Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1B STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION Module 2 FINAL
1B STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION Module 2 FINAL
1B STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION Module 2 FINAL
MODULE 2
Lidasan v. COMELEC, 21 SCRA 496
No bill which may be enacted into law shall embrace more than one subject
which shall be expressed in the title of the bill.
Giron v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 188179, January 22, 2013
“One subject – One Title Rule” - Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace
only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.
Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, 235 SCRA 630
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.
PHILJA v. Prado, G.R. No. 105371, November 11, 1993, 227 SCRA 203
Any changes agreed upon by the Conference Committee need not undergo
another “three readings” in the Senate and the House of Representatives. Article
VI, Sec. 26(2) of the Constitution must be construed as referring only to bills
introduced for the first time in either house of Congress. A law may not be
declared unconstitutional when what have been violated in its passage are
merely internal rules of procedures of the House. The Court may not inquire
beyond the certification of the approval of a bill from the presiding officers of
Congress. It has no power to inquire about the House of Congress process in
enacting the law based on the latter’s own rules.
Bolinao Electronics v. Valencia, G.R. No. L-20740, June 30, 1964, 11 SCRA
486
The president has the power to veto any particular item or items of an
appropriations bill. However, when a provision of an appropriations bill affects
one or more items of the same, the President cannot veto the provision without
at the same time vetoing the particular items to which it relates.
Abakada Guro Party-list v. Purisima, G.R. No. 166715, August 14, 2008, 562 SCRA
251
1. A law enacted by Congress enjoys the strong presumption of
constitutionality. To justify its nullification, there must be a clear and
unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not a doubtful and equivocal one.
5. Legislative power (or the power to propose, enact, amend and repeal laws)
is vested in Congress which consists of two chambers, the Senate and the
House of Representatives.
8. Any provision of law that empowers Congress or any of its members to play
any role in the implementation or enforcement of the law violates the principle
of separation of powers and is thus unconstitutional.
This triggered the present original action for certiorari and prohibition
by Bara Lidasan, a resident and taxpayer of the detached portion of
Parang, Cotabato, and a qualified voter for the 1967 elections. He
prays that Republic Act 4790 be declared unconstitutional; and that
Comelec's resolutions of implementing the same for electoral
purposes, be nullified.
ISSUE/S Whether or not the title of RA 4790 "An Act Creating the Municipality
of Dianaton in the Province of Lanao del Sur" is unconstitutional for not
conforming with the constitutional requirement
RULING/S Republic Act 4790 is null and void.
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 and
Parang in Cotabato and in the province of Cotabato itself that part of
their territory is being taken away from their towns and province and
added to the adjacent Province of Lanao del Sur; it kept the public in
the dark as to what towns and provinces were actually affected by the
bill.
It was further argued that RA 4790 may still be salvaged with reference
to the areas found within Lanao del Sur, with the mere nullification of
the portion in the other province of Cotabato. The general rule is that
where part of the statute is void, the valid portion, if separable from the
invalid, may stand and be enforced. Enough must remain to make a
complete, intelligible, and valid statute, which carries out the legislative
intent. However, when the bill was presented in Congress, the totality
of the twenty-one barrios-not nine barrios-was in the mind of the
proponent thereof. Dianaton was created upon the basic
considerations of progressive community, large aggregate population
and sufficient income. Republic Act 4790 is thus inseparable, and it is
accordingly null and void in its totality.
CASE TITLE HENRY R. GIRON vs. COMMISSION G.R NO. 188179
ON ELECTIONS
ALMARIO E. FRANCISCO,
FEDERICO S. JONG JR., and
RICARDO L. BAES JR.
PONENTE SERENO, CJ. DATE: Jan 22, 2013
DOCTRINE “One subject – One Title Rule” - Every bill passed by the Congress
shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title
thereof.
FACTS Shortly after then President Gloria Arroyo filed her candidacy to run for
Congress during the 2010 elections, Henry Giron, head of an NGO
named Article 64 movement, filed a petition to the Supreme Court
through a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition assailing the
constitutionality of Section 12 and 14 of the Fair Election Act.
His contention here is that, under the Section 26(1), Article VI of the
Constitution, a bill passed by Congress shall embrace only one subject
which shall be expressed in the title thereof.
COMELEC, on the other hand, argued that this issue has already been
resolved in Farinas vs Executive Secretary.
ISSUE/S Whether or not the inclusion of Sections 12 and 14 in the Fair Election
Act violates Section 26(1), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, or the
"one subject-one title" rule.
RULING/S There is no violation of the Constitution.
COMELEC is correct that this has already been addressed in the case
of Farinas vs Executive Secretary.
DOCTRINE 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.
FACTS Petitioners Arturo Tolentino, et al. claims that R.A. 7716 or the
Expanded Value Added Tax Law did not “originate exclusively in the
House of Representatives” as a requirement of Article VI sec. 24 of the
Constitution since it is a consolidation of the following two bills: H. No.
11197 which was filed in the House of Representatives (passed three
readings) then sent to the Senate where it was referred to the Senate
Ways and Means Committee after first reading. The Senate then
passed S. No. 1630 as its own version and approved it on May 24,
1994.
The petitioners were not able to submit the applications for renewal of
their station licenses two (2) months before its expiration, a violation of
Section 14 of Department Order 11. Pursuant to Section 3 of Act 3846,
as amended by Republic Act 584, on the powers and duties of the
Secretary of Public Works and Communications, he may approve or
disapprove any application for renewal of station or operator license,
provided, however, that no application for renewal shall be
disapproved without giving the licensee a hearing. Thus the notice of
hearing was sent to the petitioners to find out whether there is ground
to disapprove the applications for renewal.
The petitioners’ application was denied for the lone reason of late filing
of application for renewal.
From the moment the law becomes effective, any provision of law that
empowers Congress or any of its members to play any role in the
implementation or enforcement of the law violates the principle of
separation of powers and is thus unconstitutional. Under this principle,
a provision that requires Congress or its members to approve the
implementing rules of a law after it has already taken effect shall be
unconstitutional. Following this rationale, Section 12 of RA 9335 should
be struck down as unconstitutional.
CASE TITLE Mabanag vs Lopez Vito G.R NO. L-1223
PONENTE Justice Tuazon DATE: March 5, 1947
DOCTRINE Enrolled bill doctrine. Political questions are not subject to judicial
review, except when dealing with questions conferred upon the courts
by constitutional/statutory provision. This is predicated upon the
separation of powers. According to a US case, the efficacy of
ratification by state legislature of proposed amendment to Federal
Constitution is a political question. If ratification of an amendment is a
political question, a proposal which leads to ratification has to be a
political question.
1935 Constitution provides two distinct parts for amendments:
proposal and ratification. Proposal to amend is highly political
performed by Congress in its sovereign legislative capacity, and there
is less reason for judicial inquiry into a proposal’s validity rather than
ratification. A duly authenticated bill/resolution imports absolute verity
and is binding on the courts. The courts cannot mandate the President
to use his calling out power when the situation permits it, or the
legislature to pass a certain kind of law. Such duties are beyond judicial
review if the one charged fails to perform them. Motives are beyond
the courts.
FACT/S This is a petition for prohibition to prevent the enforcement of a
congressional resolution designated "Resolution of both houses
proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the Philippines to be
appended as an ordinance thereto."
The petitioners contend that their vote was not taken into consideration
in requiring that in amending the constitution, the law requires 3/4 of
the votes of the member of the Congress thus arriving in the question
of constitutionality of the said resolution.
ISSUE/S 1. Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction.
2. Whether or not the journals can be investigated against the
conclusiveness of the enrolled bills.
RULING/S No. Petition is dismissed without cost. The Court held that to go behind
the enrolled bills which were already authenticated and to investigate
the journals amounts to disregard of the respect due to the coequal
and independent department of the state, and it would be an inquisition
into the conduct of the members of the legislature, a very delicate
power, the frequent exercise of which must lead to confusion in the
administration of the law.
The bill was passed with amendments on May 20, 1964, then, a letter
was sent to HOR the following day informing that the bill has been
passed. Attached to letter is the certification of amendment. The
certificate states that the amendment suggested by Roxas were
approved instead of those of Tolentino. The bill was signed into RA No.
4065 or The Revised Charter of the City of Manila by the President on
June 18, 1964.
After the law was implemented, Tolentino held a press release about
the error in the passed law. Following the acknowledgment of the error,
the Senate President withdrew his signature. The President also
withdrew his signature saying that he can’t pass a law not approved by
the HOR and the Senate.
The Mayor then issued a circular about the changes brought about by
an invalid law. This includes recalling the police force assigned to the
Vice- Mayor. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE/S W/N Republic Act No. 4065 is valid?- No
RULING/S Congress devised its own system of authenticating bills duly approved
by both Houses, namely, by the signatures of their respective presiding
officers and secretaries on the printed copy of the approved bill. It has
been held that this procedure is merely a mode of authentication, to
signify to the Chief Executive that the bill being presented to him has
been duly approved by Congress and is ready for his approval or
rejection.
Sec. 10 (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 require secrecy; and the yeas and nays on any question
shall, at the request of one-fifth of the Members present, be entered in
the Journal."
The petition was denied and the so-called Republic Act No. 4065
entitled "An act defining the powers, rights and duties of the Vice-
Mayor of the City of Manila, further amending for the purpose sections
ten and eleven of Republic Act numbered four hundred nine, otherwise
known as The Revised Charter of the City of Manila” is declared not to
have been duly enacted and therefore did not become law.