a limit otherwise it will
defeat the purpose of preventing a party in dominating the party
list.
Lets go to SEC 6
Sec 6 talks about the qualifications of the members of the house
of representatives:
No person shall be a member of the house of representatives
unless he is a natural born citizen of the Philippines and on the
day of the election, is at least 25 yrs of age, able to read and
write and except that party-list representatives, a registered
voter in the district in which he shall be elected and a resident
thereof for a period of not less than one year immediately
preceding the day of the election.
Residency and registered voter are not required of party list
nominees.
Lets go to RESIDENCY
Residency is synonymous with domicile.
MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^
1
What is the purpose of the law? Why is residency required?
Because the person needs to be familiar with district. He needs
to be familiar with the needs of the community, its residential,
the difficulties of the residents. We don’t want a stranger to rule
to the district.
On the part of the voters, a person seeking an elective office has
to be for 1 year in that place. Why? He still has to assess
whether or not he is qualified or not.
Since residency is synonymous with domicile, how do we apply
it?
In the case of Imelda marcos:
ROMUALDEZ v COMELEC
FACTS: Imelda came to Tolosa, Leyte when she was 8 yrs old. She
established it as her domicile. She studied there up to college.
Later she transferred to manila. Around in the 60’s, she was with
her husband marcos who was the president of the phils that
time. If we reckon it from the time she stayed in Toloso, it was
only 14 yrs. Then EDSA revolution, she was exiled the she came
back to manila. She even ran for president actually and stated
she was a resident in san juan. Prior to that, there documents
she was a resident of some place. In aug 4 1994, she came back
to tolosa, leyte. Then election on May 1995, counting from aug
to may, it is less than 1 yr.
ISSUE: W/N she was able to comply with the residency
requirement.
RULING: The SC said YES. She has established her domicile long
ago in TOLOSA, leyte. She has not exhibited any acts
abandoning her domicile. Although she transferred in manila,
she has to stay there because of her husband. If one has to
abandon one’s domicile, there should be actual physical
presence ( animus manendi) and ( animus non-revertendi) acts
showing that you are abandoning your old domicile. In her case,
although she was in manila, she has been regularly going back to
tolosa. Most of her projects benefit her kababayan in tolosa. In
fact the SC observed, she has establish her political machinery in
tolosa. These are acts which show she has not abandon tolosa.
But when she rean for president, she stated her residence was
manila. She is not also disqualified because it was also her
residence.
In the case of Butch Aquino...
AQUINO vs COMELEC
FACTS: He intended to run in the 2 nd newly created district of
Makati. He filed his cert of candidacy. The aquinos are known to
be domiciles of Tarlac. How did he intend to prove his residency
in Makati? He rented a condo. He was saying his rent was for a
year.
ISSUE: W/N he complied with residency requirement.
RULING: The SC noticed although you have a lease contract, that
is not a proof that you intended to make Makati your residence
much less prove that you have abandon your domicile of origin.
Aquino said no one can possibly comply the residency
requirement since the district was newly created. The SC said
that argument cannot hold water. Although it was a new
district, the physical territory has been existing for years.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
ATTY. ROVYNE JUMAO-AS
Intellectual Property of: Andoy, Aspilla, Astillo, Dela Cruz, Faustino, Gido, Miles, Muñoz , Pandita, Pinili
Another case...
DOMINO VS COMELEC
Domino ran and won as a representative in Sarangani in 1988
election. It was shown that on june 1997 he was a registered
voter in quezon city but in may 1998, he ran in sarangani.
What’s his proof of residency in sarangani? His lease of contract
dated January 27, 1997. Aside from that, he has not shown any
acts that he has abandon his domicile in quezon city. A lease
contract alone is not sufficient to prove the 1 year residency nor
proof of abandoning his domicile of origin.
In the case of
FERNANDEZ VS HRET
FACTS: Fernandez used to be an SP member and vice governor in
laguna. His prior certificate of candidacy declared he was a
resident of pagsanjan belonging to the fourth district. Now he’s
running for the 1st district. His cert of candidacy already
indicated sta. rosa as his residency. He showed his lease contract
in sta. rosa.
ISSUE: Did he comply the residency requirement?
RULING: The SC ruled in favor of Fernandez. Why?
What is the problem in the Aquino case? They also showed the
lease contract but there was no showing of any acts that they
have abandon their old domicile and there was no physical acts
of presence in the new place. In the case at bar, Fernandez has
shown physical acts of presence. Although he purchased also
properties in sta rosa but there was no property requirement. A
person doesn’t have to purchase a property in the place to prove
residency since you will be adding another qualification and this
would be unconstitutional. The SC said here that the lease of
contract would suffice since Fernandez had long established his
attachment to the place. He has businesses in the place. He has
purchased properties in sta rosa. The children are also studying
in sta rosa for 2 years already.
We were talking about the residency requirement of a district
representative. In the case of party list representatives, its not
the same. We refer to RA 7941;
Qualifications of party list member
1. He’s a natural-born citizen
2. Registered voter
3. Has to be a residence of the Philippines for a period of
1 year
4. Able to read and write
5. A bona fide member of the party at least 90 days
before the date of election
The difference is that he has to be a residence of the Philippines
unlike in representatives, a residence of the district and has to
be a member of the party he or she seeks to represent.
In the case of BANAT VS COMELEC
Who are qualified nominees? The ruling was only those
representing the marginalized and under represented. The
question is do the nominees has also to be marginalized and
underrepresented?
The SC said the need not nominee not be wallowing in poverty,
destitution or infirmity since there is no financial status required
MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^
1
in the law. It is enough that the nominee belongs to the
marginalized and underrepresented sectors , that is if the
nominee represents the fisher folk, he or she must be a fisher
folk himself. If he represents the senior citizens, he or she must
be a senior citizen.
In ATONG PAGLAUM VS COMELEC
The SC qualified this decision regarding who are qualified as
nominees?
The nominees of sectoral organization that represents the
marginalized and underrepresented; for those who represent
must either belong to their representative sector, kung fisher
folk ka, fisher folk represent mo, farmer ka farmer ang represent
mo OR must have a track record of advocacy for their respective
sectors.
Meaning, you need not be a farmer or fisher folk
yourself. They must be bona fide member of these
parties. This time, anybody can participate in the party
list election not only coming from the marginalized and
underrepresented but also group of political parties. If
you are representing a political party, you only need to
be a bona fide member of that party.
SECTION 7 . The members of the house of representatives shall
be elected for a term of three years which shall begin unless
otherwise provided by law, at noon on the 3oth day of june next
following their election.
No member of the house of representatives shall serve for more
than 3 consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office
for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption
in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was
elected.
Sec 7 talks about term –years of service.
What is the difference between term and tenure?
Term is the period which the official is entitled to hold office.
Term is provided by law. Tenure is the actual period the official
held the office. This maybe reduced by death, resignation or
removal. Term can only be changed by amending the
constitution.
Under the omnibus election code, there was this provision ( was
– meaning it has already been amended) “ that elected official
running for office is considered ipso facto resigned the moment
he filed his certificate of candidacy”
In the case of
DIMAPORO v COMELEC
He is a congressman. When he filed his cert of candidacy of
governor, he was considered ipso facto resigned from congress.
He challenged this provision saying congress is reducing the term
of the official in congress which is a constitutional provision
which can be amended thru amending the constitution,
therefore its unconstitutional.
The SC said said its not unconstitutional since what is shortened
here is not his term but his tenure. Thru his voluntary act of filing
a cert of candidacy shortens his tenure.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
ATTY. ROVYNE JUMAO-AS
Intellectual Property of: Andoy, Aspilla, Astillo, Dela Cruz, Faustino, Gido, Miles, Muñoz , Pandita, Pinili
BUT I said WAS coz this has already been amended.
Only the APPOINTED OFFICIALS are considered ipso
facto resigned the moment they file their certificate of
candidacy.
AUG. 15, 2013
MICHELLE & MARLIE
AUG. 16, 2013 HOLIDAY – moved to AUG. 15, 2013
Section 8.  Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election
of the Senators and the Members of the House of
Representatives shall be held on the second Monday of May.
Can it be changed? Unless otherwise provided by law. So it can
be changed without amending the Constitution.
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 in the manner prescribed by law, but the Senator or
Member of the House of Representatives thus elected shall serve
only for the unexpired term.
So in case of vacancy, the vacancy is filled by calling a special
election. There is no such thing as appointment in case of
vacancy.
Q: Now is the calling of special election mandatory?
A: No! Because it says there “may be called” and “in the manner
prescribed by law.” So there must be a law prescribing the
manner of special election.
Q: Is there a law treating special elections in case of vacancy?
A: Yes! We have Sec. 1 & 2 of RA 6645 amended by Sec. 4 of RA
7166.
RA 6645:
Section 1.  In case a vacancy arises in the Senate at least
eighteen (18) months or in the House of Representatives at least
(1) year before the next regular election for Members of
Congress, the Commission on Elections, upon receipt of a
resolution of the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the
case may be, certifying to the existence of such vacancy and
calling for a special election, shall hold a special election to fill
such vacancy.f Congress is in recess, an official communication
on the existence of the vacancy and call for a special election by
the President of the Senate or by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, as the case may be, shall be sufficient for such
purpose. The Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives thus elected shall serve only for the unexpired
term.
Section 2.  The Commission on Elections shall fix the date of the
special election, which shall not be earlier than forty-five (45)
days not later than ninety (90) days from the date of such
resolution or communication, stating among other things the
office or offices to be voted for: provided, however, that if within
the said period a general election is scheduled to be held, the
special election shall be held simultaneously with such general
election.
MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^
1
RA 7166
Section 4.  Postponement, Failure of Election and Special
Elections.  - The postponement, declaration of failure of election
and the calling of special elections as provided in Sections 5, 6
and 7 of the Omnibus Election Code shall be decided by the
Commission sitting en banc by a majority vote of its members.
The causes for the declaration of a failure of election may occur
before or after the casting of votes or on the day of the election.
In case a permanent vacancy shall occur in the Senate or House
of Representatives at least one (1) year before the expiration of
the term, the Commission shall call and hold a special election to
fill the vacancy not earlier than sixty (60) days nor longer than
ninety (90) days after the occurrence of the vacancy. However, in
case of such vacancy in the Senate, the special election shall be
held simultaneously with the succeeding regular election.
Q: How is the Special Election called in case of vacancy?
A: 1. there must be a vacancy which is permanent in nature.
Vacancy must occur in the Senate or in the House of
Representative at least one year before the expiration of the
term.
2. The senate or HR shall issue a resolution if it is in session or an
official communication by the Senate President or the Speaker of
the House if it is not in session, certifying the vacancy and calling
of the Special election.
Q: What is the role of the COMELEC?
A: The COMELEC shall schedule and hold the Special Election,
provided that in case of vacancy in the HR, the special elections
shall be held within 60-90 days from the occurrence of the
vacancy. In case of the senate, the election shall be held
simultaneously with the General Election because we have
election for the senate every 3 years.
This holding of Special Election which is the function of
the COMELEC, will be accompanied with a notice
stating the offices to be voted for. Meaning the
COMELEC will give notice to the voters that they are
voting to fill a vacancy.
Tolentino vs. Comelec, 420 S 438
Fact: We know that PGMA came into power pursuant to
succession. She was formerly the VP and so she vacated the
office of the VP. Under the Constitution, she will nominate the
VP among members of the Congress. She nominated Senator
Guingona. He took his oath of office and as a result there was a
vacancy in the Senate. Following the procedure, the Senate
issued a Resolution certifying the existence of vacancy and
directing the COMELEC to hold a special election. The vacancy
occurred sometime in Feb. 2001 and there was to be a regular
election in May 2001.
The resolution of the Senate actually provided that the 13 th in
rank in the senatorial race shall replace Guingona. But the
problem there is that when the COMELEC called the
election, there was no notice to the voters that the 13 th placer
will be the replacement of Guingona and shall serve his
unexpired term.
Issue: Does this vitiate the proceedings of the election of the 13 th
in rank because COMELEC didn’t send out a notice that the
public shall be voting for the replacement of Guingona. Does this
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
ATTY. ROVYNE JUMAO-AS
Intellectual Property of: Andoy, Aspilla, Astillo, Dela Cruz, Faustino, Gido, Miles, Muñoz , Pandita, Pinili
nullify the election of the replacement?
Ruling: No! Because there was already a law which provides that
in case of vacancy in the Senate, the election to fill up the
vacancy shall be held simultaneously with the General Election.
Provision of the law therefor is already a general notice to all the
voters that if there is certified vacancy, the voters will be voting
for the replacement on the next regular election despite the
failure of COMELEC to give out notice. Therefor the
proclamation of the 13th in rank as Senator is still valid.
Section 10.  Thesalaries of Senators and Members of
the House of Representatives shall be determined
by law. No increase in said compensation shall take
effect until after the expiration of the full term of all
the Members of the Senate and the House of
Representatives approving such increase.
PHILCONSA vs. Mathay, 18 S 300
Facts: In this case, Mathay here is the Auditor of Congressmen
and this case revolves around the increase of salary in Congress.
There is a provision in the Constitution which serves as a
deterrent for congressmen who will enact a law to increase the
salary of the members of the Senate and HR. The deterrent is
very simple; the effectivity of the salary increase should only
take effect after the expiration of the term of all the members of
the Senate and the HR who actually enacted such law. The main
reason for such law is to prevent satisfaction of the self-serving
interest of the Senators and the Congressmen who enacts said
law.
The petitioner’s main contention is that the members of the
house which enacted said law has already finished their terms
and so, the increase in salary should already be effected.
Issue: Won an increase in the salary of the members of the HR
should already be granted.
Ruling: No. The provision in the Constitution does not only refer
to the term of the members of the House but also as to the
members of the Senate which enacted the said law.
When you say the expiration of the term of the members of the
Senate and the HR, this means the expiration of the terms of
both Senators and members of HR. In this case, the term of
office of the HR is 4 years while for the Senators is 6 years. On
the 4th year, does it mean, that the congressmen can already
avail of the increase by virtue of a law previously passed or
should it wait for the expiration of the Senator’s term which is
on the 6th year. The SC held that there should still be a waiting
period of 2 years.
The object of the law is to at least provide a legal bar to the
legislators leading from the natural temptation to increase their
salaries. Because if they want to increase it, they still have to
wait for the expiration of all of their terms (more often than not,
the ones who enacted said law will not be able to enjoy the said
increase as they are already outgoing). For example, we just had
the May 2013 election by 2016 the terms of the Congressman
will expire. By 2016 also, the term of half of the Senators will
also expire. Does that mean that for example, if they enact a law
increasing their salary, should it take effect on June 30, 2016?
No! because there is still the other half of senators who were
incumbents when the law was enacted. So you still have to wait
until 2019 before you can benefit from the increase.
MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^
1
But what happened in the following case:
Ligot vs. Mathay, 56 S 823
Facts: Ligot here is a member of the House. This case is in
relation to the case of PHILCONSA v. Mathay where the Court
held that the salary increase shall take effect only on December
30, 1969. Incidentally, this is also the date of the expiration of
the term of Ligot. Ligot filed a claim for retirement pay under CA
186 and claims that his retirement pay should be based on the
already increased salary rate.
Issue: WON the retirement benefit of Ligot should be computed
based on the increased salary rate.
Ruling: To allow Ligot to avail of the retirement benefit based on
the increased salary rate would be a subtle way of increasing his
compensation during his term and achieving indirectly what he
could not obtain directly. Ligot’s claim thus cannot be sustained.
Again, for retirement benefits, it must be based on the salary
rate which is in effect during his term and not the increased
salary rate of the subsequent term. So they cannot increase their
salaries during their term. They cannot enjoy the increase during
their term. They have to wait for 9 years, and that is if they are
re-elected during that time.
Q: Why are there a lot of citizens aspiring for the position of
Senator and Congressman?
A: Because what is prohibited only in the Constitution is the
Salary Increase. What about allowances? Mind you, allowances
are included in the prohibition of the prior constitutions, but in
1987, the said prohibition was deleted. There is no legal limit as
to the effectivity and amount of allowances. In the words of Fr.
Bernas, the limit is only moral, Kung kaya ng konsensiya mo!
Q: How about deduction of Salary? Should it take effect before
the expiration of the full term of everyone?
A: NO! If there is deduction, it could immediately take effect the
following day, but [I] doubt if there would be congressmen who
would do that!
Section 11. A Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable by not more
than six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the
Congress is in session.
No Member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other
place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any
committee thereof.
We have two kinds of parliamentary immunities in Section 11.
The first is the Privilege from arrest and the second is privilege of
speech and debate.
For privilege from arrests, the said immunity is available only for
Senator and members of the House provided that the offense is
punishable of not more than 6 years imprisonment and the
other requirement that the Congress is in session.
Q: Now what do you mean by session?
A: Session does not refer to the day to day meetings of the
Congress. It refers to the entire period from the initial convening
until its final adjournment.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
ATTY. ROVYNE JUMAO-AS
Intellectual Property of: Andoy, Aspilla, Astillo, Dela Cruz, Faustino, Gido, Miles, Muñoz , Pandita, Pinili
The idea is that the members of the Congress should be free
from any harassment of arrests arising from minor offenses. As
public officers, they are really targets for complaints whether
founded or not. To prevent such kinds of harassment which is in
a way preventing them or make them hesitant to go to their
sessions, it is constitutionally provided that they have this
privilege from arrests.
Q: Is it necessary that they really attend the session? Kung nasa
bahay lang sila can they be arrested?
A: It is not necessary that they attend the session. The
idea is that they can go to the session anytime that they
want to, without fear of being arrested.
Martinez vs. Morfe, 44 S 22
Under the 1935 Constitution, privilege from arrests is only
available for civil arrests. What do you mean by Civil Arrests?
Siguro maybe for contempt. But the bottomline under the 1935
Constitution, they can be arrested for felony, unlike the 1987
constitution as long as the felony is punishable by not more than
6 years [they are privileged from arrests]. It seems that
jurisprudence in Martinez is not carried over to the 1987
Constitution.
In Martinez, the SC do not want to create a separate class of
legislators or citizens with special treatments. If you are a
violator of the law you should be arrested! It seems that this
jurisprudence is not carried in the 1987 constitution. They are
indeed a special class as they are privileged from arrest.
People vs. Jalosjos, 324 S 689
In this case, Jalosjos was a member of the HR confined at the
National Penitentiary while his convictions for 2 counts of
statutory rape and 6 counts of acts of lasciviousness are pending
appeal. He filed a motion that he be allowed to fully discharge
his duties as a congressman including attendance to legislative
sessions.
What are the offenses? 2 counts of statutory rape and 6 counts
of acts of lasciviousness. He is already convicted and is already
serving sentence. He was convicted of a non-bailable offense,
can he be exempted? Can he be allowed to attend legislative
sessions?
NO! He has been convicted of an offense punishable by ***
penalty. Clearly he is not entitled to the parliamentary immunity.
It was never the intention of the 1987 Consti, to shield a
member of the Congress from the consequence of his
wrongdoings. To allow him to attend is to broaden the privilege
provided in the 1987 constitution.
Q: What’s the difference between the case of Jalosjos
and Trillanes?
Trillanes vs. Pimentel Sr., 556 S 471
Facts: In the present case, Trillanes was charged with *** filed
before the RTC of Makati. Nearing 4 years of detention, he won
a seat in the senate. Before the commencement of his term, he
filed before the RTC of Makati an Omnibus Motion for leave of
court. Trillanes moved to be allowed to attend sessions.
Notwithstanding the decision in Jalosjos, why is Trillanes
persistent that his motion may be granted?
MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^
1
Issue: Is Trillanes entitled to *** in order to attend Senate
sessions.
Q: What’s the difference in the circumstance of Trillanes and
Jalosjos?
A: Jalosjos was already convicted while Trillanes’ case is still
pending before the RTC. But the court stated that it is
impractical to draw a line between convicted prisoners and
those whose cases are still pending.
Trillanes’ contention is that because his case is still pending, he is
still entitled to the presumption of innocence. If he is innocent,
then he should be allowed to attend sessions. But the SC held
that there should be no difference in the treatment of detainees
waiting for their trial and those who are there because of
conviction.
Ruling: SC held that Trillanes should not be allowed to enjoy
exemptions. It is impractical to draw a line between convicted
prisoners and those whose cases are still pending before the
court. Though they do not forfeit their constitutional rights,
upon detention, whether under preventive detention or serving
sentence, they [prisoners] have limited rights and cannot
practice their profession, and hold office either elective or
appointive (among other limitations).
If you look at Section 11 the other way around, the privilege of
arrest if it can be claimed, it can be claimed whether or not you
are convicted or your case is still pending. In other words, after
the expiration of your term, if there is already conviction,
magtago kana! But then we are only talking about minor
offenses, those punishable of not more than 6 years.
The next parliamentary immunity is the privilege of speech and
debate.
No Member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other
place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any
committee thereof.
The privilege is only as to speech and debate. What is the nature
of this speech and debate? This refers to the utterances made by
congressman in the performance of their official functions such
as speeches delivered., Statements made, votes cast in the halls
of congress while the same is in session, as well as bills
introduced in congress whether the same is in session or not and
other acts performed by congressman either inside or outside
the premises of Congress in the official discharge of their duties
as members of Congress and Congressional committees duly
authorized to perform such functions at the time of the
performance of the act in question.
The privilege of speech and debate refer only to utterances,
speeches delivered, statements made, votes cast during session.
Q: How about when they are not in session? Can they still claim
the privilege?
A: Yes! Provided the same was made in the performance of their
official function as such legislator. The essential *** The action
involved must be a legislative action!
Q: What is a legislative action?
A: refers to something deliberative - while you are deliberating
and communicative in nature by which members participate in
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
ATTY. ROVYNE JUMAO-AS
Intellectual Property of: Andoy, Aspilla, Astillo, Dela Cruz, Faustino, Gido, Miles, Muñoz , Pandita, Pinili
committee and house proceedings in consideration of a
proposed legislation or *** which the constitution places in the
jurisdiction of the legislature. As long as the Congressman or
Senator performs a function which is legislative in nature, these
speeches, utterances, acts that are communicative in nature
would be privileged from any complaint or litigation or case for
that matter. But the necessary element is that these were
performed while in the conduct of his official function.
Q: Is it necessary that the Congress be in session?
A: No! because they are legislators all through their
term. Iba ang objective ng privilege from arrest sa
privilege of speech and debate. The idea of the
latter is that they are free to express whatever they
want because this is necessitated by their function.
How can they become legislators when they are not
allowed to express
Jimenez vs. Cabangbang, 17 S 876
This involves publication. A member of the house published an
open letter to the president of the Philippines. There were
derogatory remarks, imputations in this publication, imputation
of plans of a coup de tat against the President. Several military
officers were named in this publication and so a complaint was
filed against this Congressman. When the publication was made
Congress was not in session.
Q: IS the fact that the Congress was not in session relevant?
A: No! As said earlier, the privilege of speech and debate apply
regardless if the Congress is in session or not.
What is relevant is that when the publication was made, it was
not made pursuant to a regular and normal function of a
Congressman. A congressman does not normally perform
functions such as publication nor does it relate to any of his
other function as such legislator.
Thus the SC held that this publication does not belong to the
category of speech and debate that are immune from any
liability.
The privilege however is not absolute. If you read the last
sentence – “No Member shall be questioned nor be held liable in
any other place for any speech or debate.” Meaning there is a
place where they could be held liable.
Q: WHERE can they be held liable?
A: In the congress itself. They can be held liable by
their peers. They may be questioned by Congress
itself. Example is the case of Osmena vs. Pendatun.
Osmena vs. Pendatun, 109 S 863
Here Osmena made a privilege speech, making serious
imputations of bribery against the President. So the supporters
of the president filed a complaint and demanded that Osmena
produce evidence or documents to support his imputations
against the President. When Osmena was not able to produce
any support, a complaint was filed and he was disciplined by his
peers. Would that be allowed? Yes! There is here no
MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^
1
constitutional violation. The members of the Congress can
suspend their co-members for serious disorderly conduct or
behaviour. This section therefore means, that although exempt
from civil actions and prosecutions for their words uttered in
Congress, the members of the Congress may nonetheless be
question in Congress itself. Observe that they cannot be
questioned in any other place other than Congress. This is
supposed to be a guarantee of freedom of expression for every
legislator.
Q: How far can a legislator assume that his freedom of
expression is guaranteed?
A: We have the case of Pobre vs. Defensor
Santiago, 597 S 1
Pobre vs. Defensor Santiago, 597 S 1
In this case we know that Miriam Santiago, was ***[vying?] for a
seat in the SC. When the JBC announced that only the third
members of the SC would qualify for consideration as Chief
Justice in replacement of Panganiban. Sen. Santiago, was not an
incumbent member of the SC, but was an applicant for the
position, delivered a privileged speech in the senate. So eto na
yon.
x x x I am not angry. I am irate. I am foaming in the
mouth. I am homicidal. I am suicidal. I am humiliated,
debased, degraded. And I am not only that, I feel like
throwing up to be living my middle years in a country of
this nature. I am nauseated. I spit on the face of Chief
Justice Artemio Panganiban and his cohorts in the
Supreme Court, I am no longer interested in the
position [of Chief Justice] if I was to be surrounded by
idiots. I would rather be in another environment but
not in the Supreme Court of idiots x x x.
Miriam Santiago is also a lawyer, the question is, can she be
disbarred?
Q: Can she be disciplined by the SC itself which governs the law
profession.
A: No! this is part of parliamentary immunity of speech and
debate but the SC said that:
Indeed, her privilege speech is not actionable criminally
or in a disciplinary proceeding under the Rules of Court.
It is felt, however, that this could not be the last word
on the matter. Xxx
We, however, would be remiss in our duty if we let the
Senator’s offensive and disrespectful language that
definitely tended to denigrate the institution pass by. It
is imperative on our part to re-instill in Senator/Atty.
Santiago her duty to respect courts of justice, especially
this Tribunal, and remind her anew that the
parliamentary non-accountability thus granted to
members of Congress is not to protect them against
prosecutions  for their own benefit, but to enable them,
as the people’s representatives, to perform the
functions of their office without fear of being made
responsible before the courts or other forums outside
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
ATTY. ROVYNE JUMAO-AS
Intellectual Property of: Andoy, Aspilla, Astillo, Dela Cruz, Faustino, Gido, Miles, Muñoz , Pandita, Pinili
the congressional hall.
If you can recall, there is another case involving Tulfo,
questioning before the Court the Constitutionality of
Checkpoints. When the Court held that checkpoints are
constitutional where they can conduct warrantless search and
seizures and warrantless arrests and Tulfo published an article
calling the SC “sangkatutak na bobo” and he was cited for
contempt.
In sum, that is why many seek the position of senators and
congressmen. Not because of the salary because salary increases
would take effect only after 9 years, but because of these
immunities! First is the immunity from arrests for offenses
punishable with imprisonment of not more than 6 years while
the Congress is in Session and Second is the parliamentary
immunity privilege of speech and debate whether on the
Congress is in session. But it does not matter anyway, because in
the Philippines if you are like Trillanes, has been arrested,
prosecuted for coup de tat for a crime against the Security of the
State, it does not matter, you still get elected as Senator. Even if
you are Sanchez, already convicted of rape or like Jalosjos, even
if they are in prison cell, they can still get elected! Worst, even if
you are the former President notwithstanding a lot of pending
criminal cases it does not matter. Even if you are in jail, you can
still move for a house arrest because you are of course the
former president of the Philippines. Do not worry because you
can still get elected in the Congress and may become the
Speaker of the house. So only in the Philippines! :3
AUG. 21, 2013
KIRSTIN & CHARITY-HOLIDAY,
instead AUG. 17, 2013
[Saturday Make up Class]
August 17 (Make-up class)
Bai Charity Pandita
SECTION 12. All Members of the Senate and the House of
Representatives shall, upon assumption of office, make a 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.
Take note that what is required in the case of public interest is
only disclosure of conflict of interest. It does not necessarily
mean that the legislator is only prevented from filing the
proposed legislation as long as he discloses a potential conflict of
interest.
SECTION 13. No Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives may hold any other office or employment in
the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality
thereof, including government-owned or controlled
corporations or their subsidiaries, during his term without
forfeiting his seat. Neither shall he be appointed to any office
which may have been created or the emoluments thereof
increased during the term for which he was elected.
MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^
1
The first sentence refers to what we call an incompatible office.
This is any office in the government which may not be held by
the legislator during his tenure in the Congress without forfeiting
his seat. What if the congressman or senator would really want
to take the position? He may but the consequence is forfeiture
of his seat because it is incompatible. It is incompatible if it is
with 1) legislative department and 2) the executive department.
It violates the separation of powers. What is not allowed is the
simultaneous holding of executive and legislative positions. To
prevent him to owe loyalty to another department, the
constitution instituted barrier called incompatible office.
If it can be shown that the other office is just an extension of the
legislative office, meaning, he is taking it in his ex-officio
capacity, then there is no incompatibility. Example, the chairman
on education for both houses whose ex-officio function is board
of regents of state universities, that’s part of their legislative
function so there is no incompatibility.
The second sentence refers to a forbidden office. What is the
difference?
Incompatible Forbidden
Refers existing offices Created during the
term of the office or
the emoluments
increased during the
term
Wala nagprovide Cannot hold the
office regardless
whether he wants
to forfeit his seat in
congress or not
*if he continues
despite this, he is
removed as a
member of the
legislative
department
*remedy: wait until
the end of his term
SECTION 14. No Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives may personally appear as counsel before any
court of justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-
judicial and other administrative bodies. Neither shall he,
directly or indirectly, be interested financially in any contract
with, or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the
Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality
thereof, including any government-owned or controlled
corporation, or its subsidiary, during his term of office. He shall
not intervene in any matter before any office of the
Government for his pecuniary benefit or where he may be
called upon to act on account of his office.
This section provides for certain prohibitions. Foremost is the
prohibition for legislators who are also lawyers. There is no
prohibition for a legislator to practice his profession but he
cannot personally appear as counsel. The idea being is that his
mere presence would influence the tribunal. Only the personal
appearance is prohibited but not the practice. The reset of this
section refers to other conflicts of interest.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
ATTY. ROVYNE JUMAO-AS
Intellectual Property of: Andoy, Aspilla, Astillo, Dela Cruz, Faustino, Gido, Miles, Muñoz , Pandita, Pinili
In Puyat vs De guzman, involved here are assembly men (now
called Congress men). He appeared as counsel in SEC. but what
he did after is he bought 10 shares from the stocks and
subsequently elected as Director (you only need one stock to
qualify). As director, he filed a motion to intervene in the case
contending that he is the rightful director. This time, he is no
longer a counsel but a party litigant. SC said that under normal
circumstances, a director may intervene in a trial involving his
interest in a corporation but SC saw that the circumstance
involved here points to the design of the case so that this
assembly man could circumvent the constitutional prohibition.
Reasons: 1) there was very few number of stocks. 2) Stocks were
bought after courts conviction. In this case, SC said that it can be
likened to doing indirectly what the constitution prohibits. So he
was not allowed to participate.
Liban vs Gordon
Gordon is the chairman of Phil Natl Red Cross (PNRC). Being a
senator as well, the issue is WON his position is incompatible
with his position as chairman. When you review the nature of
PNRC, it was established pursuant to international agreement
and that in fact they cater to the wounded, or victims of war
regardless of the loyalty of the victim (whether rebel or for
government). They are neutral. SC said that it was created
pursuant to an international law but it does not take any fund
from the government and its officers are private although there
are some representatives from the government. So SC said that
NLRC is a private institution. Thus, there is no incompatibility on
the 2 positions of Gordon.
SECTION 15. The Congress shall convene once every year on the
fourth Monday of July for its regular session, unless a different
date is fixed by law, and shall continue to be in session for such
number of days as it may determine until thirty days before the
opening of its next regular session, exclusive of Saturdays,
Sundays, and legal holidays. The President may call a special
session at any time.
What is the duration in a given of year? Depends upon the
congress, sila na lang magsabot2. But under the constitution,
there is a mandatory recess or adjournment before the opening
the regular session.
Now special session, it may be called anytime. If we talk about
parliamentary immunity from arrest and we said this is relevant
WON the congress is in session, we are talking about this
session. From the beginning of the fourth Monday of July up to
its adjournment whether voluntary or not.
SECTION 16. (1) The Senate shall elect its President and the
House of Representatives its Speaker, by a majority vote of all
its respective Members.
Each House shall choose such other officers as it may deem
necessary.
(2) A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do
business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day
and may compel the attendance of absent Members in such
manner, and under such penalties, as such House may provide.
(3) Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings,
punish its Members for disorderly behavior, and, with the
concurrence of two-thirds of all its Members, suspend or expel
a Member. A penalty of suspension, when imposed, shall not
exceed sixty days.
(4) Each House shall keep a Journal of its proceedings, and
from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as
may, in its judgment, affect national security; and the yeas and
MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^
1
nays on any question shall, at the request of one-fifth of the
Members present, be entered in the Journal.
Each House shall also keep a Record of its proceedings.
(5) Neither House during the sessions of the Congress shall,
without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three
days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses
shall be sitting.
Refers to the internal procedures.
Take note that when they elect their head, the president and
speaker of the house, the required number is majority.
Paragraph 2 states A majority of each House shall constitute a
quorum to do business. In other words, it is not necessary that
everyone is present. But the smaller number may compel the
absent members in such manner as the house may provide.
Avelino vs Cuenco
Talks about quorum, in relation to election of senate president.
How many senators are there? 24. In this case, one senator is in
the states, the other is in the hospital. We have two factions
here, the avelino and cuenco faction. Cuenco has 12 senators
and avelino has 11. So there were several manipulations, like in
the morning they were present but was absent in the afternoon.
They even walked out. Now we must remember that the
election of the SP is under the absolute discretion of the senate,
they can replace him anytime. Hence, the court may not
intervene due to separation of power. It is political case.
However, SC decided to take jurisdiction because of the issue on
the making of a quorum. The contention is that quorum should
be 13, half of the senators plus one. But SC said that ”majority”
should not be based on the fixed number of all the members but
on ACTUAL members or incumbents who are not incapacitated
to discharge their duties by death, incapacity or absence of
jurisdiction of the house or for other causes which made the
attendance impossible.
Take note that if there are members who are absent, they
cannot form a quorum. The house concerned may perform
compulsory processes such as arresting the absent member so
that they can have quorum. If after performing compulsory
process and member cannot be compelled, then he is excluded
from the total membership which constitutes quorum. If one
dies, the basis of computation is not 24 but 23. If one is abroad,
a warrant of arrest is useless because he is beyond the
jurisdiction of the senate so he is included. If one is in the
hospital, he may be compelled to attend. Under these
circumstances, the quorum is based on 23 and majority is 23 + 1,
so it should be 12. Therefore, Cuenco’s election is valid.
Side note: On the issue of RH Bill, iniiwasan nila ito na issue.
They said majority will be based on the total number of senators
because they don’t want to make an issue of the quorum. They
are confident that the bill will be passed even if based on the
total and not on the actual.
Paragraph 3:
They can make internal rules and procedures, they may punish
and suspend and even expel. But expulsion is only for 60 days
and needs 2/3 of all the members. “All” means absolute
majority, if no “all” then only simple majority.
Example: if there are only 13 members. What is the majority
required?
Absolute Simple
12+1 = 13 6+1 = 7
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
ATTY. ROVYNE JUMAO-AS
Intellectual Property of: Andoy, Aspilla, Astillo, Dela Cruz, Faustino, Gido, Miles, Muñoz , Pandita, Pinili
Supreme court cannot allege violation of internal rules and
procedure because this is political question based on separation
of powers. So if there is violation, the jurisdiction if within the
House or Congress itself.
Arroyo vs Devenecia
As practice, the speaker of the house asks if there is an objection
to the passing of a bill. In this case, one person raised his
objection. Now Arroyo was not listening that time and said,
“what is it, Mr. Speaker?” there being no objection, the report is
now approved and ratified and was later on enacted into a law.
Arroyo questioned the validity of the law based on this instance,
according to him; there was a violation of internal rules. SC said
this is a political question.
Santiago vs Sandiganbayan
This is about the disciplinary authority of the Congress. If the
congress suspends one of its members, can the suspended
member go to the court? NO. If say, your suspension is 90 days,
this time you may go to court on the ground of grave abuse of
discretion because the discretion of the congress is to suspend
you up to 60 days. So if it is exceeds, it is equivalent to
jurisdiction.
In this case, Santiago was commissioner of ___ and deportation
(CID) before she was senator. During this time, graft and
corruption case was filed against her in relation to her act of
allowing some aliens to stay without proper documents. Under
3019 (Anti-graft and corrupt practices), a public officer charged
of this may be preventively suspended automatically for 90 days.
Santiago questioned this on the ground that it is only the House
of Senate which can suspend her. SC said that contention has no
merit because the suspension is based on law because she was
charged of violation of 3019. Under that law, she is covered by
the automatic preventive suspension. She was not suspended
because she was disciplined but because she violated said law.
She is not to be treated differently as other officers charged with
the same case. The jurisdiction of the House is only as to
discipline. This jurisdiction is not exclusive because there may be
other laws which may impose suspension.
Paragraph 4:
You have two documents here:
1) Journal – Mandated by the constitution. It is a record of
what was done and passed in the legislative assembly.
This is useful for recording of the proceedings and also
for the interpretations of the law. It is like the minutes
of what transpired in the Congress. It informs the
people of what their representatives have been doing.
It is the aggregated account of the daily proceedings.
2) Record – this is the word for word transcript of the
lecture. SO KAYO, KUNG MAGTRANSCRIBE KAYO.. I-
EDIT NYO NAMAN! (Hahahaha. Si maam na gyud)
Purpose:
1) Journal
 To ensure the publicity of the proceeding and the
legislation and also the corresponding
responsibility of the members of their
constituents.
 Provide proof of what actually transcribed in the
meeting.
 In US vs Pons:
 The defendant was questioning the validity of
a law on which he was charged. According to
him, the law is invalid because it was passed
when the congress was in compulsory recess.
MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^
1
He can show evidence that the law was
passed beyond that date. Congress stopped
the clock, so based on the journal, it was
passed on the day when there was still a
session. But he contested that he can show
evidence to prove otherwise. So issue here is
which should be given weight, his evidence
and witnesses or the journal. SC said that the
journal is an official legislative act. Based on
separation of powers, they are to be given
credence and weight as against evidence or
witnesses which are left to a memory of a
person and sometimes lost by death or some
interpretation. Memory is not reliable as
against the journal in determining the acts of
the legislative. There can be no case to case
review of what really transpired. The SC
cannot say to Congress na, “huy you lied!”
because it is the collective act of the Congress
itself. So as to extraneous evidences, the
journal has more weight.
2) Enrolled Bill
 Another record of the official legislative acts.
 What happens if there are conflicting documents,
ie journal vs enrolled bill?
 Definition:
 After an enrolled bill has passed each house,
the senate president and the speaker of the
house will sign on it and it will then be
certified by the secretary of each house
before it is passed to the president for
approval. It is considered enrolled because it
is already a certification as to its due
execution and as to its content. So if there are
questions as to the versions between that of
the lower house and the senate, the ultimate
and conclusive document is the enrolled bill
because it contains the certification of the
leaders of each house. The president, on his
part, cannot just approve any document
unless there is an assurance that the entire
congress agreed on such act. There must be a
certification from each house.
 Enrolled Bill Doctrine:
 Journal vs Enrolled Bill – Enrolled Bill is give a
higher weight
 In Casco vs Gimenez:
He was charged of possessing ___
formaldehyde (?!?!?!). it is the end product of
combination of urea and formaldehyde, in
layman’s term, resin. His contention is that it
is not the intention of the congress to pass
urea and formaldehyde because based on the
journal, they extended the bill to individual
ingredients of the end product. However, in
the final bill it was only the end product. So
issue is which one should prevail? Supreme
Court said that it should be the enrolled bill.
The journal is just the record and it can be
subject to change, errors, etc. But the bill, it
has been certified by both houses. This is
illustration of the enrolled bill theory.
(2nd part – wohoooooooo!!! Hapit na gayud matangtang akong
dalunggan sa kataas ani. Aw, OA lang.)
SECTION 17. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall
each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
ATTY. ROVYNE JUMAO-AS
Intellectual Property of: Andoy, Aspilla, Astillo, Dela Cruz, Faustino, Gido, Miles, Muñoz , Pandita, Pinili
all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications
of their respective Members. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be
composed of nine Members, three of whom shall be Justices of
the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and
the remaining six shall be Members of the Senate or the House
of Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be chosen on
the basis of proportional representation from the political
parties and the parties or organizations registered under the
party-list system represented therein. The senior Justice in the
Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman.
Ordinarily COMELEC has jurisdiction over election returns and
other issues. Under the 1987 constitution, with regard to returns
and qualification of the members of the house of
representatives and the senate, it should be under the sole
jurisdiction of their respective electoral tribunal. Each house will
have their own electoral tribunal or HRET for congress and SET
for senate. If you look at its composition, it is not solely
legislative members because there are also those from the
judiciary. There are nine from each house plus 3 from the
judiciary. So it is ultimately a different body from legislative body
and it does not function to enact laws. Rather, it is created to
address questions on election returns and qualifications of
members of each house. Under this provision, emphasis is on
the word sole judge. Meaning, it has sole jurisdiction. It is a body
independent from the legislative body.
When is jurisdiction under comelec and when HRET/SET?
The defining line is the time of proclamation. Once winning
candidate has been proclaimed, has taken his oath and assumed
office, then he is already a member of the house. COMELEC
loses jurisdiction and it is now transferred to the respective
electoral tribunal.
Barbers vs COMELEC
Koko Pimentel restrained the proclamation of Barbers and filed
a complaint to SC to prevent COMELEC in conducting further
canvassing. He filed to SC because he was also questioning the
COMELEC proceeding. SC however did not issue a grant for his
prayer for TRO. As a result, Barbers was proclaimed as winner.
Issue: can Pimentel file a motion for reconsideration to SC? No.
upon proclamation of Barbers, the SC already lost its jurisdiction
to question the validity of the procedure. The jurisdiction is
transferred to SET.
Viazons vs COMELEC
Election returns where questioned and it was initiated prior to
the proclamation. In above case, there was no TRO so it resulted
to proclamation. Same case here, COMELEC also lost its
jurisdiction.
Guerrero vs COMELEC
There is question on the validity of the election proceeding
specifically on the certificate of candidacy. These cases usually
takes very long before it can be decided. Even if it can be
resolved prior to declaration, motion of reconsideration is still
allowed and then if unfavorable, there can still be a remedy of
appeal or certiorari proceeding. So the process is very long even
if resolved on time by COMELEC. Even in such cases, once the
winner has been proclaimed and the case is still pending, it will
automatically be terminated because COMELEC will lose its
jurisdiction. The jurisdiction is now with HRET. So the case on
COC shall be filed anew to HRET.
Pimentel vs COMELEC
Same with case of Barbers. This time it is between Koko and
Migz Zubiri.
MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^
1
Fernandez vs HRET
But what if Comelec already passed a favorable decision on
qualification and eventually won and elected as member of the
Congress, can you still file a case before the HRET on his
qualification? YES. The COMELEC decision is not res judicata
because the final jurisdiction is still with HRET. There will be no
forum shopping.
Abayon vs HRET and Palaypayon vs HRET
(Cha: Maam discussed sabay, pareho lang man gud ata ang
ruling)
What if it involves a nominee of the party-list representative? In
this case, they are questioning the qualifications of Palparan in
representing the victims of CAFGUS and the security guards
given that there was an allegation that it was Palparan who
committed violation of human rights against these people. In
Abayon, it was a question on the qualification of the nominee
“Aangat Tayo” because it does not represent the marginalized
and the underrepresented. The nominee is the wife of an
incumbent Congressman, so surely, she cannot be marginalized.
The allegation is that Palparan and Abayon cannot be
questioned before the HRET because they were not the one
elected but the party. So instead, it should be addressed to the
party which nominated them because they were nominated
pursuant to the party’s rule. The issue is WON the contention is
correct. No, SET has jurisdiction and this was confirmed by the
SC. Take note that in the constitutional point of view, it is the
party list representative who is elected and not just the party.
But under the constitution, the election is pursuant to a party-
list. Even if we vote for a party, it is in reality a vote for a
nominee. It is the representative who becomes the congressman
and not the party. It is he who performs the responsibilities and
receives the same salaries and emoluments as a Congressman.
When he sits as a member of the House of Representatives, he is
no different from a district representative. Therefore, because
they are members, then SET/HRET has jurisdiction.
Lokin vs Comelec
This involves the nominees of the same party, CIBAC. Lokim was
the second nominee but was replaced. After the election, CIBAC
got 2 seats. Lokim contends the COMELEC proceeding which
withdrew his nomination and substituted someone else in his
place. Further alleged is that COMELEC has no more jurisdiction
because it is now with SET. Issue: is the contention correct? Yes.
This involves only one party and not 2 parties. This is not about
election returns and qualifications but rather on the rightful
nominee for the position. Therefore, the jurisdiction is within
the party and COMELEC.
Tolentino vs Comelec
This is about Arroyo rising to power through succession. The
object of the case is to first annul the special election. The
petition was praying that whoever will win and take the 13 th
place should not be proclaimed. It happened na ang naproclaim
ay si Honasan. There was a contention that from the moment
Honasan was proclaimed, the jurisdiction is transferred from SC
to SET. Is this correct? No. if you look closely at the petition, its
focus is more on the annulment of the special election. This
issue is not within the jurisdiction of the SET but SC. Collateral na
lang yung kay Honasan being the 13th placer. His number of
votes are not being questioned but once the special election is
annulled, of course, it means he will not be proclaimed as a
senator.
Lazatin vs HRET
When it comes to rules of procedure or quo warranto protest
when it comes to members of the senate, it must be based on
the rules of procedures of each house and no longer on the
omnibus election code. This code was enacted under the Marcos
regime and if you read it, the jurisdiction of election and
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
ATTY. ROVYNE JUMAO-AS
Intellectual Property of: Andoy, Aspilla, Astillo, Dela Cruz, Faustino, Gido, Miles, Muñoz , Pandita, Pinili
qualification issues is still with COMELEC which is not true
anymore under the 1987 constitution.
Abbas vs SET
We have 24 senators, dba? 22 of them in this case are
respondents to a disqualification case filed before the SET. Even
if you file a motion of inhibition, the number of members
necessary for SET will not be satisfied, sino na ngayon ang uupo
sa SET?? So it was proposed that the 3 justices will have
authority to do business, meaning they will be considered as
quorum, and therefore, they can now decide on the case. Is this
constitutional? NO. SC said that it is a different body, its
composition is 1/3 judiciary and 2/3 political (member of the
legislative department). This is the constitutional mandate and
you cannot just take away the power of the political members.
What is now the remedy? None. The only remedy is
unconstitutional (electoral tribunal without legislative members)
but SC said that we just have to put our trust and confidence
with the judiciary members that they will render justice and
equity. So salig na lang. Hehe.
Bondoc vs Pineda
This is about membership based on proportional representation.
So depende kung ilang ang members nyo, then you can send a
representative to the Electoral Tribunal. Congressman Camasura
(?) was a member of Cojuangco’s LET (?) and he admitted that
he voted for Bondoc when it turned out that the canvassing
results really point towardsBondoc. So si Cojuangco nagalit and
the rest of the LET and removed Camasura from LET. So since
hindi na sya member ng LET, hindi na din sya pwede maging
member ng HRET, right? He was removed for party disloyalty
and conduct of grave behavior. Then HRET changed its
membership. Can they do that? No. SC said that going back to
the principle that HRET is an independent body, those who are
members of the tribunal should enjoy security of tenure because
they are expected to be non-partisan as judges. They should be
removed only for cause. Party disloyalty is not a valid cause
because it has not been shown that Camasura resigned from LET
and joined another party. It was just a move to remove him para
hindi makuha yung boto para madeclare si Bondoc na winner.
SECTION 18. There shall be a Commission on Appointments
consisting of the President of the Senate, as ex officio
Chairman, twelve Senators, and twelve Members of the House
of Representatives, elected by each House on the basis of
proportional representation from the political parties or
organizations registered under the party-list system
represented therein. The Chairman of the Commission shall not
vote, except in case of a tie. The Commission shall act on all
appointments submitted to it within thirty session days of the
Congress from their submission. The Commission shall rule by a
majority vote of all the Members.
If you look at composition, there are 12 members each house
and the chairman is the President of the senate. The
composition is based on the proportional representation of the
political parties, so the more members you have as a member,
the more you have seat in the COA. It may be necessary to have
reorganization of COA because in the Philippines, unlike USA
which has only 2 parties and membership is for life, tapok-tapok
ang style like kung sino mayaman doon ka. Most politicians
would associate themselves with Pnoy. This regular change of
affiliations, there is a need to reorganize COA because seats are
based on proportional representation.
Cunanan vs Tan
72 were nacionalista parties, 29 LP, 1 independent. Based on
their computation of proportional representation, 8 seats would
be for nacionalista and 4 seats for LP. But because of the
MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^
1
dissatisfaction of the management of nacionalista, several of
them formed alliance with LP and called them the allied
majority. So mas marami na sila ngayon kaysa nacionalista.
Issue: is it proper to reorganize? NO. Sc said that the allied
majority is just a temporary alliance. It has not been shown
those who formed this alliance has resigned from LP or
nacionalista. So this is just a temporary partnership.
Daza vs Singson
The parties in the House who have winning candidates are Lakas
Pambansa, PDP-Laban, LDP, LP, KBL (Marcos). Seats were
appropriated based on their members. It happened that LDP was
reorganized. The president of LDP was Noynoy Aquino and the
chairman is the senate president. Because of this, the
membership swelled to 159. Tingnan mo tong mga Pilipino, kung
saan madaming pera dun sila. Issue: is it proper to reorganize
COA because of change in size in political parties? YES. SC said
that even if it is considered as a “young” party but the heads are
the President of the Philippines and the Senate President. So it is
already established. In this case, they have also formally
resigned from their former parties and formed LDP. It should be
bonafide change in party.
Guingona vs Gonzales
When they solved for the seats for COA, LDP got 7.5, NPC 2.5,
Lakas 1.5, and LP 0.5. So what do you do with the 0.5? It was all
rounded up 8, 2, 1 and 1, respectively. But this is not within the
constitutional mandate because it adds more or less to the
proportional representation. So what is the principle? If it is 0.5
then it cannot be considered as 1 whole. So the proper
proportion should be 7, 2, 1, and 0 respectively. But now the
problem is that the total is only 10. The next question is that,
isn’t it that the constitution mandates 12 seats? SC said that it is
not mandatory and is not necessary to fill the 12 seats. Between
the mandate of proportional representation of parties and the
mandate of 12 members, the former is given more weight
because it will violate the entire provision if you insist in filling
the 12 seats and in the process violating the proportional
representation mandate. But there was a motion for
reconsideration filed where they showed the legislative history
because there was a practice in Congress where they form
coalitions and share seats with other parties, sometimes, seats
are given to parties even if they only have one member. But SC
said practice, no matter how long observed, is not tantamount
to validity which is otherwise an unconstitutional act. It just so
happened that those practices never reached SC because
nobody complained. But this time SC said that the proportional
representation must be observed because under the same
provision, only a majority is needed to for COA to function, if
there is 12 members, majority is 7.
Pimentel vs HRET
It is the first time that they had a party list representative. They
are questioning the reorganization of COA because they content
that their party list was not considered. SC said that how can
they be considered when they did not even nominate?
SECTION 19. The Electoral Tribunals and the Commission on
Appointments shall be constituted within thirty days after the
Senate and the House of Representatives shall have been
organized with the election of the President and the Speaker.
The Commission on Appointments shall meet only while the
Congress is in session, at the call of its Chairman or a majority
of all its Members, to discharge such powers and functions as
are herein conferred upon it.
The COA should meet only when the Congress is in session.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
ATTY. ROVYNE JUMAO-AS
Intellectual Property of: Andoy, Aspilla, Astillo, Dela Cruz, Faustino, Gido, Miles, Muñoz , Pandita, Pinili
AUG 22 CHA & ZAR
Sections 21 and 22, the power of legislative inquiries.
Under Section 21
Provided that the Senate and the Council of
Representatives or any of its respective committees to conduct
inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly
published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing
in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.
Section 21, briefly - is the right or authority of the
Congress to conduct inquiries or investigations in aid of
legislation.
It is important to know that under Section 21 not only
the Senate or House of Representatives as separate houses
given such right but also its respective committees. Therefore,
whatever powers inherent or in relation to that right that the
Senate per se or the House of Representatives as it is can also
exercise by its respective committees.
In the case of Arnault vs. Nazareno, this authority to
conduct investigations or inquiries in aid of legislation is
incidental to the legislative function as to be implied; incidental,
meaning this is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the
legislative function. Take away the authority to inquire and ask
for information you also take away the power to legislate
because the Congress can only legislate when there is available
information. More often than not, information is not readily
available and you have to summon someone to be the resource
speaker. Without this information, the Congress cannot
effectively legislate.
Why did the Supreme Court say that this is so inherent and
interrelated or interrelated with the power to legislate so as to
be implied?
The case of Arnault vs. Nazareno, was decided
under the 1935 Constitution which is silent about this
power, but the Supreme Court confirmed that this
power to conduct inquiries is the very part or nature of
the power of legislation. The power of inquiry involves
the power or the process to enforce it which means
that the attendance to this legislative inquiry is
mandatory otherwise you will be obstructing the
Congress from exercising its legislative power.
How this is made possible?
The Congress can exercise compulsory
processes such like the issuance of a subpoena. If you
do not want to attend, you can be ordered in contempt
or one can be ordered for an arrest, if they want you to
appear in congress. So, it can also exercise compulsory
processes to ensure that this power of legislative
inquiry is exercise. Appearance before the legislative
body whether in the legislative house itself, or before a
committee is mandatory that was under the 1935
Philippine Constitution. But as you can see, in Section
21 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, what was
implicit before has now made express under the 1987
constitution, actually it started in the 1973 Philippine
Constitution. Where the legislative body does not itself
possess the required information, recourse must be
made to others who have it. Usually, this cannot be
done by a mere request. If you look at the nature of
investigation, if that is only made through request
there would be no one to attend like for example the
Napoles Scam.
MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^
1
What is the difference between the powers of the Congress to
investigate compared to the other bodies?
This power must be in aid of legislation and it
can order a person to be in contempt as what was
discussed in the case of Arnault vs. Nazareno. Jean
Arnault was cited in contempt because of his refusal to
answer one question when this legislative investigation
is ongoing. He refused to answer about the alleged
corruption in the purchase of one overprice property.
The specific question was, “Who received the money?”
By his refusal to answer, he was cited in contempt.
Thus, he questioned the power of the Senate to
continually order his imprisonment notwithstanding
that its senate had already adjourned. Other than that,
his basic concern was whether or not he can be
mandated to appear in court for the legislative inquiry
and what was the nature of the Congress’ power. The
Supreme Court discussed the nature of legislative
investigation, that notwithstanding that Congress can
compel one, that it is mandatory, inherent, that this is
part of power of legislation, this may only be
exercised subject to certain limitations provided by the
Constitution.
What were the limitations?
Under Section 21.
 First, the inquiry must be in aid of legislation.
This would distinguish the inquiry or
investigation conducted by other
departments of the government.
 Second, it must be in accordance with the
duly established rules of procedure.
 Third, that the rights of persons appearing in
or affected by such inquiries shall be
respected.
a. What do you mean by in aid of legislation?
They can inquire for the purpose of legislating
– it does not necessarily mean that after the
investigation that there is the product investigation – it
could be that they are satisfied that there is no need to
amend the law or enact a law that they propose to be
enacted – so in other words, it does not necessarily
result to a legislation – it is not therefore a valid ground
for objection that after the inquiry there was no
product legislation, because that is only an inquiry in
aid for possible legislation. Now, the inquiry to be
within the jurisdiction of the legislative body must be
material or necessary to the exercise of its power to
legislate vested by the Constitution.
What would be the subject for inquiry?
Since the legislative power is plenary the
subject of inquiry must also be plenary. It is broad and
can inquire to any matter as long as it is intended in aid
of legislation, but there is no general authority to
expose private affairs of individuals without
justification in terms of functions of Congress so for the
sake of exposing that would not be in aid of legislation
nor is the Congress is a trial agency, or an
implementing or a law enforcement agency. They must
not lost sight in the purpose of investigation. The field
of inquiry has a wider range, which means that it must
be coextensive with the range of legislative power.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
ATTY. ROVYNE JUMAO-AS
Intellectual Property of: Andoy, Aspilla, Astillo, Dela Cruz, Faustino, Gido, Miles, Muñoz , Pandita, Pinili
In Arnault vs. Nazareno, when the question
was asked “Who received the money?” he refused to
answer and his justification was that it has no relation
to a law or a legislation; it is not in aid of legislation.
Therefore, the issue is that is it necessary to study each
question propounded to the resource person and
determined if it is in aid of legislation? The Supreme
Court said no, as long as it is material to the matter
under investigation, and the matter of investigation at
that time (referring to Arnault case) is the operation of
the government. This is the legitimate and proper
subjects of legislation for investigation so that
whatever question is asked as long as it is not violating
the right under self-incrimination, then one should
answer the question. Each question need not be
scrutinized whether it is in relation to a particular
legislation, as long as the question is material to the
subject matter under investigation.
What if there is another investigation pending before
another government body? Would it bar the congress
from further conducting the inquiry in aid of
legislation?
For example In the case of Bengzon vs. Senate
Facts:
An inquiry was conducted into the allege sale
of the equity of Ben Romualdez. This all about graft and
corruption. The inquiry was an offshoot to Enrile’s
privilege speech urging the Senate to look into the
possible violation Section 5 of Republic Act No. 3019
otherwise known as “The Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act”. – That is the purpose of the
investigation, to look for possible violation of law. The
Senate conducted an investigation for the said possible
violation of law.
Issue:
Is the inquiry proper?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court said looking into the speech of
Enrile and the purpose of that inquiry. There appears
to be no intended legislation. – what was the purpose?
To look into possible violation of law is not part of the
authority of the Congress. Who has the authority to do
that? It is the other department particularly the
executive department under the Department of Justice
(DOJ), and then the definition is with the judiciary.
There was an orbiter in that case wherein the Supreme
Court said “besides the issue sought to be investigated
by the committee is one over which the jurisdiction had
been acquired by the Sandiganbayan because of the
pending case of Romualdez in that court. It seemed
that the Supreme Court is saying that if there is already
a pending case the Congress can no longer proceed
with the inquiry. For the respondent to prove and
inquire in the same justiciable controversy which was
already in the Sandiganbayan to be an encroachment
into the exclusive domain of judicial jurisdiction that
have much earlier setting. – this is merely an orbiter as
we will see later on
In the case of Senate Blue Ribbon vs.
Majaducon
Facts:
THE Senate conducted an inquiry in the
alleged mismanagement of the funds and investment
portfolio of the Armed Forces retirement and
separation benefits system. They say that in aid of pay,
through this separation of benefits system they
MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^
1
purchase a lot in General Santos City owned by Atty.
Flaviano. The Senate in their investigation found out
that it is overpriced. This investigation has an intended
legislation unlike in the case of Bengzon vs. Senate. The
intended legislation is to determine how they can
protect the interest of the AFP retirees through an
enactment of the Law. Flaviano applied in the Regional
Trial Court a Temporary Restraining Order against the
Senate Committee to cease from further conducting
the inquiry; an RTC ordering a main department of the
government. This RTC which is under the judicial
department was encroaching upon the power of the
legislative department from conducting or performing
its function as provided in the Constitution – there is
obviously here an encroachment of the separation of
power. A case was filed against Judge Majaducon, in
his defense he cited the case of Bengzon vs. Senate
that once the investigation is already in the other body,
it shall be deemed as an encroachment on the part of
the Congress if it continues with the investigation.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that this Bengzon
case was different from the present case. In Bengzon
case; fist - the subject of inquiry is not in aid of
legislation, the subject inquiry is a possible violationof
law which is within the jurisdiction of a body other than
the Congress and further in this case there was yet no
case pending in the Court. The case against Flaviano
regarding that lot was pending before the office of the
Ombudsman which acts as a prosecutor - it is still
receiving complaints and determining the probable
cause to file that criminal case, there is yet therefore a
criminal case. In this case since no court had acquired
jurisdiction over the matter then there is no
encroachment in the context of Senate vs. Bengzon
case which stated that it would be an encroachment in
the jurisdiction of this court. However, there was no
pending case in the court yet, it is still in the
Ombudsman. Therefore, the cited case was not
applicable.
In the case of Standard Charter vs.
Committee, this rests the issue about encroachment.
Facts:
The Senate Committee on Banking conducts a
legislative investigation in relation to selling of
unregistered foreign securities for possible
amendments of existing banking laws to prevent the
occurrence of similar problem in the future. In the
whereas clause of the resolution calling for legislative
investigation, there is an acknowledgement that the
securities regulation code seems to be inadequate to
govern and regulate such transactions in selling of
unregistered foreign securities in the country. There
was an observation that the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) and the BangkoSentralngPilipinas
(BSP) have an inadequate regulatory intervention. – so
this is clearly an investigation in aid of legislation - This
involves millions of money and high profile
personalities buying securities outside the country.
Through this fact, an objection can be expected. The
bank officers refused to attend the investigation
claiming that there were already civil and criminal
cases pending in the Court involving the same issues
using the case of Bengzon vs. Senate.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court said that the argument
using Bengzon is misplaced. Why? The main issue in
that case is the determination or the finding that the
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
ATTY. ROVYNE JUMAO-AS
Intellectual Property of: Andoy, Aspilla, Astillo, Dela Cruz, Faustino, Gido, Miles, Muñoz , Pandita, Pinili
investigation was not in aid of legislation. The purpose
is not towards legislation but the determination of
violation of law which is not the function of the
Congress it may be corollary to that function but
ultimately the result of that inquiry is not to penalized
but to enact or amend a law in relation to its legislative
function. – But in this case of Standard it is clearly in
aid of legislation.
What about the pendency of the cases?
The supreme court said that the mere filing of
a criminal and an administrative complaint before the
court or a quasi-judicial body should not automatically
bar the conduct of legislative investigation otherwise it
would be extremely easy to subvert any intended
inquiry by Congress through the convenient ploy of
instituting a criminal or administrative complaint.
Surely, the exercise of sovereign legislative authority,
of which the power of legislative inquiry is an essential
component, cannot be made subordinate to a criminal
or an administrative investigation. It is now clear that
the pendency of criminal case/ administrative
investigations -The pendency of these cases should not
automatically bar the Congress from continuing its
investigation.
This was further clarified in the case of
Romero vs. Sen. Jinggoy E. Estrada.
Facts:
The investigation is about the use of Overseas
Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) funds
investing it to the Smokey Mountain Project. Is it in
relation to the function of OWWA? The Senate
conducted an investigation and the possible liability of
President Ramos for plunder but the inquiry was also in
aid of legislation. Here, the company which is supposed
to be the resource speaker was invited and they
refused to attend contending that the subject matter of
the legislative inquiry is sub-judice.
What do sub-judice means? - Once there is already a
pending case with regards to a particular subject you
do not talk about it in public. This rule is more
applicable to parties and the professional responsibility
of lawyers. The merits of the case must not be tackled
in public while the trial of the case is ongoing; it is an
ethical consideration – thus may be because you
already swayed sentiments of the public and the judge
will decide in another way its more on public policy.
The same argument is present, whether or not if there
is already a pending case the Congress is now
precluded to continue the investigation.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court said no, citing the Standard
Chartered vs. Senate Committee case. It further
explains that legislative investigation in aid of
legislation and court proceedings has different
purposes. Courts conduct hearings or like a judicative
procedure to settle actual controversies through
applicable laws arising between litigants involving
demandable rights. On the other hand, inquiries in aid
of legislation are undertaken as rules to enable the
legislative body to gather information and to legislate
wisely and effectively, albeit the inquiry need not
result in any potential legislation. Therefore, the two
investigations conducted by the Congress and the
Courts respectively have different purposes and
ultimate results. When it comes to the court
investigation it would be a determination of rights and
the result would be a judgment which between the
parties has preferred rights or if it is a criminal case the
question would be, who is liable with corresponding
MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^
1
penalty and if it is a civil case, there is a judgment or an
award of damages.
What about inquiries conducted before the Congress?
The purpose is different; it is again in aid of
legislation although it is not necessary that there is
actual legislation as a result. Therefore, according to
the Supreme Court these two investigations can
proceed simultaneously. One should not be a bar to
the other.
Argument: It will pre-empt the decision of the judge in
court. Will it really pre-empt the decision of the judge?
- No, because it will not lead to the determination if
who was guilty or not. In fact, those who are invited
are not called as respondents or defendants but
resource persons.
<JUMP – Exemptions next meeting>
Limits under the Constitution in the exercise of the
Congress’ power:
 First, it must be in aid of legislation.
 Second, it must be conducted pursuant to
the duly published rules of the House
concerned.
You have that case of Garcillano vs. House of
Representatives, citing the case of Neri vs. Senate. It
was the House of Representatives which first
conducted the “Hello Garci” investigation in aid of
legislation. Senate as well wants to conduct their own
investigation and they did start the inquiry. On June 30,
2007 there was an election of new set of Senators
coming. Garcillano claims that there were no duly
published rules of the Senate regarding rights of person
invited for legislative inquiry. The Supreme Court asked
the Senate about these duly published rules for the
proceedings. The Senate answered that it had
published its rules in 1995 and in 2006. Take note that
by June 30, 2007 there was a new set of Senators – at
least half of them, to assume office. The questions are
did they publish their rules anew? What was the
essence of publication? For due process. If the person
is to be investigated or is to be under inquiry, due
process will dictate that at least he is apprise of the
rules or his rights , it gives the person a notice of what
to expect and whether they may be liable in that
investigation. The publication is required because this
is in relation to constructive notice. At least there
must be constructive notice that there are these rules
of procedure.
What do you mean by duly published rules of
procedure in relation to the Senate?
Facts will show that they have published it in
2006. Is this still considered duly published rules? The
Supreme Court look at the rules and did not find any
provisions or sections which states that the same rules
would apply after each change of set or by the end of
the terms of the Senators. On the contrary, the
Supreme Court found in the rules of unfinished
business that those matters or proceedings pending
shall terminate upon the expiration of one Congress.
This was the time that the Supreme Court discussed
that the Senate under the 1987 Philippine
Constitution is no longer a continuing body with
regards to its day-to-day business. Since there are
now new sets of members, they cannot proceed with
the actions or activities of the prior Congress. In fact
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
ATTY. ROVYNE JUMAO-AS
Intellectual Property of: Andoy, Aspilla, Astillo, Dela Cruz, Faustino, Gido, Miles, Muñoz , Pandita, Pinili
the rules would say that whatever matters pending
they are considered to be terminated upon the
expiration of one Congress.
What do you mean by one Congress?
That is that 3 term – you cannot consider the
6 term because on the next 3 years the composition
would now be different. – actually in the rules it said
that it may be taken by the succeeding congress as if
present for the first time – the phrase “duly published
rules of procedure” therefore requires the senate of
every congress to publish its rules and procedure
governing inquiries in aid of legislation -Because every
senate is distinct from the one before it or after it.
Can the Supreme Court consider the prior rules?
No, it cannot because even those rules
provide the absence of provision that it is applicable
until amended. The Supreme Court suggested that
even this would be the rules of procedure for inquiries
in aid of legislation and this would be amended by the
new set of officers that would be the continuing rules.
But since there was no such provisions and based also
in the internal rules of the Senate, this rule is deemed
terminated and the investigation which commenced
prior to the new set of the 2007 Senators, this
investigation is also deemed terminated. In other
words, without publishing the rules of procedures the
subject hearing in aid of legislation conducted by the
14th Senate are therefore procedurally infirmed.
The Supreme Court is strict about these duly
published rules because it is a constitutional
requirement. In this case Garcillano was freed. The
rights of person appearing in or affected by such
inquiry shall be respected.
What rights can you claim
Usually those found in the bill of rights, right
against self-incrimination, right to due process and
right to privacy can be claimed
In re: Sabio, this is an investigation on the
mismanagement or anomalies incurred by the
Philippines Overseas Telecommunications Corporations
(POTC), Philippine Communications Satellite
Corporation (PHILCOMSAT) and PHILCOMSAT Holdings
Corporation (PHC). They refused to attend invoking the
right to privacy.
Can a person invoke his right to privacy?
According to the Supreme Court before
invoking that right there must be a reasonable
expectation of privacy. Since they are called in an
investigation respecting their positions and functions as
board of directors of these Government-Owned and
Controlled Corporations with regards to their public
functions there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
So, they cannot claim right to privacy. So maybe if it
was Vicky Belo, Hayden Kho or Chito Miranda, (wala pa
and kay wally ani na time..haha)may claim some sort of
right to privacy and the Senate will limit its questions
only on matters that would be for public interest.
Another right to contemplate is right against self-
incrimination, they also claim for this right upon their
refusal to attend the Senate hearing, and the Supreme
MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^
1
Court said that the right against self-incrimination can
only be claimed once the question is asked because
you will never know if that particular question is
incriminatory unless it was asked.Therefore, these
rights cannot be invoked if there is no attendance to
the investigation. During your attendance if you were
asked incriminatory questions you may refuse to
answer and even claim for the said rights. Clients
involve in this case bring their lawyers in every
legislative investigation not for any appearance but to
fully understand and how to claim forthese three
rights. The bottom-line is attendance to an inquiry is
mandatory.
AUG. 23, 2013
JAY & LANIE
Section 21.  The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of
its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of
legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of
procedure. The rights of persons appearing in, or affected by,
such inquiries shall be respected.
Because information is needed in the exercise of the power of
legislation, although this is such an immense power and
appearance is mandatory, Section 21 also provides for its
limitations – that the inquiry must be in aid of legislation so in
the case of _____ the SC invalidated the proceedings on the
ground that the inquiry was done not in aid of legislation, but
something akin to a criminal investigation.
We also studied other cases to answer whether or not the
pendency of other cases in other bodies would preclude the
Congress to continue its investigation. In the case of Senate vs.
Bengson the SC said that it is precluded from continuing,
however this was clarified in the later cases particularly standard
charter vs. senate and the case against Senator Estrada. So the
latest jurisprudence would be that the pendency of cases
whether criminal, civil or administrative would not bar Congress
from continuing in its investigation. In the case of Estrada it has
been clarified that the purposes of these investigations are
distinct and separate.
So the first requirement is that it must be in aid of legislation,
second that its conduct be in accordance with duly published
rules of procedure. The lack of duly published rules of procedure
would also invalidate the proceedings such as in the case of
Garcia wherein the 15th Senate failed to publish the rules of
procedure for the investigation or inquiry.
Finally, the rights of persons affected should be respected. The
rights are usually found in the Bill of rights, such as right to
privacy, against self-incrimination, and right to due process.
Q: If it’s mandatory, is it applicable to all? If anyone called by
Congress cannot refuse to attend, because of the nature of the
power, are there persons exempted from this power?
A: because of separation of powers, necessarily exempted from
this are the executive and judicial departments.
When you say the executive department there is only one
person representing the executive department and that is the
president so in other words the president cannot be called to
testify in the Congress; nor can they call the Chief Justice or SC
Justices. This is in due respect to separation of powers.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
ATTY. ROVYNE JUMAO-AS
Intellectual Property of: Andoy, Aspilla, Astillo, Dela Cruz, Faustino, Gido, Miles, Muñoz , Pandita, Pinili
We have that case of Senate vs. Ermita:
The question in that case is WON department heads and officials
under the executive department are covered by Section 21?
When we say the president is exempted from attending, it is
mainly because of the separation of powers, but it is also
because of the doctrine of executive privilege. Now in this case
of Senate vs. Ermita, there was an investigation or inquiry
regarding several transactions involving the president herself,
particularly the Northrail project, the massive electoral fraud
during the presidential elections and the **** thing, basta it
includes several transactions and contracts involving the
president. So there were several subpoenas sent out to different
departments and administrative officers. In response thereto,
the president issued EO 464, particularly Section 2 and 3:
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 464
ENSURING OBSERVANCE OF THE PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF
POWERS, ADHERENCE TO THE RULE ON EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
AND RESPECT FOR THE RIGHTS OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS
APPEARING IN LEGISLATIVE INQUIRIES IN AID OF LEGISLATION
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
SECTION 2.  Nature, Scope and Coverage of Executive Privilege.  -
(a)  Nature and Scope.  - The rule of confidentiality based on
executive privilege is fundamental to the operation of
government and rooted in the separation of powers under the
Constitution (Almonte vs. Vasquez, G.R. No. 95367, 23 May
1995). Further, Republic Act No. 6713 or the Code of Conduct
and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees provides
that public officials and employees shall not use or divulge
confidential or classified information officially known to them by
reason of their office and not made available to the public to
prejudice the public interest.
Executive privilege covers all confidential or classified
information between the President and the public officers
covered by this executive order, including:
i. Conversations and correspondence between the President and
the public official covered by this executive order (Almonte vs.
Vasquez  G.R. No. 95367,  23 May 1995; Chavez v. Public Estates
Authority,  G.R. No. 133250,  9 July 2002);
ii. Military, diplomatic and other national security matters which
in the interest of national security should not be divulged
(Almonte vs. Vasquez,  G.R. No. 95367,  23 May 1995; Chavez v.
Presidential Commission on Good Government,  G.R. No.
130716,  9 December 1998).
iii. Information between inter-government agencies prior to the
conclusion of treaties and executive agreements (Chavez v.
Presidential Commission on Good Government,  G.R. No.
130716,  9 December 1998);
iv. Discussion in close-door Cabinet meetings (Chavez v.
Presidential Commission on Good Government,  G.R. No.
130716,  9 December 1998);
v. Matters affecting national security and public order (Chavez v.
Public Estates Authority,  G.R. No. 133250,  9 July 2002).
(b)  Who are covered.  - The following are covered by this
executive order:
MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^
1
i. Senior officials of executive departments who in the judgment
of the department heads are covered by the executive privilege;
ii. Generals and flag officers of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines and such other officers who in the judgment of the
Chief of Staff are covered by the executive privilege;
iii. Philippine National Police (PNP) officers with rank of chief
superintendent or higher and such other officers who in the
judgment of the Chief of the PNP are covered by the executive
privilege;
iv. Senior national security officials who in the judgment of the
National Security Adviser are covered by the executive privilege;
and
v. Such other officers as may be determined by the President.
SECTION 3.  Appearance of Other Public Officials Before
Congress.  - All public officials enumerated in Section 2 (b) hereof
shall secure prior consent of the President prior to appearing
before either House of Congress to ensure the observance of the
principle of separation of powers, adherence to the rule on
executive privilege and respect for the rights of public officials
appearing in inquiries in aid of legislation.
EO 464 provides that all department heads and officers
enumerated in Section 2 including AFP officials and even those
under them who in the belief of the heads are covered by
executive privilege, cannot and should not attend legislative
inquiries without the consent of the President. In other words,
the president is claiming executive privilege for all of these
officers and that the officers enumerated are covered by the
executive privilege.
The first principle mentioned earlier is that executive privilege
can only be claimed by the president.
Q: Does the executive privilege cover officials under the
executive department?
Q: What is executive privilege?
A: The executive privilege is the power of the government to
withhold information from the public, the courts and the
congress. It is also the *** of the president and high level
executive branch officers to withhold information from the
courts, congress and ultimately the public. So even when the
inquiry is in aid of legislation, it is still a recognized exemption to
the power of inquiry, the exemption falling under the *** of
Executive privilege. But when you say executive privilege it
covers at least different distinct kinds of information based on
jurisprudence.
Q: What are kinds of information covered by executive privilege?
A: Generally it is recognized in relation to certain types of
sensitive information involving matters affecting national
security or those rooted under the separation of powers, such as
presidential conversations, correspondence, closed door cabinet
meetings and internal deliberations.
Using US jurisprudence, there are three types of information
that may be covered by the executive privilege. First are those
state secrets privilege on the ground that such information is in
such nature that its disclosure would subvert crucial military or
diplomatic objectives. Second types of info are those under
informer’s privilege. Here, it is the privilege of the government
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
ATTY. ROVYNE JUMAO-AS
Intellectual Property of: Andoy, Aspilla, Astillo, Dela Cruz, Faustino, Gido, Miles, Muñoz , Pandita, Pinili
not to disclose the identity of the persons, who furnished
information of violations of law to officers charged with the
enforcement of such law. Last type is Generally privileged or
internal deliberations attached intra-governmental documents
reflecting advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations
which are part of the process towards governmental decisions
and policies when they are formulated.
Now, when these three types of information are enumerated, it
only means that these kinds of info may be asserted as part of
executive privilege, it does not necessarily mean that it would be
considered privileged at all times.
For the determination of the validity of the claim, the question
must be asked WON the info falls within the three types, and
then won they should be honoured under the particular
proceedings, because the proceedings maybe a court
proceeding, or a congressional proceeding or just plain
disclosure to the public. A clear principle therefore is that
Executive privilege is recognized only in relation only to certain
types of information, but to claim the privilege, the validity of
the claim would depend on the ground invoked to justify it and
the context upon which it is made.
Example, you say this information is covered by executive
privilege; the executive must explain why it is covered - because
no. 1 this information involves diplomatic ties, so this is part of
state secret privilege. But other than that you must explain why
on how will it affect diplomatic ties. So what is clear in this
principle is that executive privilege is not attached to the
executive officials. The claim of privilege is in relation to the
information not in relation to the officials. What it is saying is
that, the fact that one is an executive officer does not
necessarily mean that he can claim executive privilege. The
privilege attaches to classes of information rather than to classes
of information.
Now, look at EO 464. The president in that EO identified certain
persons, officers under her department and summarily claimed
that they are covered by the privilege. What is the flaw that can
be readily seen there? The executive privilege is attached to the
person without specifying what information they are holding
that would be covered by that privilege. Again Executive
privilege is in relation to the type of information not to the type
of person. So in this case, the SC that EO464 particularly Section
3 which identified these executive officers as covered by the
executive privilege is therefore invalid. When the president
claims the executive privilege, it must be asserted and justifiable
grounds must be presented. The SC also *** that the disclosure
required is not necessarily to the point that you have to disclose
the information so that the Congress would believe that it is a
valid claim of executive privilege. It is not necessary that you
have to divulge the information just to justify the claim. What is
necessary is the nature of the information would be specified. So
as decided in this case, the claim of privilege being an exception
from an obligation to disclose information must therefore be
clearly asserted - what type of information is that and on what
ground you are claiming the executive privilege. There must be a
formal claim of privilege launched by the head of the
department which has control over the matter after actual
consideration of that ***. The court or the congress, whoever
requires the information, must determine whether the
circumstances are appropriate for the claim of privilege without
forcing the disclosure of the very thing that the privilege is
designed to protect. Again, the claim of privilege must be clearly
stated with grounds, with such particularity, but as not to
compel the disclosure of information which the privilege is
meant to protect.
MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^
1
If we relate that to the power of the Congress to conduct
legislative inquiry, in relation to the fact that it is part of the
power to legislate and it is mandatory for any person who are
called to appear before it, to appear, the General Rule therefore
is disclosure rather than secrecy. The claim of privilege is that
secrecy, so it is an exception rather than the General Rule. As an
exception, it must be properly claimed. EO464 particularly
Section 3, is therefore invalid. It is invalid for the president to
declare that these executive personnel or officers are covered by
the executive privilege.
No person is covered by executive privilege! What is covered by
the executive privilege is information!
Now we have the case of Neri vs. Senate.
This involves the ZTE Deal, the broadband network deal
involving the ZTE Corporation of china. Now, there were a lot of
anomalies in that transaction and accusations involving high
ranking officials including comelec commissioner Abalos. There
were rumors that he was bribed 200million. So there was a
public clamour for investigation of this transaction. If the
Chairman of the Comelec received 200million, how much did the
president receive?
Now an investigation (inquiry) was conducted in the Congress in
aid of legislation. During investigation, one department head
which was called to testify was Neri. He appeared before the
Senate and in fact answered all the questions except for 3
particular questions which he refused to answer.
What are these questions?
WON PGMA followed up the NBN Project;
WON she directed him to prioritize it; and
WON she directed him to approve it. Necessarily these are
personal communications between the president being the
president and the department executive official in the person of
Neri. Neri was a NEDA Chairman? So there was this conversation
between the president and Neri and he was asked by Congress
to divulge information out of this conversation, so he claimed
executive privilege. How did he claim executive privilege? It is
through a letter by Executive Secretary Ermita (the executive
secretary is the little president, the representative of the
president) So when the Executive Secretary writes this kind of
letter, it is in representation of the office of the President. In that
letter he is claiming executive privilege on the information
asked. The context in which the executive privilege is being
invoked is that the information sought to be disclosed might
impair or diplomatic and economic relations with the people’s
republic of China.
Q: is the information covered by executive privilege?
A: This information is in the form of presidential communication
privilege. Words uttered by the president, so this would pertain
to communications or documents and other materials that
reflect presidential decision making and deliberations that the
president believes should remain confidential.
Now based on jurisprudence also, the SC in the present case
enumerated the elements of presidential communications
privilege.
Q: What kind of presidential communications would be covered
by the privilege?
A: 1. the protected communication must relate to a
quintessential and non-delegable presidential power. This
quintessential and non-delegable presidential power would
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
ATTY. ROVYNE JUMAO-AS
Intellectual Property of: Andoy, Aspilla, Astillo, Dela Cruz, Faustino, Gido, Miles, Muñoz , Pandita, Pinili
include powers such as commander in chief powers or the
power of appointment or power to remove and would include
the authority to receive ambassadors and other public officials
to diplomatic powers.
2. The communication must be authored or received or solicited
and received by a close adviser of the president or the president
himself. In other words if the president uttered confidential
information to say a security guard, then he would not be
covered by the claim of privilege because it would not be
something in confidence. It would be presumed that it is not
something in confidence he not being a close adviser of the
president.
3. the presidential communications privilege remains a qualified
privilege that may be overcome by showing an adequate need of
the information such that the info sought likely contains
important evidence and by the unavailability of the info
elsewhere *** by *** investigating authority. This is only a
qualified privilege that can be overcome by pressing need for
disclosure.
Now let us look at the type of information being sought by
Congress from Neri.
Did the president follow up the NBN project?
Did the president tell you to prioritize it?
Did the president direct you to approve it?
The SC scrutinizing the info required concluded that first the info
sought forms part of the quintessential and non delegable
power. The power to negotiate treaties! Second it is a
communication received by Neri who is a close adviser of the
president and third the information sought, the qualified
privilege is not overcome by the need of the information. In
other words, the Congress can still enact the law that it desires
to enact regardless of WON they have this info that they ask of
Neri.
Would it matter if the president directed Neri to prioritize it or
to approve it? Regardless because unlike court proceedings
where you have to reconstruct the past event so you could come
up with a present decision, when it comes to enactment of law,
what is required only is you predict the future and then you
enact a policy addressing that problem. It is up to the congress
to determine what would be politically advisable under the
circumstances. In other words, the info is not necessary for
Congress to come up with the intended legislation. The qualified
privilege of presidential communication has not been overcome
by the need of the Congress to obtain the information.
Therefore the SC held that the info withheld by Neri is a
presidential communication privilege covered by the Executive
privilege, therefore he cannot be compelled to testify. Actually
he was cited for contempt and ordered arrested because he
refused to divulge the info. But in the case, it is improper for the
Senate to compel such kind of info the same being covered by
the Executive privilege.
Now as to the question, diba in Senate vs. Ermita, one of the
rulings is that since this privilege is merely an exemption, it
must be asserted and must be claimed and there must be a
proper justification for the claim of the privilege.
So the next question is - was it properly invoked and justified?
In the case of Neri vs. Senate, the SC held that the letter of the
Executive Secretary is sufficient because there was an express
claim of executive privilege.
MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^
1
Can he do that?
Yes he can because he is the department head directly under the
president and he writes the letter in behalf and for the
president. He also specified the claim and justified it as the
information required would affect diplomatic relations with
China and the SC said that that is sufficient. There is no need for
the president to divulge the communication that transpired
because that would negate the purpose of giving the privilege.
Okay, we are still talking about WON there are persons who can
claim exemptions from attending ***(legislative inquiries?).
We have the case of Gudani vs. Senga(2006).
These are cases in relation to allegations of massive electoral
fraud allegedly committed by the president during the
presidential race between PGMA and FPJ. There was an
allegation of cheating.
Now there were military officials, because the military at that
time were used in far flung areas in the electoral process. There
were high ranking military officials who were called to testify
against the president. So they were called to attend a legislative
inquiry. The president prohibited them from attending but they
nonetheless attended and testified. They were subjected to
court martial or military court proceedings. Is that proper?
Q: Can the president prevent the members of the military from
attending legislative inquiry? Can we use Senate vs. Ermita
Ruling? If we use Senate vs. Ermita ruling, then the answer
would be no because the claim should be in relation to the
communication and not to the person.
A: But in this case, the SC held that Yes! The president can
prevent the military from attending legislative
inquiry/investigation. It could not be based on the claim of
executive privilege, because then, the ruling in Senate vs. Ermita
would be applicable. But it would be based on the President’s
power as the commander in chief of the military!
Isn’t it that under military discipline, military personnel are
required to obey and not to question? This is part of military
discipline.
The SC held that:
Critical to military discipline is obeisance to the military
chain of command. Willful disobedience of a superior
officer is punishable by court-martial under Article 65 of
the Articles of War  “An individual soldier is not free to
ignore the lawful orders or duties assigned by his
immediate superiors. For there would be an end of all
discipline if the seaman and marines on board a ship of
war [or soldiers deployed in the field], on a distant service,
were permitted to
act    upon    their    own    opinion    of    their    rights
[or    their    opinion of the President’s intent], and to throw
off the authority of the commander  whenever they
supposed it to be unlawfully exercised.”
They have no right to question the orders of their superiors!
That’s part of military discipline. The exigencies of military
discipline and the chain of command mandate that the
president’s ability to control individual members of the armed
forces be accorded with utmost respect. When military officer
therefore is torn between the order of the president not to
attend the legislative inquiry and the order of Congress to before
it, what should be the obvious course of action of that military
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
ATTY. ROVYNE JUMAO-AS
Intellectual Property of: Andoy, Aspilla, Astillo, Dela Cruz, Faustino, Gido, Miles, Muñoz , Pandita, Pinili
personnel? To obey the president because the president is his
commander in chief!
But in this case, it is *** because they already testified. But in
the event, that a military be torn between two lovers, he should
choose the president. What would happen then if the president
will prohibit the military personnel to attend while the Congress
insists that he should attend because info is really necessary? IN
this case it would be ill advised to interfere for the Congress to
interfere with the commander in chief power of the president,
but it would be similarly detrimental for the president to unduly
hamper the Congress in the exercise of its power. So we have
now an impasse, diba? Nagkabanggan na ang dalawang
department.
Q: What would then be the remedy?
A: The SC now proposes that if Congress really insists that a
certain person appear before the Congress for legislative inquiry,
it may bring the matter before the Courts and the Court will
determine the propriety of the attendance or non-attendance of
the military personnel.
Q: Does the court have power over the two departments?
A: No! It does not mean that the SC is superior over these two
departments. Only that in our structure in the Constitution, it is
the SC which determines the bickering claim of rights, then the
SC is tasked to determine such questions.
Q: If the SC says that the Military personnel should attend, can it
mandate the president to allow that military personnel? Yes!
A: It is the constitutional duty of the president to implement the
laws of the republic of the Philippines and under the civil code,
decisions of the SC forms part of the legal system. In line with
that principle, the president has no choice but to obey. So that is
the remedy provided by the SC.
So in Gudani vs. Senga(2006), we learned several things. First
the president can prevent the military personnel from attending
a legislative inquiry notwithstanding that it is mandatory, not
based on the claim of executive privilege but based on
commander in chief powers. Next if a military is torn between
the president’s order of prohibition and the Congress’ order of
attendance, he should choose the president. Third, if there is an
impasse between the two powers, the president and the
Congress, then the remedy will be with the SC.
In In re Sabio,
In re: Sabio
FACTS: There is an investigation of certain anomalies involving
the Philippine Holdings Corporation, Philippine Overseas *** and
PHILCOMSAT. Now among those invited to appear before the
Congress is the Chairman of PCGG Chairman Sabio. Now in the
law particularly the EO enacted by President Corazon Aquino,
under the law creating the PCGG there was a provision which
says that no member or staff in the Commission shall be
required to testify or produce evidence in any judicial, legislative
or administrative proceeding concerning matters within its
official cognizance. The apparent purpose is to ensure is that the
PCGG’s task would be unhampered. What is the provision
essentially saying? No member or staff of the Commission shall
be required to testify, what does that mean? There’s immunity
to appear and to testify. In other words they are exempted from
attending any proceeding, divulge information and that would
include legislative inquiries.
MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^
1
ISUUE: Is that provision valid?
RULING: The SC held No! it is an extension to a constitutional
provision, and that law, providing for the exemption cannot
overcome or supersede the constitutional mandate. A mere
provision of law, cannot pose a limitation to the broad powers of
Congress in the absence of any constitutional basis. That
provision of law therefore is valid!
No person should be exempted from attending the legislative
inquiry, there you can see or grasp of how immense this power
is (legislative power of inquiry). Kakambal siya ng power to
legislate. Take that power away and the Congress cannot
legislate and there would be obstruction to the exercise of the
power of the Congress. So the provision is unconstitutional
because it hampers the conduct of legislative inquiry. Also the
SC goes on that it also violates the nature of public office being a
public trust. In that essence, no person can be validly exempted
from appearing, based on the doctrine of public office being a
public trust.
Section 22. The heads of departments may, upon their own
initiative, with the consent of the President, or upon the request
of either House, as the rules of each House shall provide, appear
before and be heard by such House on any matter pertaining to
their departments. Written questions shall be submitted to the
President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of
Representatives at least three days before their scheduled
appearance. Interpellations shall not be limited to written
questions, but may cover matters related thereto. When the
security of the State or the public interest so requires and the
President so states in writing, the appearance shall be conducted
in executive session.
Section 22 is another appearance before the Congress, either
house. But section 22 is different from section 21, section 21
being appearance in a legislative inquiry, while section 22 is
appearance during question hour. Section 21 is applicable to all,
and that is for the purpose of aid of legislation. Section 22 is
applicable only to the heads of the departments of the executive
department; the purpose is only in the pursuit of the Congress
oversight function. The Congress merely seeks to be informed on
how the department heads implement the statutes which it has
issued. That is merely for information of how the departments
are performing their functions based on the laws that the
Congress has issued. So this is merely for oversight function and
not the power to enact laws.
Now Section 21, appearance before the Congress is mandatory.
Section 22 is merely by invitation, in fact it can go the other way
around. It may be that the department head seeks to have an
audience with the Congress or the Congress wants to seek
audience with the department head.
Under Section 21 because it is in aid of legislation, appearance is
mandatory, therefore the consent of the president is immaterial
when it is the department head who is being called, unless there
is a claim of executive privilege. Under Section 22, the consent
of the president is required because the function to oversee
whether or not the department heads are performing their
functions is with the chief executive/the president, it is the
function of the president and sometimes the Congress wants to
help, that is a question hour. It is more mandatory when it’s the
president consents rather than when the Congress calls the
department head.
Q: Section 1 of EO 464 in relation to the case of Senate vs.
Ermita, requires also the consent of the president for
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
ATTY. ROVYNE JUMAO-AS
Intellectual Property of: Andoy, Aspilla, Astillo, Dela Cruz, Faustino, Gido, Miles, Muñoz , Pandita, Pinili
department heads to appear before the Congress in relation to
Section 22 of Article 6 of the 1987 Constitution, is this valid?
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 464
ENSURING OBSERVANCE OF THE PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF
POWERS, ADHERENCE TO THE RULE ON EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
AND RESPECT FOR THE RIGHTS OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS
APPEARING IN LEGISLATIVE INQUIRIES IN AID OF LEGISLATION
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
SECTION 1.  Appearance by Heads of Departments Before
Congress.  - In accordance with Article VI, Section 22 of the
Constitution and to implement the Constitutional provisions on
the separation of powers between co-equal branches of the
government, all heads of departments of the Executive Branch of
the government shall secure the consent of the President prior to
appearing before either House of Congress.
When the security of the State or the public interest so requires
and the President so states in writing, the appearance shall only
be conducted in executive session.
A: The SC held yes, in fact that is the provision of Section 22.
When it comes to a question hour, in the exercise of the
Congress’ oversight function, appearance of dep’t heads can
only be made upon the consent of the President. So that is the
distinction of Section 21 and Section 22.
AUG. 28, 2013
JETRO & DANIELLE
Art VI Sec. 24. All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills
authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of local application,
and private bills shall originate exclusively in the HR, but the
Senate may propose or concur with the amendments.
Either house can propose a bill because each house is co-equal in
their powers.
Section 24 deals with money bills and must originate in
the HR. But this is an exception to the general rule that bills may
originate in either House. It must originate in the HR because HR
is much closer to the people and is more acquainted with the
needs of the people. The Senate is National in scope hence it
must originate in the HR.
Money bills include those appropriation bills that set
aside funds for some public purposes, revenue and tariff bills,
bills authorizing the increase of public debt and etc.
What do you mean by MUST ORIGINATE?
In the case of Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance:
It was about the VAT law, now the HR passed its own bill under
the VAT law and subsequently the Senate passed its own
version. But in the end, after the conference committee resolved
the differences between the House and the Senate, ultimately
when the law was passed it was mostly the version of the Senate
which became the law. Now Senator Tolentino in that case
questions the validity of the passage of the law and his arguing
that it did not originate in the HR given the fact that the final law
was admitted by the Chairman of the Senate panel that it was
mostly the version of the Senate which was approved in the final
MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^
1
law. So what do we mean therefore by the meaning MUST
ORIGINATE IN THE HR?
What the Constitution merely require is that the initiative must
come from the HR. In this case, the first filing must be that of
the HR, it would be the act of filing the bill that would initiate
the legislative process. Meaning if the HR will not initiate the
filing of such bill, the Senate on its own cannot propose a VAT
bill, it does not mean that the law itself will be the version of
the HR just because it must originate in the HR. Because under
Section 24, Senate has the power to concur and propose
amendment. In that legislative process it would be such after
taking the considerations of the proposals of each house, it may
undergo extensive changes, to the point it may not resemble
either versions of the house. Because the theory is the HR is
much closer to the people and they are more familiar with the
needs and the burden that the public can take. So if they think
that it is not yet right time to pass a bill affecting taxation then in
that case the Senate can do nothing about it, they have to wait
for the house to initiate the legislative process. It is the bill that
must originate not the law.
In the case of ABAKADA v. Exec. Secretary
ABAKADA vs Executive Secretary
The HR proposed to amend only the VAT portion in the Internal
Revenue Code. The IRC contains several taxation provisions like
income tax. The Senate received the House Bill, they filed also
their proposed amendment but this time they included not only
the VAT provisions but also amended certain other portions of
the Internal Revenue Code. The question is can they do that?
What is the extent  of the concurrence or proposal of the
Senate? Can they touch provisions which the HR did not include
in the bill? Under Section 24 there is no limitation or prohibition
as to the extent of the amendments the Senate may propose for
as long as the Bill originated in the House of Representatives. In
other words what the Court is saying is that let us just look at
the date of the passing of the bill. If it was passed by the House
before the Senate, it is now immaterial to what extent the
Senate may propose amendments to the subject matter because
Senate has the power to concur or propose amendments that is
introduced by the House.
 
Alvarez v. Guingona
In this case it’s about the conversion of a municipality to a
component city. This is an example of a bill of local application.
Under Sec. 24 it must originate in the HR. The House filed its
own House Bill.
What is the complication in this case?
House filed its bill on April 18, 1993, the Senate filed its version
May 19, 1993, the problem is the House forwarded its bill and
Senate received the version on January 28, 1994. In other words
the Senate before receiving the version of the House already
made its own version.
Must the Senate wait for the version of the House? Did the
Senate violate the provision of Section 24?
It does not preclude the Senate from filing its version ahead so
long as the bill originated in the HR as mandated by Sec. 24 and
holds in abeyance further action after its receipt from the House.
So stand by ang kanilang version. In fact in this case, upon
receipt a month after conducted its public hearing by the
Senate. The important factor is the date of the filing of the
proposal. It means it can file its own version totally different
from the House.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
ATTY. ROVYNE JUMAO-AS
Intellectual Property of: Andoy, Aspilla, Astillo, Dela Cruz, Faustino, Gido, Miles, Muñoz , Pandita, Pinili
 
Section 26 (1). Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace
only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.
It mandates that every bill shall embrace only one subject which
shall be expressed in the title itself. One subject, One title rule.
This is mandatory to the point that it is essential to the validity
of the legislation.
Q: Why?
A: Because the Constitution does not require congress to read
during its deliberation the entire text of the bill, they are just
required to at least read the title. So by reading the title, they
are already notified of what it contains.
One subject per title is required:
(1) to prevent hodgepodge or log rolling legislation – To give
notice. Hodegepodge means messy, unruly, disorganized;
(2) to prevent surprise or fraud upon the legislature by means of
provisions in case of which the titles give no means of
information which might be overlooked; and
(3) for the people to be fairly apprise – that is general notice.
When you say that the subject must be expressed in the title,
the Constitution does not require that the title must be an index
of the provisions contained in that law that each of the chapter
must be placed in the title. What is required is that the general
subject matter is there and all the provisions are germane to the
general subject matter and is not calculated to mislead the
legislature or the people. There is no need that the title is an
index of all the provisions in that law. The test of sufficiency of
the title is whether or not it is misleading.
In Guzman v. COMELEC
GUZMAN vs COMELEC
Involve is the Voters Registration Act of 1996
An act for the general registration of voters, adopting a system
of registration, prescribing the procedures thereof and
authorizing the operational funds therefore. Here comes the
provision of that law Section 24 provides for the reassignment of
Election Officers, regular reassignment, every 4 years they must
be reassigned to another Congressional district. It was argued
that this Section 24 is a rider. A rider means provision not
germane to the subject matter of the law, it is supposed not to
be there. The title now violates the One Subject One Title Rule.
Is it a correct contention? The main subject of the law is to
secure the integrity of registration, that provision is germane to
the subject matter of the law, and therefore not a rider.
Fariňas v. Exec. Secretary
Facts: This involves Fair Elections Act, it mostly relates to the
regulation of Media and the use of Media during election
campaign, however, there is a provision there which provides a
repeal of Sec 67 of the Omnibus Election Code that section
provides for the ipso facto resignation of elective officials when
they file their certificate of candidacy, the Fair elections act
repealed that provision meaning that when elective officials file
their COC they are no longer considered as ipso facto resigned.
Now let’s look at at the title, An act to enhance the holding of
free, orderly, honest and peaceful credible elections through fair
election practices.
MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^
1
Issue: Is this provision the one I mentioned earlier a rider or is it
germane to the subject of the law? Did this provision violate
Section 26?
Ruling: According to the SC, it is germane to the subject. A law
may contain several provisions no matter how diverse they may
be for as long as they are not inconsistent with the general
subject, somehow there is a relation. In the words of the
Supreme Court what is the relation of deleting that provision of
ipso facto resignation to the Fair Elections Act?  Isn’t it that the
law is about fair elections act? That the provision is talking about
that the elective officials are no longer deemed ipso facto
resigned the moment they filed their COC. How is it related to
Fair Elections Act?
The SC said that the legislators here considered Sec 67 is a form
of harassment or discrimination that had to be done away with,
somehow the SC found a way to make that provision valid.
PJA v. Prado
FACTS: This is about creating the Philippine Postal Corporation
which repeals certain other laws, Sec 35 which is an express
repeal of other existing laws, now it was contended that the title
itself that this is an act creating Philippine Postal Authority
repealing blah blah blah..It was contended that the title itself
must express that that law is expressly repealing another law
without that express provision in the title the law is invalid or
that repeal is invalid, now the SC ruled that there is no need to
put that into title, the title need not be an index besides repeal
of the law is not the subject matter of that law but is the effect
of that law.
Whether or not that the Congress will provide that express
repeal, the effect would be the same because it would be
inconsistent with an existing law so it would be an implied
repeal. It would be more of an effect rather than a subject
matter that must be written in the title of that law.
Garcia v. Mata
This is a General Appropriation Law, what is an appropriation
law? It set aside money for the appropriation of the Government
but there is a provision of that law, it provides for the status of
the officers of the military that in case where there is no
emergency, no officer of the reserved officer of the AFP may be
called to an active tour of duty of more than 2 yrs. It pertains to
the status of reserved military personnel. So here you can see, a
law setting aside funds for the operations of the Government
and there is a provision on the status of military personnel.
Clearly you can see that that provision has no relation to the
general subject matter, it is not providing for the funds but it is
providing for a status which should be legislated in another law
and not in incorporated in the General Appropriations Bill.
What you have here therefore is a RIDER, a provision that is not
germane to or related to the subject matter.
 
Lidasan v. Comelec
 
The law is an Act creating the municipality of Dianaton in the
Province of Lanao del Sur. That it is the title. At a glance the title
would only affect the province of Lanao del Sur.
What is the complication in this case? 
This is one example that the title is misleading because it seems
that the municipality will be created out of the barrios or
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
ATTY. ROVYNE JUMAO-AS
Intellectual Property of: Andoy, Aspilla, Astillo, Dela Cruz, Faustino, Gido, Miles, Muñoz , Pandita, Pinili

municipalities of Lanao del Sur because it only mentions the

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

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

 

MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^

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

the concurrence of Congress. Any payment in excess of the
amount herein appropriated, so this provision we are talking
about is an amount other than which is appropriated in an
appropriation bill. This amount in excess of the amount herein
appropriated is an inexistent amount. If it is the intention of the
Congress, it may be contained in another legislation. So this
would refer to an item not found in the appropriation bill. This is
an inappropriate condition. A payment in excess of the amount
herein appropriated, this term refers to an abstract amount, but
it is considered in an appropriation bill, so this is inappropriate.
The amount here actually is 86 billion in payment of the
indebtedness, but it authorized the president to pay in excess of
86 billion, that is not allowed! Payment out of the treasury can
only be made pursuant to legislation or a law, so this is an
inappropriate provision!
in the law itself. It is not for the congress to approve or
disapprove the IRR, otherwise it would be encroaching on the
power of the executive department to implement the law. Gusto
nila pakialaman ang pag implement ng rules and regulations.
Q: Who has the authority in our system to say that the IRR is
valid or invalid?
A: it is the supreme court! So this legislative veto therefore is
unconstitutional because the Congress is now acting or
performing the powers which are properly placed by the
constitution in the SC. That is the case of Abakada vs. Purisima.

Other kinds of inappropriate provisions as enumerated in PCA

vs. Enriq uez would be:

1. Provision that does not relate to any particular item like what
we mentioned earlier - Funds other than that what is provided in
the appropriation.

2. provisions which extends its operation beyond an item in the

appropriation

3. Unconstitutional provisions

4. provisions intended to amend laws

Q: Why are these provisions not proper in an appropriation bill?

A: because an inappropriation bill is only for setting aside a sum

of money for a certain purpose, not to amend another law.

Q: Why, what would be the proper way?

A: to amend the law in a proper separate legislation.

So in this case in PCA vs. Enriquez, so here there is a provision

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

Q: is there such a thing as legislative veto?

e.g. A statutory provision requiring the president or

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

Q: Can the congress provide in the law that the IRR to be

promulgated by the executive dept or administrative agency still
needs the approval of the congress?

What we have here is a legislative veto. Is this constitutionally

allowed?

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

it comes to enactment and implementation of laws, it is the
Congress who should enact laws and the executive dept who
implements it by promulgation of implementing the rules and
regulations. The IRRs has the effect of law as if they are written
MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^

1
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
ATTY. ROVYNE JUMAO-AS
Intellectual Property of: Andoy, Aspilla, Astillo, Dela Cruz, Faustino, Gido, Miles, Muñoz , Pandita, Pinili
SEPT. 4, 2013
CHA & ZAR
Constitutional Law 1
September 4, 2013
Zar
Power of Appropriation (Section 25 and 29)
Sec. 29 (1) No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in
pursuance of an appropriation made by law.
It simply means therefore that only congress can
authorize the expenditure of public funds. Public funds may be
spent only pursuant to law and its congress that enacts laws,
therefore it is congress that holds power of the “first”.
The power of the “first” includes not only the power to
specify the money allowed to be spend but also the power to
specify the conditions for spending. - For the purposes of the use
of that money. It is therefore a very immense power because
the government cannot operate without public funds, and it
cannot use the funds without authorization from congress.
However immense it may be the constitution still has
provided limits to the exercise of this power;
The first limit, you already met it under Sec. 24 when it
comes to all appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills
authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of local application,
and private bills shall originate exclusively in the House of
Representatives.
Now under
Sec. 25 (1) The Congress may not increase the appropriations
recommended by the President for the operation of the
Government as specified in the budget. The form, content, and
manner of preparation of the budget shall be prescribed by
law.
“The congress is the guardian of public treasure.” – Fr. Bernas
The Congress in paragraph (1) may not increase the
appropriations recommended by the President - budgeting
starts with the president proposing a budget - it will be
authorized by congress. The budget proposal cannot be
increased by congress – this is to prevent big budget deficits
Sec. 25 (2) No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the
general appropriations bill unless it relates specifically to some
particular appropriation therein.
This talks about inappropriate provisions in an
appropriations bill. When we were talking about power of veto
of the president – we said that when it comes to appropriations
bill he can only veto items not provisions but he may veto
provisions if these are inappropriate provisions, so this is it,
paragraph 2 - Provisions that does not relate specifically to some
particular appropriation therein. It is a rider.
Recall
Garcia vs Mata that provision in the appropriations bill of 1956-
1967 wherein it has provided for the reactivation of reserved
military officers. This has no place in an appropriations bill
because it does not relate to any appropriation – this is an
example of an inappropriate provision that may be vetoed by
the president because this is in fact unconstitutional.
MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^
1
Sec. 25 (3) The procedure in approving appropriations for the
Congress shall strictly follow the procedure for approving
appropriations for other departments and agencies.
So there should be no special procedure for the
appropriation in the congress. The congress therefore cannot
use a procedure different from other departments and agencies
of the government.
Sec. 25 (4) A special appropriations bill shall specify the
purpose for which it is intended, and shall be supported by
funds actually available as certified by the National Treasurer,
or to be raised by a corresponding revenue proposed therein.
Par. 4 talks about special appropriations - meaning
appropriations not found in the general appropriations law. For
special appropriations law, it must be supported by
certification that funds are available, if not they must be
released by corresponding revenue proposal.
Sec. 25 (5) No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of
appropriations; however, the President, the President of the
Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional
Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment any item
in the general appropriations law for their respective offices
from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.
This is a prohibition of the transfer of funds – juggling
of funds – in fact if you use money that is appropriated for one
purpose for another purpose that is criminally sanctioned, that is
Technical Malversation.
However the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker
of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions
may be authorized to augment any item from the general
appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in
other items of their respective appropriations.
The constitution however provides some leeway to
these heads of departments - The officers mentioned are
actually heads of the 3 great departments and the heads of
constitutional commission.
 What privilege are they given?
- The congress may by law authorize them to transfer
founds in their departments; the transfer is only for
augmenting an item they cannot transfer founds to
use it in an inexistent item. And you only get the
funds from savings of another item.
Juggling in general is prohibited - transferring in a certain
department may be authorized pursuant to law, that’s the first
requirement.
In the case of PCA vs. Enriquez;
There were 2 questionable provisions in the general
appropriations law of 1994
“a member of congress may realign his allocation for
operational expenses to any other expense category provided
the total of the said allocation is not extended” (provision cited)
What’s wrong?
Transfer of funds by any member of congress. Under the
constitution only the speaker of the house is allowed to do the
transfer.
“The chief of staff of AFP is authorized subject to the approval
of the secretary of the national defense, to use savings in
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
ATTY. ROVYNE JUMAO-AS
Intellectual Property of: Andoy, Aspilla, Astillo, Dela Cruz, Faustino, Gido, Miles, Muñoz , Pandita, Pinili
appropriations provided therein, to augment the pension fund
being manage by the AFP retirement separation benefit system
as provided by law”(provision cited)
What’s wrong?
The law authorized a chief of staff of AFP subject to the approval
of the secretary of national defense, under the constitution it is
the president.
In Demetria vs Alba
“the president shall have the authority to transfer any funds
appropriated for the different department, bureaus , offices and
agency of the executive department which are included in the
general appropriations act or approved upon its enactment.”
(provision cited)
What wrong?
The president is authorized to indiscriminately transfer funds
without regard if the fund is for augmentation or the funds
would be coming from savings. It is important to remember that
in transferring of funds it is only for augmenting and it must
come from savings.
Sec. 25 (6) Discretionary funds appropriated for particular
officials shall be disbursed only for public purposes to be
supported by appropriate vouchers and subject to such
guidelines as may be prescribed by law.
It is not unconstitutional to grant the president and
even members of congress discretionary funds. provided there is
a guideline.
Sec. 25 (7) If, by the end of any fiscal year, the Congress shall
have failed to pass the general appropriations bill for the
ensuing fiscal year, the general appropriations law for the
preceding fiscal year shall be deemed re-enacted and shall
remain in force and effect until the general appropriations bill
is passed by the Congress.
-in case the congress fails to pass the appropriations bill the
government cannot be crippled because par. 7 provides for the
automatic re-enactment of the appropriations law of the prior
year, no need for further acts.
CHARIZ
SECTION 29 (par. 1)
Okay! Section 29, par. 1 – No money shall be paid out of the
Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.
But the example would be Brillantes vs. Comelec. In that case,
Comelec was given certain amount or fund for the automation
of elections. So the fund appropriated pursuant to law,
appropriation law. Meron silang… the problem was, during that
time under the reign of Comelec Abalos, they were contracting
here and there and everywhere without clear study of what the
contract would be, how the funds or sevice would be provided,
etc. etc. The point that they paid out that payment, payment for
further services only to be declared invalid by the Supreme
Court. So the fund for automated election was depleted. To the
point that they could no longer implement the automation of
election for the next election that time. Favour is remaining
fund, what they thought of the millions and millions of pesos na
nabigay na sa smartmaic kung sino pa sila. So merong natira,
they thought of contracting again, this time since hindi na, they
cannot pay for the entire automation they will be paying for a
machine that we provide for unofficial quick count. Quick count
nalang! Is that allowed? One of the contentions there is that the
spending of the fund is unconstitutional because there is no
appropriations made by law for that purpose. The law is only the
appropriations law that time is only for the automation
MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^
1
directions. Not for the unofficial quick count and the Supreme
Court noted that when you say in fact unofficial, it’s not
sanctioned by the government. Then Comelec if that is allowed,
Comelec will be allowed to spend again money or something
that is not usable. Unofficial quick count diba?! For what
purpose? So it is now a case of using public funds without
appropriations. It is actually technical proceeding.
But can they cite the authority under the Constitution to transfer
funds, say si Chairman Abalos, can he use that reasoning?
What’s your answer? No. 1, the transfer must be pursuant to
law. In this case, there is in fact a certification by the Senate
President that they had not issued a law authorizing the
Comelec Chairman to transfer funds. No. 2, if at all, there is that
authority, what is the extent of that authority? In transferring
funds, used the funds to augment, here in this case, the alter for
there was no item for unofficial quick count machines. Diba? So
it was an inexistent item to fund. So it is also not allowed under
the Constitution besides if you are to allow transfer of funds,
saan mo kukunin? From savings. Natira nay un eh, hindi na
savings. Anong term nga yan? Tawag niyan? Sa atin pang
shopping nalang yun, pambili ng bigas. So its not savings
because it has, they have after spend all the budget. So it’s that
instance wherein the Comelec is intending to lose public money
for something that is not authorized by law. So from one palpak
to another palpak. Palpak na Comelec.
2nd paragraph, Section 29 – no public money or property shall
be appropriated, applied, paid or employed directly or
indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church,
denominations, secretarian institution or system of religion, or
of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or
dignitary as such except when such preiest, preacher, minister
or dignitarian is assigned to the armed forces or to any penal
institution or government orphanage or leprosarium.
Simply, public money or public funds cannot be used for
religious purposes. Take note of the exception. Not all
governmental activity with the use of public funds that is related
to some activity that has religious tint would violate this
provision of the constitution and the separation of church and
state. in other words, as long as the main purpose of the law is
not for religious purposes when they authorize the tending of
money then it cannot be invalidated by the mere contention
that it violates the principle of separation of church and state or
it violates article 29 (2) as long as the main purpose of the
tending of money or the use of money is not for religious
purposes even though at a collateral the activity will have some
religious tint. Very practical example, kuha tayo ng budget sa
office bili tayo ng decoration sa christmas, belen, di ba? So it is
not unconstitutional actually. It is something that that is more of
a socio- cultural activity rather than a religious activity.
We take that with the case of garces vs. estenzo. In
that case the only problem is that who should be given the right
to contend the statue of a saint. estatwa ni san vicente ferrer
pinag-agawan ng parish priest at ng layman. So who has the
rightful contention of the STATUE? The statue was i think around
php 400.00. What’s the problem in this case? This particular
barangay will be celebrating its fiesta. When you say fiesta it’s a
commemoration of of a saint di ba? A saint being in relation of
that to the catholic practice. The local government issued a
resolution authorizing the solicitation of funds and they will use
it to buy a statue of a patron saint. on the fiesta celebration they
will lend the statue from one house to another until during the
fiesta it will reach the church. The problem is after the
celebration the priest refuse to give back. Te is claiming that it is
owned by the church. Ironically, he is claiming violation of
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
ATTY. ROVYNE JUMAO-AS
Intellectual Property of: Andoy, Aspilla, Astillo, Dela Cruz, Faustino, Gido, Miles, Muñoz , Pandita, Pinili
church and state principle. Sabi nya it violates because he is
claiming that he is using public funds for religious purposes. The
sc said it is not even an issue of separation of chirch and state. If
you look at the facts the funds that were used to buy the statue
is from solicitation. So they came from private pockets not from
public funds. On that score alone, wrong na yung contention.
But other than that the sc said there is nothing unconstitutional
about celebrating fiesta. There is also nothing unconstitutional
about procuring anything in relation to that celebration even
procuring the statue. Why? In this case you cannot say
separation of church and state because celebration of fiesta is
more of a socio- cultural activity of the filipinos. It would way
way back in time and memorial is engraved in our culture. So
relate that with fiesta; relate that with declaring the end of
ramadan as holiday. So there is socio- cultural activity that
cannot be declared a religious activity where the state cannot
participate. When it comes to fiestas it’s not really religious but
more on cultural.
Another case is the case of aglipay vs. ruiz. Aglipay as
you know was the founder of the Philippine independent
church. the Philippines is going to be the venue for an
international Eucharistic celebration which is the _ of the family
church meaning that several dignitaries, several delegates
coming from other countries representing the catholic religion
would be coming over because this would be their convention.
Now, running on the petition the congress enacted a law
authorizing the use of public money for the printing of a stamp.
As to_ of the catholic church so violation of the church and state
principle. is the contention correct? Again as we mentioned
earlier as long as the law or enactment the primary purpose is
not for religious purpose then it will not violate the
constitutional principle. In this case the purpose is not to
support the catholic church but to raise revenue pamaligya ng
stamp and to promote the Philippines,. In fact it was contended
here that the stamp instead of a chalice was changed to a map
of the Philippines. so the focus here is the venue in the
Philippines rather than the catholic religion. So not all
governmental activity of public use of funds with religious tint
are violative of constitutional provision in fact the sc said that
the law is valid because the basic purpose of the law is to raise
revenue not to support that activity. In fact if you will repeat and
you look at it in an objective way what the government did here
is to maki-ride on ay may happening dito mangwarta ta di ba?
That’s how simple it is. It’s not even religious tint. So they just
rode with the activity to raise revenue and to promote the
Philippines as the place of the activity.
SEPT. 5, 2013
JAY & LANIE – No class
SEPT. 6, 2013
JETRO & DANIELLE
SEPTEMBER 6 - JETRO AND DANIELLE
SEC 23 -
1. The congress by a vote of two-thirds of both houses in
joint session assembled, voting separately shall have
the sole power to declare the existence of state of war.
The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national
policy. Under the constitution, the power is vested in the
congress, there is a greater number of vote required which 2/3
of both houses in joint sessions assembled voting separately.
MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^
1
What if an offensive war is on going? What can the president
do?
Of course the president can fight coz his authority includes to
serve and protect the people and the country but this does not
mean that it comes with the power to declare an existence of
war.
Whats the relevance? Why the congress has this power?
To ensure the deployment of the resources of the government.
Paragraph 2
2. In times of war or other national emergency, the
congress may, by law, authorize the president for a
limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may
prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to
carry out a declared national policy. Unless sooner
withdrawn by resolution of the congress, such powers
shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof.
It provides that in case of war or national emergency, the
congress may delegate upon the president emergency power.
Whats the extent? Any power even the power to legislate. This
would be one of the valid delegation of the president pursuant
to the grant of emergency powers by the congress. The power is
so immense, thus the constitution put some limits to the grant
of emergency powers to the president:
1. Must be pursuant to law – a law must be enacted
2. It can be given only to a limited period
- Upon the next adjournment of the congress, the
power shall automatically ceased.
- Now the withdrawal, if the congress sees it as fit
to withdraw the emergency powers, will it need to
enact a law for withdrawal?
No, only a resolution is needed to withdraw the
power.
3. The power is subject to restrictions as congress may
provide
In the case of DAVID VS ARROYO
- It was at this time, Arroyo declared a state of
emergency. Does she have this power?
Yes, the act is valid. What she us declaring is merely stating an
existing condition. The current condition of the country. It is
only a statement of fact. She is not precluded to state an
emergency. Example also is declaring the state of calamity or
state of rebellion. It has no legal implication in the constitution.
Can she exercise emergency powers?
No, coz under the constitution , only congress can grant her
emergency powers. The power to declare state of emergency is
different in exercising emergency powers.
Now, lets jump to sec 28. – power of taxation
1. The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The
congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation.
So power of taxation is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
congress, to some extent to local legislative bodies. They are
also granted delegated legislative authority pursuant to the local
government code to raise its own revenue.
2. The congress may, by law, authorize the president to
fix within specified limits, and subject to such
limitations and restrictions as it may impose, tariff
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
ATTY. ROVYNE JUMAO-AS
Intellectual Property of: Andoy, Aspilla, Astillo, Dela Cruz, Faustino, Gido, Miles, Muñoz , Pandita, Pinili

rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage
dues and other duties or imposts within the framework
of the national development program of the
government.
The basic principle is that power of taxation is n the realm of
congress but under paragraph 2, there are certain types of
imposition which the congress may delegate to the president.
This imposition may refer to impositions upon importation of
goods into the philiipines. You have that power to impose tariff
dues, tariff rates, import and export quotas, other duties to
imposed. This is therefore an exception to the valid delegation
of legislative power.
The basic premise therefore is although taxation is exclusive to
congress as to foreign importations, this can be delegated to the
president.
SOUTHERN WING VS CEMENT
The tariff and custom codes authorizing the PRES to prohibit any
commodity under EO 226- OMNIBUS INVESTMENT CODE and
SAFEGUARD MEASURES ACT. The bottomline as we can see
there is already a continuing authority of the pres to ban
importation products.
Why is there an issue? Because previously it was only congress
who has authority to ban import goods.
Paragraph 3
3. Charitable institutions, churches and parsonages or
convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non profit
cemeteries and all lands, buildings, and improvements
actually directly and exclusively used for religious,
charitable and educational purposes shall be exempt
from taxation.

The SC explained this provision has basic postulates. This case Is it true that the business of religion, education is good
tackles the safeguard measures act. You have read about the business? ( laughs)
World trade organization and the GATT ( general appropriation
on tariff and trade) . what is the effect of that? the importation Its not entirely true. Under the constitution, its not the
of other goods to our country is treated equally with our local institution that is exempted but the lands, buildings and other
goods. We agreed to that. The problem is with the influx of improvements which are mandatory directly used for
imported goods, the problem of the govt was to protect the educational, religious or charitable purposes in other words,
local goods. The congress enacted safeguard measures act only real estate taxation is exempted under the constitution.
wherein the president thru DTI cannot imposed importation
What is the reasons granting them?
dues. The SC explained the basic postulates of paragraph 2- sec
28
In honing or promoting the morality, spiritual needs of the
country are basically governmental function. These institutions
-it is the congress which authorizes the president to impose tariff
are helping the government so to some extent it lifts the burden
dues, import and export dues. The authority cannot come from
of the government. They given the benefit of exempted from
the national economic development or the world trade
real estate taxation.
organization. Even if we agree to the WTO, it needs
congressional enactment.
LUNG CENTER Vs QUEZON CITY
2. the authority granted to the president must be pursuant to a
Lung center is a non stock – non profit entity. It’s a health
law. It cant be an inherent power of the president. It cannot
service entity. This was established during the time when TB is
arise from executive orders.
prevalent. The hospital stands on a 12 hectare lot. The hospital
is in the middle while the other lot is rented to a private
3. only the specified limits and further to restrictions provided
individual with business. The ground floor houses the canteed
by congress.
and the clinics of doctors who rented those clinics. The hospital
If the congress would stipulate that there are importations of generates income from these rents. They were assessed for real
corn, then the president cant do anything about it even if the is property tax of the local assessor of quezon city. They question
pressured by the corn industry. that they are exempted from taxation. Now it argued its
character as a charitable constitution remains since the income
It was an issue here that the president will exercise his power derived from the rents are use for the hospital.
thru his alter egos as for example the department secretaries
like the sec of finance in imposing import duties. This SMA The SC said there is no argument as to that matter. The issue is
provides by the provision it will be the DTI or tariff commission the land and the building exempt from taxation?
that will determine. There is a clash now in who will act as the
The SC said what the constitution exempts are only those
alter ego of the pres? We said in the onset, it’s the congress
portion which are directly used fro charitable purposes. In this
who delegates this power. In this case, the SC SAID it is the DTI
case, only those portions of the building used for charitable
who acts as an agent of congress in acting this power. The
purposes are exempted.
president cannot say that we will not believe the DTI since this
restriction is already in the law in this case.
This provision is strictly applied. Only those areas which are
directly used for religious, charitable and educational purposes.
EXECUTIVE VS SOUTHWING
4. No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed
The Pres Arroyo issued executive order banning certain vehicles
without the concurrence of a majority of all the
for importation. The issues is whether or not the president has
members of the congress.
the authority to ban certain goods or parts for importation for it
seems there was issuance from the congress granting the pres to
The congress cannot grant tax exemption without authority by
ban those goods. In order for the pres to exercise his power
law. What is the required vote? An absolute majority is
there must be a law. So the SC surveyed the current laws and
required. Is is constitutionally enshrined.
concluded that there are 3 laws that grants the pres to ban
these importation goods. It’s a general grant: CHAVEZ VS PCGG
MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^

1
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
ATTY. ROVYNE JUMAO-AS
Intellectual Property of: Andoy, Aspilla, Astillo, Dela Cruz, Faustino, Gido, Miles, Muñoz , Pandita, Pinili

The PCGG is tasked of to look and investigate the ill-gotten
wealth of the MARCOSES. This authority granted to the PCGG
includes the authority to enter into compromise agreement with
the marcoses. One of the agreement is that they surrender all
their ill-gotten wealth and will be subject to tax exemption.
Is this stipulation valid?
Basically, it prohibits creation of private corporation pursuant to
a law. It prescribes that private corporation shall be created to
Philippine corporation code. The congress may create
government own-controlled corporations by creating a charter.
The reason for the prohibition is in giving special treatment to
private corporations because it would be a violation of equal
protection clause.

Its not valid because only the congress can grant tax exemption.
If so granted , it must be in pursuant to law. And if pursuant to
law it must be approved by concurrence of the majority by
congress. The PCGG has no authority to grant tax exemption.
SEC 3O - prohibited measures
At the onset, we said that congress exercises plenary legislative
power. The constitution provides the limits to this power.
Among this limits are found in SEC 30 AND 31.
SEC 30- no law shall be passed increasing the appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme court as provided in this constitution
without its advice and concurrence.
Question? Can the congress increase the appellate jurisdiction
of the court?
Yes if the SC will give its advise and concurrence. The purpose of
this provision is to avoid unnecessary burdensome the SC with
this appellate jurisdiction. Under art 8 of the constitution , the
power, functions and jurisdiction of the SC are already
enumerated. This can be expanded by congress but only with
the advice and concurrence of the SC.
LEPANTO VS ?
The issue is the validity of the appellate jurisdiction from the
decisions of the board of investments because the omnibus
investment code provides that the decision from this board are
final but they can be raised to the SC by certiorari. The omnibus
investment code was promulgated on july 17, 1987. By then,
the 1987 constitution was effective. Under sec 30, art 6, the
supreme court said that congress did not obtain the SC’s advice
much less its concurrence. Therefore, where will you appeal its
decisions?
You appeal it to the court of appeals.
FABIAN VS DESIERTO
LIBAN VS COMELEC
Gordon was a senator holding the chairmanship of PNRC. There
was the issue on incompatibility of office. The SC ruled here
there was no violation here because PNRC is a private corp.
there was a portion of the decision that PNRC was created
pursuant to a presidential decree and was a violation of the
constitutional prohibition. The existence of PNRC was declared
invalid and its has now to incorporate pursuant to corporation
code as a private corp. the SC made that decision even if PNRC
was not a party to the case and drastically affected PNRC.
PNRC has been existing for more than 60 years helping Filipinos.
All of a sudden its valid existence was denied by government.
PNRC filed a motion for intervention and reconsideration. It
argued that its creation was not a violation. The SC reconsidered
its decision. It surveyed the history and creation of PNRC. The
SC recognized PNRC was created by law is private corp. its
creation did not violate the constitution. Why?
It was created by the government in compliance to the GENEVA
convention. Other states were already putting up their own red
crosses. This institution renders public service. Charitable
services voluntary at that not funded by the government. Funds
come from donors and PNRC is internationally acknowledged as
a neutral independent institution. In times of war, this RED cross
personnel are protected at all cost whether you are the enemy
or the territory being attacked. It has been a partner of the govt
and international communities. There is none like its type. The
SC said PNRC is “sui generis”- a class of its own. Its creation was
not a violation because it is not among the private corp
prohibited being created pursuant to law. The SC acknowledged
its mistake here in this decision.
“A little more persistence, a little more effort, and what
seemed hopeless failure may turn to glorious success.”
-Elbert Hubbard

In this case, questioning the appellate jurisdiction of the SC as

provided with the OMBUDSMAN ACT. The ombudsman act
provides that decisions of the ombudsman are final but they can
be appealed to the SC via certiorari. This provision has already
been invalidated by the SC because it was a violation of sec 30.
So , decisions in administrative cases from the OMBUDSMAN
can only be appealed with the COURT of Appeals.

SEC 31 - No law granting a title of royalty or nobility shall be

enacted.

I don’t know why this is written here. (laughs)

There is another prohibited measure under ART 12 , SEC 16

which provides:

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

MAY GOD BLESS US ALL ^_^