THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT 

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.  *NEW PROVISION
Section 1 of Articles 6, 7 and 8 states where the power is vested.
 Second Clause – “except to the extent…” – new addition to the 1987 Constitution BECAUSE OF THE
NEW SET UP IN 1987 CONSTITUTION WHEREIN THE POWER OF THE LEGISLATIVE MAY BE
EXERCISED DIRECTLY BY THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE THROUGH INITIATIVE AND
REFERENDUM
 The provision on initiative and referendum is found in Section 32. END OF THE ARTICLE.
 Instances of failure to adjust to the decision to adopt a bicameral legislature:
 BICAMERAL CONGRESS UNDER 1987CONSTITUTION WAS DECIDED BY THE VOTE OF 23/22.
In all instances, the constitutional convention in 1935 and 1973, constitutional commission in 1987,
delegates first / divide themselves into articles. 
 In the crafting of the Constitution, the commission was divided into articles or committees (e.g.,
Preamble, National territory, etc.) and they will have members. each committee will craft their
respective articles and at the end of the convention or session, they collate their resources. It is what
happened in 1987 Constitution.
 They decided what kind of legislation they wanted, unicameral or bicameral. After they have already
discussed the substance of the articles, they conducted a voting. Bicameral Congress won. 
 They worked on a UNICAMERAL Congress until they voted for it to be BICAMERAL. They changed it
at the last minute. 23 votes- Bicameral; 22 votes - Unicameral. But they already finished discussing
the body of the Constitution. 
 There are provisions in the constitution that were made for a unicameral like Art17, that's why you
have a difficulty in explaining art17 on how to propose amendments to the constitution. 
1987 constitution:
 1. Amendment of the constitution may be proposed by (1) congress upon a vote of three fourth of all
its members (Sec 1(1), Art XVII); -they were talking about unicameral congress
 The committee failed to attune the provision to the bicameral structure. How will they vote, separately
or jointly? Not adjusted to the decisions to adopt a bicameral. 
 2. Membership of the JBC. (Sec 8(1) Art VIII) – confusing because it merely says that 1 member will
come from congress; since there are 2 houses in congress, we don’t know how to treat membership
in the JBC; At first there was an arrangement that it will be alternate (1.5yrs for 1 house, 1.5 yrs for
the other house), later on there were 2 members who came from congress; Supreme Court settled
the confusion. It does not specify which Congress, senate or House of representative? 
 Instances where the Constitutional Commission drafting the 1987 Constitution made
adjustments to be in tune with the bicameral system:
 1. Sec 4, Article VII - in case of tie in Presidential election, this provides the solution
 When Congress acts as Electoral Tribunal to count votes casted for President / vice President
-“Senate and House of Representatives…”
 2. Sec 9, Article VII - nominees to replace vice president, etc. – spells out the procedure
 When there is vacancy in the Office of the Vice President, (e.g., when Gloria Arroyo became
president) the “President shall nominate from among the Members of the Senate and the House of
Representatives…”  but must be elected by members of congress, separately or jointly? 
 3. Sec 18, Article VII – On the proclamation of Martial Law: “…the Congress may, voting jointly etc..”
the word “jointly” recognizes that there are 2 houses of Congress
 JONES LAW - PROVIDED FOR A BICAMERAL LEGISLATURE
 1935-UNICAMERAL- NATIONAL ASSEMBLY, SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED TO BICAMERAL
CONGRESS
 1976, AMENDED TO UNICAMERAL- BATASANG PAMBANSA

The Legislative Department

 What is legislative power?
Legislative power is the authority to make laws and to alter and repeal them.
   The extent of the plenary power of Congress. 
1935, 1973, 1987 Constitution grants plenary power = FULL or unlimited power to the Legislature.
Thus, any power deemed to be legislative by usage and tradition is necessarily possessed by
Congress unless the organic act has lodged it elsewhere as in the case of legislative power of the
electorate through the exercise of initiative and referendum.

 What is the EXTENT of the plenary power of Congress? 

Congress may legislate on any subject matters provided it is substantive and procedural limitations
found in the constitution are observed, provided it is not unconstitutional/prohibited under the
Constitution.
 Principle of non-delegability of legislative power.
corollary to plenary grants, it follows congress alone can make laws and may not delegate its law-
making power
 Rule-making power or a law-execution function.
issuance by administrative bodies of rules and regulations by virtue of statutes creating them is not a
law-making function but only a rule making power or a law execution function.
 Crafting of Implementing Rules and Regulation (IRR): is NOT an exercise of legislative power
 Administrative bodies that executed the law that was mandated by the law created by congress. 
 Admin bodies may be allowed either to fill up the details of already complete statues or to ask a thing
necessary to bring a contingent law into actual operation.
 Under what conditions may the rule making power be not violative of the principle of non-
delegability?
 The rule making power does not violate the principle of non delegability of legislative power for as
long as long as 1. the Statute making the delegation (main law): is complete by itself by setting forth
the policy to be implemented. And 2. The Statute fixes a standard which delegates must conform in
making IRR.

 Under what conditions may violation of such rules and regulation be punished as a penal
offense?
It could be that the law that created an administrative body provided power for that administrative
body to provide for penal functions in implementations of its policies. If there are penal functions,
does not violate it could be that the administrative body in crafting the IRR will have to come up with
penal statutes. So, it does not violate the rule making power of the admin body provided
 1. The violation be made a crime by the delegating Statute. So, before the administrative body can
provide a penal statute in its IRR, there must be a power given under the law creating that admin
body. 2. When PENALTY is provided in the main Statute itself and the regulation be published.

 Checks and balances.

Principle of separation of powers means that legislation belongs to Congress, execution to the
executive, settlement of legal controversies to the Judiciary. Separation of powers is NOT
ABSOLUTE/NOT TOTAL, it allows for checks and balances. Which means that no one department is
able to act without the cooperation of at least one of the other departments. 
 Purpose (of separation of powers and checks and balances)
1.To prevent concentration of powers in one department 2. To avoid tyranny

 EX. In crafting a law. The crafting of a law is not given to the legislature alone. Before it becomes a
law, they will send it to the President for his signature. 
 Negative effects of too much checks and balances lead to gridlock and inefficiency in the
administration of government. 
Like for instance if power is concentrated in the executive, he can make a go of everything alone without
checks and balances, so there is concentration of too much power in one department and that would result to
tyranny 
 Legislative power remains to be a limited power. 
It is subject to limitations provided in the Constitution itself found in Bill of Rights and the allowable
subjects of legislation. Also, Procedural Limitations such as that which prescribed the manners of passing
a BILL and the form they should take
  Two kinds of legislative power: Constituent and Ordinary.
Constituent – power to amend or revise the constitution
Ordinary – power to pass ordinary laws
---------
Original – possessed by the sovereign people
Derivative – that which has been delegated by people to legislative bodies – the Congress has this power

 Holders of legislative power. 

1. People themselves – the original legislative power but confers this to the legislature under the
constitution
2. Legislative bodies/legislature - derivative legislative power 
3. By the people themselves under the provision of initiative and referendum
4. President – emergency legislative powers when given by Congress to him
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. Qualifications of a senator

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 for which he was elected.
(1)Question: can there be a possibility of hold over in Congress, Presidency(Pres/Vp)? None.
Because Consti states when the term of the official starts/commences- on the 30th day of June
following their elections. Exactly 6yrs after they have commenced their term of office, the term
expires. There is no interpretation that can be accepted from the provisions of this constitution for the
extension of term. 
Paragraph 2 example:
A wise senator resigns on his 5th year of second term – it does not interrupt the 2-term limit
Section 5. (1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and
fifty members(250) 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.
 "Unless otherwise fixed by law” -paragraph 1; the total number of House of Representatives might
increase by statute/law. This may be done through reapportionment resulting in creation of new
districts or through creation of new provinces/cities meriting one legislative district. Since the time of
the ratification of the constitution there have been many times when provinces were created
especially when over the past 6yrs/10yrs, there have been a lot of provinces created and cities that
has 250,000 or more population. 
this number (250) is no longer true/not absolute.
(2) The party list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total number of
representatives including those under the party list. For three consecutive terms after the ratification
of this constitution, one half of the seats allocated to the party list representatives shall be filled, as
provided by law, by selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious
sector.
-second sentence: no longer effective, from the time of ratification in 1987 already lapsed
(3) Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact and adjacent
territory. Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall
have at least one representative.
Susceptible to misinterpretation- the atleast 250,000 refers only to City. All cities that has at least
250,000 population-1 representative
all-Province-at least one representative. Regardless of population.
 (4) Within three years following the return of every census, the congress shall make a
reapportionment of legislative districts based on the standards provided in this section.
never was there a reapportionment of legislative districts because all congressmen don’t want to give a
portion of their territory. It must be recrafted/redo the composition of legislative districts but it never
happened. 
Committee on revision of laws.
 Benigno Aquino v. COMELEC, GR No. 189793, April 7, 2010:
former President, filed a case when he was still in Senate (before he became a president)in comelec and
reached the SC
He questioned the creation of a district in Bicol, which was created to accommodate one of the children of
Pandac; the legislative district must have 250,000 or more in population.
SC corrected him: while the constitution provides the population of 250,000 for a city to be entitled for a
representative, it does not so require for legislative districts.
 Provinces / district do not require 250,000 population, it may Be less.
 There are only two kinds of representatives 
1. District Representative and
 2. Party-list Representative
-Sectoral Representative is no longer applicable. Good only for 3consecutive terms from the ratification of the
Constitution.
3 Cases pertaining to party-list:
-Ang Bagong Bayani v. COMELEC, GR No. 147589, June 26, 2001
-BANAT vs. Comelec, GR 179271, April 21, 2009.
-Atong Paglaum vs Comelec (GR No. 203766, April 2, 2013)
 Ang Bagong Bayani v. COMELEC, GR No. 147589, June 26, 2001 
Settled a question which parties and organizations are qualified to be voted for in party-list elections.
The Supreme court ruled that the intent of the Constitutional Commission and of the implementing
law (RA 7941) was not to allow all associations to participate indiscriminately in the system but to limit
participation to parties or organizations representing the marginalized and underprivileged, because,
(according to the decision) the party-list system is a social justice tool. (C.J. Panganiban)
Bernas disagrees. – because according to him, there is no such ideological requirement found in
Section 6 of Article 6 neither does RA 7941 prescribes it. The decision is one instance of what may
be Called Judicial Legislation
 BANAT vs. Comelec, GR 179271, April 21, 2009. – ratio of party-list representative: 20%
It provides that the 2% threshold prescribed in RA 7914 will be used only to compute the guaranteed
seats for party-list based on the number of votes garnered. 

BANAT reiterated the commentary of Bernas (the stand of Bernas) It provided for a system for a
system that additional seats may be given to party list groups. Neither the constitution nor RA7941
prohibit major groups from participating in the party list elections. The decision said that there is no
such thing that that kind of decision is not provided in the Constitution nor in RA 7941 but because
the SC had to come up with enough votes to overturn a doctrine which was already enunciated in
Ang Bagong Bayani, it has to come up with a more than 8 votes in the senate in order to overturn the
doctrine in Ang Bagong Bayani and it failed to do that. By a vote of 8-7 that Supreme Court prohibited
them anyway (Parties from participating in elections as enunciated in Ang Bagong Bayani)

It is also in these cases which states that the ratio of party-list representatives to the total number of
district representatives is 20%. Number of party list representatives must be proportionately increased
every time there is an increase in the number of district representatives. 
 Atong Paglaum vs Comelec (GR No. 203766, April 2, 2013) – National and Regional parties who
cannot win the election: also marginalized
This case says that the national and regional parties included in the system must also have the
disadvantage of being marginalized and underrepresented but not necessarily in the sense of being
economically disadvantaged. 
Actually, it is in this case that opened the floodgates for members of political parties to participate in
party-list elections. That’s where the National and Regional Parties comes in. So, there was a quarrel to
the definition of “marginalized” and “under-represented”. It says that the original meaning of
 “marginalized” and “under-represented” refers only to the economically-marginalized, the poor, that is the
stand of CJ Artemio Panganiban which is according to Ang Bagong Bayani. 
But in Atong Paglaum, SC Expounded the definition. they came up with another definition of
“marginalized” and “under-represented”.  
Marginalized- marginalized politically is permitted, those national and regional parties that cannot win.
They are marginalized that cannot win in the elections. They could now participate in the party list.
Artemio- “only economically- marginalized”
Bernas -agrees in the principle in Atong Paglaum case.
 Who ‘bastardized’ the party-list? – Artemio Panganiban, Inquirer, June 2, 2019.
After I retired, the Court modified two decisions. First, Atong Paglaum vs Comelec held that regional
and/or sectoral candidates need not represent the marginalized or under represented. 
In that column of CJ Panganiban, he said that Ang Bagong Bayani held that only those parties and
nominees who belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors were qualified to hold party
list seats. Verily, the intent of the constitution is clear to give genuine power to the people not only by
giving more law to those who have less in life but more so by enabling them to become … law makers
themselves.
Many are complaining about the party list representatives. They are really given all the perks that a
legislative district of congress is given. Even appropriations, infrastructure budget. What the legislative
districts get, the party lists also get, but remember that they do not have constituencies. Their
constituencies are all over the place. That is why some politicians befriend party list to ask for funds
but not for their constituents but for regular project’s. Constituents are not benefited with the project.
The move to do away with the party lists system, if there will be a constitution change, PL will be
abolished. 
This new verba legis interpretation enabled the popular, the dynasts to corner the party-list as an
easier and cheaper backdoor to Congress ironically, they elbowed out the truly poor and powerless. 
 (Ocampo v. HRET (GR No. 158466, June 15, 2004).  
Sandy Ocampo’s opponent was disqualified, and was from California. Since my opponent was
disqualified, I should take the seat because I garnered the next highest vote. Sandy wanted to take his
seat. 
Supreme Court: a candidate who received the second highest number of votes (Sandy Ocampo) cannot
assume the office of the candidate who received the highest number of votes but was disqualified. 
REASON: To do so, would violate the most basic precept of republicanism and democracy would in effect
advocate the massive disenfranchisement of the majority of the voters. 
 Section 6. 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 twenty-five years of age, able to
read and write, and, except the 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.
 The qualification requirement is residence not domicile. 
Residence – place of abode, whether permanent or temporary
Domicile – permanent residence to which one when absent, has the intention to return.
 Mrs. Romualdez-Marcos v. COMELEC, 119976, September 18, 1995.
Romualdez-Marcos was married to Ferdinand Marcos, and they went from one residence to the other
when Marcos was Cong of Ilocos and when Marcos became Senator (San Juan and when Marcos
became President (Malacanang)
Imelda – is from Leyte, she ran as a representative in one district in Leyte. Her residence was questioned
before the COMELEC, because according to her opponent she is not a resident of Leyte.

Supreme Court: “If a person retains her domicile of origin, if a person retains her domicile of origin, for
purposes of the “residence” requirement for representatives, the one-year period is IRRELEVANT,
because by legal fiction, wherever he maybe he is a resident of his domicile of origin. If a person
reestablishes a previously abandoned domicile, or acquires a new one, then the one-year residence
requirement must be satisfied.”
  What the SC is saying here is that Imelda did not abandon Leyte as her domicile
  Aquino v. COMELEC, GR No. 120265, September 18, 1995. Butch Aquino- Brother of Ninoy,
former Senator: from Tarlac domicile of Origin. 
Aquino ran as a representative in a just-created district in Makati, when Makati was split into 2 legislative
districts. Residence was questioned

Supreme Court: Aquino did not abandon Tarlac as his domicile of origin, even if he had abandoned
Tarlac, he had not been in Makati district where he had chosen to run 1yr immediately preceding the
election. Even if he had not abandoned Tarlac as his domicile had he established residence in Makati for
1year preceding election he would have qualified either domicile or residence would suffice provided the
1year physical presence is satisfied. 
Even address given by Butch was inexistent in the district he intended to run.
 Domino v. COMELEC, GR No. 134015, July 19, 1999.  
Domino is a transportation magnate from Gandon, Ilocos Sur, his domicile of origin. And in 1995 he
ran for Congress in QC. In 1998 he transferred to Sarangani and ran for Congress.
SC rule: -Domingo has not established sufficient residence in Saranggani. To establish a new
domicile of choice, personal presence in that place must be coupled in that intention. The residence
in the place chosen for a new domicile must be actual. 
 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 thirtieth day of June next
following their election.
No member of the House of Representatives shall serve for more than three 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.
 Term – Tenure: Term vs. Tenure
Term- period during which an official is entitled to hold office.
can be changed only by a constitutional amendment
length of time for a person to stay in an office as provided by law / constitution
Tenure- period during which the official actually holds office
can be shortened by death / removal
any time that the particular member of House of Representative would stay in Congress
 The Fair Elections Law (RA 9006, Feb 12, 2001)
In effect, it provides that any elected public official whether national/local running for any office other than the
one holding in the permanent capacity shall not be considered design. (Fariñas vs Exec Sec) the same law is
not applicable to appointive public officials.
Passed in February 12, 2001 – almost the end of the term of members of House of Representatives who
entered in 1992 (almost 3 terms)
Originally, if you run for a position which is not the position you are holding, then upon filing your certificate of
candidacy, you are deemed to have abandoned or resigned from your position
Example: term: from 1998 until June 2001
Certificate of candidacy: filed in March 2001
Originally (old law)– deemed resigned in March 
Under the Fair Elections Law:
-any elected public official whether local / national shall not be considered resigned
-Purpose: benefited incumbents running for another position because they would still be able to use their
office during the campaign period
 Farinias vs. Executive Secretary GR 96859 December 10, 2003
This Principle came to form when appointed officials also wanted to benefit from this particular provision of
the Fair Elections Law. (There was no case) COMELEC came up with an opinion that it is NOT applicable to
appointive public officials.
Section 8. Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election of Senators and Members of the
House of Representatives shall be held on the second Monday of May.
Question: will it always be on the second Monday of May?
 Take note of the clause “unless otherwise provided” pertains to 2 nd Monday of May
- a law may be passed providing for another day 
 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.
The law that governed this would be: 
 R.A. 6645 (1987) AN ACT PRESCRIBING THE MANNER OF FILING A VACANCY IN THE
CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES
Section 10. The salaries 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.
 Meaning of "until after the expiration of the full term.” after the expiration of the full term of ALL
the members of the Senates and the house of Representatives approving that increase.
The first Congress in the 1987 Constitution passed a law increasing the salary of the members of
Congress – did not take effect until after 1998: when all the members of the 8 th Congress finished their
term in 1998 (3 terms) It was only in the 11th Congress where the increase of the salary was given that
was approved in the 8th Congress.
Section 11. A Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable by
not more than six years of 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 congress
or in any committee thereof.

 So what happens to a member of Congress who has a case for an offense punishable by not
more than 6 years of imprisonment while playing golf in Baguio? May he be arrested under
Sec11? No. Because even if he is in Baguio, the Congress is in session, if the Congress is in session
in Quezon City, then he cannot be arrested.
 Second Sentence: Parliamentary privilege of speech
Meaning “in any other place” – apart from congress or any committee thereof. He can be questioned or
only held liable in Congress
Example during discussion: committees of Congress can hold sessions outside of the halls of Congress.
It is not necessarily in Congress; it can be in Tuguegarao. It is as if that Committee is holding a meeting in
Congress. If during that particular meeting, some hot/libelous/harsh words were made in speeches, may
the particular member be sued in Tuguegarao before the fiscal’s office of Tuguegarao? no. Because of
the provision that no member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place except Congress. 
EXAMPLE OLD: A member of Congress attended a hearing of the committee of Congress in Tuguegarao
and in the process lambasted several personalities. May he be sued and be held liable in Tuguegarao?
May he be questioned in that speech made in Tuguegarao? No, he cannot. He can only be questioned
for that speech or debate in that committee in Congress. 
However: essential requirement of its applicability – speech must be related to official discharge of duty
Section 12. 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.

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 nor the emoluments
thereof increased during the term for which he was elected.
Question: May a Senator or a member of the House of Representatives accept or hold an office
during his term? – yes, he may, but he must forfeit his seat. 
You can't be in Congress while holding another position in Government without forfeiting his seat.
Case in Point: Butch Abad- was elected to the House of Representatives representing Batanes in 1987 he
was convinced by Cory Aquino to accept the portfolio of secretary of Agrarian Reform. He accepted the
position and was sworn as Secretary, so he forfeited his seat. He took his oath as Secretary, Unfortunately,
he was denied/ not confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. He lost seat in Congress and lost his
position as Secretary when he was denied by the CoA. He could no Longer go back to his seat.
 2nd Statement: Neither shall he be appointed to any office which may have been created nor the
emoluments thereof increased during the term for which he was elected.
There are authors of law books that is of the opinion that after the term of the appointee/the Members
of Congress, there is no disqualification anymore.
Opinion of author(judge): disqualification to hold any office which may have been created nor the
emoluments increase during the term, that disqualification is only good during the term.
Atty Lara has a contrary opinion (follows opinion of Bernas, although Bernas did not specifically say
that DISQUALIFICATION is only temporary) Atty Lara based his opinion on the rationale of the
provision which is to prevent members of Congress from benefiting from perks which may be
intentionally legislated by them. 
What if Honasan knowing that his term is about to expire after the election, participated in the creation of
DICT. He was a member of the senate when DICT was created. Maybe the tailor made it for him so when
he resigns or when his terms expire, he will be appointed. I hold the view that the DISQUALIFICATION is
perpetual, it is a keen disqualification for a President who cannot run for reelection even after several
terms. 
 Case in point: Appointment of Honasan to the DICT. -his appointment was contrary to the
constitution (Senator Gregorio Honasan)
Before he was appointed as secretary of DICT, Gregorio Honasan was Senator of the Republic. It was at
that point that the law creating DICT was passed by Congress and became a law, subsequently G H was
appointed as Secretary of DICT. They questioned his appointment as being contrary to the constitution,
specifically 2nd sentence of Section 13. 
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...
What is prohibited is personal appearance in court as counsel. This is not a blanket prohibition for
lawyer members of congress to practice their profession.

This is a new provision because in the old constitutions and in theold congress when the appointment
to the judiciary still passes through the Commission on Appointments. There were instances where a
congressman-lawyer would appear as counsel in court, and when he enters the courtroom, the judge
even goes down the podium to meet him.

May a lawyer member of Congress maintain his law office and participate actively in law office? –
Yes. The only prohibition is for him not to appear in court. This is a new provision that is trying to
correct pre martial law days
May he put up a law office? – Yes
What is prohibited is personal appearance
(Section 14.)...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.
During his incumbency, Former Congressman Ting also trucks to deliver grapes to MM. There was a
time when DOWH Wanted to limit the weight, the cargo of trucks, that's why they imposed a weight
limit in Sta Fe. Ting led a group of grape dealers and businessmen in Isabela and Cagayan to the
office of Secretary of DPWH. DPWH concocted a system where you add to remedy the weight
problem, DPWH relented and they allow those trucks to pass provided you add additional 4 wheels or
8 wheels more. 
Question: is this intervention prohibited under Section14? (Wala sagot si sir) 
Congressman. Ting went to the DPWH to fix a problem of carriers, trucker, because he is a
businessman he has trucks of his own there was a point where DPWH prohibited overloading such
that the way bridge in sta fe the p[erople manning it would remove overloaded cargo right there and
then before they would let the truck proceed representing himself and/or other truckers in Cag Valyer
went ti DPWH to remedy this problem and indeed DPWH relented and they introduced this system
that If you as another line of wheels in your truck then it will not be as destructive on the road as it is
(that’s how they remedied it)
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.
During our discussion: In the 1935 Constitution- sessions of Congress were only for 100days.
Members of a Congress, they have salaries and all but hold sessions for only 100days. Sessions are
continuous, once they start their sessions on 4th Monday of July except Weekends and Holidays until
1month/30days before the opening of next session, which is again 4th Monday of July for that year.
So, the last few days of June will be the last session of Congress. Then, they’ll go to the mandatory
recess.
-That is when the President also makes his SONA. So that is the start of the session of Congress and
they would meet every day except the weekends and legal holidays up to 30 days before the opening
of the next regular session. So that if they open in the 4th Monday of July, then 30 days before the 4th
Monday of July would be about the 3rd week of June
3rd week of June – end of session of Congress (The last session day) aka “sine die adjournment”