CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 TSN

SEPTEMBER 13, 2022:

Party List Issue: General

Q: Under the party-list, parties obtaining at least 2% votes nationwide shall be entitled to one
guaranteed seat each. What is the basis of the 2%? (Bagong Bayani v. COMELEC)
A: The number of valid votes for the Party-List

Q: What is the procedure for the allocation of seats?

A: a. The parties and organizations shall be ranked from the highest to the lowest based on their
number of votes
b. Those receiving at least 2%of the total votes cast shall be entitled to one guaranteed seat each
c. Those garnering a sufficient number of votes according to the ranking in paragraph (a) shall be
entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes until all the seats are allocated
d. Each party or organization shall be entitled to not more than three seats. (BANAT v. COMELEC,
586 SCRA 211 2009)

Qualifications of the Members of the House of Representatives

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.

Note: If you are a party-list representative, you don’t have to be a registered voter of any particular
district because you are not running to represent a district.

Outline of the Qualifications:

1. Natural-born Citizen
2. 25 years old on the of the election
3. Able to read and write
4. Registered voter in his district
5. Resident of his district for at least one (1) year

Take note of the Principle that all Constitutional positions must be occupied by a natural Born
Citizen.

MEANING OF RESIDENCE

IMELDA ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS V. COMELEC AND CIRILO ROY MONTEJO

GR NO. 119976, SEPTEMBER 18, 1995

For political purposes, the concepts of residence and domicile are dictated by the peculiar criteria of
political laws. As these concepts have evolved in our election law, what has clearly and
unequivocally emerged is the fact that residence for election purposes is used synonymously with
domicile. The deliberations of the 1987 Constitution on the residence qualification for certain elective
positions have placed beyond doubt the principle that when the Constitution speaks of “residence” in
election law, it actually means only “domicile”.

Page 1 of 9
Residence is used to indicate a place of abode, whether permanent or temporary;
Domicile denotes a fixed permanent residence to which, when absent, one has the intention of
returning. A man may have a residence in one place and domicile in another.
AGAPITO A. AQUINO V. COMELEC, MOVE MAKATI, MATEO BEDON and JUANITO ICARO,
GR NO. 120265, SEPTEMBER 18, 1995

While property ownership is not and should never be an indicia of the right to vote or to be voted
upon, the fact that the petitioner himself claims that he has other residences in Metro Manila coupled
with the short length of the time he claims to be a resident of the condominium unit in Makati (and
the fact, of his stated domicile in Tarlac) “indicates that the sole purpose (petitioner) in transferring
his physical residence” is not to acquire’s new residence or domicile “but only to qualify as a
candidate for Representative of the Second District of Makati City. The absence of clear of domicile
under the conditions stated above, the lack of identification – sentimental, actual or otherwise – with
the area, and the suspicious circumstances under which the lease agreement was effected all belie
the petitioner’s claim of residency for the period required by the Constitution, in the Second District
of Makati.

Domicile of origin is not easily lost. To successfully effect a change of domicile, the petitioner
must prove an actual removal or an actual change of domicile; a bona fide intention of
abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new one, and definite acts
which correspond with the purpose.

JUAN DOMINO V. COMELEC

GR NO. 134015 JULY 19, 1999

It is the contention of the petitioner that his actual physical presence in Alabel, Sarangani since
December 1996 was sufficiently established by the lease of a house and located therein in January
1997 and by the affidavits and certifications under oath of the residents of that place that they have
seen petitioner and his family residing in their locality.

While this may be so, actual and physical is not in itself sufficient to show that from the said date he
had transferred his residence in that place. To establish a new domicile of choice, personal presence
in the place must be coupled with conduct indicative of that intention. While “residence” simply
requires bodily presence in a given place, “domicile” requires not only such bodily presence in that
place but also a declared and probable intent to make it one’s fixed and permanent place of abode,
one’s home.

A person’s “domicile” once established is considered to continue and will not be deemed lost until a
new one is established. To successfully effect a change of domicile one must demonstrate an actual
removal or an actual change of domicile; a bona fide intention of abandoning the former
place of residence and establishing a new one and definite acts which correspond with the
purpose. In other words, there must basically be animus manendi coupled with animus non
revertendi. The purpose to remain in or at the domicile of choice must be for an indefinite period of
time; the change of residence must be voluntary, and the residence at the place chosen for the new
domicile must be actual.

In conclusion, residence under Sec. 6, residence means only domicile. It is the place where you
intend to return to wherever you go, and residence is not temporary. \

Take note:
Residence for purpose of Suffrage or the right to vote has a different meaning. It is not a domicile.
E.g.
Page 2 of 9
If you have lived in Davao City because of work/ family for several years, you can now claim Davao
as your residence for purpose of your right to vote. So, you can either vote there or in the place
where you came from (domicile).

TERM LIMITS

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.

The term has to begin because it is now synchronized, on the 30th day of June following your
election.

Q: What does “unless otherwise provided by law” means?

A: While Congress may set the date for an election, it cannot do it beyond June 30, because the
problem also is that once the term of the present set of congressmen or senators will end, there is
no such thing as a hold-over in all constitutional positions. So, the leeway for Congress is only to
move it any time prior to June 30.

Illustration:
During his 3rd term, A, a Member of the House was suspended from office for a period of 60 days by
his colleagues upon a vote of 2/3 of all the members of the House. In the next succeeding election,
he filed his certificate of candidacy for the same position. B, the opposing candidate, filed an action
for disqualification of A on the ground that the latter’s candidacy violated Sec .7 Art VI, which
provides that no Member of the House shall serve for more than 3 consecutive terms. A answered
that he is not barred from running again for that position because his services was interrupted by his
60-day suspension which was involuntary. Can A legally continue with his candidacy or his already
barred? Why?
Answer: No. When the framers of the Constitution emphasized that voluntary renunciation will not
be considered an interruption of the term, they only put that in order to ensure that Congressmen or
Senators do not get wise by resigning every two months or one year before the end of their term so
that they can run again.
It does not mean that if they are involuntarily removed, it will be considered an interruption of the
term and they can run again. That’s not permissible.

In the context of suspension, remember these principles:

1) Suspension is not considered an interruption of the term for the reason that the word voluntary
there was only added to ensure that plays tricks with the Constitution;
2) When a person is suspended from office, he remains actually an occupant of that office and
continues to occupy the position;
3) When you are suspended it only means you cannot exercise your powers during the period
that you are suspended;
4) When you are suspended it does not mean that you ceased to have become a member of
that body.

BANAS-NOGRALES V. COMELEC
Page 3 of 9
GR NO. 246328 SEPTEMBER 10, 2019

FACTS: RA 11243, which created the lone legislative district of General Santos City took effect on
April 4, 2019 – just over a month before the 2019 general elections. Under Section, the creation of
the district was “to commence in the next national and local elections after the effectivity of this Act,”
or on May 13, 2019. Since the names of the candidates for the First District of South Cotabato,
which included General Santos City, have already been configured into the automated election
system, COMELEC issued a resolution suspending “the election of Representatives for the First
Legislative District, including General Santos City, in the Province of South Cotabato, scheduled on
May 13, 209. It further set the first regular election for the new Representatives of the First and Third
Legislative Districts of the province of South Cotabato, within six (6) months from May 13, 2019.

ISSUE: Is the Resolution valid?

HELD: The 1987 Constitution is clear: Elections for Congress should be held on the 2nd Monday of
May unless otherwise provided by law. The term “unless otherwise provided by law” contemplates
two situations (1) when the law specifically states when the elections should hold on a date other
than the second of Monday of May; and (2) when the law delegates the setting of the date of the
elections to COMELEC. Section 1 RA 11243 categorically states that the reappointment of the 1st
District shall “commence in the next national and local elections after the effectivity of this Act.” RA
112423 did not specifically provide for a different date. Neither did it delegate unto COMELEC the
setting of a different date.

Also, if We were to follow COMELEC’s interpretation, an incongruity would result as the winning
candidate in COMELEC’s special elections would serve a term less than that provided for in Section
7, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. Similar to Section 8, the only exception is when another term is
“otherwise provided by law.” Again, RA 11243 did not provide for a term than three years, as
provided in the 198 Constitution.

VACANCY/SPECIAL ELECTIONS

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 regarding special elections for the filing in of the positions for the Senate and the House is
RA 6645 and there are two (2) requisites before an election may be held:

1) There is a Resolution from the Senate or the House certifying to the existence of a vacancy
in their respective chambers;
2) The vacancy must occur for 18 months in the case of the Senate, or 1 year in the case of the
House, before the next regular election.
Ratio for No.2: Is that election will cost us a lot of money. So, if the remaining term is too
short, better not call an election.

Q: For instance, in your district, it was vacated because of death or expulsion of a member, can you
file a case to compel the filing in of the vacancy?

JOSE MARI EULALIO C. LOZADA AND ROMEO B. IGOT V. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
GR NO. L-59068, JANUARY 27, 1983
Page 4 of 9
As taxpayers, petitioners may file the instant petition, for nowhere therein is it alleged that tax money
is being illegally spent. The act complained of is the inaction of the COMELEC to call a special
election, as is allegedly its ministerial duty under the constitutional provision above cited, and
therefore, involves no expenditure of public funds. It is only when an act complained of, which may
include a legislative enactment or statute, involves the illegal expenditure of public money that the
so-called taxpayer suit may be allowed. What the case at bar seeks is one that entails expenditure of
public funds which may be illegal because it would be spent for a purpose of calling a special
election which, as will be shown, has no authority either in the Constitution or a statute.

As voters, neither have petitioners the requisite interest or personality to qualify them to maintain
and prosecute the present petition. The unchallenged rule is that the person who impugns the
validity of a statute must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has
sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement. In the case before us, the
alleged inaction of the COMELEC, to call a special election to fill-up the existing vacancies in the
Batasan Pambansa, standing alone, would adversely affect only the generalized interest of all
citizens. Petitioner’s standing to sue may not be predicated upon an interest of the kind alleged here,
which is held in common by all members of the public because of the necessarily abstract nature of
the injury supposedly shared by all citizens.

Q: Suppose Congress passes a law now increasing the salary, when will it take effect?

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.

PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION, INC. V. ISMAEL MATHAY and JOSE VELASCO

GR NO. L-25554 OCTOBER 4, 1966

This unitary treatment is emphasized by the fact that the provision speaks of the “expiration of the
full term” of the Senators and Representatives that approved the measure, using the singular form,
and not the plural, despite the difference in terms of office (six years for Senators and four for
Representatives thereby rendering more evident the intent to consider both houses for the purposes
as indivisible components of one single Legislature. The use of the word “term” in the singular, when
combined with the following phrase “all the members of the Senate and of the House” underscores
that in the application of Article VI, Section 14, the fundamental consideration is that the terms of
office of all members of the Legislature that enacted the measure (whether Senators or
Representatives) must have expired before the increase in compensation can become operative.
Such disregard of the separate houses, in favor of the whole, accords in turn with the fact that the
enactment of laws rests on the shoulders of the entire Legislative body; responsibility, therefore, is
not apportionable between the two chambers.

So according to the Supreme Court in PHILCONSA v. MATHAY, we have to wait until the full term
of everybody expires.

PRIVILEGE FROM ARREST/ PRIVILEGE OF SPEECH AND DEBATE

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

Page 5 of 9
 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.

First thing we have to notice is that this short section contains two (2) important items:
Two Privileges:
1. Privilege from Arrest
2. Privilege of speech and debate

A. PRIVILEGE FROM ARREST/ PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY

Requisites:
1. The offense is punishable by not more than 6 years imprisonment.
Take note, not more than prison correccional.
2. Congress is in session.
Congress is in session usually it will start on the 4th Monday of July; it has to start by
command of the Constitution. For as long as it goes on and on, because normally it will go on
until the next regular session, and 30 days before the next regular session excluding
Saturdays, Sundays, and Holidays. So, during the period of almost 11 months, they cannot be
subject to arrest.

From time to time, they call a recess. So, if there is a recess, he can now be subject to arrest
because technically Congress is no longer in session. That’s the meaning.

Q: Can you file a case against him?

A: This privilege is only freedom from getting arrested.

Q: Can a judge issue an order of arrest?

A: This provision does not prevent judges from issuing arrest warrants, this seems to be actually
directed to the arresting officer.

Ratio: The offense is small, do not disturb him in the performance of his function.

The immunity is accorded to guarantee that the members may attend sessions without interruption
and perform their functions without fear.

Q: When immunity cannot be invoked?

A: 1. When the offense for which the arrest is being made is punishable by a prison term of more
than six (6) years or
2. When the Congress is not in session (or recess).
Ratio: In no.1, the seriousness of the offense does not justify the use of privilege. In no.2 there is no
reason to give the privilege.

Q: Can he be allowed to attend a session if his case is on appeal or he is detained while awaiting
trial?
A: The performance of legitimate and even essential duties by public officers never been an excuse
to free a person validly in prison. The performance of legitimate and even essential duties by public
officers has never been an excuse to free a person validly in prison. (see PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES v. ROMEO G. JALOSJOS GR NO. 132875-76, FEBRUARY 3, 2000)

ANTONIO F. TRILLANES IV V. HON. OSCAR PIMENTEL, SR.

GR NO. 179817, JUNE 27, 2008

Page 6 of 9
In attempting to strike a distinction between his case and that of Jalosjos, petitioner chiefly points out
that former Rep. Romeo Jalosjos (Jalosjos) was already convicted, albeit his conviction was pending
approval, when he filed a motion similar to the petitioner’s Omnibus Motion, whereas he (petitioner)
is a mere detention prisoner. He asserts that he continues to enjoy civil and political rights since the
presumption of innocence is still in his favor.

A plain reading of Jalosjos suggests otherwise, however. The distinctions cited by the petitioner were
not elemental in the pronouncement in Jalosjos that election to Congress is not a reasonable
classification in criminal law enforcement as the functions and duties of the office are not substantial
distinctions which lift one from the class of prisoners interrupted in their freedom and restricted in the
liberty of movement. It cannot be gainsaid that a person charged with a crime is taken into custody
for purposes of the administration of justice.

Principle:
The Constitution gives you the privilege of arrest. We cannot expand, of allowing you to hold office.

B. PRIVILEGE OF SPEECH AND DEBATE

MATTERS COVERED BY THE PARLIAMENTARY FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND DEBATE

(see Jimenez v. Cabangbang, GR No. L-15905, August 3, 1966)

1. Utterances made by Congressmen in the performance of their official functions, such as

speeches delivered, statements made, or votes cast.

Sometimes they will require those members to explain why they voted in such a manner. It may
happen that while explaining their votes they libel some people. So that will be covered by the
privilege.

2. Bills introduced in Congress, whether the same is in session or not.

3. Other acts performed by Congressmen, either in Congress or outside the premises housing its
offices, in the official discharge of their duties as members of Congress and of Congressional
Committees duly authorized to perform its functions as such, at the time of the performance of the
acts in question.
E.g. Committee hearings outside the halls of Congress.

Acts not Covered:

1. Letters to the president will not be covered by the privilege. (Jimenez v. Cabangbang)
2. Bribe/ Physical Injuries.
3. During media interviews at the Senate, particularly during gaps and breaks in the plenary
hearings as well as committee hearings in aid of legislation, and in reply to the media’s request.
In Trillanes IV v. Castillo (GR No. 223451, March 14, 2018)

TRILLANES V. CASTILLO
GR NO. 223451, MARCH 14, 2018

FACTS: Trillanes admitted that during media interviews at the Senate, particularly during gaps and
breaks in the plenary hearings as well as committee hearings, and in reply to the media’s request to
respond to the private respondent’s claim over the estate, he expressed his opinion that based on
his office’s review of the documents, private respondent appears to be a “front” or “nominee” or is
acting as a “dummy” of the actual and beneficial owner of the estate, VP Binay. When sued for
Page 7 of 9
damages by Tui, who claimed that the statements were libelous, Trillanes invoked freedom of
speech and debate.

ISSUE: May Trillanes invoke parliamentary immunity?

RULING: Petitioner’s statements in media interviews are not covered by the “parliamentary speech
or debate” privilege. The statements were clearly not part of any speech delivered in the Senate or
any of its committees. They were also not spoken in the course of any debate in said for a. It cannot
likewise be successfully contented that they were made in the official discharge or performance of
the petitioner’s duties as a Senator, as the remarks were not part of or integral to the legislative
process.

The shield does not extend beyond what is necessary to preserve the integrity of the legislative
process.

The heart of the Clause is speech or debate in either House. Insofar as the Clause is construed to
reach other matters, they must be an integral part of the deliberative and communicative process by
which Members participate in committee and House proceedings with respect to the legislation or
with respect to other matters which the Constitution places within the jurisdiction of either House.

It is, thus, clear that parliamentary non-accountability cannot be invoked when the lawmaker’s
speech or utterances is made outside sessions, hearings, or debates in Congress, extraneous to the
“due functioning of the (legislative) process.” To participate in or respond to media interviews is not
an official function of any lawmaker; it is not demanded by his sworn duty nor is it a component of
the process of enacting laws. Indeed, a lawmaker may well be able to discharge his duties and
legislate without having to communicate with the press. A lawmaker’s participation in media
interviews is not a legislative act, but is “political in nature, outside the ambit of the immunity
conferred under the Speech or Debate Clause in the 1987 Constitution. Contrary to the petitioner’s
stance, therefore, he cannot invoke parliamentary immunity to cause the dismissal of the private
respondent’s complaint. The privilege arises not because it is uttered in furtherance of legislation.

Q: Congressman X, a lawyer, delivered a sponsorship speech of a bill on the floor of the House of
Representatives during which he slandered a justice of the Supreme Court, as well as several of his
colleagues. Which move will prosper against him?

a. Civil Case for Damages

b. Criminal Case for Slander
c. Disbarment before the Supreme Court
d. Expulsion by the House of Representative

He cannot be held accountable in any other place. That means that within the House or Senate, he
can be held accountable.

Ratio: The privilege is given not to protect members of Congress for their own benefit but to
encourage them to voice their opinions freely in debate on proposed legislation or to expose
wrongdoings in the government for the benefit of the people without fear of being held to answer in
any civil or criminal case.

DISCLOSURE OF FINANCIAL AND BUSINESS INTERESTS

Page 8 of 9
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.

Page 9 of 9