CHAPTER 9.

POWERS OF THE CONGRESS

A. Legislative Power in General

Classifications:
1. Legislative
Includes the specific powers of appropriation, taxation and expropriation.
2. Non-Legislative
Include the power to canvass the presidential elections, to declare the existence
of a state of war, to give concurrence to treaties and amnesties, to propose
constitutional amendments and to impeach

** implied powers – power to punish contempt in legislative investigations

** inherent powers – determination of its rules of proceedings and the discipline
of its members

Limitations:
1. Substantive
 Express – bill of rights, appropriations, taxation, constitutional appellate
jurisdiction of the SC, no law granting a title of royalty or nobility shall be
passed.
 Implied – non-delegation of powers, prohibition against the passage of
irrepealable laws.
2. Procedural
 Only one subject to be expressed in the title thereof
 Three readings on separate days

 Datu Michael Abas Kida v. Senate of the Philippines, G.R. No. 196271,
October 18, 2011
FACTS
Pursuant to the constitutional mandate of synchronization, RA No 10153
postponed in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), in
which the election were rescheduled from the second Monday of August
2011 to the second Monday of May 2013 and recognized the President’s
power to appoint officers-in-charge (OICs) to temporarily assume these
positions upon the expiration of the terms of the elected officials.

Petitioner assailed the constitutionality of RA No. 10153 on the ground that

the provisions of the organic act are not irrepealable, and balance of interest
tilt in favor of the democratic principle.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE
Whether or not the provisions Republic Act No. 10153 are not irrepealable
 laws.

RULING
No, The Congress cannot pass irrepealable laws. The Supreme Court nullified
the provision of a law that the Congress passed may be revised or re-
amended to comply with a higher voting requirement than the Constitution
provides. The power of legislature to make laws includes the power to
amend and repeal laws. Where the legislature, by its own act, attempts to
limit its power to amend or repeal laws, the Court has the duty to strike
down such act for interfering with the plenary powers of Congress.

B. Procedure in the Passage of Bills, Origin of Bills, Prohibited Measures, Title of Bills,
Formalities
Art. VI, Sections 24, 26, 30, 31

Procedure in the passage of Bills

1. 1st reading – reading the number and the title of the measure
2. 2nd reading – bill is read in its entirety, scrutinized, debated and amended.
3. 3rd reading – members registered their votes and explain them if they are
allowed by the rules
4. If passed the 3rd reading, it is submitted to the other chamber. If there is conflict,
the conference committee will take over.
5. The bill is enrolled when printed, approved by the congress, authenticated with
signature of the Senate President and Speaker and the secretaries of their
respective chambers, and approved by the president.

Origin of Bills
** bills shall originate in the house of representatives but the Senate may propose or
concur with amendments
 Appropriation bill – authorize release fund from the public treasury
 Revenue bill – levy taxes and raises funds for the government
 Tariff bill – specifies rates or duties to be impose on imported articles
 Bill increasing public debt – floating bonds for public subscription redeemable
after a certain period
 Local application bill – for local or municipal matters, like charter of a city.
 Private bill – grant honorary citizenship to a distinguished foreigner.

Prohibited measure
 Section 30. No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court as provided in this Constitution without its advice and
concurrence.
 Section 31. No law granting a title of royalty or nobility shall be enacted.
Formalities
  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.

Approval of bills
1. When the president signs it
2. When the president vetoes but the veto is overridden by two-thirds vote of all
the members of each house
3. When the president does not act upon the measure within thirty days after it
shall have been presented to him.

Legislative inquiry
 Section 21. The senate or the house of representatives or any of its respective
committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly
published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in or affected by
such inquiries shall be respected.

Presidential and Congressional/Legislative Veto

 Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance, G.R. No. 115455 October 30, 1995
In Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, supra., it was held that RA 7716
(Expanded VAT Law) did not violate this provision. It is important to
emphasize that it is not the law, but the bill, which is required to originate
exclusively in the House of Representatives, because the bill may undergo
such extensive changes in the Senate that the result may be a rewriting of
the whole. As a result of the Senate action, a distinct bill may be produced.
To insist that a revenue statute, not just the bill, must be substantially the
same as the House bill would be to deny the Senate’s power not only “to
concur with amendments” but also to “propose amendments”. It would
violate the coequality of legislative power of the Senate. The Constitution
does not prohibit the filing irr the Senate of a substitute bill in anticipation of
its receipt of the bill from the House, so long as action by the Senate as a
body is withheld pending receipt of the House bill. This was reiterated in the
Supreme Court Resolution on the Motion for Reconsideration, October 30,
1995.

FACTS
These are motions seeking reconsideration of our decision dismissing the
petitions filed in these cases for the declaration of unconstitutionality of R.A.
No. 7716, otherwise known as the Expanded Value-Added Tax Law. The
motions, of which there are 10 in all, have been filed by several petitioners.
 Herein petitioner Tolentino claims that R.A. No 7716 did not originate
exclusively in the House of Representatives as required by Article VI, Section
24 of the Constitution. He added that House Bill No. 1197 did not pass the
second and third reading as the Senate did was to pass its own version,
Senate Bill No. 1630 in which the Senate Committee should have done was
to amend the said House Bill.

ISSUE
Whether or not R.A No. 7716 violates Article VI, Section 24 of the
Constitution.

RULING
No, RA No. 7716 did not violate the provision of the constitution.

The Supreme Court held that a house bill may undergo extensive changes in
the Senate that may produce a rewrite of a bill which may result a distinct
bill with that of House bill. To deny the Senate to propose or concur with
amendments would be to paralyze the coequality of the Congress to act with
such amendments. The Constitution does not prohibit the Senate to propose
or concur amendments as long as the amendment is a receipt from a bill
originating from the house of Representatives.

Motions for reconsideration are denied.

 Fabian v. Desierto, G.R. No. 129742, September 16, 1998

Thus, Sec. 27, R.A. 6770, which authorizes an appeal to the Supreme Court
from decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases, was
declared unconstitutional, because the provision was passed without the
advice and consent of the Supreme Court

FACTS
Petitioner Teresita G. Fabian was a major stockholder and president of
PROMAT Construction Development Corporation which engaged in the
construction busines. Private respondent Nestor V. Agustin was the
incumbent District Engineer of the First Metro Manila Engineering District
(FMED). PROMAT engaged in various bidding for government construction
including those of FMED. Private respondent, reportedly taking advantage of
his official position to convince petitioner for an affair. The relationship
lasted but dispute arises wherein petitioner filed a complaint for the
dismissal of private respondent from his position. Respondent Ombudsman
declared private respondent guilty of misconduct but was reversed due to
the counsel’s “classmate and close associate”
Petitioner, herein appealed to this court arguing that the decision of the
 ombudsman shall be appealable in relation to Section 27 of Republic Act No.
6670.

ISSUE
Whether or not Section 27 of RA No 6770 constitutional.

RULING
No, Section 27 of RA No. 6770 and Section 7 is declared invalid and of no
force and effect. The decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in
administrative disciplinary cases cannot invoke the authority of the Supreme
Court to appeal such decision. This will consequently violates the
proscription in Section 30, Article VI of the constitution which increases the
appellate jurisdiction of this court. Thus, instant petition is referred and
transferred to the Court of Appeals for final disposition.

 Tobias v. Abalos, G.R. No. 114783, December 8, 1994

In fact, in Tobias v. Abalos, 239 SCRA 106, it ruled that reapportionment of
legislative districts may be made through a special law. To hold that
reapportionment can be made only through a general law would create an
inequitable situation where a new city or province created by Congress will
be denied legislative representation for an indeterminate period of time.
That intolerable situation would deprive the people in the new city or
province a particle of their sovereignty. Sovereignty cannot admit of
subtraction; it is indivisible. It must be forever whole or it is not sovereignty

FACTS
Republic Act No. 7675 was enacted to convert the Municipality of
Mandaluyong into a Highly Urbanized City to be known as the City of
Mandaluyong. Petitioner Robert V. Tobias, invoking his rights as taxpayer
and resident of Mandaluyong, assailed the constitutionality of RA. 7675.
Petitioner contends that RA No. 7675 contravenes to the one subject-one bill
rule; the division of the congressional districts of San Juan/Mandaluyong into
two separate districts resulted in an increase in the composition of the
House of Representatives beyond that provided in Article VI, Sec. 5(1) of the
Constitution.

ISSUE
Whether or not RA No. 7675 is unconstitutional.

RULING
No, the reapportionment of legislative districts does not contravene to the
constitution. The creation of a separate congressional district for
Mandaluyong is not a subject separate and distinct from the subject of its
conversion into a highly urbanized city but is a natural and logical
 consequence of its conversion into a highly urbanized city. This
contemplates to Article VI, Section 5(1) of the constitution that the
composition of Congress may be increased if Congress itself so mandates
through legislative enactment.

Therefore, the increase in congressional representation mandated by R.A.

No. 7675 is not unconstitutional.

C. Legislative Inquiries/Investigations and Oversight Functions (“Question Hour”)

Art. VI, Secs. 21 & 22
Section 21. the senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective
committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly
published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in, or affected by, such
inquiries shall be respected.

Section 22 (Question hour). The heads of departments may upon their own initiative,
with the consent of the President, or upon the request of either House, as the rules of
each House shall provide, appear before and be heard by such House on any matter
pertaining to their departments. Written questions shall be submitted to the President
of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives at least three days before
their scheduled appearance. Interpellations shall not be limited to written questions,
but may cover matters related thereto. When the security of the State or the public
interest so requires, the appearance shall be conducted in executive session.

Executive Privilege
It has been defined as “the right of the President and high-level executive branch
officials to withhold information from Congress, the courts, and ultimately, the public”.
Thus, presidential conversations, correspondences, or discussions during closed-door
Cabinet meetings, like the internal deliberations of the Supreme Court and other
collegiate courts, or executive sessions of either House of Congress, are recognized as
confidential.

 Sabio v. Gordon, G.R. No. 174340, October 17, 2006

The power of inquiry is granted not only to the Senate and the House of
Representatives, but also to any of their respective committees.
FACTS
On February 28, 1986, former president Corazon C. Aquino issued Executive
Order No 1, creating the Presidential Commission on Good Governance
(PCGG). On February 20, 2006, Senator Meriam Defensor Santiago
introduced Philippine Senate Resolution No. 455 to direct an inquiry in aid of
legislation on the anomalous losses incurred by the Philippines Overseas
Telecommunications Corporation (POTC), Philippine Communications
Satellite Corporation (PHILCOMSAT) and PHILCOMSAT Holdings Corporation
(PHC) due to the alleged improprieties in their operations by their respective
 Board of Directors. Senate Resolution No. 455 was submitted to the Senate
and referred to the Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and
Investigations and Committee on Public Services.

Subsequently, Camilo L. Sabio, Chairman of the PCGG, herein petitioner, was

called upon to deliberate the Senate Res. No. 455. However, Sabio declined
invoking Section 4(b) of E.O. No. 1, which prohibits any judicial, legislative or
administrative proceeding concerning matters within its official cognizance.

With multiple refusal of Sabio, he was arrested of contempt to the

committee and detained to the Senate Premises. Sabio filed in this court a
petition for habeas corpus.

ISSUE
Whether or not Section 4(b) of EO No. 1 is repealed by the 1987
Constitution.

RULING
Yes, Section 4(b) of EO No. 1 negates the Constitutional provision. The power
of inquiry is inherent in the power to legislate. This power is an essential and
appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function.

Article VI, Section 21 grants the power of inquiry not only to the Senate and
the House of Representatives but also to any of their respective committees.
Clearly, there is a direct conferral of power to the committees.

Therefore, the conferral of the legislative power of inquiry upon any

committee of the Congress must carry with it all powers necessary and
proper for its effective discharge.

Petition dismissed.

 Senate v. Ermita, G.R. No. 169777, April 20, 2006

A distinction has to be made between the power to conduct inquiries in aid
of legislation, the aim of which is to elicit information that may be used for
legislation, and the power to conduct a question hour, the objective of which
is to obtain information in pursuit of Congress’ oversight function [Senate v.
Ermita, supra.]

FACTS
On September 21 to 23, 2005, the Committee of the Senate issued invitation
to various officials of the Executive Department for them to appear as
resource speakers in a public hearing on the railway project of the North
Luzon Railways Corporation with the China National Machinery and
 Equipment Group (hereinafter North Rail Project)

On September 28, 2005, the President then issued Executive Order 464, “
Ensuring Observance of the Principle of Separation of Powers, Adherence to
the Rule on Executive Privilege and Respect for the Rights of Public Officials
Appearing in Legislative Inquiries in aid of legislation under the Constitution,
and for other purposes,” which, pursuant to Section 6 thereof, took effect
immediately.

Consolidated petitions for certiorari and prohibition was filed to tender the
President’s abuse of power by issuing EO 464. Petitioners also prayed for its
declaration as null and void for being unconstitutional.

ISSUE
Whether or not EO 464 contravenes the power of inquiry vested in Congress.

RULING
The Congress has the power to conduct inquiry during question hours, in
which to obtain information in pursuit of Congress’ oversight function and in
aid of legislation which aims to elicit information that may be used for
legislation as expressly recognized in Section 21 and 22, Article 6 of the
Constitution.

The power of inquiry is broad enough to cover officials of the executive

branch; it is co-extensive with the power to legislate. The matters which may
be a proper subject of legislation and those which may be a proper subject
of investigate are one. It follows that the operation of government, being a
legitimate subject for legislation, is a proper subject for investigation.

 Gudani v. Senga, G.R. No. 170165, August 15, 2006

In Gudani v. Senga, supra., on the issue of whether the court martial could
still assume jurisdiction over General Gudani who had been compulsorily
retired from the service, the Court quoted from Abadilla v. Ramos, where it
was held that an officer whose name was dropped from the roll of officers
cannot be considered to be outside the jurisdiction of military authorities
when military justice proceedings were initiated against him before the
termination of his service. Once jurisdiction has been acquired over the
officer, it continues until his case is terminated.

FACTS
Petitioners in this case seek for the annulment of a directive from President
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo enjoining them and other military officers from
testifying before Congress without the President’s consent. Petitioners also
 pray for injunctive relief against a pending preliminary investigation against
them, in preparation for possible court-martial proceedings, initiated within
the military justice system in connection with petitioners violate of the
aforementioned directive.

ISSUE
Whether or not the President may prevent a member of the armed forces
from testifying before a legislative inquiry.

RULING
Yes, the ability of the President to prevent military officers from testifying
before Congress does not turn on executive privilege, but on the Chief
Executive’s power as commander-in-chief to control the actions and speech
of members of the armed forces. The President’s prerogatives as
commander-in-chief are not hampered by the same limitations as in
executive privilege.

The court held that it is the duty of the President as commander-in-chief, to

authorize the appearance of the military officers before Congress. Even if the
President has earlier disagreed with the notion of officers appearing before
the legislature to testify, the Chief Executive is nonetheless obliged to
comply with the final orders of the Courts.

D. The Power of Appropriation

Art. VI, Section 25 & 29
Classification
 General appropriations law – passed annually, intended to provide for the
financial operations of the entire government during one fiscal period.
 Special law – designed for specific purpose

Limitations
 Implied
o Appropriation must be devoted to a public purpose
o The sum authorized to be released must be determinate, or at least
determinable
 Constitutional
o Must specify the public for which the sum is intended
o Must be supported by funds actually available

Limitations, Doctrine of Augmentation, Cross-Border Augmentation

 Belgica v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 208560, November 11, 2013
FACTS
Before the court were consolidated petitions assailing the constitutionality
 of the Pork Barrel System. Petitioners Greco Antonious Beda B. Belgica filed
an Urgent Petition For Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for the
immediate issuance of Temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or Writ of
Preliminary injunction, seeking that the annual pork barrel system, presently
embodied in the provisions of the GAA of 2013 which provided for the 2013
PDAF, and the Executive’s lump-sum and discretionary funds, such as the
Malampaya Funds under Presidential Decree 910 and the Presidential Social
Fund under PD 1869, be declared unconstitutional and null and void for
being acts constituting grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE
A. Whether or not the 2013 PDAF violates the principles of
constitutional provisions.
B. Whether or not the Presidential pork barrel is unconstitutional as
they constitute undue delegation of legislative power.

RULING
A. Yes, the court hereby declares the 2013 PDAF unconstitutional as
well as other forms of Congressional Pork Barrel as it is violative of
the separation of powers. The informal practices of the legislators
have effectively intruded into the proper phases of budget of
execution which deemed as acts of grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
B. Yes, a law must have passed the completeness and sufficient
standard test. Section 8 of PD 910 may have passed the
completeness test but was stricken down as unconstitutional
because it lies independently unfettered by any sufficient standard of
the delegating law.

 Araullo v. Aquino, G.R. No. 209287, July 1, 2014

By providing that 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 the Constitutional Commissions may be authorized to augment
any item in the GAA "for their respective offices," Section 25(5), supra, has
delineated borders between their offices, such that funds appropriated for
one office are prohibited from crossing over to another office even in the
guise of augmentation of a deficient item or items. Thus, we call such
transfers of funds cross-border transfers or cross-border augmentations.

FACTS
Herein were consolidated petitions assailing the constitutionality of the
Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), National Budget Circular (NBC)
No. 541, and related issuances of the Department of Budge and
Management (DBM) implementing the DAP.
 Petitioner Araullo alleged that NBC No. 541 was issued to implement the
DAP, directed the withdrawal of unobligated allotment of government
agencies and offices with low levels of obligations, both for continuing and
current allotments.

ISSUE
Whether or not the DAP, NBC No. 541 violates Section 25(5) Article VI of the
Constitution

RULING
Yes, cross-border augmentations from savings were prohibited by the
constitution as it disallows cross border transfers whether as augmentation
or as aid.

The executive department may be authorized to augment any item in the

GAA “for their respective offices”, Section 25(5) has delineated borders
between their offices, such that funds appropriated for one office are
prohibited from crossing over to another office even in the guise of
augmentation of a deficient item or items.

 Pascual v. Sec. of Public Works & Communications, G.R. No. L-

10405 December 29, 1960 110 Phil 331
Appropriation must be devoted to a public purpose. See Pascual v. Secretary
of Public Works and Communications, 110 Phil 331.

FACTS
Republic Act No. 920 was passed for the appropriation of P85,000 for the
construction, reconstruction, repair, extension and improvement of Pasig
feeder road terminals within the Antonio Subdivision.

Petitioner Wenceslao Pascual, as Provincial Governor of Rizal instituted an

action of declaratory relief, with injunction, alleging that the appropriation
RA No. 920 was illegal because the projected feeder roads were private
streets of a private subdivision owned by respondent Zulueta. Petitioner also
contended that subdivision of respondent Zulueta relieves him from the
burden of construction of subdivision streets or roads at his own expense.

ISSUE
Whether or not the appropriation in RA No. 920 is for public purpose.

RULING
No, the appropriation of P85,000 in RA 920 is clearly for a private, not a
public purpose. It is a general rule the legislature is without power to
 appropriate public revenue for anything but a public purpose and not for the
advantage of private individuals.

F. The Power of Taxation

Art. VI, Section 28
1. The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The congress shall evolve a
progressive system of taxation.
2. Charitable institutions, etc., and all lands, building and improvements actually,
directly and exclusively used for religious, charitable or educational purposes
shall be exempt from taxation
3. All revenues and assets of non-stock, non-profit educational institutions used
actually, directly and exclusively for educational purposes shall be exempt from
taxes and duties
4. Law granting tax exemption shall be passed only with the concurrence of the
majority of all the members of Congress

G. The Power of Concurrence

Art. VI, Section 18 &19

SECTION 18. There shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of the President

of the Senate, as ex officio Chairman, twelve Senators and twelve Members of the
House of Representatives, elected by each House on the basis of proportional
representation from the political parties and parties or organizations registered under
the party-list system represented therein. The Chairman of the Commission shall not
vote, except in case of a tie. The Commission shall act on all appointments submitted to
it within thirty session days of the Congress from their submission. The Commission shall
rule by a majority vote of all the Members.

SECTION 19. The Electoral Tribunals and the Commission on Appointments shall be
constituted within thirty days after the Senate and the House of Representatives shall
have been organized with the election of the President and the Speaker. The
Commission on Appointments shall meet only while the Congress is in session, at the
call of its Chairman or a majority of all its Members, to discharge such powers and
functions as are herein conferred upon it.

 Guingona, Jr., v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 106971, October 20, 1992

FACTS
As a result of national elections on May 1992, the Senate was composed by
the following by parties: LDP – IS, NPC – 5, Lakas – 3. Applying the
mathematical formula agreed by parties they are entitled to twelve seats.
On the organization of the Senate, Majority Floor Leader Romulo nominated
eight senators for Commission on Appointments. Senator Guingona objected
on the nomination of Osmeña.
 ISSUE
Whether or not the Constitution requires the election and presence of 12
senators in the Commission?

RULING
Constitution does not require the election and presence of 12 Senators for
the Commission to function. Other instances may be mentioned of
Constitutional collegial bodies which perform their functions even if their
composition is expressly specified by the Constitution.

 Coseteng v. Mitra, Jr., G.R. No. 86649, July 20, 1990

FACTS
Congressional elections of May 11, 1987 resulted in representatives from
diverse political parties Petitioner Anna Dominique Coseteng was the only
candidate elected under the banner of KAIBA.

A year later, the “Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino” or LDP was organized as

a political party. As 158 out of 202 members of the House of Representatives
formally affiliated with the LDP, the House committees, including the House
representation in the Commission on Appointments, had to be reorganized.
Petitioner Coseteng then wrote a letter to Speaker Ramon Mitra requesting
that as representative of KAIBA, she be appointed as a member of the
Commission on Appointments and House Electoral Tribunal.

On December 5, 1988, the House of Representatives, revised the House

majority membership in the Commission on Appointments to conform with
the new political alignments by replacing Rep. Raul A. Daza, LP, with Rep.
Luis C. Singson, LDP, however, Congressman Ablan, KBL, was retained as the
12th member representing the House minority.

On February 1, 1989, Coseteng and her party, filed this Petition for
Extraordinary Legal Writs praying that the Supreme Court declare as null and
void the election of respondent Ablan, Verano-Yap, Romero, Cuenco,
Mercado, Bandon, Cabochan, Imperial, Lobregat, Beltran, Locsin, and
Singson, as members of the Commission on Appointments, to enjoin them
from acting as such and to enjoin also the other respondents from
recognizing them as members of the Commission on Appointments on the
theory that their election to that Commission violated the constitutional
mandate of proportional representation

ISSUE
Whether or not the member of the House in the COA were chosen on the
basis of proportional representation from the political parties.
 RULING
Yes, petition is dismissed for lack of merit. Section 18, Article VI of the 1987
Constitution reads: “Sec. 18. There shall be a Commission on Appointments
consisting of the President of the Senate, as ex oficio Chairman, twelve
Senators, and twelve Members of the House of Representatives elected by
each House on the basis of proportional representation from the political
parties and parties or organizations registered under the party-list system
represented therein. The chairman of the Commission shall not vote, except
in case of a tie. The Commission shall act on all appointments submitted to it
within thirty session days of the Congress from their submission. The
commission shall rule by a majority vote of all the Members”. (Art. VI, 1987
Constitution.)

The composition of the House membership in the Commission on

Appointments was based on proportional representation of the political
parties in the House. There are 160 members of the LDP in the House. They
represent 79% of the House membership (which may be rounded out to
80%). Eighty percent (80%) of 12 members in the Commission on
Appointments would equal 9.6 members, which may be rounded out to ten
(10) members from the LDP. The remaining two seats were apportioned to
the LP (respondent Lorna Verano-Yap) as the next largest party in the
Coalesced Majority and the KBL (respondent Roque Ablan) as the principal
opposition party in the House. There is no doubt that this apportionment of
the House membership in the Commission on Appointments was done “on
the basis of proportional representation of the political parties therein.”

There is no merit in the petitioner’s contention that the House members in

the Commission on Appointments should have been nominated and elected
by their respective political parties. The petition itself shows that they were
nominated by their respective floor leaders in the House. They were elected
by the House (not by their party) as provided in Section 18, Article VI of the
Constitution. The validity of their election to the Commission on
Appointments-eleven (11) from the Coalesced Majority and one from the
minority-is unassailable.

H. The War Powers

Art. VI, Section 23

SECTION 23. (1) The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses in joint session
assembled, voting separately, shall have the sole power to declare the existence of a
state of war.
 (2) In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may, by law, authorize the
President, for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to
exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. Unless
sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next
adjournment thereof.

I. Referendum and Initiative

Art. VI, Section 32
SECTION 32. The Congress shall, as early as possible, provide for a system of initiative
and referendum, and the exceptions therefrom, whereby the people can directly
propose and enact laws or approve or reject any act or law or part thereof passed by the
Congress or local legislative body after the registration of a petition therefor signed by
at least ten per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every
legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered
voters thereof.

Referendum – right of the people to propose amendments to the Constitution/ to

propose and enact legislations through an election called for the purpose
 Referendum on statutes
 Referendum on local law

Initiative – power of the electorate to approve/reject a legislation an election called for

the purpose
 Initiative on the Constitution
 Initiative on statutes
 Initiative on local legislation

Cases:
1. Datu Michael Abas Kida v. Senate of the Philippines, G.R. No. 196271, October 18, 2011
2. Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance, G.R. No. 115455 October 30, 1995
3. Fabian v. Desierto, G.R. No. 129742, September 16, 1998
4. Tobias v. Abalos, G.R. No. 114783, December 8, 1994
5. Sabio v. Gordon, G.R. No. 174340, October 17, 2006
6. Senate v. Ermita, G.R. No. 169777, April 20, 2006
7. Gudani v. Senga, G.R. No. 170165, August 15, 2006
8. Belgica v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 208560, November 11, 2013
9. Araullo v. Aquino, G.R. No. 209287, July 1, 2014
10. Pascual v. Sec. of Public Works & Communications G.R. No. L-10405 December 29, 1960
110 Phil 331
11. Guingona, Jr., v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 106971, October 20, 1992