27 October 2022

Constitutional Law
SECTION 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.
Demetrio v. Alba
G.R. No. 71977 February 27, 1987
SC: To afford the heads of the different branches of the government and
those of the constitutional commissions considerable flexibility in the use of
public funds and resources, the constitution allowed the enactment of a law
authorizing the transfer of funds for the purpose of augmenting an item from
savings in another item in the appropriation of the government branch or
constitutional body concerned. The leeway granted was thus limited. The
purpose and conditions for which funds may be transferred were specified,
i.e. transfer may be allowed for the purpose of augmenting an item and such
transfer may be made only if there are savings from another item in the
appropriation of the government branch or constitutional body.
To indiscriminately transfer funds from one department, bureau, office or
agency of the Executive Department to any program, project, or activity of any
department, bureau, or office included in the General Appropriations Act or
approved after its enactment, without regard as to whether or not the funds to
be transferred are actually savings in the item from which the same are to be
taken, or whether or not the transfer is for the purpose of augmenting the item
to which said transfer is to be made. It does not only completely disregard the
standards set in the fundamental law, thereby amounting to an undue
delegation of legislative powers, but likewise goes beyond the tenor thereof.
Indeed, such constitutional infirmities render the provision in question null and
void.
TAKE NOTE: Here, there was no indication that the funds come from savings
and that it was intended to augment an item, contrary to the requisites of a
valid transfer.
Illustration:
The Chief of Staff, AFP, is authorized, subject to the approval of the Secretary of National
Defense, to use savings in the appropriations provided herein to augment the pension fund
being managed by the AFP Retirement and Benefits Systems.
Q: Is the law valid?
A: The Special Provision, which allows the Chief of Staff to use savings to augment the
pension fund for the APF being manage by the AFP Retirement and Separation Benefits
System is violative of Sections 25(5) and 29(1) of the Article VI of the Constitution.

Section 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.
While Section 25 (5) allows as an exception, the realignment of savings to augment items in
the general appropriations law for the executive branch, such right must and can be
exercised only by the President Pursuant to a specific law. (See PCA v. Enriquez G.R. No.
113105 August 19, 1994)
 Career Executive Service Board V. COA
G.R. No. 212348 June 19, 2018
Facts: The CESB, out of its savings, granted to its officials and employees
various monetary benefits in CY 2002 and CY 2003 pursuant to Section 2,
Article V of the Collective Negotiation Agreement (CAN) it had entered into
with the Samahan ng Kawaning Nagkakaisa sa Diwa, Gawa, At Nilalayon, a
duty accredited organization of its employees. The Commission on Audit
disallowed it and ordered the employees to return the amounts they received.
Issue: Can the CESB use its savings for the purpose of granting benefits to its
officers and employees?
SC: Section 29 (1), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution ordains that: ‘No money
shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation
made by law. The only exception is found in Section 25 (5), Article VI of the
1987 Constitution, by which the President of the Philippines, the President of
the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of
the Philippines, and the heads of the Constitutional Commissions are
authorized to transfer appropriations to augment any item in the GAA for their
respective offices from the savings in other items of their respective
appropriations.
The CESB if definitely not among the officials or agencies authorized to
transfer their savings in other items of its appropriation. The CESB came into
being by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 1 on September 1, 1974. The
CESB, although intended to be an autonomous entity, is administratively
attached to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), and does not wield the
power to authorize the augmentation of items of its appropriations from
savings in other items of its appropriations. With the CSC being the office
vested with fiscal autonomy by the 1987 Constitution, the CESB’s use of its
savings to cover the CAN benefits for its employees had no legal basis.
TAKE NOTE: The CESB has no business in using its savings for the purpose
of granting benefits to its officers and employees. Under the Constitution, this
body is under the Civil Service Commission, it should be the Chair of CSC
who should authorize the transfer.
Even had a valid law authorizing the transfer of funds pursuant to Section 25 (5), supra,
existed, there still remained two other requisites to be met, namely: that the source of funds
to be transferred were savings from appropriations within the respective offices; and that the
transfer must be for the purpose of augmenting an item of appropriation within the respective
office. (See Araullo v. Aquino G.R. No. 209287 July 1, 2014).
The funds transferred under the DAP respectively to the COA and the House of
Representatives, constituted cross-border augmentation for being the Executive to the COA
and the House of Representatives. Regardless of the variant characterizations of the cross-
border transfers of funds, the plain text of Section 25 (5), supra, disallowing cross border
transfer was disobeyed. Cross-border transfers, whether as augmentation or an aid, were
prohibited under Section 25 (5). (See Araullo v. Aquino G.R. No. 209287 July 1, 2014).
Illustration:
Q: Supposed there is a particular item (sum of money) in the GAA, can the President line up
new programs, activities, and projects and transfer funds from the items in his appropriations
if there are savings?
A: There is no need for this expense category to have existed so that it could be augmented.
New expense category can be credited and the savings can be allotted for that.
e.g. DepEd has saving from construction of school buildings, it (savings) can be used to
upgrade wifi for distance learning.
Illustration:
The Executive Department has accumulated substantial savings from its appropriations.
Needing P3,000,000.00 for the conduct of a plebiscite for the creation of a new city but has
no funds appropriated soon by the Congress for the purpose, the COMELEC requests the
President to transfer funds from the savings of the Executive Department in order to avoid a
delay in the holding of the plebiscite.
May the President validly exercise his power under the 1987 Constitution to transfer funds
from the savings of the Executive Department, and make a cross-border transfer of
P3,000,000.00 to the COMELEC by way of augmentation? Is your answer the same if the
transfer is treated as aid to the COMELEC?
Answer: Even if the transfer is treated as an aid to the COMELEC, or whether it requested, it
cannot be done because it is a cross-border transfer.

Section 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.
Congress may appropriate funds for certain operations of the government to be disbursed at
the discretion of a particular officials.
Ratio: This is allowed when it is not possible to determine beforehand when the expenditures
have to be made of the exact amounts needed or when, for reason of national security, such
expenditures are forbidden to be disclosed to the public.
TAKE NOTE: Almost all budget whether local executives, there is always a portion of
discretionary funds, the only requirement that it should be for public purpose. e.g. if the
executive used the discretionary funds to finance a vacation of his sugar babies disguised as
constituents to Japan, that cannot be done because it should only be for public purpose.

Section 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 reenacted and shall remain in force and effect until
the general appropriations bill is passed by the Congress.
Bar Question 1998 No. 11
Suppose the President submits a budget which does not contain a provisions for the CDF,
popularly known as the pork barrel, and because of this Congress does not pass the budget.
Q: Will that mean paralization of the operations in the next fiscal year for lack of an
appropriation law?
A: Section 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 reenacted and shall remain in force and effect until
the general appropriations bill is passed by the Congress.
Ratio: Without this provision, the operation of the government would be paralyzed in case of
failure of Congress to pass general appropriations law or a new budget by the end of the
fiscal year.
SECTION 26. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which
shall be expressed in the title thereof.
There are two provisions here:
1. Bill must have one subject;
2. Such subject must be embraced in the title
Illustration:
Q: What is the purpose of the requirement that it must be embraced in the title?
A: To avoid fraud on legislature. The Court has taken judicial notice that some congressmen
will immediately raise their hands and approve a bill without knowing the content and by only
reading the title.
TAKE NOTE: There is no requirement that it will reflect all contents. It is enough that it
summarizes the content of the bill. The Supreme Court has given the requirement of title a
practical rather than literal interpretation. It should be given practical rather than technical
construction.
Ratio: The requirement in Section 26 (1) prevents what is known has hodge-podge or log
rolling legislation (omnibus bill).
The term refers to a bill containing several unrelated matters combined together for the
purpose of securing support of members of Congress separately interested in the different
subjects of the bill. If these subjects were to be presented in separate bills, the likelihood is
that none of them would obtain majority vote.
Tio v. Videogram Regulatory Board
G.R. No. L-75697 June 18, 1987
Facts: Petition assails the constitutionality of Presidential Decree No. 1987
entitled “An Act Creating the Videogram Regulatory Board” with broad powers
to regulate and supervise the videogram industry (hereinafter briefly referred
to as the BOARD). A month after the promuilgation of the abovementioned
decree, Presidential Decree No. 1994 amended the National Internal
Revenue Code providing for an annual tax on processed video-tape cassette
and a sales tax on blank video tapes.
SC: The Constitutional requirement that “every bill shall embrace only one
subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof” is sufficiently complied
with if the title be comprehensive enough to include the general purpose
which a statute seeks to achieve. It is not necessary that the title express
each and every end that the statute wishes to accomplish. The requirement is
satisfied if all the parts of the statute are related, and are germane to the
subject matter expressed in the title, or as long as they are not inconsistent
with or foreign to the general subject and title.
An act having a single general subject, indicated in the title, may contain any
number of provisions, no matter how divers they may be, so long as they are
not inconsistent with or foreign to the general subject, and may be considered
in furtherance of such subject by providing for the method and means of
carrying out the general object. The rule also is that the Constitutional
requirement as to the title of the bill should not be so narrowly construed as to
cripple or impede the power of legislation. It should be given practical rather
than technical construction.
Tested by the foregoing criteria, petitioner’s contention that the tax provision
of the decree is a rider without merit.
The foregoing provision is allied and germane to, and is reasonably
necessary for the accomplishment of, the general object of the decree, which
is the regulation of the video industry through the Videogram Regulatory
Board as expressed in its title. The tax provision is not inconsistent with, nor
foreign to that general subject and title. As a tool for regulation, it is simply
one of the regulatory and control mechanisms scattered throughout the
decree.
The title of the decree, which is the creation of Videogram Regulatory Board,
is comprehensive enough to include the purposes expressed in its Preamble
and reasonably covers all its provisions. It is unnecessary to express all those
objectives in the title or that the latter be an index to the body of the decree.
PJA v. Prado
G.R. No. 105371 November 11, 1993
Facts: R.A. 7354 is entitled “An Act Creating the Philippine Postal
Corporation, Defining its Powers, Functions, and Responsibilities, Providing
for Regulation of the Industry and for other Purposes Connected therewith.”
The main target of this petition is Section 35 which withdrew the franking
privilege from the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, the Regional Trial
Courts, the Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts, and the Land
Registration Committee and its Register of Deeds, along with certain other
government offices.
It is the submission of the petitioners, that Section 35 of R.A. 7354 which
withdrew the franking privilege from the Judiciary is not expressed in the title
of the law, nor does it reflect its purposes.
SC: SECTION 26. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only
one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.
The purpose of this rule are: (1) to prevent hodge-podge or ‘log-rolling
legislation; (2) to prevent surprise or fraud upon the legislature by means of
provisions in bills of which the title gives no intimation, and which might
therefore be overlooked and carelessly and unintentionally adopted; and (3)
to fairly apprise the people, through such publication of legislative
proceedings as is usually made, of the subject of legislation that is being
considered, in order that they may have opportunity of being heard thereon,
by petition or otherwise, if they shall do desire.
We do not agree that the title of the challenged act violates the Constitution.
The title of the bill is not required to be an index to the body of the act, or to
be as comprehensive as to cover every single detail of the measure. It has
been held that if the title fairly indicates the general subject, and reasonably
covers the provisions of the act, and is not calculated to mislead the
legislature or the people, there is sufficient compliance with the constitutional
requirement.
To require every end and means necessary for accomplishment of the
general objectives of the statute to be expressed in its title would not only be
unreasonable but would actually render legislation impossible.
The withdrawal of franking privilege from some agencies is germane to the
accomplishment of the principal objective of R.A. 7354, which is the creation
of a more efficient and effective postal service system. Our ruling is that, by
virtue of its nature as a repealing clause, Section 35 did not have to be
expressly included in the title of the said law.
 Chiongbian v. Orbos
G.R. No. 96754 June 22, 1995
Facts: Republic Act No. 6734 “An Act Providing for an Organic Act for the
Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao.” A contention that Article XIX, 13 of
R.A. No. 6734 is unconstitutional because (1) it unduly delegates legislative
power to the President by authorizing him to “merge [by administrative
determination] the existing regions” or at any rate provides no standard for the
exercise of the power delegated and (2) the power granted is not expressed
in the title of the law.
SC: Article XIX, 13 is not susceptible to charge that its subject is not
embraced in the title of R.A. No. 6734. The constitutional requirement that
"every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which
shall be expressed in the title thereof" 13 has always been given a practical
rather than a technical construction. The title is not required to be an index of
the content of the bill. It is a sufficient compliance with the constitutional
requirement if the title expresses the general subject and all provisions of the
statute are germane to that subject. 14 Certainly the reorganization of the
remaining administrative regions is germane to the general subject of R.A.
No. 6734, which is the establishment of the Autonomous Region in Muslim
Mindanao.
Farinas v. Executive Secretary
G.R. No. 147387 December 10, 2003
Facts: Rep. Act No. 9006, entitled "An Act to Enhance the Holding of Free,
Orderly, Honest, Peaceful and Credible Elections through Fair Election
Practices"
They point out the dissimilarity in the subject matter of Rep. Act No. 9006, on
the one hand, and Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code, on the other.
Rep. Act No. 9006 primarily deals with the lifting of the ban on the use of
media for election propaganda and the elimination of unfair election practices,
while Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code imposes a limitation on
elective officials who run for an office other than the one they are holding in a
permanent capacity by considering them as ipso facto resigned therefrom
upon filing of the certificate of candidacy. The repeal of Section 67 of the
Omnibus Election Code is thus not embraced in the title, nor germane to the
subject matter of Rep. Act No. 9006.
SC: SECTION 26. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only
one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.
The proscription is aimed against the evils of the so-called omnibus bills and
log-rolling legislation as well as surreptitious and/or unconsidered
encroaches. The provision merely calls for all parts of an act relating to its
subject finding expression in its title.
The Court is convinced that the title and the objectives of Rep. Act No. 9006
are comprehensive enough to include the repeal of Section 67 of the
Omnibus Election Code within its contemplation. To require that the said
repeal of Section 67 of the Code be expressed in the title is to insist that the
title be a complete index of its content.
The purported dissimilarity of Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code,
which imposes a limitation on elective officials who run for an office other than
the one they are holding, to the other provisions of Rep. Act No. 9006, which
deal with the lifting of the ban on the use of media for election propaganda,
does not violate the "one subject-one title" rule. This Court has held that an
act having a single general subject, indicated in the title, may contain any
number of provisions, no matter how diverse they may be, so long as they are
not inconsistent with or foreign to the general subject, and may be considered
in furtherance of such subject by providing for the method and means of
carrying out the general subject.
Banat v. COMELEC
G.R. No. 177508 August 7, 2009
Facts: Automated Election System - Salaries of watchers.
Petitioner alleges that the title of RA 9369 “An Act Authorizing the
Commission on Elections to Use an Automated Election System in the May
11, 1998 National or Local Elections and in Subsequent National and Local
Electoral Exercises, to Encourage Transparency, Credibility, Fairness and
Accuracy of Elections, Amending for the Purpose Batas Pambansa Blg. 881,
as Amended, Republic Act No. 7166 and Other Related Election Laws,
Providing Funds Therefor and For Other Purposes" is misleading because it
speaks of poll automation but contains substantial provisions dealing with the
manual canvassing of election returns.
Petitioner also alleges that Section 34 [The dominant majority party and
dominant minority party, which the Commission shall determine in
accordance with law, shall each be entitled to one official watcher who shall
be paid a fixed per diem of four hundred pesos (400.00)], 37, 38, and 43 are
neither embraced in the title nor germane to the subject matter of R.A. 9369.
SC: RA 9369 is an amendatory act and the provisions of R.A. 9369 assailed
by the petitioner deal with amendments to specific provision of R.A. 7166 and
BP 881, specifically: (1) Sections 34, 37 and 38 amend Sections 26, 30 and
15 of RA 7166, respectively; and (2) Section 43 of RA 9369 amends Section
265 of BP 881. Therefore, the assailed provisions are germane to the subject
matter of RA 9369 which is to amend RA 7166 and BP 881, among others.
Bara Lidasan v. COMELEC
G.R. No. L-28089 October 25, 1967
Q: Is Republic Act 4790, which is entitled "An Act Creating the Municipality of
Dianaton in the Province of Lanao del Sur", but which includes barrios located
in another province — Cotabato — to be spared from attack planted upon the
constitutional mandate that "No bill which may be enacted into law shall
embrace more than one subject which shall be expressed in the title of the
bill"?
SC: In determining sufficiency of particular title its substance rather than its
form should be considered, and the purpose of the constitutional requirement,
of giving notice to all persons interested.
The test of the sufficiency of a title is whether or not it is misleading; and,
which technical accuracy is not essential, and the subject need not be stated
in express terms where it is clearly inferable from the details set forth, a title
which is so uncertain that the average person reading it would not be
informed of the purpose of the enactment or put on inquiry as to its contents,
or which is misleading, either in referring to or indicating one subject where
another or different one is really embraced in the act, or in omitting any
expression or indication of the real subject or scope of the act, is bad.
With the foregoing principles at hand, we take a hard look at the disputed
statute. The title — "An Act Creating the Municipality of Dianaton, in the
Province of Lanao del Sur" — projects the impression that solely the province
 of Lanao del Sur is affected by the creation of Dianaton. Not the slightest
intimation is there that communities in the adjacent province of Cotabato are
incorporated in this new Lanao del Sur town. The phrase "in the Province of
Lanao del Sur," read without subtlety or contortion, makes the title
misleading, deceptive. For, the known fact is that the legislation has a two-
pronged purpose combined in one statute: (1) it creates the municipality of
Dianaton purportedly from twenty-one barrios in the towns of Butig and
Balabagan, both in the province of Lanao del Sur; and (2) it also dismembers
two municipalities in Cotabato, a province different from Lanao del Sur.
The baneful effect of the defective title here presented is not so difficult to
perceive. Such 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. These are the
pressures which heavily weigh against the constitutionality of Republic Act
4790.
Transfer of a sizeable portion of territory from one province to another of
necessity involves reduction of area, population and income of the first and
the corresponding increase of those of the other. This is as important as the
creation of a municipality. And yet, the title did not reflect this fact.
Any provision contained in the body of the act that is fairly included in this restricted subject
or any matter properly connected therewith is valid and operative. But, if a provision in the
body of the act is not fairly included in this restricted subject, like the provision relating to the
policy matters of calling to active duty and reversion to inactive duty of reserve officers of the
AFP, such provision is inoperative and of no effect. (See Garcia v. Mata G.R. No. L-33713
July 30, 1975).
Related Terms
1. Log-rolling legislation - a bill which includes several subjects. (unconstitutional)
2. Pork barrel legislation - one that authorizes subsidies that boost business or promote
employment in a district
The Court defines the Pork Barrel System as the collective body of rules and practices that
govern the manner by which lump-sum, discretionary funds, primarily intended for local
projects, are utilized through the respective participations of the Legislative and Executive
branches of government, including its members. (See Belgica v. Ochoa, Jr., 710 SCRA 1
2013).
3. Indirect initiative - A petition filed by an accredited people’s organization with the
House of Representatives for the adoption of a bill into law. This is found in the law
on Initiative and Referendum (R.A. 6735).
Any people’s organization which is accredited can file a bill in the House for its adoption into
law. This is now in effect an addition to the constitutional on what bill must originate from the
House.

Section 26. (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.
Three readings of bill required. The three readings of a bill must be done on separate days
and not in one (1) day to prevent hasty and careless legislation and insure a thorough and
careful study of any proposed law.
The only exception is “when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate
enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency.
TAKE NOTE: During third reading, no amendment shall be allowed. While enrolled bill is
conclusive on Courts, it must be done in three separate days. First, a bill can start anywhere
in the house or senate or simultaneously. Except certain bills which are required to start in
House of Representatives.
Illustration:
Q: What are the bills that must originate in the lower house?
1. Appropriation - primary and specific purpose is to authorize release of funds; General
or special appropriation bill
2. Revenue or tariff - tax laws
3. Authorizing increase of public debt
4. Bills of local application
5. Private bills (Bills or law granting citizenship to one person; bill granting franchise to
media)
6. Indirect initiative

First reading consists in reading of title. Then, it will be referred to a committee.

Once in a committee they will either
- Debate on it
- Consolidate it with other bills of similar matter; or
- Do nothing about it (e.g. ABS-CBN franchise)
If the committee decides to go further with a bill, it will be forwarded for second reading.
Then, during the second reading, the bill is read in its entirety. Then, they (may) debate on it
section by section whether to retain or anent a certain section/s. This is now official version
as that is approved by the plenary body.
After which, it will be printed, that is not publication but only printing.
Purpose of printing: so that copies of bill is distributed to all members three days ahead of
final reading.
Three days after printing, there will be third reading and no more amendments are allowed.
Then, there will be voting who is in favor or against it.
If approved - it is the house version. Next, it will be forwarded to Senate and it will follow the
same procedure.

Illustration:
Q: What will happen next if there are disagreements between two versions of the bill (House
Bill and Senate Bill)?
A: If there are disagreements, they will form committee, then the conference committee will
meet. This is an ad hoc body. They will pick up members from two houses usually the
sponsors of the bill and they will sit together and reconcile the version.
Q: After they come up with reconciled version, what will happen?
A: No more readings. The reconciled version will undergo third reading only.
Thereafter, there will be voting on house and senate, no more amendments will be allowed.
Now, you have a bill to be forwarded to the President.
Q: If the bill is discussed in the House, can you start introduce something in the Senate?
A: Yes you can, the committee can discuss it, but senate cannot act (debate on it) as body
until such time it has undergone third reading. You have to wait for house version before
senate can act on it as a body.
Q: After the Conference Committee has reconciled the two versions, must the bill undergo
three readings again?
A: No need it will undergo third reading for approval.
Q: Can the Conference Committee add amend, or add new provisions which were not the
subject of disagreement by the two houses?
A: Yes it can be done, they can add new provisions. Why? SC Said, anyway it will undergo
third reading and has been approved by two houses.
Q: How do you reconcile it with the statement that “upon last reading of the bill, no
amendment thereto shall be allowed”?
SC: Anyway it will undergo third reading and approval by both houses.
A bill takes a long time to be passed, this is the exception, when certified as urgent. If
certified as urgent, the effect is:
1. No need of three readings on three separate days.
 There will still be three readings but it can be done in one day only. It need not be
done in three days. Read title, debate, then voting.
2. No need of printing of copies in its final form before third reading.
3. No need of distribution of printed copies to three days before third reading.
Q: Can the Supreme Court review the factual basis of the certification?
A: Courts cannot question wisdom of Executive who certified it and the Houses who
approved it.
Q: After its approval, must a certified bill undergo publication to be effective?
A: Of course. That is the requirement under due process.
Q: Can the president veto which he certified as urgent?
A: Yes he can, because he might not like result given by Congress.
2017 Bar Question No. 10 (B)
Section 26 (2), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution provides that no bill passed by either
House of Congress shall become a law unless it has passed three readings on separate
days and printed copies of it in its final form have been distributed to the members of the
House three days before its passage.
Is there an exception to the provision?
A: If the bill is certified as urgent by President then it need not undergo procedure of three
readings on three separate days as well as printing or distribution of printed copies.
TAKE NOTE: Congress is not compelled to act on a bill certified as urgent by President.
There is no period under the Constitution.
Q: If a bill certified as urgent, can Congress be barred from debating it or introducing
amendments or changes?
A: No, Congress is not barred from debating it or introducing amendments or changes during
debate. That is why the President retains his veto power as the final outcome might be
something he disapproves of.
TAKE NOTE: At the last reading of each bill, the yeas and nays of every member must be
noted in the journal.
Ratio: The requirement will show whether the bill has been passed by the requisite majority
or not. It will also indicate the vote of a particular member of Congress on the passage of a
bill which he is accountable to his constituents.

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.
A bill is a draft of a law submitted to the consideration of a law-making body for its approval.
It is a proposed law.
A statute is a bill approved by both Houses of Congress and signed into law by the
President, except in certain cases such signature is not required.
The term act is often used in referring to a statute.
This is another matter that requires to be entered in journal.
Q: Suppose President vetoes a bill and the two houses decide to overcome/override it -
should it be presented again to President?
A: No, more presentation to the President is stupid - it automatically becomes a law,
because the veto overridden.
Two requirements for bill to become law:
 1. It must be approved by both houses;
2. It must be approved by the President
What are the three ways for bill to become law:
1. If signed by the President
2. If Congress overrides the President’s veto by 2/3 votes
3. If President fails to communicate his veto 30 days after receipt to the House where it
originated
Q: Can the President take active part in the legislative process?
A:
1. Special Session
2. Certification as urgent
3. Exercise of veto
4. Appropriation bill
However, according to Dela Banda, the President can take part indirectly through 4 means:
when he calls congress to:
1. Special session;
2. When he certifies bill as urgent;
3. When president exercises veto power; and
4. When it comes to appropriation bill as it is the executive who prepared appropriation
as sponsored by member in lower house. This is when he can take part in legislative
process.

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.
The act of the Executive in vetoing the particular provisions is an exercise of a
constitutionally vested power. But even as the Constitution grants the power, it also provides
limitations to its exercise.
The veto power is not absolute. The pertinent provision of the Constitution reads: 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.
The President/Executive must veto a bill in its entirety or not at all. He or she cannot act like
an editor crossing out specific lines, provisions, or paragraphs in a bill that he or she dislikes.
In the exercise of the veto power, it is generally all or nothing.
However, when it comes to appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, the Administration needs the
money to run the machinery of government and it cannot veto the entire bill even if it may
contain objectionable features. The President is, therefore, compelled to approve into law
the entire bill, including its undesirable parts. It is for this reason that the Constitution has
wisely provided the item veto powers” to avoid inexpedient riders being attached to an
indispensable appropriation or revenue measure.
The Constitution provides that only a particular item or items may be vetoed. The power to
disapprove any item or items in an appropriate bill does not grant the authority to veto a part
of an item and to approve the remaining portion of the same item. (See Gonzales v.
Macaraig Jr., 191 SCRA 452, 464 [1990]).
Q: Can the President veto a provision in an ordinary bill?
A: No, the President is not allowed to veto provision in ordinary bill. Take it or leave it, all or
nothing.
Q: Can the President veto an item?
A: Yes. But only in an appropriation, tariff or revenue bill.
Item Veto Illustration:
Item as to appropriation law provides among others:
e.g. General Fund Adjustment……………………P50M
Use of Funds:
Unbooked obligation, back salaries of personnel, personnel benefits.
Q: If the President vetoed “PERSONNEL BENEFITS” only, is that a proper exercise of item
veto?
A: No as the one the President can veto is the 50M, meaning it can affect everything. He
cannot chose certain provisions. He can only veto the sum of money.
“Item” is an appropriation law means sum of money dedicated for particular purpose.
TAKE NOTE: The meaning of item in appropriation law, tariff, and revenue law is different.