Page 1 of 36

CCOONNSSTTIITTUUTTIIOONNAALL LLAAWW 11 RREEVVIIEEWWEERRARTICLE II SECTION 1

a) In Re Letter of Associate Justice Puno

The Aquino government is a de jure government because it was established by a legitimate sovereign, the Filipino people. Article 2 section 1 provides that Sovereignty resides on the people and all government authority emanates from it. SECTION 2 The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy. It adopts general principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the principles of peace, justice freedom, equality, cooperation and amity with all nations ARTICLE VI

SECTION 1 a) Rubi vs. Provincial Board

The congress may delegate is legislative powers to local governments May an administrative rule be a penal regulation: Yes. Provided that the following condition concur:

b) US vs. Grimmaud: The dealing statute must authorize the promulgation of a penal regulation

c) US vs. Barrias: The penalty to imposed must be provided in the delegating statute

d) People vs. Que Po Lay: Said regulation must be published in the Official Gazette.

e) People vs. Dacucuy The law which provided that the period of the penalty shall be upon the discretion of the court is INVALID. SECTION 5

a) Ang Bagong Bayani vs. COMELEC Only parties that represent the underprivileged and marginalized sector are allowed to run for positions in the party list. Religius sectors are not allowed (RA 7941)

b) Veterans Federation Party vs. COMELEC Two percent threshold-three limit rule; the twenty percent is a ceiling for party list in the congress, it is not mandatory. SECTION 6

a) Romualdez Marcos vs. COMELEC; Aquino vs. COMELEC

A person’s residence is not his temporary residence but his domicile.

b) Domino vs. COMELEC In order to establish domicile, there must be animus manendi coupled with animus non revertendi: an intention of abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new one. SECTION10

a) Philconsa vs. Mathay The reason for the delayed effect of the salary increase is to place a legal bar on legislators’ yielding to the natural temptation to increase their salary. SECTION 11

a) Osmena vs. Pendatun

The parliamentary privilege of speech does not immune the congressman from the disciplinary powers but it is an absolute protection against libel.

b) Jimenez vs. Cabangbang; Antonino vs. Valencia The speech and utterances must constitute legislative action – that is actions that are done in relation with the duties of a Congressman.

c) Gravel vs. US The privilege extends to the agents of the assemblyman provided that the agency consist precisely in assisting the legislator in the performance of legislative action. SECTION 14

a) Puyat vs de Guzman jr. The prohibition against Congressmen in the practice of profession includes acts that are impliedly prohibited (ex. buying stocks in the interest of a client). SECTION 16

a) Santiago vs. Guigona The courts may not interfere in the internal affairs of the legislature.

b) Osmena vs. Pendatun Each house shall be the sole judge of what disorderly behavior is.

c) US vs. Pons The journal is conclusive upon the courts

d) Casco Philippine Chemical Corp. vs Gimenez The enrolled bill is conclusive assurance that the bill is authentic and thus is more conclusive in courts than the journal.

e) Astorga vs. Villegas If the signatories repudiates their signatures on the enrolled bill, it is no longer considered authentic and the journal shall be conclusive. SECTION 17

a) Bondoc vs. Pineda; Robles vs. HRET; Co vs. HRET; Arroyo vs. HRET

The supreme court may intervene in the Electoral tribunals if there grave abuse of discretion.

b) Angara vs. Electoral Commission The congress may not intervene in the ET for they are independent constitutional bodies. SECTION 18

a) Guingona Jr. vs. Gonzales There is no need to fill up the 12 seats in the CA. Section 21

a) Aurnault vs. Nazareno Why legislative inquiry is important and why there is a need to punish

b) Bengzon vs. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee The speech of Enrile contained no suggestion of contemplated legislation. Thus, the legislative inquiry that followed is not for the aid of legislation.

c) Negros II vs. Sanguniang Panlungsod The power to punish for contempt on leguslative inquiries is inherent only in the Congress and may be exercised by LGU. SECTION 24

a) Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance

Page 2 of 36

Prerogative to pass this bills in based on the house alone. But once approved, the Senate may overhaul it with its own version. ARTICLE VII SECTION 1

a) Villena vs. Secretary of Interior The president is the executive of the government of the Philippines and no one else.

b) Marcos vs. Manglapus et al. The president is the executive of the government and his powers are more than the totality of the specific powers that are enumerated in the constitution. The President has the duty to protect and serve the citizens, protect liberty, property and life, promote general welfare and ensure peace and order. These duties point to the existence of unstated residual powers.

c) Laurel vs. Garcia The president may not convey real properties of the government solely upon his will. Such conveyance must be authorized by law enacted by the Congress. SECTION 8

a) Liberties Union vs. Executive Secretary EO 284 is invalid for it gives the president and the family broad exceptions under Section 7 of Art. IX. The exception of Section 13 Art. VII should be the one to apply for the president.

b) Soliven vs. Judge Makaisar Immunity from suits is a presidential prerogative which only the president can invoke or waive. SECTION 15

a) In re Valenzuela and Vallarta The prohibition on section 15 also applies to judiciary appointments of the president

b) dela Rama vs. CA The prohibition only applies to presidential appointees SECTION 16

a) Government vs. Springer Power to appoint is executive in nature

b) Manalang vs. Quitoriano Since power to appoint is executive in nature, the legislature may not usurp said power (see book).

c) Flores vs. Drilon The congress limiting the choice of the president for the SBMA chairman to only the Mayor of Olango is invalid thus null and void.

d) Bautista vs. Salonga Appointment of CHR Chairman does not need CA confirmation, the position not being one of those listed in the 1st sentence of article 16.

e) Quintos-deles vs. CA Appointment of Sectoral representative needs the confirmation of CA because the appointment is expressly provided by the constitution (falls in the first sentence).

f) Sarmiento vs. Mison The appointment of Customs Commissioner needs no confirmation from CA. Only those falling in the first sentence needs confirmation.

g) Calderon vs. Carale The congress may not expand the list of appointment needing confirmation. See Sarmiento vs. Mison

h) Manalo vs. Sistoza

Congress may not expand the list of those who needs the confirmation of CA. .PNP officers are not a member of AF but civilians.

i) Matibag vs. Benipayo Ad interim appointment is pwemanent in nature. The fact that it is subject to confirmation of the CA does not alter its permanent character. SECTION 17

a) Mondano vs. Silvosa Power of control is the power of an officer to alter, modify or nullify the judgments of subordinate officers in the performance of his duties.

b) Blaquera vs. Alcasid EO 29 and 268 are valid exercise of presidential control for the president is merely modifying the acts of the respondents who granted incentives without appropriate clearance from the president thereby resulting to uneven distribution of government resources.

c) Villena vs. Secretary of Interior The acts of the secretaries of executive departments, promulgated in the regular course of business, unless disapproved and reprobated by the president are considered acts of the Chief Executive himself.

d) Lacson-Magallanes vs. Pano The Executive Secretary when acting by the authority of the president may reverse the decision of another department secretary.

e) De Leon vs. Carpio The acts of the Secretary of justice, in the regular course of the performance of his duties are acts of the president, which are controlling over all executive offices. Hence NBI chief must obey.

f) Ang-Angco vs. Castillo The president’s power of control can only be exercised over acts of made by a subordinate officer of his duties.

g) NAMARCO vs. ARCA The president has the power to control government owned corporation. (Note: power does not come from the constitution but from statue, thus it may also be taken away by statue) SECTION 18

a) Martin vs. Mott The ultimate authority to decide whether such necessity already arisen lies on the President and is conclusive upon all other persons.

b) IBP vs. Zamora The factual necessity of calling out the armed forces is for the president to decide based on his powers provided for in Art. VII section 18.

c) Lacson vs. Secretary Perez The president has the vast power of intelligence network to gather information affecting the security of the state. Although the Court, in proper cases, may look into the sufficiency of the factual basis of the exercise of this power, based on its power to determine grave abuse of discretion, such is no longer possible when proclamation has already been lifted. SECTION 19

a) Llmas vs. Orbos The Constitution does not make any distinction with regard to the extent of the pardoning power of the president except with respect to impeachment.

b) Drilon vs. CA

Page 3 of 36

Commutation may come in any form. House arrest in place of imprisonment is a form of commutation by shortening the penalty.

c) Cabantag vs. Wolfe A distinction between absolute and conditional pardon must be made. An absolute pardon will take effect even without acceptance while conditional pardon will only take effect after acceptance of the condemned. The reason for this is that the conditional pardon may be less acceptable to him than the original sentence and may in fact be more onerous.

d) Monsanto vs. Factoran One who is given absolute pardon has no demandable right to reinstatement. Nonetheless, he may apply for new appointment.

e) Garcia vs. Commission on Audit If pardon is given because one is acquitted on the ground that he did not commit the crime, he has a right to reinstatement and back wages due.

f) Torres vs. Gonzales The convicts acceptance of pardon also involves acceptance of the president’s authority to withdraw such conditional pardon.

g) People vs. Salle Jr. Pardons have no effect to those that are not serving by final judgment. Appeals must be withdrawn before pardon can be effected. SECTION 21

a) Usaffe Veterans Association Inc. vs. Treasurer of the Philippines

Treaties require the concurrence of the Senate, less formal types of international agreements may be entered into by the Chief Executive and become binding without the concurrence of the legislative body.

b) Bayan vs. Executive Secretary Section 21 of Art. 7 applies as to the manner of ratifying the treaty.

Page 4 of 36

NNOOTTEESS AANNDD DDIIGGEESSTTSSPREAMBLE There are specific terms included in the preamble, which although does not create rights or obligations, it sets down the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution (Jacobson v. Massachussets, 197 US 11). The significance of the first person We stresses the active and sovereign role of the Filipino people as authors of the Constitution. These specific terms are: • Almighty God – This reflects personalist Filipino behavior toward religion. • Common Good – This statement implies an aim toward the prevention against tyranny of the majority. The phrase “general welfare” was avoided because general welfare may not be the common good. • Love – This word was included as a tribute to EDSA. We’re the only country in the world with the word “love” in our fundamental law. • Truth – This is a statement against the suppression of truth in the Marcos era. • Peace – This is mentioned last because this is supposed to be a fruit of truth, justice, freedom, love, and equality. • Rule of Law – This emphasizes that government officials have only the authority given and defined by law, and such authority continues only with the concurrence of the people. Article I National Territory The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines. • You may not find a declaration of territory in other Constitutions because Constitutions are municipal law and are not binding as International Law. • The Treaty of Paris, signed in 1935, described the Philippines as a rectangle, and the territorial limitations in the treaty excluded parts of Western Philippines and Batanes, hence the clause: and any other territories within Philippine jurisdiction. This allowed for the inclusion of Batanes and the

excluded islands because historically, they have always been under Philippine jurisdiction. The scope of the national territory as defined in this Article refers to: • the Philippine Archipelago • all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction – worded so that it may include all future land acquisitions of the Philippines either by war or by grant of international law • the territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas corresponding to the first two provisions, or the country’s terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains. Archipelagic Principle There are two elements to the archipelagic principle, the inclusion of internal waters in the territorial waters of a country, and the straight baseline method of defining territorial waters. 1. Straight Baselines - against normal baselines that follow the coast: 12 NM = territorial waters, + 12 NM = contiguous zone + 250 NM exclusive economic zone. Malampaya falls under our exclusive economic zone. This creates controversy over the local government share 2. Internal Waters - Waters found between islands with a distance greater than what is considered under territorial waters. This conflicts with the 1982 Treaty on the Law of the Sea, which recognizes these internal waters as international waters. We signed the treaty with reservations (1984), declaring that it does not in any manner impair or prejudice the sovereign tights of the Philippines in accordance with its Constitution. Article II Declaration of Principles and State Policies PRINCIPLES Section 1 The Philippines is a democratic and republican state. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. A state is a community of persons more or less numerous permanently occupying a definite portion of territory independent of external control and possessing an organized government to which a body of inhabitants render habitual obedience. Four requirements for a government: •People •Territory •Sovereignty

Page 5 of 36

•Government A republican state implies a representative government while a democratic state implies a direct democracy. Sovereignty Sovereignty is the power to make legal decisions. All sovereignty resides in the people, and whatever power you have has to be given to you. Sovereignty is defined by Jellinek as the supreme power to affect all legal interests either by executive, legal, or judicial action. People v. Gozo Doctrine The Philippine government merely consents to a foreign state’s jurisdiction in certain areas as a matter of comity, courtesy, or expediency. The US has prior or preferential, but not exclusive jurisdiction, and the Philippines does not divest itself of jurisdiction over offenses committed inside the military bases. The bases are not foreign territory. Functions of Government As defined in Bacani v. NACOCO, the functions of government are classified into constituent and ministrant functions. Constituent Functions The constituent functions of government are the compulsory functions of government that constitute the very bonds of society. As enumerated by Woodrow Wilson, they are: • The keeping of order and providing for the protection of persons and property from violence and robbery. • The fixing of legal relations between man and wife and between parents and children. • The regulation of the holding, transmission, and interchange of property, and the determination its liabilities for debt or for crime • The determination of contract rights between individuals. • The definition and punisment of crime. • The administration of justice in civil cases. • The determination of the political duties, privileges, and relations of citizens • Dealings of the state with foreign powers: the preservation of the state from external danger or encroachment and the advancement of its international interest. It is opined that housing for the people and the compelling demands of social justice now fall under the ambit of a government’s constituent functions. Ministrant Functions Ministrant functions of the government are the optional functions that are intended for achieving a better life for the community. The principles for

determining whether or not the government shall exercise these functions are: that a government should do for the public welfare those things that private capital would not naturally undertake, and that a government should do those things which by its very nature it is better equipped to administer for the public welfare than any private individual or group of individuals. State, government, and administration State is the corporate entity, government is the institution that implements the will of the State, and administration refers to the people running the institution. De jure and de De facto government Judicial acts and proceedings of de facto governments remain good and valid even after the liberation or reoccupation of the Philippines by the American and Filipino forces. Go Kim Chan v. Valdez Tan Keh Doctrine There are three kinds of de facto governments. • First, is when the government de facto gets possession and control of, or usurps, by force or by the voice of the majority, the rightful legal government and maintains itself against the will of the latter. (Cromwell’s England) • The second is a government established and maintained by military forces who invade and occupy a territory of the enemy in the course of war, and which is denominated a government of paramount force (Japanese Occupation) • The third kind is that established as an independent government by the inhabitants of a country who rise in insurrection against the parent state (Southern Confederacy) Of the second kind, denominated as a government of paramount force. • Its existence is maintained by active military power within the territories and against the rightful authority of an established and lawful government • While it exists it must necessarily be obeyed in civil matters by private citizens, who by obedience rendered in submission to such force, do not become responsible as wrongdoers for those acts, though not warranted by the laws of the rightful government. In Re: Letter of Associate Justice Puno Synopsis With respect to the Aquino government of 1986, it can be said that the organization of Mrs. Aquino’s government was met by

Page 6 of 36

little resistance and her control of the state evidenced by the appointment of the Cabinet and other key officers of Cabinet officials, revamp of the Judiciary, and the Military signaled the point where the legal system in effect had ceased to be obeyed by the Filipino people. Patterns of Government What superficially appears to be a bewildering variety of applications of constitutional democracy can be reduced to the following basic patterns: • Direct government – the people, organized as the electorate, are the preponderant power holder (Ancient Greek City-States) • Assembly government – name for the pattern which the parliament as the representation of the people is the preponderant power holder (China, former USSR) • Parliamentarism – where there exists an equilibrium between the independent power holders, parliament and government, and is attempted by the integration of the two. There are two widely divergent forms of this type, where the parliament is superior in political power to the cabinet (French model) or vice versa (British model). • Presidential – If the independent power holders, government and parliament, are kept separated but are constitutionally obligated to corporate for the formation of the will of the state, interdependence is achieved by coordination. Marcos Dictatorship and Parliamentarism vs. Presidential Government

The Marcos government was a presidential form of government. A presidential form of government has these distinguishing features: • separation of powers • the preeminence of the President First of all, Marcos inherited the powers of the President as defined in the 1935 Constitution. He was also superior to the Prime Minister by the fact that he nominated the Prime Minister, approved the program of government to be administered by the Prime Minister, terminated the term of the Prime Minister if and when he nominates his successor, and could delegate powers to the Prime Minister. He also had control over the ministries. Moreover, while there was a closer relationship between the executive and legislative, thereby manifesting some aspects of parliamentarism, there was a definite separation. Separation from the Judiciary was also maintained. Section 2 The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality,

justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations. The war that is renounced is an aggressive and not a defensive war. International law can only become part of municipal law through the appropriate constitutional machinery, such as an act of parliament or Congressional legislation. Although the doctrine of incorporation tells us that public international law carries the same weight as statutory law, when it comes to general principles of international law, the ones that will be adopted by the country are arrived at through jurispruidential development. Section 3 Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military. The Armed Forces of the Philippines is the protector of the people and the State. Its goal is to secure the sovereignty of the State and the integrity of the national territory. The section is divided into two clauses, the Civilian Supremacy clause and the Mark of Sovereignty clause. • Civilian Supremacy - Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military. • Mark of Sovereignty -The AFP is the protector of the people and the state. Mark of Sovereignty The MoS clause is, in capsule form, the description of a soldier’s vocation. The soldier is supposed to renounce political ambition because he finds nobility and dignity and honor in being the guardian of the people and of the integrity of the national territory of a legitimate government. This is not a principle, which once articulated, creates the reality that it seeks to describe. To keep the dream of civilian supremacy alive, two elements are needed: a civilian government that is both legitimate and stable, and an armed force of the highest professionalism. Section 4 The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. The Government may call upon the people to defend the State and, in the fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be required, under conditions provided by law, to render personal, military or civil service. Section 5 The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property, and promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy.

Page 7 of 36

The 1987 version places an emphasis in the service to and protection of the people. This is in contrast with earlier versions proclaiming the defense of the state being a prime duty of government. The phrase “under conditions provided by law” in the second sentence of Article 4 places a premium on serving the people and protecting their rights even when there is a need to defend the State. Section 6 The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable. See Article III, Section 5. STATE POLICIES Section 7 The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its relations with other states, the paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest, and the right to self-determination. Section 8 The Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts and pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory. The Consitution prescribes a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons. The policy includes the prohibition of not only the possession, control, and manufacture of nuclear weapons but also nuclear arms tests. Any exception to this policy must be justified by national interest. The policy should not be construed as a prohibition against the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Any new agreement on bases or the presence of troops must embody the basic policy of freedom from nuclear weapons. Section 9 The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and free the people from poverty through policies that provide adequate social services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living, and an improved quality of life for all. Section 10 The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national development. The social justice provisions mean the equalization of economic, political, and social opportunities with special emphasis on the duty of the state to tilt the balance of social forces by favoring the disadvantaged in life. The social justice provision guides the attitude of the Court toward jurisprudence with respect to property rights.

Section 11 The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights. Section 12 The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government. Section 13 The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation-building and shall promote and protect their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social well-being. It shall inculcate in the youth patriotism and nationalism, and encourage their involvement in public and civic affairs. The word family emphasizes a stable heterosexual relationship. Sec. 12 also accepts the principle that the family is anterior to the state. It also protects the family from instrumentalization by the state. The legal meaning and purpose of the protection of the unborn clause is not an assertion that the unborn is a legal person. This is also not an assertion that the life of the unborn is the same as the life of the mother. The idea is that life begins at conception, although the time of conception is for science to specify. As to the education of children, the rights of the State and parents are delineated, as the primary right belongs to the parents and affirms the secondary and supportive role of the state. The State, as parens patriae, may step in when a natural parent cannot or fails to cope with the duties of raising his or her children. Section 14 The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men. The provision is worded as not to dislocate the Civil Code and the jurisprudence on the subject. What it does is to give impetus to the removal, through statutes, of existing inequalities. The general idea is for the law to ignore gender in determining rights and duties Section 15 The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among them. Section 16

Page 8 of 36

The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature. This provision recognizes an enforceable right. This is illustrated in the following cases. Oposa v. Factoran Ruling The subject matter of the complaint is the general interest of all citizens of the Philippines. The petitioner minors assert that they represent their generation and the generations yet unknown. Their personality to sue in behalf of succeeding generations is based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility. Every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve the rhythm and harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced ecology. Laguna Lake Development Authority v. Court of Appeals Synopsis Some residents near the dumpsite in Caloocan were concerned about pollution. The LLDA issued a cease and desist order because of its harmful effects on the residents and the possible pollution to the receiving streams. The Court upheld the LLDA ruling. Section 17 The State shall give priority to education, science and technology, arts, culture, and sports to foster patriotism and nationalism, accelerate social progress, and promote total human liberation and development. This does not mean that the government is not free to balance the demands of education against other competing and urgent demands. Section 18 The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare. This means that the human factor has primacy over the non-human factor in production. Section 19 The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos. Any doubt in the interpretation of provisions on the economy and patrimony should be resolved in favor of the self-reliance and independence of Filipinos. In Garcia v. Board of Investments, no cogent advantage was shown in the petrochemical plant transfer. It is a repudiation of the independent policy of the government to run its own affairs in its best interests.

Section 20 The State recognizes the indispensable role of the private sector, encourages private enterprise, and provides incentives to needed investments. This is nothing more than an acknowledgment of the importance of private initiative in building the nation, but it is not a call for the official abdication of duty to the citizenry. Section 21 The State shall promote comprehensive rural development and agrarian reform. This includes a broader spectrum of social, economic, human, cultural, political, and industrial development. See more in Article XIII. Section 22 The State recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural communities within the framework of national unity and development. Section 23 The State shall encourage non-governmental, community-based, or sectoral organizations that promote the welfare of the nation. Section 24 The State recognizes the vital role of communication and information in nation-building. Section 25 The State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments. All further discussed in Article X. Section 26 The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law. This is to give substance to the desire for the equalization of political opportunities. However, the definition of the term “political dynasty” is left to legislature. Section 27 The State shall maintain honesty and integrity in the public service and take positive and effective measures against graft and corruption. Discussed in Article XI. Section 28 Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest.

Page 9 of 36

Article VI The Legislative Department Section 1 The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision on initiative and referendum. Bicameral Body The Jones Law called for a bicameral Congress, but the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions both originally called for a unicameral Congress. However, the 1935 Constitution was later amended to provide for a bicameral legislature. The arguments for a unicameral body as contemplated in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions are: • simplicity of organization resulting in economy and efficiency • facility in pinpointing responsibility for legislation • avoidance of duplication • strengthening of the legislature in relation to the executive. This debate resurfaced in the deliberations for the 1987 Constitution. A bicameral legislature was adopted, by a vote of 23-22, because: • an upper house has the capacity to look at problems from a national perspective, and this national perspective serves as a check on the parochial tendency of a body elected by districts • a bicameral legislature allows for a more careful study of legislation • bicameralism is less vulnerable to attempts by the executive at manipulation Nature of Legislative Power Legislative power is the authority to make laws and to alter and repeal them. It is a derivative and vested power given to the legislature by the Constitution. According to American jurisprudence, “the Constitution fixes limits to the exercise of legislative authority, and prescribes the limits within it must move. This also provides the basis for non-delegability and the prohibition against the passage of irrepealable laws. Unlike the United States Constitution, the 1987 (like the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions) gives a grant of plenary legislative power to the Philippine legislature. This means that “any power, deemed to be legislative by usage and tradition, is necessarily possessed by Congress, unless the organic act has lodged it elsewhere.” Separation of Powers

A basic corollary of the presidential system of government is the principle of separation of powers. Separation of powers means that legislation belongs to Congress, execution to the executive, and settlement of judicial controversies to the judiciary.This principle is an implicit limitation on legislative power. However, the separation is not absolute because it allows for checks and balances because no one department is able to act without the cooperation of at least one of the other departments. The purpose of these checks and balances is to avoid power being concentrated in one department. The danger in the concentration of power was realized in the dark days of martial law. Limits on Legislative Power Legislative power is subject to substantive limitations which circumscribe both the exercise of the power itself and the allowable subjects of legislation.. The substantive limitations are chiefly found in the Bill of Rights, and there exist procedural limitations prescribing the manner of passing bills and the forms that these bills should take. Initiative and Referendum In republican constitutional theory, the original legislative power belongs to the people who, through the Constitution, confer derivative legislative power on the legislature. However, under the 1987 Constitution, the grant of legislative power to Congress is not exclusive. The Constitution provides for initiative and referendum as a direct means for the people to create law. The power of initiative and referendum is thus the power of the people directly to propose and enact laws or approve or reject any act or law or part thereof passed by the Congress or local legislative body. The purpose of the provisions for initiative and referendum (Sections 1 and 32) is to institutionalize People Power. The operationalization of initiative and referendum has been left by the Constitution to Congress. Although the legislative power of Congress is plenary, the scope of the legislative power that is given to the people by initiative and referendum is limited to whatever exceptions that Congress may impose. Garcia v. COMELEC Synopsis In its Pambayang Kapasyahan, the Sangguniang Bayan of Morong agreed to the inclusion of the municipality of Morong as part of the Subic Special Economic Zone. The residents of Morong opposed this resolution through their power of initiative provided under the Local Government Code of 1991. They started soliciting signatures to cause the repeal of the resolution.

Page 10 of 36

In its decision, the Supreme Court held that the petition of the residents was valid because the subject matter directly affects the welfare of the residents of Morong, and that the power of initiative covers the repeal of a resolution passed by a local legislative body. Legislative Powers of Marcos and Aquino The 1973 Constitution provided for two concurrent legislative agencies: the Batasang Pambansa and the President. The legislative power of the Batasan was ordinary, while the legislative power of the President was extraordinary. The extraordinariness of the President's power, however, did not lie solely in that it was a tool for coping with emergency; it also lay in the distinct advantage it gave to the President over the legislature. It not only enabled him to supply for the legislature when the latter, in the judgment of the President, "fail[ed] or [was] unable to act on any matter" that may need immediate action, but it also enabled the President to undo what the legislature might have done not to his satisfaction. Moreover, he could legislate, or repeal or amend old legislation unhampered by any need for debate or three readings or by the other formal limitations that are imposed on the legislative body. Immediately after the February 1986 revolution, President Corazon C. Aquino assumed revolutionary legislative power and, on March 25, 1986, issued Proclamation No. 3, the Provisional Freedom Constitution, whose Article I, Section 3, abolished the Batasang Pambansa and whose Article II, Section 1, vested legislative power in the President "[u]ntil a legislature is elected and convened under a new Constitution." Section 6 of the 1987 Transitory Provisions in turn said: "The incumbent President [Corazon Aquino] shall continue to exercise legislative powers until the first Congress is convened." Thus the only difference between the scope of the legislative powers of President Aquino and that of President Marcos was that, whereas Mr. Marcos exercised the power concurrently first with the interim Batasang Pambansa and subsequently with the regular Batasang Pambansa, President Aquino exercised it alone. She lost it on July 26, 1987. But she lost it with a bang signing a batch of forty-two legislative acts on the eve of the convening of the First Congress. Non-delegability of Legislative Power There are three theories that advance the non-delegability of legislative power: • Separation of Powers keeps the responsibility for the creation of statutes to the legislative branch • Due Process – the process by which the powers are separated and safeguarded demand that legislation come from the legislative

• Delegata potestas non potest delegari, which means that which has been delegated to you cannot be further delegated by you Since the Constitution gave to Congress alone the power to make law, means that no other body or branch of government can make laws. The controlling legal maxim is the maxim of agency, delegata potestas non potest delegari. However, in spite of this principle, numerous statutes have been passed conferring legislative power to administrative agencies, authorizing them to exercise regulatory powers. This is justified by two theories: the first theory, advanced in 1825, is that a non-legislative body may be authorized to “fill in the gaps” of a statute. The other theory, is that Congress may pass contingent legislation, which leaves to another body the business of the fact necessary to bring the law into actual operation. As a result, the function performed by the administrative agency becomes administrative in nature. In order to ensure that the function of the administrative agency is not law-making power, the statute making the delegation must: • be compete in itself – it must set forth therein the policy to be carried out or implemented by the delegated agency, and • fix a standard – the limits of which are sufficiently determinate or determinable, to which the delegate must conform in the performance of his functions. Since rules and regulations promulgated by administrative agencies pursuant to the valid delegating statute have the force of law, jurisprudence tells us that their violation may be punished as a penal offense as long as these conditions are met: • the violation must have been made criminal by the delegating statute • the penalty must be provided by the statute itself • the regulation must be published. Furthermore, legislative power is delegated to local government by constitutional tradition (as defined as a practice that has existed since time immemorial). Congress may, by law, grant the President powers necessary to carry out declared national policy in times of war or other national emergency. Congress may also, by law, subject to limitiations that it may impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts. Eastern Shipping Lines v. POEA Synopsis The respondent was awarded a sum for the death of her husband who worked in a

Page 11 of 36

vessel and was killed in an accident in Tokyo. ESL said that POEA does not have jurisdicition because the deceased is not an overseas worker. The Supreme Court held the POEA had jurisdiction, and that ESL’s violations constituted a breach of the administrative statute of the POEA given that the standard “fair and equitable employment practices” was a sufficient enough basis for a regulation prescribing a model contract for overseas workers. Tablarin v. Guttierez Synopsis The petitioners flunked the NMAT but wanted to take med school anyway. The Supreme Court ruled that the authority of the Board of Medical Education to set rules for the closure of medical schools was drawn from the general standard “standardization and regularization” of the medical profession, taken together with the other provisions of the delegating statute. The petitioners could not enter med school. Free Telephone Workers Union v. Minister of Labor Doctrine The powers given to the Minister of Labor to certify a labor dispute to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration are valid. Cebu Oxygen and Acetylene Co. v. Drilon Synopsis The issue was whether or not an implenting order by the Secretary of Labor can provide a prohibition not contemplated by the law it seeks to implement. The Supreme Court held that an administrative agency cannot expand laws enacted by Congress because that would be tantamount to amending an act of Congress. People v. Dacuycuy Synopsis Some teachers were charged with the violation of the Magna Carta for public school teachers. The petitioners questioned whether or not Sec. 32 of RA 4670 was constitutional. RA 4670 prescribed a penalty whose duration was left “to the discretion of the court.” The Supreme Court declared this provision invalid. It is not for the courts to fix the term of imprisonment where no points of reference have been provided by the legislative. What valid delegation presupposes and sometimes is an exercise of discretion to fix the length of service which must be served within specific or designated limits provided by law, the absence of which designated limits will constitue such exercise as undue delegation if not an outright intrusion or assumption of legislative power. Chongbian v. Orbos

Synopsis Pursuant to Article 8, Section 18 of the Constitution, Congress enacted RA 6734, the Organic Act for the ARMM, calling for a plebiscite to be held in 13 provinces and 9 cities. President Aquino issued EO 429 providing for the reorganization of the administrative regions of Mindanao. The issue was whether there was an undue delegation of power to the President in her issuing EO 429. The Supreme Court held that in conferring to the President the power to merge the existing regions following the establishment of the ARMM, Congress merely followed the patterns set out by previous legislation. The power to merge administrative regions has been traditionally lodged with the President to facilitate the power of supervision over local government units. A legislative standard need not be expressed. It may simply be gathered or implied. Nor need it be found in the law challenged because it may be found in other statutes on the same subjects as that of the challenged legislation. Employees Confederation v. National Wages Commission Synopsis The Employers Confederation of the Philippines is questioning the validity of a wage order issued by a RTWPB promulgated to fix new wage rates and wage incentives pursuant to the Wage Rationalization Act. The Court held that the power of the RTWPB as an expert commission to fix wages under strict standards set by Congress is necessary in an age of specialized activities. Solicitor General v. MMA Synopsis MMA passed a regulation authorizing the confiscation of license plates and drivers licenses for certain traffic violations. The Court held that this regulation was invalid because it was an undue delegation of legislative power because it runs counter to PD 1605. Tatad v. Secretary of Energy Synopsis The Court invalidated EO 392 because in effecting the full deregulation of the oil industry, President Ramos added a standard which did not appear in the delegating law, RA 8180. The standards set by RA 8180 for oil deregulation were: o the time when the price of crude oil and petroleum products in the world market were declining and o the time when the exchange rate of the peso to the dollar was stable. In EO 392 Ramos used the depletion of the OPSF as a third factor for ordering the full deregulation of the oil industry. The Court held that such consideration amounts to rewriting the standards set forth in RA

Page 12 of 36

8180 and the Executive failed to follow faithfully the standards set in RA 8180. PITC v. Angeles Doctrine Administrative agencies are allowed to promulgate supplementary rules because as a result of the growing complexity of modern society, it is necessary to create more administrative bodies to help in regulation of its ramified activities. Specialized in the field assigned to them, they can deal with problems with more expertise and dispatch than can be expected from the legislature or courts of justice. Other Exceptions to Non-delegability Local governments may be allowed to legislate on purely local matters. On the local level, the principle of separation of powers does not apply strictly between the executive and the law-making body. Hence, the local law-making agency may be given executive functions. When what is given is an executive power, the rules applicable to the empowerment of administrative agencies also becomes applicable to the local law-making body. There are two other exceptions given to the President, one in times of war and national emergency, where the President has the powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy, and where the President is delegated to fix tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties and imposts. Section 2 The Senate shall be composed of twenty-four Senators who shall be elected at large by the qualified voters of the Philippines, as may be provided by law. The number of senators is pegged at twenty four because the drafters envisioned a small Senate which was supposed to ensure that the quality of the people elected to the Senate remained at a high standard. Section 3 No person shall be a Senator unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at least thirty-five years of age, able to read and write, a registered voter, and a resident of the Philippines for not less than two years immediately preceding the day of the election. The residence requirement is satisfied if one is domiciled in the Philippines, even though not physically present within the two-year period, and the age qualification must be possessed on the day the votes are cast and not on the day of the proclamation. Section 4 The term of office of the Senators shall be six years and shall commence, unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following their election. No Senator shall serve for more than two consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as

an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term of which he was elected. The term of office of Senators is six years, and unless otherwise provided by law, commences at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following their election. The term follows that found in the 1935 Constitution. There is a two consecutive term limit. A Senator can run again three years after the expiration of his second term. Section 5 (1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations. (2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total number of representatives including those under the party list. For three consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector. (3) Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and adjacent territory. Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least one representative. (4) Within three years following the return of every census, the Congress shall make a reapportionment of legislative districts based on the standards provided in this section. The membership of the House is fixed at two hundred and fifty. However, the total membership of the House may be raised from time to time by statute because the Constitution says that the total must be 250 unless otherwise fixed by law. This can be done by reapportionment resulting in the creation of new districts or the creation of new provinces, since one province is entitled to one representative, or therough the creation of cities entitled to at least one district. When one of the municipalities of a congressional district is converted into a city large enough to entitle it to one legislative district, the incidental effect is the splitting of the district into two. The incidental arising

Page 13 of 36

of a new district in this manner need not be preceded by a census. Moreover, this incidental effect is deemed implicitly contained in the title announcing the creation of the new city thus satisfying the requirement that the content of the bill be announced in the title. However, if an imbalance is created in the remaining legislative districts, the imbalance can only be corrected by a reapportionment law. Apportionment The rules for dividing provinces and cities and the Metropolitan Manila area as well as other metropolitan areas which might be created in the future are set down in Section 5. The first basic rule is that the legislative districts shall be "apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio." The second rule, is that each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact and adjacent territory." In Felwa v. Salas, construing an identical provision in the 1935 Constitution, there was a suggestion that ethnic or tribal considerations might justify departure from the rule. A third rule is that each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least one representative. It should be noted that for a city to merit one representative it should have a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand. If a city is smaller than the minimum size required, it will simply be represented as a part of one of the districts within the province. A province, however, is entitled to one representative no matter what its population size. The fourth rule is that within three years following the return of every census, the Congress shall make a reapportionment of legislative districts based on the standards provided in this section. The observance of the constitutional mandate regarding apportionment of representative districts is a justiciable question cognizable by the courts. Decisions in this tenor were promulgated by the Court under the 1935 Constitution. So far, Congress has not reapportioned any legislative district following the return of a census. Although it is the constitutional duty of Congress to ensure proportional representation, it is submitted that there is no power which can compel Congress to make a reapportionment even when, through the growth and movement of populations, the existing apportionment has in fact become inequitable. In fact, jurisprudence suggests that what the Constitution abhors is inequality in apportionment if the inequality is created by law and not when it arises from a change in the population.

Tobias v. Abalos Synopsis An act was promulgated converting the Municipality of Mandaluyong into a City. Although only 14.41% of the voting population voted, the act was ratified. The act was challenged on the ground that it did not mention any census indicating San Juan and Mandaluyong had the minimal requirement of 250,000 inhabitants but the challengers never gave any evidence that the population was less than the minimum requirement. The Court presumed that Congress gave this minimum requirement due consideration. Mariano, Jr., v. COMELEC Synopsis RA 7854 provided for the conversion of Makati into a highly urbanized city. The act was assailed on the fact that it did not properly identify the land area by metes and bounds in violation of the Constitution. It was also assailed on the basis that the increase in legislative districts as provided for in the act is not in accord with Section 5(3) of the Constitution. The Court held that the districts may be increased and apportionment of legislative districts may be made by special law. The Court also held that the description was sufficient enough to describe the land. Montejo v. COMELEC Synopsis The Province of Leyte has 5 legislative districts. Biliran is part of the thirds district, before it became a province. After the conversion, the COMELEC transferred the certain subprovinces from one district to another. Montejo contended that there was an unequitable distribution of inhabitants. Does the COMELEC have the constitutional power to transfer municipalities from one district to another? No. The ComElec only possesses the power to effect minor adjustments according to an ordinance appended to the 1987 Constitution. There should be no change in the allocation per district. Sectoral Representation According to Commisioner Villacorta, “the idea of giving meaningful representation, particularly to the farmers and the workers, would be our Commission's humble gesture of extending protection to the interests of these groups which are not adequately attended to in normal legislative deliberations. Sectoral representation is a necessity, especially in these times when the people are giving the democratic process another chance, if not its last chance.” Party List Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC

Page 14 of 36

Doctrine Congress is vested with the broad power to define and prescribe the mechanics of the party list system. The Constitution implicitly set down only the percentage of the total membership in the House reserved for party-list representatives. In imposing a two percent threshold for parties to qualify for representation, Congress wanted to ensure that only those parties, organizations, and coalitions having a sufficient number of constituents deserving of representation were actually represented in Congress. The Court also ruled that the 20% prescription of the Constituition was merely a maximum limit to the number of party list representatives but the maximum need not be filled. Ang Bagong Bayani v. COMELEC Doctrine The intent of the Constitutional Commission and of the party List Law is not to allow all associations to participate indiscriminately in the system but to limit participation to parties or organizations representing the marginalized and underprivileged. The party list system is a form sectoral representation meant to promote social justice. For this purpose, the Court laid down guidelines for the Comelec to apply in deciding which organizations qualified. Among the guidelines was the requirement that the parties or organizations must represent the marginalized and underrepresented sector. The Court said that even political parties must comply with this requirement. Moreover, the nominees themselves must comply with the qualitative requirement. What is clear from these decisions is that the Court, speaking through Justice Panganiban, sees the party-list system not as a proportional system of representation designed to strengthen democracy but as "sectoral representation" meant to promote social justice. The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission were clearly to the contrary. In the course of the drafting of the provision, Commissioner Villacorta proposed that 30% of the seats in the House of Representatives be allocated equally between sectors and representatives of parties and organizations. The thrust of the proposal was that 30% of the party-list seats should be permanently reserved for marginalized sectors. When the dissenting opinion of Justice Mendoza pointed to what the Record of the Constitutional Commission showed, Panganiban retorted that Commission records should be consulted only when the text of the Constitution is not clear. For him, the text -- in spite of the specific three term and fifty percent limitation -- was clearly not for twenty five only but for fifty seats, and not for three terms only but forever. Effectively, he deleted the phrase "For three consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution one-half of the seats . . ." Indeed, after such amputation, and only after such amputation, the text becomes clearly on his side..

That is not all. The majority also ruled that party-list nominees "must represent marginalized and underrepresented sectors." This means that nominees who do not have this ideological quality, (which incidentally is not easily proved or disproved), they are not qualified to be members of the House of Representatives as party-list representatives. But this is another departure from the constitutional text; this time, however, not by amputation but by grafting. No such ideological requirement is found in Section 6 of Article VI which enumerates the qualifications of a member 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. Party List and Sectoral Representative Qualifications They must be able to read and write and belong to the minority which they represent, and since the Constitution is silent on the qualifications of sectoral representatives, they are assumed to be the same as those for party list representatives. Residence Qualification The residence period qualification must be possessed on the day of the election. He must not only reside in the district where he is elected, he must also be a registered voter. Gallego v. Verra Doctrine The term “residence” as used in the election law is synonymous with “domicile” which imports not only the intentionto reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in that place coupled with conduct indicative of such intention. In order to acquire domicile by choice, these must concur: o residence or bodily presence in the new locality o an intention to remain there indefinitely (animus mamendi) o an intention to abandon the old domicile voluntarily (animus non revertendi) Romualdez-Marcos v. COMELEC Synopsis At issue is the candidacy of The Imeldific in Leyte. The Court ruled that Imeldific had satisfied the one year residency requirement. If a person retains his domicile of origin, then the one year period is irrelevant because by legal fiction,

Page 15 of 36

wherever he may be, he is a resident of his domicile of origin. If a person reestablishes a previously abandoned domicile or wishes to acquire a new one, the one year requirement must be satisfied. The Court also held that a widow, upon the death of her spouse, reverts back to her domicile of origin. Aquino v. COMELEC Synopsis Butz Aquino was not able to satisfy the requirement that he abandon his domicile in Tarlac when he ran for a Makati Congressional district. Even if he had, he had not been in Makati for one year preceding the election. In this case, Justice Padilla’s view was that either domicile or evidence would suffice provided that there is a physical presence of one year in the district where a candidate is running is satisfied. Domino v. COMELEC Synopsis The petitioner’s domicile of origin was Candon, Ilocos Sur, and in 1991, he acquired a new domicile of choice in Quezon City, as shown in his certificate of candidacy to run as a representative of Quezon City. Then in 1995, he abandoned his old domicile of choice and established a new one in Saranggani. The Court found that the above facts were insufficient to establish a new domicile by choice. Personal presence in a particular place must be coupled with conduct indicative of that intention. In order to change a domicile, one must have a bona fide intention to abandon the other and establish a new one through definite acts. The lease contract did not show the kind of permanency required to prove abandonment of the old domicile. Domino’s old registration as a voter in Quezon City also belied his claims. Natural-Born Citizens A natural-born citizen, according to the Constitution, are those citizens who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph 3, Section 1 of Article IV are also considered natural-born citizens (those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority). Bengson v. Cruz Doctrine A natural-born citizen who loses his citizenship by naturalization in another country but is later repatriated recovers his status as a natural-born citizen and therefore is qualified to become a member of Congress. Section 7 The Members of the House of Representatives shall be elected for a term of three years which shall begin, unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on the

thirtieth day of June next following their election. No Member of the House of Representatives shall serve for more than three consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was elected. Term and Tenure Aside from fixing the three year term of Representatives, there is a three-term limit for Representatives. The Constitution also places a distinction between one’s term and one’s tenure, since “voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service ( or tenure) for the full term for which he was elected.” Dimaporo v. Mitra Synopsis Dimaporo filed his candidacy for Governor of ARMM, and he was excluded from the Roll of Members in the House of Representatives as the House complied with Section 67, Article IX of the Omnibus Election Code which considered someone running for an elective office other than President or Vice-President resigned ipso facto from his office upon filing of the certificate of candidacy. The law was challenged because Dimaporo claimed that it shortened his term as Congressman, but the Court ruled that it only shortened his tenure but not his term. Section 8 Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election of the Senators and the Members of the House of Representatives shall be held on the second Monday of May. 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 service of the unexpired term shall count as one term for purposes of counting the number of allowable successive terms. The holding of special elections is not mandatory. 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. Any increase in the compensation shall not take effect until after the expiration of the full term of all the Members of the Senate and the House of

Page 16 of 36

Representatives approving such increase. This serves as a legal bar to the legislators yielding to the natural temptation to increase their salaries. It is only after the expiration of the six year term of the Senators who approved the increase that the increase becomes effective. Moreover, the retirement benefits of a legislator must be based on the salary during his term and not on the present salary of a legislator. There is no legal limit to the amount Congress may appropriate for expenses toward supplies and personnel. The limit shall be moral, inasmuch as the records and books of account shall be open to the public in accordance with law and that such books shall be audited by the Commission on Audit. 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 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. The privilege from arrest is the same privilege extended to the Parliament of England and to members of the United States Congress. The immunity applies to all arrests punishable by not more than six years’ imprisonment, and exists for as long as Congress is in session, whether or not the legislator involved is actually attending it. This immunity is not extended to one who is convicted. Jimenez v. Cabangbang Synopsis Cabangbang wrote an open letter to the President and caused this to be published in several newspapers. Cabangbang contends that he is shielded from suit. The Court noted that the open letter is not within the scope of privileged communication. Antonino v. Valencia Synopsis Valencia issued a libelous press release attacking the honor and reputation of the plaintiff. The press release is not qualified privileged communication because he has not shown that he published the same with good intentions and justifiable ends. Furthermore, the statement was not made in his function as a legislator. People v. Jalosjos Doctrine The grant of Congressional immunity does not extend to one convicted, much less one convicted of rape. He cannot claim that he should be freed because of popular sovereignty and that his constituents need to be represented. The Court noted that Members of Congress may be arrested for crimes

punishable by more than six months imprisonment, whether or not Congress is in session. Osmeña v. Pendatun Doctrine The provision that no Member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place means that a legislator may still be held liable by Congress in Congress for offensive speech. The provision guarantees the legislator complete freedom of expression without fear of being made responsible in criminal actions before the courts or any other forum outside of the Congressional hall, but it does not protect him from responsibility before the legislative body itself whenever his words and conduct are considered by the latter disorderly or unbecoming of a member thereof. 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. The first sentence sets down a policy of full disclosure of the financial and business affairs of a legislator. The second sentence requires him to put the House on notice for any potential conflict of interest. This does not mean that a legislator may not further his or her personal interest in his term as a legislator. It merely allows the House to examine his arguments with a sharper eye and in the context of his personal interest. The advance disclosure shifts any presumption to favor the legislator in cases of conflict of interest. Section 13 No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may hold any other office or employment in the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries, during his term without forfeiting his seat. Neither shall he be appointed to any office which may have been created or the emoluments thereof increased during the term for which he was elected. The prohibited offices include membership in the Board of Regents, Board of Trustees, or Board of Directors in SUC’s. Since the prohibition is only during his tenure, he may be offered and he may accept an appointment. However, if he does accept, he automatically forfeits his seat in Congress. Section 14 No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may personally appear as counsel before any court of justice or before the Electoral

Page 17 of 36

Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other administrative bodies. Neither shall he, directly or indirectly, be interested financially in any contract with, or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including any government-owned or controlled corporation, or its subsidiary, during his term of office. He shall not intervene in any matter before any office of the Government for his pecuniary benefit or where he may be called upon to act on account of his office. Conflict of Interest Legislators are prohibited from being directly or indirectly interested financially in any contract with or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including any government owned and controlled corporations and its subsidiaries during his term of office. They cannot be members of boards of corporations that do business with the government. Neither may they intervene in any manner before any other office of the Government where he may be called upon to act upon account of his office. This prohibition is direct and indirect, and covers pecuniary benefits for relatives. Lawyer Legislators Puyat v. De Guzman Synopsis This involves an Assemblyman who bought a nominal amount of shares in a corporation which was party to a suit before the SEC. He then proceeded to appear “in intervention” puportedly to protect his own interest. The Court saw through the ruse and said that a ruling upholding the “intervention” would make the Constitutional provision preventing members of Congress from using their office to influence their dealings with courts ineffective. It is inferred from this decision that a legislator may appear in person before a court if in fact is is a genuine party in the case. Section 15 The Congress shall convene once every year on the fourth Monday of July for its regular session, unless a different date is fixed by law, and shall continue to be in session for such number of days as it may determine until thirty days before the opening of its next regular session, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. The President may call a special session at any time. Sessions of Congress A regular session lasts for as long as Congress wishes but only until thirty days before the opening of its next regular session, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. However, the President may call Congress to a special session at any time. It

can last for as long as Congress wants. The President is given the power to call for a session and to specify the subjects considered, but cannot prohibit any other subject from being considered. Technically, Congress can stay in session for as long as it wants. Section 16 (1) The Senate shall elect its President and the House of Representatives, its Speaker, by a majority vote of all its respective Members. Each House shall choose such other officers as it may deem necessary. (2) A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day and may compel the attendance of absent Members in such manner, and under such penalties, as such House may provide. (3) Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its Members, suspend or expel a Member. A penalty of suspension, when imposed, shall not exceed sixty days. (4) Each House shall keep a Journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may, in its judgment, affect national security; and the yeas and nays on any question shall, at the request of one-fifth of the Members present, be entered in the Journal. Each House shall also keep a Record of its proceedings. (5) Neither House during the sessions of the Congress shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting. Political Questions Avelino v. Cuenco During the Senate session of February 21, 1949 Senate President Avelino walked out of the session hall followed by nine other senators. This left only twelve senators in the session hall. The Senate President pro-tempore took over, and by a resolution approved by the other senators, the position of Senate Presdent was declared vacant, and Senator Cuenco was declared Acting Senate President. The Court refused jurisdiction. Election of Officers Quorum The basis of determining the existence of a quorum should be the total membership of the body. Avelino v. Cuenco

Page 18 of 36

Synopsis During the Senate session of February 21, 1949 Senate President Avelino walked out of the session hall followed by nine other senators. This left only twelve senators in the session hall. The Senate President pro-tempore took over, and by a resolution approved by the other senators, the position of Senate Presdent was declared vacant, and Senator Cuenco was declared Acting Senate President. By a vote of 6-4, the Court refused to assume jurisdiction on the basis of it being a political question of the second type (see later discussion on political questions) Santiago v. Guingona Synopsis Miriam questioned the capacity of those who voted for Fernan to become Senate President to fill the Senate Minority posts. The respondents alleged that the Court had no jurisdiction because there was no statutory provision guiding the filling of Senate posts other than that of the Senate, whose rules accorded the posts according to party number. The Court said that “in the absence of constitutional guidelines or specific rules, it is devoid of any basis upon which to determine the legality of the acts of the Senate. The Court may not intervine in the internal affairs of Congress because of the respect it has for the separation of powers.” Internal Discipline Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings. Therefore it is clear that on matters affecting only the internal operation of the legislature, the legislature’s formulation and implementation of its rules is beyond the reach of the Courts. In these matters, the jurisdiction conferred to by Article VIII, Section I does not apply, unless it affects private rights. Osmeña v. Pendatun Doctrine Disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the House against Sergio Osmeña, Jr. for a speech delivered on the floor of Congress. Osmeña filed for declaratory relief saying that his speech did not constitute disorderly behavior and that by House Rules, he could not be censured because the business had transpired before Congress decided to take action. The Court ruled that the House is the final judge of what it construes as disorderly behavior. Paredes, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan Synopsis Congressman Paredes was charged with violations of the Anti-Graft law that he allegedly committed while he was still a provincial governor. The Sandiganbayan prescribed a mandatory suspension. Paredes asked the Supreme Court on the basis that only the House can suspend him. On the argument that the grounds was not based on Section 16(3), or the House Rules, the Court upheld the suspension, with a one page decision.

When the House decided not to implement the suspension, the Court could do nothing. Journals The duty to keep a journal has two purposes: • to insure publicity to the proceedings of the legislature, and a correspondent responsibility of the members to their respective constituents • to provide proof of what actually transpired in the legislature. Under the 1935 Constitution, Congress could impose secrecy at its discretion, the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions, exempt from publication only such matters “as may, in each House’s judgment, affect national security”. It still remains to be seen how the rule can be enforced and who will enforce it in Congress. US v. Pons Synopsis The defendant argued that the statute under which he was being prosecuted was invalid for having been passed after the last allowable day of the legislative session. He claimed that the legislature’s clock had been stopped at midnight on the last day of the session and it was in fact after midnight that the statute was passed. The journal said that the statute was passed before midnight. The Court said that to inquire into the veracity of the journals when they are clear and explicit, would violate both the letter and the spirit of the organic law. Enrolled Bill Doctrine Under the enrolled bill doctrine, the signature of the Speaker of the House and the Senate President, and the certification of the Secretaries of both Houses of Congress are conclusive of its due enactment. Casco Phil. Chemical Company v. Gimenez Synopsis Casco claimed that both urea and formaldehyde were included in the tax exemption given by a law to urea formaldehyde, a fertilizer. To prove its case, Casco referred to the Congressional journal. The Court opined that the statement in the law itself was clear and did not lend itself to construction but stopped short of declaring the statute a mistake. It further opined, “if there has been a mistake in the printing of a bill before it was certified by the Congrress and approved by the Executive, on which we cannot speculate without jeopardizing the principle of separation of powers, the remedy is amendment or curative legislation and not judicial decree.” Astorga v. Villegas

Page 19 of 36

Doctrine The Senate President and the President of the Philippines withdrew their signatures upon the discovery of the inaccuracies in the bill, the document was stripped of the character and probative value of an enrolled bill and had to yield to the version found in the journal.

Arroyo v. De Venecia Doctrine The issue is whether or not RA 8420, which amends portions of the National Internal Revenue Code, which imposes sin taxes on beer and cigarettes is null and void because it is in violation of the Rules of the House. What is alleged to have been violated are merely internal Rules of Procedure, not the Constitutional requirements for the enactment of a law. Mere failure to comply with the Rules of Procedure does not invalidate a law. Recess Both houses may hold session practically all year round. They go on compulsory recess thirty days before the opening of the next regular session. Each House may also adjourn for a voluntary recess, but neither house may adjourn, without the consent of the other, for more than three days nor to any place other than that in which the two Houses are sitting. This is necessary because there are only two houses and one body. Section 17 The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of nine Members, three of whom shall be Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six shall be Members of the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and the parties or organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman. Composition of Electoral Tribunals The electoral tribunals are a mixture of members of the Supreme Court and Congress. The six members from Congress are selected through proportional party representation and the three Supreme Court Justices are selected by the Chief Justice. The Supreme Court justices are supposed to represent the rights of all other political parties not represented in the tribunal. Abbas v. SET Synopsis Abbas sought to disqualify all six Senator Members of the Electoral Tribunal on the ground that they, together with all the other Senators,

were respondents in the contest filed by the opposition party. He therefore wanted his case to be heard by the three Justices on the Tribunal. The Court rejected this contention, because it left the Tribunal no alternative but to abandon a duty that no other court or body can perform but which it cannot lawfully discharge if shorn of the participation of its entire membership of Senators. Bondoc v. Pineda Synopsis This involved a blatant attempt of a political party to manipulate the decision of the Tribunal by manipulating its membership. On the eve of the promulgation of a decision by the Tribunal against the LDP, the LDP expelled Camasura from the party on the ground of disloyalty. Camasura, the LDP member of the Electoral Tribunal, had earlier confided that he broke party rank because he followed his conscience. The Court considered the expulsion of Camasura from the Tribunal a clear impairment of the Tribunal’s prerogative to be the sole judge of election contests. Jurisdiction of the Electoral Tribunals Angara v. Electoral Commission Doctrine The Electoral Commission has jurisdiction over all election contests regarding qualifications and returns of members of the National Assembly. Vera v. Avelino Doctrine The Electoral Commission has the power to be the “sole judge of all contests.” Election contests relate only to statutory contests in which the contestant seeks not only to oust the intruder, but also to have himself inducted into office. Where therefore, no defeated candidate challenges the credentials of a member in order not only to dislodge him but also totake his seat, the legislative body itself, in the exercise of its inherent right of self-preservation, may inquire into the credentials of the member and judge his qualifications. When a member of the legislative body challenges the qualification of another, an election contest does not therefore ensue, because the former does not seek to be substituted for the latter, and hence, it is the legislative body itself and not the Commission which has jurisdiction over the question raised. Sanchez v. COMELEC Synopsis The candidate who was trailing in the announced count wanted the COMELEC to withhold proclamation until a recount could be made of the votes. The name of another candidate Sanchez without specification of a given name had been considered an invalid vote. He wanted the ballot

Page 20 of 36

boxes reopened for purposes retrieving the invalidated Sanchez votes. The Court laid down that this was not a pre-proclamation controversy and thus the jurisdiction for this belongs to the Electoral Tribunals. Chavez v. HRET Synopsis Chavez was trailing in the announced count and wanted the COMELEC to withhold proclamation until a recount could be made. Pre-proclamations are limited to incomplete returns, returns with material defects, or returns which appear to be tampered with, falsified, or prepared under duress, or containing discrepancies in the votes credited to any candidate the difference of which could affect the results. Guerrero v. COMELEC Synopsis The right of Fariñas to sit in the House was challenged on the ground that his certificate for candidacy was invalid. The question here is not about qualification but election over which the Tribunal has jurisdiction, because what Fariñas failed to show was just his certificate of candidacy.. Otherwise, he had all the qualifications as mentioned in Section 6. Lazatin v. COMELEC Doctrine When there has been a proclamation and a defeated candidate claims he is the winner, the Electoral Tribunal has jurisdiction. Pimentel v. HRET Synopsis The petitioners are assailing the composition of the HRET, saying that party list representatives should have at least one seat in the HRET. The Court ruled that the proper venue is the House and not the Court. Codilla v. De Venecia Synopsis The proclamation of Locsin was void because it was premature, it having been released prior to the resolution of Codilla’s disqualification case. The case is still within the COMELEC’s jurisdiction, hence the HRET has no say on the matter. Independence of the Electoral Tribunals Although the Tribunals have six legislators on them, they are not part of either House of Congress. They are independent constitutional creations which have power to create their own rules and are not under the supervision or control of Congress. Lazatin v. HRET

Doctrine Electoral Tribunals are independent of the COMELEC. The cases before the HRET are governed by their own rules. Garcia v. HRET Synopsis Petitioners seeking to disqualify Harry Angping failed to make the cash deposit required by the rules of the HRET. The petition was dismissed and the Court said that because of the nature and importance of the charge, the HRET rules of procedure must be taken seriously. Grave Abuse of Discretion Robles v. HRET Doctrine The Supreme Court still has the authority to look into the Electoral Tribunal under its jurisdiction over actions where there may have been a grave abuse of discretion leading to a lack or excess of jurisdiction.. Lerias v. HRET Doctrine The Court invalidated a final tally made by the HRET without supporting evidence because it found that the Tribunal acted with a grave abuse of discretion. Arroyo v. HRET Doctrine Rules of Evidence can be made applicable in a suppletory manner to HRET rules in judging the correct number of botes for each of the two competing Congressional candidates Sandoval v. HRET Doctrine The Court can still review the decision of the HRET when there is a judicial controversy concerning whether or not the decision constituted a grave abuse of discretion leading to a lack or excess of jurisdiction. 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

Page 21 of 36

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. Composition of COA The Commission on Appointments is composed of twelve Senators and twelve Representatives and the Senate President as ex oficio chair. Its members are according to party proportion. The twelve seats need not be filled up. Daza v. Singson Doctrine The House of Representatives proportionally apportioned its 12 seats in the Commission on appointments among the several political parties. The petitioner Raul Daza was chosen to represent the LDP. Later, the LDP was reorganized. 24 members from the LP resigned from the party and joined the LDP, swelling its number and reducing the LP to only 17. The House revised the representation in the Commission of Appointments, withdrawing the petitioner’s seat. Daza challenged the validity of his removal. He said his seat was permanent and the LDP was not a duly registered political party and has not yet attained stability. The Court held that the House has the authority to change its representation in the COA to reflect any changes that may transpire in political alignments. It is understood that such changes must be permanenet and do not include temporary alliances not involving severance of political loyalties or formal disapplication. Coseteng v. Mitra Synopsis Coseteng was the only member of Congress from the political party KAIBA. The Court ruled that she was not entitled to a seat in the Commission on Appointkments. To be entitled, a party must have 17 members in the house or 8.4% of the total membership. Disregard the fractions. Section 20 The records and books of accounts of the Congress shall be preserved and be open to the public in accordance with law, and such books shall be audited by the Commission on Audit which shall publish annually an itemized list of amounts paid to and expenses incurred for each Member. 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.

For the protection of the rights of witnesses, there are implicit limitations on the power of legislative investigation. It must be in aid of legislation, it must be in accordance with duly established rules of procedure, and the rights of persons appearing in such inquiries must be respected. No person may be punished in contempt unless his testimony is required in a matter into which the legislature has jurisdiction to inquire. The phrase, in aid of legislation, contributes nothing towards protecting witnesses. Practically any investigation can be in aid of the broad legislative power of Congress. It is not necessary that every question propounded to a witness must be material to or in aid of legislation. In other words the materiality of the question must be determined by its relation to the subject of the inquiry and not its relation to any proposed legislation. The Constitution explicitly recognizes the power of investigation not just of either House, but also of its committees. Legislative Investigations Negros Oriental II Electric Cooperative v. Sangguniang Panglungsod Synopsis The Sangguniang Panglungsod subpoenaed NORECO for inquiry as to the alleged installation of inefficient power lines. The SP held NORECO in contempt. The Court ruled that such an inquiry is beyond the jurisdicition of the SP. Bengzon, Jr. v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Synopsis Kokoy Romualdez transferred some properties to the Lopez Group of Companies and the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee decided, purportedly in aid of legislation to investigate the transaction. The petitioners are also charged with a criminal case in the Sandiganbayan. When they were asked to appear before the Senate, they asked for a TRO because appearing before the Senate would prejudice their case before the Sandiganbayan, thus violating due process. The Court ruled that the investigation was not in aid of legislation because the speech of Senator Enrile contained no suggestion of contemplated legislation but merely pointed to the need to determine wheteher the relatives of President Aquino, particularly Ricardo Lopa, had violated the law. Section 22 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

Page 22 of 36

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 and the President so states in writing, the appearance shall be conducted in executive session. Section 21 deals with the inherent power of legislative investigation in aid of legislation for which Congress or its committees are authorized to summon witnesses. Because of separation of powers, however, and the peculiar position which heads of departments hold in relation to the President, the relationship of Congress to the official family of the President is also delicate. Section 22 deals with this delicate relationship. The provision rejects the original proposal patterned after the 1973 version and reflects instead its 1935 counterpart. The tenor is permissive. The President may or may not consent to the appearance of department heads; and even if he does, he may require that the appearance be in executive session. Reciprocally, Congress may refuse the initiative taken by the department secretary. Hence, although the task of legislation demands adequate information and although the Bill of Rights guarantees the right of the people to information on matters of public concern, the dynamics of legislative-executive relations would dictate that Congress find ways of obtaining information from department heads other than by compulsion. On the other hand, department heads should be aware that information vital to legislation legitimately requested by Congress should not, for the welfare of the nation, be withheld. The provision does not prevent the subpoena of Department Undersecretaries. 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. War is defined as armed hostilities between two states. The executive power, when necessary, may

make war even in the absence of a declaration of war. This is because the actual power to make war resides in the Executive. What the Constitution provides is for the legislature to have the power to declare the existence of a state of war and to enact all measures to support the war. Section 24 All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of local application, and private bills, shall originate exclusively in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments. Originating Clause Laws with the following subjects MUST come from the Lower House alone: • Bills of Appropriation – one whose purpose is to set aside a sum of money for public use. Only appropriation bills in the strict sense of the word are included. • Revenue or Tariff Bills – these are strictly for the raising of revenues. Bills for other purposes which incidentally create revenues are not included. • Bills increasing the public debt – this is meant as a safeguard against the rampant borrowing of foreign debt during the Marcos era • Bills of Local Application – these refer to those whose reach is limited, like those creating a town, municipality, or city. • Private Bills – those which affect private persons, such as Ronnie Nathanielsz and Michael Keon Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance Doctrine: The exclusivity of the prerogative of the House means simply that the House alone can initiate the passage of a revenue bill, such that if the House does not initate one, no revenue law will be passed. But, once the House has passed a revenue bill and passed it on to the Senate, the Senate can overhaul the bill. It does not matter that the Senate already anticipated a bill from the House and prepared one to take the place of whatever the House might send. The Court rejected the idea that the Senate is bound to retain the essence of what the House approved. Section 25 (1) The Congress may not increase the appropriations recommended by the President for the operation of the Government as specified in the budget. The form, content, and manner of preparation of the budget shall be prescribed by law. (2) No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the general appropriations bill unless it relates specifically to some particular appropriation therein. Any such provision or enactment shall be limited in its operation to the appropriation to which it relates.

Page 23 of 36

(3) The procedure in approving appropriations for the Congress shall strictly follow the procedure for approving appropriations for other departments and agencies. (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 proposal therein. (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. (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. (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 re-enacted and shall remain in force and effect until the general appropriations bill is passed by the Congress. Limits on Appropriative Power The provision that law shall only be paid out of the treasury if there is a law is a prohibition on the disbursing power of the executive. This does not mean that the legislative has no restrictions on their power to appropriate funds. There are explicit restrictions to the power of Congress to appropriate funds, to wit: • All appropriation, revenue, or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of local application, and private bills shall originate exclusively in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may concur with amendments. • The Congress may not increase the appropriations recommended by the President for the operation of the Government as specified in the budget • Congress may not clutter the general appropriation law with provisions not specifically related to some particular item of appropriation, and every such provision shall be limited in its operation to the appropriation item to which it relates. • Congress may not adopt a procedure for approving appropriations for itself different from the procedure for other appropriations. • Special appropriations bills must specify the purpose for which they are intended and must be supported by funds certified as available by the National Treasurer. If the funds are not actually

available, the special appropriation bill must provide a corresponding revenue proposal. • Congress has limited discretion to authorize transfer of funds • Discretionary funds appropriated for particular officials shall be dusbursed only for public purposes to be supported by appropriate vouchers and subject to such guidelines as may be prescribed by law • Congress cannot cripple the operation of government by refusing to pass a new appropriations bill. If no general appropriations bill is passed, the last year’s appropriation carries over until a new one is passed. • The expenditure of public funds can never be for religious purposes. • The general appropriation law must be based on the budget prepared by the President. Riders Provisions unrelated to the appropriation Garcia v. Mata Synopsis RA 1600 which provided for the specific appropriation of the AFP contained a rider, a provision not relevant to the act itself. The provision dealt with the security of tenure of a reserve officer from reversion to inactive service. The provision in RA 1600 is unconstitutional. It is invalid and inoperative. Transfer of Funds The rule on the transfer of funds says that only the President, the Senate President, the House Speaker, the Chief Justice, and the heads of the 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. This list is exclusive. Public Purpose Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works Synopsis At issue was the appropriation of PhP 85,000 for the appropriation of a projected feeder road which ran through a private subdivision and over private property. The Court incalidated the appropriation saying that inasmuch as the land on which the projected roads were to be constructed belonged to a private individual, the result is that the appropriation sought a private purpose. The subsequent donation of the feeder road is inconsequential, since the validity of a statute depends upon the powers of Congress at the time of its passage or approval, not upon events occurring, or acts performed, subsequently thereto. Demetria v. Alba

Page 24 of 36

Synopsis The constitutionality of the Budget Reform Decree of 1977 was being challenged on the ground that it infringes upon the fundamental law by authorizing the illegal transfer of public money. The provision is unconstitutional because it violates the Constitutional provisions on appropriations. Section 26 (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof. (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. Subject and Title of Bills The requirement that every bill shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof is both directory and mandatory and compliance with this requirement is essential to the validity of legislation. Tio v. Videogram Regulatory Board Synopsis: Tio claimed that the tax on 30% of gross receipts payable to local governments was a rider. The Court held that the title was sufficiently broad to cover a regulatory tax provision included in the act. Philippine Judges Association v. Prado Synopsis: The case at bar dealt with the franking privileges of judicial mail. The title was found to be sufficiently broad to cover the removal of the franking privileges of the judiciary, but the Court found other reasons to restore franking privileges. Tan v. Del Rosario Synopsis: Simplified Net Income Tax scheme for professionals engaged in the practice of their profession. The requirements of the one-subject one-title rule has been sufficiently met. The title of a law is not an index of its contents. Tobias v. Abalos Synopsis: The Court ruled that the title of the law creating the city of Mandaluyong was sufficient enough to cover the creation of another Congressional district.

Reading on Separate Days Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance There was no dispute that the VAT law had gone through the second and third readings on the same day.The President’s certification effects a dispensation from all the procedural requirements. 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. (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. Passage of Bills Two steps are required before a bill finally becomes a law. First, it must be approved by both Houses of Congress. The votes of the members of Congress may be obtained viva voce. However, there are instances when a roll call vote is required and individual members must vote with a yea or nay. Such roll call vote iss required upon the last and third readings of a bill, at the request of one-fifth members present and re-passing a bill vetoed by the President. If unchallenged, a bill not acted upon within thirty days of the President’s receipt becomes law. Conference Committees Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance Doctrine In the United States, conference committees could be held in executive session and amendments germane to the purpose of the law may be introduced even if these were not in either original bill. The Constitutional safeguards against last minute provisions have been disregarded by the Supreme Court in the Tolentino ruling.

Page 25 of 36

Arroyo v. De Venecia Synopsis The issue is whether or not RA 8420, which amends portions of the National Internal Revenue Code, which imposes sin taxes on beer and cigarettes is null and void because it is in violation of the Rules of the House. What is alleged to have been violated are merely internal Rules of Procedure, not the Constitutional requirements for the enactment of a law. Mere failure to comply with the Rules of Procedure does not invalidate a law. Item Veto Power CIR v. CTA (Caterer’s Tax) Synopsis The President vetoed a portion of Section 42 of RA 6110 referring to 20% of the caterer’s tax on restaurants operated by hotels, motels, and rest houses. The Court upheld the veto because an “item” in a revenue bill does not refer to an entire section imposing a particular kind of tax, but refer to the subject ot the tax and the tax rate. Bengzon v. Drilon Synopsis The law appropriated 500 million pesos for the general fund adjustment “for operational and special requirements as indicated hereunder” and one of the authorized uses of the fund was for the adjustment of pension of justices as provided for in an earlier law. The President vetoed the use of the fund. In declaring the veto invalid, the Court said it was not the veto of an item. The item was the entire 500 million smackers. Doctrine of Inappropriate Provisions Gonzales v. Macaraig Doctrine The doctrine says that a provision that is constitutionally inappropriate for an appropriation bill may be singled out for veto even if it is not an appropriation or revenue item. Philconsa v. Enriquez Synopsis The Court invalidated a veto of a restriction on the use of funds for road maintenance and a restriction on the use of funds for the puchase of medicines since the veto did not include the veto of the appropriated funds themselves. An item which can be subject of a separate veto must be a distinct or severable part of a bill. Impoundment Philconsa v. Enriquez

Synopsis The President did not veto a provision for the compensation and separation benefits of CAFGU’s but instead said that the implementation of the provision would be subject to the peace and order situation of the affected localities. The Court said that the provision was in effect deactivated CAFGUs and the President had no choice but to implement the law. Section 28 (1) The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation. (2) The Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix within specified limits, and subject to such limitations and restrictions as it may impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts within the framework of the national development program of the Government. (3) Charitable institutions, churches and personages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and improvements, actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable, or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation. (4) No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress. Uniformity of Taxation Tan v. Del Rosario Doctrine The uniformity of taxation, like its kindred concept of equal protection, merely requires that all subjects/objects of taxation, similarly situated, are to be treated equally. Uniformity does not prohibit classification as long as: (a) the standards used are substantial and not arbitrary (b) the categorization is germane to achieve the legislative purpose (c) the law applies to both present and future conditions, and (d) the classification applies equally well to all those belonging to the same class. Delegability Garcia v. Executive Secretary Synopsis There was an Executive Order imposing an additional 5% ad valorem tax to all articles imported to the Philippines. The rule that revenue bills must originate from the House of

Page 26 of 36

Representatives under the Originating Clause does not prevent Congress from exercising this delegable authority even if it involves the authority to create revenue measures. Tax Exemptions Corollary to the power to tax is the power to exempt from taxation. This is another limit on the power to tax. The provision provides that charitable institutions, churches and personages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and improvements, actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable, or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation. Section 29 (1) No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law. (2) No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, other religious teacher, or dignitary as such, except when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium. (3) All money collected on any tax levied for a special purpose shall be treated as a special fund and paid out for such purpose only. If the purpose for which a special fund was created has been fulfilled or abandoned, the balance, if any, shall be transferred to the general funds of the Government. Expenditure of Public Funds Congress is the guardian of the public treasury. The power of the purse comprehends both the power to generate money for the government by taxation and the power to spend it. Congress alone can authorize the expenditure of public funds with its power of appropriation. Public money cannot be paid to a religious person if they are paid as religious persons, and not if they are fulfilling another capacity. Guingona v. Carague Synopsis The case is about the constitutionality of the automatic appropriation for debt service. The Court found that the Origination Clause only referred to bills still to be passed by Congress and that the questioned laws were complete in their essential terms and the sufficient standards are indicated therein. After Congress makes the appropriation, it is the Executive that actually spends the fund. Special Fund

Osmeña v, Orbos Synopsis The question is whether or not the money that went into the OPSF was tax money levied for a special purpose. As set up by the law it was a “trust fund” which derived funding from the following sources: 1. from increase in the tax collection as a result of lifting tax exemptions from government corporations 2. from any increase in tax collection from ad valorem taxes on oil products 3. from peso savings from the fluctuation of the peso against currencies used for the importation of crude oil or petroleum products While the funds may be referred to as taxes, they are exacted in the exercise of the police powers of the state. The OPSF is a special fund. 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. Fabian v. Desierto Fabian claims that according to Section 27 of RA 6770, appeals to decisions of the Ombudsman go directly to the Supreme Court. Agustin says that the bar on administrative case appeal based on the Ombudsman’s rules on procedure must be binding. Even though no party raised the issue, the SC ordered the parties to look into the constitutionality of Section 27 of RA 6770 as it increased the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court without its consent. Section 31 No law granting a title of royalty or nobility shall be enacted. 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. The current implementing law is RA 6735 which provides that to exercise the power of referendum, at least 10 percent of the registered voters, with at least 3 percent of all the voters per legislative district, shall sign a petition for the purpose and register the same petition with the COMELEC. It should provide the context or text of the proposed law, the proposition, the reason or reasons therefore, that it is not an

Page 27 of 36

exception as provided, the signatures of the voters, and an abstract of less than 100 words printed on top of every page of the petition. Within 30 days from receipt of the petition, the COMELEC shall publish the petition in both English and Filipino at least twice in newspapers of general circulation and set the date of the election between forty five and ninety days from the determination by the COMELEC of the sufficiency of the petition. The COMELEC shall set a special registration day three weeks before the election. If approved by a majority of the votes cast, the law becomes effective fifteen days following the completion of publication of the proposition and certification by the Commission in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines. A national or local initiative proposition approved by a majority of the votes cast becomes effective fifteen days after its proclamation by the Constitution. The one subject one title rule still applies to these laws. Statutes involving emergency measures cannot be subject to referendum until ninety days after effectivity. Article VII The Executive Department Section 1 The executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines. Executive Power The conviction that permeated the 1986 ConCom was that Marcos had taxed the executive power beyond its allowable limits. However, the power that emerges from this text is still potent because the primary source of presidential power, the national vote, still exists. Marcos v. Manglapus Synopsis The existence of “residual powers” not specified in the Constitution allowed President Aquino to prevent Marcos from returning home. Executive power is more than the sum of specific powers so enumerated. Whatever power not lodged in the legislative or the judiciary is executive. According to Fr. Bernas, the doctrine enunciated in these two resolutions will be regretted when another Marcos emerges as President. Ceremonial Functions The long catalogue of public duties that the Queen discharges in England, the President of the Republic of France, and the Governor General of Canada are the President’s responsibilities in this country.

Immunity from Suit There is no provision clothing the President with immunity from suit during his tenure. This immunity only refers to suits that may arise out of the performance of his duties. The President may be charged with criminal acts during his tenure (Estrada v. Desierto) and with civil suits not arising from the exercise of his duties after his tenure (Clinton v. Jones). Soliven v. Makasiar Doctrine The rationale for the grant of presidential immunity is to assure the exercise of his duties free from hindrance or distraction. This privilege pertains only to the President. There is also nothing in our laws that prevents the President from waiving that right and submitting himself to the Court’s jurisdiction. Clinton v. Jones Synopsis The trial on the merits was postponed until after the tenure of Clinton, as this was a civil suit for damages. Estrada v. Desierto Doctrine The non-termination of the impeachment of a President whose tenure has ended should not serve as a bar for prosecution. The decision implies that a sitting President does not have any immunity from suit for non-official acts or for wrongdoing. Section 2 No person may be elected President unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, able to read and write, at least forty years of age on the day of the election, and a resident of the Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding such election. One must be a registered voter, able to read and write, at least forty years old on the day of the election, and a resident of the Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding the election. It is enough that the candidate is domiciled anywhere in the Philippines. Section 3 There shall be a Vice-President who shall have the same qualifications and term of office and be elected with, and in the same manner, as the President. He may be removed from office in the same manner as the President. The Vice-President may be appointed as a Member of the Cabinet. Such appointment requires no confirmation. The Vice President is a President in reserve. Attempts to give him another constitutional function failed

Page 28 of 36

because it was seen as either encroaching on the indpendence of the Senate (as Senate President in the United States) or below his office. Unless he is appointed as a member of the Cabinet or is given some other executive funvtion, he has no other function than to be prepared to assume the Presidency in case a vacancy in the office arises. He must have the same qualifications as President. He may also be removed from office in the same manner as the President. In deference to his office, any appointment given to him need not pass through the Commission on Appointments. Section 4 The President and the Vice-President shall be elected by direct vote of the people for a term of six years which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following the day of the election and shall end at noon of the same date, six years thereafter. The President shall not be eligible for any re-election. No person who has succeeded as President and has served as such for more than four years shall be qualified for election to the same office at any time. No Vice-President shall serve for more than two successive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of the service for the full term for which he was elected. Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election for President and Vice-President shall be held on the second Monday of May. The returns of every election for President and Vice-President, duly certified by the board of canvassers of each province or city, shall be transmitted to the Congress, directed to the President of the Senate. Upon receipt of the certificates of canvass, the President of the Senate shall, not later than thirty days after the day of the election, open all the certificates in the presence of the Senate and the House of Representatives in joint public session, and the Congress, upon determination of the authenticity and due execution thereof in the manner provided by law, canvass the votes. The person having the highest number of votes shall be proclaimed elected, but in case two or more shall have an equal and highest number of votes, one of them shall forthwith be chosen by the vote of a majority of all the Members of both Houses of the Congress, voting separately. The Congress shall promulgate its rules for the canvassing of the certificates. The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns,

and qualifications of the President or Vice-President, and may promulgate its rules for the purpose. The fixing of the exact time and date for the start and end of the term excludes the right to hold over in case there is a vacancy in the next Presidency. On June 30th, 2004 either a newly elected President takes over (since Gloria said she’s not running, I have to take her word for it) or Section 7 becomes operative. A President is limited to only one term, the Vice President may not serve for more than two consecutive terms. A voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of the Vice President’s service. Moreover, if the Vice President succeeds the President and serves for less than four years, she may run for President as it would not constitute a re-election. Congress merely acts as a national board of canvassers charged with the ministerial and executive duty to make the declaration on the basis of the duly certified election returns. This duty does not impose on Congress the power to determine whether or not the returns were irregularly made or tampered with. The extent to which Congress as a canvassing body may determine authenticity and due execution must only be in the manner provided by law. A tie in the count is broken by a vote of majority of all the members of both Houses of Congress, voting separately. The Supreme Court is the sole Electoral Tribunal for electoral contests involving the President and Vice President. Section 5 Before they enter on the execution of their office, the President, the Vice-President, or the Acting President shall take the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear [or affirm] that I will faithfully and conscientiously fulfill my duties as President [or Vice-President or Acting President] of the Philippines, preserve and defend its Constitution, execute its laws, do justice to every man, and consecrate myself to the service of the Nation. So help me God." [In case of affirmation, last sentence will be omitted]. Section 6 The President shall have an official residence. The salaries of the President and Vice-President shall be determined by law and shall not be decreased during their tenure. No increase in said compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of the term of the incumbent during which such increase was approved. They shall not receive during their tenure any other emolument from the Government or any other source. Section 7

Page 29 of 36

The President-elect and the Vice President-elect shall assume office at the beginning of their terms. If the President-elect fails to qualify, the Vice President-elect shall act as President until the President-elect shall have qualified. If a President shall not have been chosen, the Vice President-elect shall act as President until a President shall have been chosen and qualified. If at the beginning of the term of the President, the President-elect shall have died or shall have become permanently disabled, the Vice President-elect shall become President. Where no President and Vice-President shall have been chosen or shall have qualified, or where both shall have died or become permanently disabled, the President of the Senate or, in case of his inability, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, shall act as President until a President or a Vice-President shall have been chosen and qualified. The Congress shall, by law, provide for the manner in which one who is to act as President shall be selected until a President or a Vice-President shall have qualified, in case of death, permanent disability, or inability of the officials mentioned in the next preceding paragraph. Section 8 In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of the President, the Vice-President shall become the President to serve the unexpired term. In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of both the President and Vice-President, the President of the Senate or, in case of his inability, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, shall then act as President until the President or Vice-President shall have been elected and qualified. The Congress shall, by law, provide who shall serve as President in case of death, permanent disability, or resignation of the Acting President. He shall serve until the President or the Vice-President shall have been elected and qualified, and be subject to the same restrictions of powers and disqualifications as the Acting President. There are two sets of rules for determining who is President in case of a vacancy. The first set of rules (Sec. 7) applies to when the vacancy occurs at the start of the term, and the second set (Sec. 8) applies to when the vacancy occurs in the middle of the term. Estrada v. Arroyo Three justices accepted some form of resignation, two justices saw permanent disability, three justices accepted the Arroyo presidency as an irreversible fact. Five justices signed the decision without any

opinion, there was one dissent, and two abstained. There is no clear doctrine from this case. Section 9 Whenever there is a vacancy in the Office of the Vice-President during the term for which he was elected, the President shall nominate a Vice-President from among the Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives who shall assume office upon confirmation by a majority vote of all the Members of both Houses of the Congress, voting separately. Also known in my contemporary history as the Guingona rule, him being the first person to assume the Vice-Presidency in this manner. Section 10 The Congress shall, at ten o'clock in the morning of the third day after the vacancy in the offices of the President and Vice-President occurs, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call and within seven days, enact a law calling for a special election to elect a President and a Vice-President to be held not earlier than forty-five days nor later than sixty days from the time of such call. The bill calling such special election shall be deemed certified under paragraph 2, Section 26, Article V1 of this Constitution and shall become law upon its approval on third reading by the Congress. Appropriations for the special election shall be charged against any current appropriations and shall be exempt from the requirements of paragraph 4, Section 25, Article V1 of this Constitution. The convening of the Congress cannot be suspended nor the special election postponed. No special election shall be called if the vacancy occurs within eighteen months before the date of the next presidential election. Subject to Section 8. Section 11 Whenever the President transmits to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice-President as Acting President. Whenever a majority of all the Members of the Cabinet transmit to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice-President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that

Page 30 of 36

no inability exists, he shall reassume the powers and duties of his office. Meanwhile, should a majority of all the Members of the Cabinet transmit within five days to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Congress shall decide the issue. For that purpose, the Congress shall convene, if it is not in session, within forty-eight hours, in accordance with its rules and without need of call. If the Congress, within ten days after receipt of the last written declaration, or, if not in session, within twelve days after it is required to assemble, determines by a two-thirds vote of both Houses, voting separately, that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice-President shall act as President; otherwise, the President shall continue exercising the powers and duties of his office. Estrada v. Arroyo Estrada made a statement of inability and gave this to the Senate and House of Representatives. Unaware of the letter Arroyo took her oath as President, both Houses declared their support for Arroyo, the Senate declared the impeachment functus oficio, and Guingona was nominated and sworn in as the new Vice President.. The Court declared that this was not a case of temporary disability because in light of all that had happened, Estrada’s inability was no longer temporary. Because Congress already passed on the subject of Estrada’s inability to govern, it became a political question of the second type as enumerated in Baker v. Carr. Section 12 In case of serious illness of the President, the public shall be informed of the state of his health. The members of the Cabinet in charge of national security and foreign relations and the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, shall not be denied access to the President during such illness. This section refers to a serious illness that is not incapacitating. This guarantees the people’s right to know about the President’s health, contrary to secretive practice in totalitarian governments. Section 13 The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or employment during their tenure. They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any other profession, participate in any business, or be financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their

subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office. The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth civil degree of the President shall not, during his tenure, be appointed as Members of the Constitutional Commissions, or the Office of the Ombudsman, or as Secretaries, Undersecretaries, chairmen or heads of bureaus or offices, including government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries. Prohibitions The President, the Vice President, the members of the Cabinet, or their deputies or assistants are forbidden by the Constitution from holding any other office or employment during their tenure, with the exception of the Vice President who can serve as a member of the Cabinet. Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary Synopsis The CLU assailed EO 284 which allowed the Cabinet to hold more than two positions in the government and GOCC’s. The Court ruled that this Order went contrary to Section 13. Except for the Vice President, who may be appointed to the Cabinet, and the Secretary of Justice, who by ex officio membership is a member of the Judicial and Bar Council, the officials enumerated in Section 13 may not hold any other office, public or private. They may be given additional functions which are intimately related to their office. Rafael v. Embroidery and Apparel Control Board Doctrine We do not think that, because additional duties germane to the offices already held by them were devolved upon them by the Act, it was necessary that they should again be appointed by the President. It cannot be doubted that Congress may increase the power and duties of an existing office without thereby rendering it necessary that the incumbent should again be nominated and appointed. Erap and the PACC Since the appointment of Erap to the PACC, which is not a Cabinet rank office, was not challenged, this assumes that the prohibition on other offices is meant to prevent the enhancement of the powers of one who is already powerful or the distraction of one who is already too busy with his duties. The Vice President, by the nature of his job, is neither powerful nor busy. The provision on relatives up to the fourth civil degree to the positions of Members of the Constitutional Commiussions, the Office of the Ombudsman, or as Secretaries, Undersecretaries, chairmen or heads of bureaus or offices, including GOCC’s and their subsidiaries only applies to new appointments.

Page 31 of 36

Section 14 Appointments extended by an Acting President shall remain effective, unless revoked by the elected President, within ninety days from his assumption or reassumption of office. Section 15 Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointments, except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety. The prohibition here also applies to appointments to the judiciary. The provision in Article VIII which requires the President to make appointments to the judiciary within ninety days covers the period not covered by Article VII, Section 15 (In re: Appointment of Valenzuela). This Constitutional provision only applies to the President and does not extend to local executives (De la Rama v. Court of Appeals). Section 16 The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, or officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution. He shall also appoint all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, and those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint. The Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of other officers lower in rank in the President alone, in the courts, or in the heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards. The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of the Congress, whether voluntary or compulsory, but such appointments shall be effective only until disapproved by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the Congress. Appointment to office is an executive function. The filling up of that office is the implementation or execution of that law. Government v. Springer Doctrine Since the power to appoint is neither legislative nor judicial, it must be executive. Bermudez, et. al. v. Executive Secretary, et. al. Doctrine The provision in the Revised Administrative Code of 1987 to the effect that “all provincial and city prosecutors and their assistants shall be appointed by the President upon the recommendation of the

Secretary” cannot be read as requiring the President to seek the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice. The power to appoint is given to the President. The Secretary of Justice is under the control of the President. The law must be read as simply allowing the Secretary of Justice to advise the President. This should not be confused with the authority of the legislature to impose additional duties on existing offices. See Rafael v. Embroidery and Apparel Control Board. Ad Interim Appointments The second paragraph of this provision allows the President to make appointments while Congress is in recess, whether this be a voluntary or compulsory recessd. For a recess or ad-interim appointment to be effective, it does not have to wait for action by the Commission on Appointments. It becomes effective once it is delivered to and accepted by the appointee. There are two modes of terminating ad-interim appointments: disapproval by Congress and adjournment of Congress prior to the action of the Commission on the appointment. Matibag v. Benipayo Doctrine Benipayo is the lawful Chairman of the COMELEC because he assumed office in accordance with the Constitution. An ad interim appointment is permanenent in nature because it takes effect immediately and can no longer be withdrawn by the President once the appointee has qualified into office. The fact that it is subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments does not alter its permanent character. Commission on Appointments The restoration of the Commission on Appointments restores an executive limit on the appointing authority of the President removed by the 1973 Constitution. Sarmiento v. Mison Doctrine The appointment of the Bureau of Customs director does not need the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments because this is not mentioned in the first sentence of Section 16, This has come to be known as the Mison doctrine. Bautista v. Salonga Ruling The appointment of the Chairman of the Commision on Human Rights likewise does not need confirmation of the Commission on Appointments following the Mison doctrine.

Page 32 of 36

Quintos-Deles v. COA Doctrine However, sectoral representatives need the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments because it falls under the clause “and other officers whose appointments are vested in him under the Constitution.” Calderon v. Carale Doctrine The Constitutional Commission radically narrowed the scope of the constitutional power of the Commission on Appointments and reversed the scope of the authority of the Commission under the 1935 Constitution. This is the basis for the ruling in this case where the Court said that Congress may not expand the list of positions that require the approval of the Commission on Appointments. Tarroza v. Singson Doctrine The position of Central Bank Governor likewise falls under the Mison Doctrine. Appointment of Police Generals Manalo v. Sistoza Doctrine The officers referred to in Section 16 are officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. Police generals are civilian officers because of Article XVI, Section 6 which characterizes police generals as civilian officers. Thus the Court invalidated a provision in the PNP Law which required police generals to be confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. Section 17 The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. Power of General Supervision and Power of Control The President has the power of general supervision over local government and the power of control over the executive branch, as well as GOCCs. The meaning of this provision may be found in jurisprudence from the 1935 Constitution. The President does not have the power of control over local governments. The power of control is the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter. The President is expected to delegate some of his powers of control to members of the Cabinet.. Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency

The acts of the Department Secretaries are the aots of the President unless the President says otherwise. Blaquera v. Alcasid Doctrine The President issued the order to regulate the grant of productivity incentive benefits and to prevent discontentment, dissatisfaction, and demoralization among government personnel by committing limited resources of government for the equal payment of incentives and awards. The President was only exercising his power of control. The power to grant incentives was not the duty of the Civil Service Commission but that of the President. De Leon v. Carpio Doctrine The Director of the NBI cannot ignore an order of the Secretary of Justice because, as the alter-ego of the President, he has power of control over executive officials. The NBI director must obey. Lacson-Magallanes Co. v. Pano Doctrine Executive Secretary Juan Pajo issued ruling for Pano and company under the authority of the President, overturning the Director of Lands, and Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Doctrine of Exhaustive Administrative Remedies Unless your case reaches the Department Secretary, and you do not hear from the President, you can't bring your case to court. Ang-Angco v. Castillo Synopsis Ang-Angco was Collector of Customs. After an investigation conducted by the Office of the President, he was found “guilty” of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and was “considered resigned” effective from the date of the notice. The Court had to resolve the power of control against the security of tenure that flows from the Civil Service Law. The Court held that this was an exercise of disciplinary power, which flows from the power to appoint. It said, in an obiter, that the Executive could use the Civil Service Law to exercise its disciplinary power. Dadole v. COA Synopsis Local government of Mandaue issued allowance for judges of Mandaue. Denied by DBM. This is an exercise of the power of control and makes the order invalid.

Page 33 of 36

NAMARCO v. Arca Synopsis Although NAMARCO is a GOCC, and because it is a GOCC, it falls under the Executive, and the Executive has power of control. A mistake in judgment can be reversed but cannot be a ground for disciplinary action. Faithful Execution Clause The second sentence of Section 17 is the Faithful Execution Clause, The faithful execution of laws, according to the Neagle case in American jurisprudence, includes not just the formal acts of legislature but any duty or obligation inferable from the Constitution and from statutes. The flip side of the coin is the duty to carry the law out. The President cannot refuse to carry out a law because in his judgment it will not be beneficial to the people. Section 18 The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it. The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call. The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing. A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in, or directly connected with, invasion. During the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released. Supremacy of Civilian Authority. The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. However, his being the Commander-in-Chief doesn't make him a member of the Armed Forces. This is a concrete example of the supremacy of civilian authority. There are three military powers that the President may call upon in times of national crisis: Call out the Armed Forces The President may call out the Armed Forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion, or rebellion. The Constitution provides that the President may call out the Armed Forces "whenever it becomes necessary." Unlike his power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and his power to declare Martial Law, the power to call out the Armed Forces is not subject to judicial review. The authority to decide whether the state of exigency exists rests solely on the President, and his conclusion is binding. A question regarding the calling out of the Armed Forces is justiciable only when it can be shown that the President acted with grave abuse of discretion leading to a lack or excess of jurisdiction. Lacson v. Secretary Perez Facts President Arroyo's decision to declare Metro Manila under a "state of rebellion" is violative of the doctrine of separation of powers, since the judiciary has the prerogative to determine or interpret EDSA III. This declaration cannot be an exception to the rule. Held The CINC may call out the armed forces when necessary. In IBP v. Zamora (131 SCAD 800), the factual necessity for calling out the Armed Forces is something only the President can decide. The Court may look into the sufficiency of the factual basis on the basis of its power to determine grave abuse of discretion. Suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus Habeas Corpus is an instrument for immediate release. There must be a reason for your detention.

Page 34 of 36

The writ of habeas corpus always issues. It is the privilege of the writ that is suspended. The suspension applies only to those charged with rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion. Any person thus detained should be judicially charged within three days. Without this charge, he will be set free. Martial Law Martial law can only be declared in cases of invasion or rebellion, and when the public safety requires it. These are the same grounds for the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Normally, police power is exercised by the legislative and implemented by the executive. Under Martial Law, police power is exercised by the executive with the aid of the military in place of "certain governmental agencies which for the time being are unable to cope with existing conditions in a locality which remains subject to the sovereignty." Two factual bases must exist before Martial Law can be declared: 1. Existence of actual invasion or rebellion 2. Public safety requires it. This public necessity under which martial law is declared creates the vagueness under which we understand martial law. Conclusions of the Marcos Supreme Court about Martial Law (Gumaua v. Espino, 96 SCRA 403) 1. Martial law automatically suspends the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. 2. The President, as enforcer or administer of martial law, can promulgate proclamations, orders, and decrees during the period of martial law. 3. The President, as legislator, can create military tribunals to try civilian offenders for particular offenses. Note: These views are now obsolete. Safeguards under the 1987 Constitution Time limit of 60 days In cases of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspe d the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. For an extension, President must ask Congress, extension determined by Congress. Automatic review by Congress Within 48 hours of the proclamation, the President, in writing or in person, shall submit to Congress a report. A vote of at least majority of all its members, voting

jointly (makes the whole thing easier) is required to revoke Martial Law. If Congress is not in session, it shall convene after 24 hours accprding to its rules without need of a call. Possible nullification by the Supreme Court The SC may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ. Decision within thirty days from filing. Martial Law as Political Question Since the issue whether the declaration of martial law is a political question is settled by this Constitution (it's not, and the SC has to decide within 30 days from the date of filing), the Court may judicially review the proclamation of martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Section 19 Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this Constitution, the President may grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment. He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress. Ezecutive Clemency The President may grant reprieves, commutations, or pardons. He may also remit fines and forfeitures after conviction of final judgment. Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice Synopsis Part of the power of the Courts is to control the execution of their judgment. This control does not infringe upon the power of the Executive to grant clemency. Limitations on Power This power is withheld if the President is being impeached. A grant of amnesty needs the concurrence of a majority of all the members of Congress. This power needs to go through the COMELEC for election violations. Amnesty He may also grant amnesty only with the concurrence of a majority of all the members of Congress. An accused must confess guilt of the crime before availing of amnesty as a defense (Vera v. People, 7 SCRA 152) Purpose of Executive Clemency Tacit admission of the imperfection of human institutions and that there are infirmities in the administration of justice. It is an instrument for

Page 35 of 36

correcting harshness out of a too strict application of the law. Forms of Executive Clemency • Reprieves -- postpones the execution of an offense to a day certain (People v. Vera, 65 Phil. 56, 110) • Commutations -- is a remission of a part of the punishment; a substitution of a less penalty than the one imposed (People v. Vera, 65 Phil. 111) • Pardons -- defined as ''an act of grace, proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of laws, which exempts the individual on whom it is bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed. It is the private, though official act of the executive magistrate, delivered to the individual forwhose benefit it is intended and not communicated officially to the Court." (United States v. Wilson, 7 Pet. 150) • Remittance of fines and forfeitures -- only refers to confiscated property; does not refer to property vested in third parties or money in the public treasury. • Amnesty -- given to political prisoners; abolishes the crime. Can only be given with the concurrence of Congress. Conviction is not required to obtain the benefits of amnesty. When amnesty is granted, a commission is created. When you avail of amnesty, you imply guilt. Extension to Administrative Penalties The Constitution does not distinguish and makes no limitation with regard to the pardoning power except when the President is impeached. (Llamas v. Orbos, G. R. No. 99031) Absolute Pardon and Conditional Pardon There is a distinction between absolute pardon and conditional pardon. With conditional pardon, the condition may be more onerous than the original punishment so you can refuse the conditional pardon (Cabantag v. Wolfe, 6 Phil. 273). You cannot refuse an absolute pardon. Pardon and Reinstatement One who has been given absolute pardon has no demandable right to reinstatement (Monsanto v. Factoran. Jr., G. R. No. 78239), but if he is reinstated, and there are no circumstances that warrant the diminuition of rank, then the person should be restored to full rank (Sabello v. Department of Education, G. R. 87687). However, if a pardon is given because one is innocent (as in a purely administrative pardon), there should be back wages and reinstatement (Garcia v. Commission on Audit, 226 SCRA 356). Pardon and Appeal Pardon has no effect until the withdrawal of the appeal, allowing for the finality of the conviction (People v. Salle, 66 SCAD 190)

Prisoners and Amnesty The proper remedy for prisoners covered under an amnesty is to submit his case to the proper amnesty board, not file a petition for habeas corpus (De Vera v. Animas, L-48176) Pardon vs. Amnesty Pardon is granted by the Chief Executive and as such it is a private act which must be pleaded and proved by the person pardoned, because the courts take no notice thereof; while amnesty by Proclamation of the Chief Executive with the concurrence of Congress, is a public act which the courts should take judicial notice. Pardon is granted to one after conviction, while amnesty is granted to classes of persons or communities who may be guilty of political offense, generally before or after the institution of criminal prosecution and sometimes after conviction (Barrioquinto v. Fernandez, 85 Phil. 642) Tax Amnesty The President cannot grant tax amnesty without the concurrence of Congress. Section 20 The President may contract or guarantee foreign loans on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines with the prior concurrence of the Monetary Board, and subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. The Monetary Board shall, within thirty days from the end of every quarter of the calendar year, submit to the Congress a complete report of its decision on applications for loans to be contracted or guaranteed by the Government or government-owned and controlled corporations which would have the effect of increasing the foreign debt, and containing other matters as may be provided by law. Foreign Loans The President may contract or guarantee foreign loans with the prior concurrence of the Monetary Board. The MB is to report to Congress within 30 days from the end of every quarter of the calendar year. Congress cannot pass a law requiring the President to submit all loan applications to Congress alone for approval. Congress may not use the power given to the Monetary Board. Section 21 No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate. Foreign Relations The President has the following foreign relations powers (including but not limited to): • Power to negotiate treaties and other international agreements

Page 36 of 36

• Power to appoint ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls • Power to receive ambassadors and other public ministers accredited to the Philippines • Power to contract and guarantee foreign loans on behalf of the Republic (see previous article) • Power to deport aliens Treaties Treaties do not become binding without ratification by two-thirds of all the members of the Senate. In the extradition treaty we have with the United States, "An extradition proceeding is not a criminal proceeding." Therefore the due process safeguards do not apply (Secretary of Justice v. Lantion, 110 SCAD 138). If there is a conflict between a treaty and a statute. A treaty though parallel with a statute, is both municipal law and international law. If you are litigating in a domestic court, the later law applies. The one that goes ahead becomes void. Only the domestic character of the treaty is repealed. In International Law, the municipal law has no force. In some jurisdictions, International Law is superior, but not here. Less formal treaties: Host Agreements Less formal types of treaties may be entered into without ratification by the Senate (USAFFE Veterans Association, Inc. v. Treasurer of the Philippines, 105 Phil. 1030). A Host Agreement falls into this category (WHO v, Aquino, 28 SCRA 242) Qualifier In general, if an agreement is permanent and original (it creates new national policy) it requires a treaty and consequently, Senate ratification. If it is an implementation of an existing treaty, it does not need ratification. This is because that agreement is administrative in character. New treaty signed to not bring anyone from the United States Military before the International Criminal Court. The United States has not ratified the treaty creating the ICC. You can force the issue with the ICC if your judiciary does nothing. We have ratified it in the Senate. We have not deposited it in the United Nations, so it is not effective with respect to the Philippines yet. For Fr. Bernas, It is an extension of the VFA, and it does not need any ratification. The negotiation of treaties is a purely administrative act. Power to Deport Aliens

The President has the power to deport aliens. The power is lodged with him. Section 22 The President shall submit to the Congress, within thirty days from the opening of every regular session as the basis of the general appropriations bill, a budget of expenditures and sources of financing, including receipts from existing and proposed revenue measures. Budget of Receipts & Expenditures Prepared by the DBM, and is the source of the General Appropriations Act. Congress may not increase the allocation for the Executive Department. Section 23 The President shall address the Congress at the opening of its regular session. He may also appear before it at any other time. SONA SONA given at the start of the regular session of Congress. The President may appear before Congress at any other time.