consti law special class

7/25/2019 Consti Law Special Class

1/94

4. DISQUALIFICATIONS

INCOMPATIBLE OFFICES (1STSENTENCE)

FORBIDDEN OFFICES (2NDSENTENCE)

ARTICLE VI. 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 theirsubsidiaries, 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.

5. ELECTORAL TRIBUNALS

ARTICLE VI.Section 17.he Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an !lectoral ribunal which shall be the sole "udge of

all contests relating to the election, returns, and #ualifications of their respective Members. !ach !lectoral ribunal shall be composed of nine

Members, three of whom shall be $ustices of the Supreme %ourt to be designated by the %hief $ustice, and the remaining si& 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 organi'ations registered under the party-list system represented therein. he senior $ustice in the !lectoral

ribunal shall be its %hairman.

CASE: BONDOC VS PINEDA, GR NO. 9771, SEPT 2!, 1991

EN BANC

G.R. N". 9771 S#$%#&'# 2!, 1991

DR. EMIGDIO A. BONDOC, petitioner,vs.REPRESENTATIVES MARCIANO M. PINEDA, MAGDALENO M. PALACOL, COL. UANITO G. CAMASURA, R.," *+ "%-# #$##+%*%/0# -" &* '# *$$"/+%# 0/3# #$##+%*%/0# *+/%* G. C*&**, ., *+TE OUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, respondents.

GRIO6AQUIO,J.:pThis case involves a question of power. May the House of Representatives, at the request of the doinant politicalparty therein, chan!e that party"s representation in the House Electoral Tri#unal to thwart the proul!ation of adecision freely reached #y the tri#unal in an election contest pendin! therein$ May the %upree Court review andannul that action of the House$

Even the %upree Court of the &nited %tates over a century a!o, in Marbury vs. Madison, ' (. ed. )* +-*/, hadhesitated to e#ar0 upon a le!al investi!ation of the acts of the other two #ranches of the 1overnent, 2ndin! it3peculiarly ir0soe as well as delicate3 #ecause it could #e considered #y soe as 3an attept to intrude3 into thea4airs of the other two and to intereddle with their prero!atives.

5n the past, the %upree Court, as head of the third and wea0est #ranch of our 1overnent, was all too willin! toavoid a political confrontation with the other two #ranches #y #uryin! its head ostrich6li0e in the sands of the3political question3 doctrine, the accepted eanin! of which is that "where the atter involved is left to a decision#y the people actin! in their soverei!n capacity or to the sole deterination #y either or #oth the le!islative or

e7ecutive #ranch of the !overnent, it is #eyond 8udicial co!ni9ance. Thus it was that in suits where the partyproceeded a!ainst was either the :resident or Con!ress, or any of its #ranches for that atter, the courts refusedto act.3 +Aquino vs. :once Enrile, ;< %CRA -,


2/94

le!ality of le!islative or e7ecutive action when a 8usticia#le controversy is #rou!ht #efore the courts #y soeonewho has #een a!!rieved or pre8udiced #y such action, as in this case. 5t is ?

a plain e7ercise of the 8udicial power, that power vested in courts to ena#le the to adinister8ustice accordin! to law. ... 5t is siply a necessary concoitant of the power to hear and dispose ofa case or controversy properly #efore the court, to the deterination of which ust #e #rou!ht thetest and easure of the law. +=era vs. Avelino, >> :hil. ** votes

Ei!dio A. Bondoc..................... '-,** votes

@i4erence...................................... ,** votes

Dn May


3/94

ustices Herrera, Cru9, and eliciano proptly apprised the Chief ustice and Associate ustices of the %upreeCourt in writin!, of this 3distressin! developent" and as0ed to #e relieved fro their assi!nents in the HRET#ecause ?

By the a#ove action +of the House/ the proul!ation of the decision of the Tri#unal in the electoralprotest entitled "ondoc v. !ineda" +HRET Case No. ';/, previously scheduled for March >>6>- proul!ated ' %epte#er


4/94

The Tri#unal further Noted that Con!ressan Cerilles also anifested his intention to resi!n as ae#er of the Tri#unal.

The Tri#unal further Noted that Con!ressen Aquino, :once de (eon, 1arcia, r., and Calin!asanalso anifested a siilar intention. +p. >, Rollo./

Dn March


5/94

not question any act or order of the HRET in violation of his ri!hts. Khat he assails is the act of the House ofRepresentatives of withdrawin! the noination, and rescindin! the election, of Con!ressan uanita nitoCaasura as a e#er of the HRET. 18

Replyin! to the %olicitor 1eneral"s Manifestation, the petitioner ar!ued that while the Tri#unal indeed had nothin!to do with the assailed decision of the House of Representatives, it ac0nowled!ed that decision #y cancellin! theproul!ation of its decision in HRET Case No. '; to his +Bondoc"s/ pre8udice. 14Hence, althou!h the Tri#unal aynot #e an indispensa#le party, it is a necessary party to the suit, to assure that coplete relief is accorded to thepetitioner for 3in the ultiate, the Tri#unal would have to ac0nowled!e, !ive reco!nition, and ipleent the%upree Court"s decision as to whether the relief of respondent Con!ressan Caasura fro the DIce of theElectoral Tri#unal is valid.3 15

5n his reply to Con!ressan :alacol"s Coent, the petitioner e7plained that Con!ressan :alacol was ipleadedas one of the respondents in this case #ecause after the House of Representatives had announced the terinationof Con!ressan Caasura"s e#ership in the HETH several newspapers of !eneral circulation reported that theHouse of Representatives would noinate and elect Con!ressan :alacol to ta0e Con!ressan Caasura"s seat inthe Tri#unal. 1!

Now, is the House of Representatives epowered #y the Constitution to do that, i.e., to interfere with thedisposition of an election contest in the House Electoral Tri#unal throu!h the ruse of 3reor!ani9in!3 therepresentation in the tri#unal of the a8ority party$

%ection >, Article =5 of the Constitution supplies the answer to that question. 5t provides

%ection >. The %enate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tri#unalwhich shall #e the sole 8ud!e of all contests relatin! to the election, returns and quali2cations oftheir respective e#ers, Each Electoral Tri#unal shall #e coposed of nine Me#ers, three ofwho shall #e ustices of the %upree Court to #e desi!nated #y the Chief ustice, and thereainin! si7 shall #e Me#ers of the %enate or House of Representatives, as the case ay #e,who shall #e chosen on the #asis of proportional representation fro the political parties and theparties or or!ani9ations re!istered under the party list syste represented therein. The senior

ustice in the Electoral Tri#unal shall #e its Chairan.

%ection > reechoes %ection , Article =5 of the


6/94

within the liits of its authority, an independent or!an while coposed of a a8ority of e#ersof the le!islature it is a #ody separate fro and independent of the le!islature.

777 777 777

The Electoral Coission, a constitutional or!an created for the speci2c purpose of deterinin!contests relatin! to election returns and quali2cations of e#ers of the National Asse#ly maynot be interfered with by the )udiciary when and while actin! within the liits of its authority, #utthe %upree Court has 8urisdiction over the Electoral Coission for the purpose of deterinin!the character, scope and e7tent of the constitutional !rant to the coission as sole 8ud!e of allcontests relatin! to the election and quali2cations of the e#ers of the National Asse#ly.

+An!ara vs. Electoral Coission, ) :hil. :hil.


7/94

electoral tri#unals, considerin! that politicians still sit in the tri#unals in spite of thefact that in the rulin! in the case of anidad vs. 0era, enate Electoraltri#unalCase No. , they are supposed to act in accordance with law and 8ustice withcoplete detachent fro an political considerations. That is why 5 a as0in! nowfor the record how we could achieve such detachent when there are si7politicians sittin! there.

MR. AC&NA. The sae reason that the 1entlean, while chosen on #ehalf of theopposition, has, with sterlin! copetence, shown independence in the proceedin!sof this Coission. 5 thin0 we can also trust that the e#ers of the tri#unals will#e independent. +pp. 6', ournal, Tuesday, uly '', /.


8/94

%ince the e7pulsion of Con!ressan Caasura fro the House Electoral Tri#unal #y the House of Representativeswas not for a lawful and valid cause, #ut to un8ustly interfere with the tri#unal"s disposition of the Bondoc case andto deprive Bondoc of the fruits of the Tri#unal"s decision in his favor, the action of the House of Representatives isclearly violative of the constitutional andate +%ec. >, Art. =5, Constitution/ which created the HouseElectoral Tri#unal to #e the 3sole 8ud!e3 of the election contest #etween :ineda and Bondoc. Ke, therefore, declarenull and void the resolution dated March ,


9/94

the Citi4enshi# 1etention and 1e5ac(uisition ct of 677+, naely +/ to ta0e an oath of alle!iance to the Repu#licof the :hilippines and +'/ to a0e a personal and sworn renunciation of her Aerican citi9enship #efore any pu#licoIcer authori9ed to adinister an oath. 5n addition, the CDME(EC irst @ivision ruled that she did not have theone6year residency requireent under %ection ), Article =5 of the Constitution. Thus, she is ineli!i#le to runfor the position of Representative for the lone district of Marinduque.

Not a!reein! with the Resolution of the CDME(EC irst @ivision, petitioner 2led a Motion for Reconsiderationon -April '* claiin! that she is a natural6#orn ilipino citi9en and that she has not lost such status #y siplyo#tainin! and usin! an Aerican passport. Additionally, petitioner surised that the CDME(EC irst @ivision reliedon the fact of her arria!e to an Aerican citi9en in concludin! that she is a naturali9ed Aerican citi9en.

:etitioner averred, however, that such arria!e only resulted into dual citi9enship, thus there is no need for her toful2ll the twin requireents under R.A. No. , Article =5 of the Constitution, the HRET has the e7clusive 8urisdiction to #e the Qsole

8ud!e of all contests relatin! to the election, returns and quali2cations of the Me#ers of the House ofRepresentatives.

Contrary to petitionerSs clai, however, the CDME(EC retains 8urisdiction for the followin!reasonscralavvonlinelawli#rary


10/94

8irst, the HRET does not acquire 8urisdiction over the issue of petitionerSs quali2cations, as well as over the assailedCDME(EC Resolutions, unless a petition is duly 2led with said tri#unal. :etitioner has not averred that she has 2ledsuch action.

econd, the 8urisdiction of the HRET #e!ins only after the candidate is considered a Me#er of the House ofRepresentatives, as stated in %ection >, Article =5 of the Constitutioncralavvonlinelawli#rary

%ection >. The %enate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tri#unal which shall #e thesole 8ud!e of all contests relatin! to the election, returns, and quali2cations of their respective M#&'#. 7 7 7

As held in Marcos v. C9ME$EC,'the HRET does not have 8urisdiction over a candidate who is not a e#er of theHouse of Representatives, to witcralavvonlinelawli#rary

As to the House of Representatives Electoral Tri#unalSs supposed assuption of 8urisdiction over the issue ofpetitionerSs quali2cations after the May -,


11/94

Representatives #e!ins only Qat noon on the thirtieth day of June ne&t following their election.'-Thus, until suchtie, the CDME(EC retains 8urisdiction.

5n her attept to coply with the second requireent, petitioner attached a purported 9ath 9f 9;ceta0en #eforeHon. eliciano Belonte r. on ; une '*. However, this is not the oath of oIce which confers e#ership to theHouse of Representatives.

%ection ), Rule 55 +Me#ership/ of the Rules of the House of Representatives providescralavvonlinelawli#rary

%ection ). Dath or AIration of Me#ers. U Me#ers shall ta0e their oath or aIration either collectively orindividually'#>"# %-# S$#*# /+ "$#+ #/"+.

Consequently, #efore there is a valid or oIcial ta0in! of the oath it ust #e ade +/ #efore the %pea0er of theHouse of Representatives, and +'/ in open session. Here, althou!h she ade the oath #efore %pea0er Belonte,there is no indication that it was ade durin! plenary or in open session and, thus, it reains unclear whether therequired oath of oIce was indeed coplied with.

More iportantly, we cannot disre!ard a fact #asic in this controversy U that #efore the proclaation of petitioneron - May '*, the CDME(EC En anchad already 2nally disposed of the issue of petitionerSs lac0 of ilipinociti9enship and residency via its Resolution dated May '*. After May '*, there was, #efore theCDME(EC, no lon!er any pendin! case on petitionerSs quali2cations to run for the position of Me#er of the Houseof Representative. Ke will ine7cusa#ly disre!ard this fact if we accept the ar!uent of the petitioner that theCDME(EC was ousted of 8urisdiction when she was proclaied, which was four days after the CDME(EC Enancdecision. The Board of Canvasser which proclaied petitioner cannot #y such act #e allowed to render

nu!atory a decision of the CDME(EC En Banc which aIred a decision of the CDME(EC irst @ivision.

5ndeed, the assailed Resolution of the CDME(EC irst @ivision which was proul!ated on '> March '*, and theassailed Resolution of the CDME(EC En anc which was proul!ated on May '*, #ecae 2nal and e7ecutoryon < May '* #ased on %ection , Rule > of the CDME(EC Rules of :rocedure whichprovidescralavvonlinelawli#rary

%ection . @ecisions inal after 2ve days. @ecisions in pre6proclaation cases and petitions to deny due course toor cancel certi2cates of candidacy, to declare nuisance candidate or to disqualify a candidate, and to postpone orsuspend elections shall #ecoe 2nal and e7ecutory after the lapse of 2ve +;/ days fro their proul!ation unlessrestrained #y the %upree Court.

To prevent the assailed Resolution dated May '* fro #ecoin! 2nal and e7ecutory, petitioner should haveavailed herself of %ection , Rule >' March '*when the irst @ivision rendered its resolution, petitioner had a period of 2ve +;/ onths to adduce evidence.&nfortunately, she did not avail herself of the opportunity !iven her.

Also, in adinistrative proceedin!s, procedural due process only requires that the party #e !iven the opportunityor ri!ht to #e heard. As held in the case of ahali v. C9ME$EC

The petitioners should #e reinded that due process does not necessarily ean or require a hearin!, #ut siply anopportunity or ri!ht to #e heard. Dne ay #e heard, not solely #y ver#al presentation #ut also, and perhaps anyties ore credita#ly and predicta#le than oral ar!uent, throu!h pleadin!s. 5n adinistrative proceedin!soreover, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied adinistrative process cannot #e fullyequated with due process in its strict 8udicial sense. 5ndeed, #$/0*%/"+ "> # $"3# 3*++"% '#


12/94

33#>== /+0"# -## * $*% * ?/0#+ %-# 3-*+3# %" '# -#* "+ -/ &"%/"+ >"#3"+/#*%/"+. +Em#hasis su##lied/

As to the rulin! that petitioner is ineli!i#le to run for oIce on the !round of citi9enship, the CDME(EC irst @ivision,discoursed as followscralavvonlinelawli#rary

Q7 7 7 for res#ondent to reac(uire her 8ili#ino citi4enshi# and become eligible for #ublic o;ce, the law requiresthat she ust have accoplished the followin! acts +/ ta0e the "*%- "> *==#?/*+3#to the Repu#lic of the:hilippines #efore the Consul61eneral of the :hilippine Consulate in the &%A and +'/ a0e a $#"+*= *+ "+#++3/*%/"+ "> -# A/3*+ 3/%/#+-/$#efore any pu#lic oIcer authori9ed to adinister an oath.

5n the case at #ar, there is no showin! that respondent coplied with the aforesaid requireents. Early on in theproceedin!, respondent haered on petitionerSs lac0 of proof re!ardin! her Aerican citi9enship, contendin!that it is petitionerSs #urden to present a case. %he, however, speci2cally denied that she has #ecoe either aperanent resident or naturali9ed citi9en of the &%A.

@ue to petitionerSs su#ission of newly6discovered evidence thru a Manifestation dated e#ruary >, '*,however, esta#lishin! the fact that res#ondent is a holder of an merican #ass#ort which she continues to useuntil June +7, 676, petitioner was a#le to su#stantiate his alle!ations. The #urden now shifts to respondent topresent su#stantial evidence to prove otherwise. This, the respondent utterly failed to do, leadin! to theconclusion inevita#le that respondent falsely isrepresented in her CDC that she is a natural6#orn ilipinociti9en. U+=# *+ +%/= -# 3*+ #%*'=/- %-*% -# -* *0*/=# "> %-# $/0/=#?# "> RA 9225 ''#3"&/+? * *= F/=/$/+"6A/3*+ 3/%/#+, *+ %-##*>%#, &*# * 0*=/ "+ #++3/*%/"+ "> -#A/3*+ 3/%/#+-/$, -# #&*/+ %" '# *+ A/3*+ 3/%/#+ *+ /, %-##>"#, /+#=/?/'=# %" + >" *+

-"= *+ #=#3%/0# $'=/3 "3# /+ %-# P-/=/$$/+#.'

+Em#hasis su##lied./

(et us loo0 into the events that led to this petition 5n ovin! for the cancellation of petitionerSs CDC, respondentsu#itted records of the Bureau of 5i!ration showin! that petitioner is a holder of a &% passport, and that herstatus is that of a Qbali:bayan. At this point, the #urden of proof shifted to petitioner, iposin! upon her the dutyto prove that she is a natural6#orn ilipino citi9en and has not lost the sae, or that she has re6acquired suchstatus in accordance with the provisions of R.A. No.


13/94

QThus, a ilipino citi9en who #ecoes naturali9ed elsewhere e4ectively a#andons his doicile of ori!in. U$"+ #6*3//%/"+ "> F/=/$/+" 3/%/#+-/$ $*+% %" RA 9225, -# &% %/== -" %-*% -# 3-"# %" #%*'=/--/ "&/3/=# /+ %-# P-/=/$$/+# %-"?- $"/%/0# *3%, *+ %-# $#/" "> -/ #/#+3 -*== '# 3"+%#>"& %-# %/ -# &*# /% -/ "&/3/=# "> 3-"/3#.

5n this case, there is no showin! whatsoever that VpetitionerW had already re6acquired her ilipino citi9enshippursuant to RA *3% *="+# / +"% 3/#+% %"$"0# -# "+#6#* #/#+3. F", $#%/%/"+# -* +#0# #?*/+# -# "&/3/=# /+ M*/+# * -##&*/+ %" '# *+ A/3*+ 3/%/#+. N" *&"+% "> -# %* /+ %-# */ ="3*=/% 3*+ '%/%%# %-# >*3%%-*% -# -* +"% *'*+"+# -# "&/3/=# "> 3-"/3# /+ %-# USA. >+Em#hasis su##lied./

All in all, considerin! that the petition for denial and cancellation of the CDC is suary in nature, the CDME(EC is!iven uch discretion in the evaluation and adission of evidence pursuant to its principal o#8ective ofdeterinin! of whether or not the CDC should #e cancelled. Ke held in Mastura v. C9ME$EC-

The rule that factual 2ndin!s of adinistrative #odies will not #e distur#ed #y courts of 8ustice e7cept when there isa#solutely no evidence or no su#stantial evidence in support of such 2ndin!s should #e applied with !reater forcewhen it concerns the CDME(EC, as the fraers of the Constitution intended to place the CDME(EC ? created and

e7plicitly ade independent #y the Constitution itself ? on a level hi!her than statutory adinistrative or!ans.The CDME(EC has #road powers to ascertain the true results of the election #y eans availa#le to it. or theattainent of that end, it is not strictly #ound #y the rules of evidence.

Tie and a!ain, Ke ephasi9e that the Q!rave a#use of discretion which warrants this CourtSs e7erciseof certiorari8urisdiction has a well6de2ned eanin!. 1uidance is found in eluso v. Commission onElections /3#%/"+ / *==#?# *+ $"0# %"#/%.31rave a#use of discretion,3 under Rule );, has a speci2c eanin!. 5t is the ar#itrary or despotic e7ercise ofpower due to passion, pre8udice or personal hostility or the whisical, ar#itrary, or capricious e7ercise of powerthat aounts to an evasion or refusal to perfor a positive duty en8oined #y law or to act at all in conteplation oflaw. F" *+ *3% %" '# %3 "+ * -*0/+? '##+ "+# /%- ?*0# *'# "> /3#%/"+, %-# *'# ">/3#%/"+ &% '# $*%#+% *+ ?".+Em#hasis su##lied./

Here, this Court 2nds that petitioner failed to adequately and su#stantially show that !rave a#use of discretione7ists.

(astly, anent the proposition of petitioner that the act of the CDME(EC in enforcin! the provisions of R.A. No.


14/94

CONGRESSMAN OVITO S. PALPARAN, R.,:etitioner,vs.OUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL (RET), DR. RENALDO LESACA, R., CRISTINAPALABA, RENATO M. REES, R., ERLINDA CADAPAN, ANTONIO FLORES *+ OSELITOUSTARE;,Respondents.

@ E C 5 % 5 D N

ABAD,J.:

These two cases are a#out the authority of the House of Representatives Electoral Tri#unal +HRET/ to pass upon theeli!i#ilities of the noinees of the party6list !roups that won seats in the lower house of Con!ress.

The acts and the Case

5n G.R. 194!!, petitioner @aryl 1race . A#ayon is the 2rst noinee of the Aan!at Tayo party6list or!ani9ationthat won a seat in the House of Representatives durin! the '**> elections.

Respondents :erfecto C. (uca#an, r., Ronyl %. @ela Cru9, and A!ustin C. @oro!a, all re!istered voters, 2led apetition for (uowarrantowith respondent HRET a!ainst Aan!at Tayo and its noinee, petitioner A#ayon, in HRETCase *>6*. They claied that Aan!at Tayo was not eli!i#le for a party6list seat in the House of Representatives,since it did not represent the ar!inali9ed and underrepresented sectors.

Respondent (uca#an and the others with hi further pointed out that petitioner A#ayon herself was not quali2edto sit in the House as a party6list noinee since she did not #elon! to the ar!inali9ed and underrepresentedsectors, she #ein! the wife of an incu#ent con!ressional district representative. %he oreover lost her #id asparty6list representative of the party6list or!ani9ation called An Karay in the iediately precedin! elections of

May *, '**.:etitioner A#ayon countered that the Coission on Elections +CDME(EC/ had already con2red the status ofAan!at Tayo as a national ulti6sectoral party6list or!ani9ation representin! the wor0ers, woen, youth, ur#anpoor, and elderly and that she #elon!ed to the woen sector. A#ayon also claied that althou!h she was thesecond noinee of An Karay party6list or!ani9ation durin! the '** elections, she could not #e re!arded as havin!lost a #id for an elective oIce.

inally, petitioner A#ayon pointed out that respondent HRET had no 8urisdiction over the petition for quo warrantosince respondent (uca#an and the others with hi collaterally attac0ed the re!istration of Aan!at Tayo as a party6list or!ani9ation, a atter that fell within the 8urisdiction of the CDME(EC. 5t was Aan!at Tayo that was ta0in! aseat in the House of Representatives, and not A#ayon who was 8ust its noinee. All questions involvin! hereli!i#ility as 2rst noinee, said A#ayon, were internal concerns of Aan!at Tayo.

Dn uly ), '**< respondent HRET issued an order, disissin! the petition as a!ainst Aan!at Tayo #ut upholdin! its8urisdiction over the quali2cations of petitioner A#ayon.The latter oved for reconsideration #ut the HRET denied

the sae on %epte#er >, '** elections for the e#ers of the House of Representatives. Respondents Reynaldo (esaca, r., Cristina:ala#ay, Renato M. Reyes, r., Erlinda Cadapan, Antonio lores, and oselito &stare9 are e#ers of soe otherparty6list !roups.

%hortly after the elections, respondent (esaca and the others with hi 2led with respondent HRET a petitionfor(uowarrantoa!ainst Bantay and its noinee, petitioner :alparan, in HRET Case *>6**. (esaca and the othersalle!ed that :alparan was ineli!i#le to sit in the House of Representatives as party6list noinee #ecause he did not#elon! to the ar!inali9ed and underrepresented sectors that Bantay represented, naely, the victis ofcounist re#els, Civilian Ared orces 1eo!raphical &nits +CA1&s/, forer re#els, and security !uards. (esacaand the others said that :alparan coitted !ross huan ri!hts violations a!ainst ar!inali9ed andunderrepresented sectors and or!ani9ations.

:etitioner :alparan countered that the HRET had no 8urisdiction over his person since it was actually the party6listBantay, not he, that was elected to and assued e#ership in the House of Representatives. :alparan claiedthat he was 8ust BantaySs noinee. Consequently, any question involvin! his eli!i#ility as 2rst noinee was aninternal concern of Bantay. %uch question ust #e #rou!ht, he said, #efore that party6list !roup, not #efore theHRET.

Dn uly ', '**< respondent HRET issued an order disissin! the petition a!ainst Bantay for the reason that theissue of the ineli!i#ility or quali2cation of the party6list !roup fell within the 8urisdiction of the CDME(EC pursuant tothe :arty6(ist %yste Act. HRET, however, defended its 8urisdiction over the question of petitioner :alparanSsquali2cations.:alparan oved for reconsideration #ut the HRET denied it #y a resolution dated %epte#er *,'**


15/94

:etitioners A#ayon and :alparan have a coon theory Repu#lic Act +R.A./ >


16/94

or!ani9ation that noinates the.-But where an alle!ation is ade that the party or or!ani9ation had chosen andallowed a disquali2ed noinee to #ecoe its party6list representative in the lower House and en8oy the securedtenure that !oes with the position, the resolution of the dispute is ta0en out of its hand.

:arenthetically, althou!h the :arty6(ist %yste Act does not so state, the CDME(EC sees to #elieve, when itresolved the challen!e to petitioner A#ayon, that it has the power to do so as an incident of its authority toapprove the re!istration of party6list or!ani9ations. But the Court need not resolve this question since it is notraised here and has not #een ar!ued #y the parties.

Khat is inevita#le is that %ection >, Article =5 of the Constitution6**.

SO ORDERED.

!. COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS

ARTICLE VI. Section 18.here shall be a %ommission on (ppointments consisting of the )resident of the Senate, as e& officio %hairman,

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 organi'ations registered under the party-list system represented therein. he chairman of the %ommission shall

not vote, e&cept in case of a tie. he %ommission shall act on all appointments submitted to it within thirty session days of the %ongress from

their submission. he %ommission shall rule by a ma"ority vote of all the Members.

Section 19.he !lectoral ribunals and the %ommission on (ppointments shall be constituted within thirty days after the Senate and the House

of Representatives shall have been organi'ed with the election of the )resident and the Spea*er. he %ommission on (ppointments shall meetonly while the %ongress is in session, at the call of its %hairman or a ma"ority of all its Members, to discharge such powers and functions as are

herein conferred upon it.

FUNCTION:

ARTICLE VII.Section 16.he )resident shall nominate and, with the consent of the %ommission on (ppointments, appoint the heads of the

e&ecutive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, or officers of the armed forces from the ran* of colonel or naval

captain, and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this %onstitution. 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 authori'ed by law to appoint. he %ongress may, by law,

vest the appointment of other officers lower in ran* in the )resident alone, in the courts, or in the heads of departments, agencies, commissions,

or boards.

he )resident shall have the power to ma*e appointments during the recess of the %ongress, whether voluntary or compulsory, but suchappointments shall be effective only until disapproved by the %ommission on (ppointments or until the ne&t ad"ournment of the %ongress.

7. PO %-# B#* "> I+%#+*= R#0#+#, *+ ON. ALBERTO D. LINA, /+ -/C*$*3/% * C"&&//"+# "> B#* "> C%"&,respondents.

D E C I S I O N
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_189466_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_189466_2010.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_189466_2010.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt*http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_189466_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_189466_2010.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_189466_2010.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt*


17/94

CORONA,J.:

This petition for prohi#itionsee0s to prevent respondents fro ipleentin! and enforcin! Repu#lic Act +RA/


18/94

5n this case, aside fro the !eneral clai that the dispute has ripened into a 8udicial controversy #y the ereenactent of the law even without any further overt act,petitioners fail either to assert any speci2c and concretele!al clai or to deonstrate any direct adverse e4ect of the law on the. They are una#le to show a personalsta0e in the outcoe of this case or an in8ury to theselves. Dn this account, their petition is procedurally in2r.

This notwithstandin!, pu#lic interest requires the resolution of the constitutional issues raised #y petitioners. The!rave nature of their alle!ations tends to cast a cloud on the presuption of constitutionality in favor of the law.And where an action of the le!islative #ranch is alle!ed to have infrin!ed the Constitution, it #ecoes not only theri!ht #ut in fact the duty of the 8udiciary to settle the dispute.

A33"+%*'/=/% ">

P'=/3 O3#%ection , Article of the Constitution states

%ec. . :u#lic oIce is a pu#lic trust. :u#lic oIcers and eployees ust at all ties #e accounta#le to thepeople, serve the with utost responsi#ility, inte!rity, loyalty, and eIciency, act with patriotis, and

8ustice, and lead odest lives.

:u#lic oIce is a pu#lic trust. 5t ust #e dischar!ed #y its holder not for his own personal !ain #ut for the #ene2t ofthe pu#lic for who he holds it in trust. By deandin! accounta#ility and service with responsi#ility, inte!rity,loyalty, eIciency, patriotis and 8ustice, all !overnent oIcials and eployees have the duty to #e responsive tothe needs of the people they are called upon to serve.

:u#lic oIcers en8oy the presuption of re!ularity in the perforance of their duties. This presuption necessarilyo#tains in favor of B5R and BDC oIcials and eployees. RA nited tates,-the &.%. %upree Court said

The o4er of a portion of such penalties to the collectors is to stiulate and reward their 9eal and industry indetectin! fraudulent attepts to evade payent of duties and ta7es.

5n the sae vein, eployees of the B5R and the BDC ay #y law #e entitled to a reward when, as a consequence oftheir 9eal in the enforceent of ta7 and custos laws, they e7ceed their revenue tar!ets. 5n addition, RA


19/94

* %" %-/+? %-*% *# /##+%.I% "# +"% $"-/'/% =#?/=*%/"+ -/3- / =/&/%# #/%-# /+ %-#"'@#3% %" -/3- /% / /#3%#or #y the territory within which it is to operate.

The equal protection of the laws clause of the Constitution allows classi2cation. Classi2cation in law, as inthe other departents of 0nowled!e or practice, is the !roupin! of thin!s in speculation or practice#ecause they a!ree with one another in certain particulars. A law is not invalid #ecause of sipleinequality. The very idea of classi2cation is that of inequality, so that it !oes without sayin! that the erefact of inequality in no anner deterines the atter of constitutionality. A== %-*% / #/# "> * 0*=/3=*/H3*%/"+ / %-*% /% '# #*"+*'=#, -/3- *+ %-*% %-# 3=*/H3*%/"+ -"= '# '*# "+'%*+%/*= /%/+3%/"+ -/3- &*# >" #*= /##+3#, %-*% /% &% '# ?#&*+# %" %-#$$"# "> %-# =* %-*% /% &% +"% '# =/&/%# %" #/%/+? 3"+/%/"+ "+= *+ %-*% /% &%*$$= #*== %" #*3- &'# "> %-# 3=*. This Court has held that %-# %*+* / *%/H# /> %-#3=*/H3*%/"+ " /%/+3%/"+ / '*# "+ * #*"+*'=# >"+*%/"+ " *%/"+*= '*/ *+ / +"%$*=$*'= *'/%*.

5n the e7ercise of its power to a0e classi2cations for the purpose of enactin! laws over atters within its8urisdiction, the state is reco!ni9ed as en8oyin! a wide ran!e of discretion. 5t is not necessary that theclassi2cation #e #ased on scienti2c or ar0ed di4erences of thin!s or in their relation. Neither is itnecessary that the classi2cation #e ade with atheatical nicety. Hence, le!islative classi2cation ay inany cases properly rest on narrow distinctions, for the equal protection !uaranty does not preclude thele!islature fro reco!ni9in! de!rees of evil or har, and le!islation is addressed to evils as they ayappear.'+ephasis supplied/

The equal protection clause reco!ni9es a valid classi2cation, that is, a classi2cation that has a reasona#lefoundation or rational #asis and not ar#itrary.''Kith respect to RA ##, 3-*?# *+ $#+*=%/#

+'/ A33"+% >" *== 3%"& #0#+# 3"==#3%#

+/ E7ercise police authority for the enforceent of tari4 and custos laws

+/ :revent and suppress su!!lin!, pilfera!e and all other econoic frauds within all ports of entry

+;/ %upervise and control e7ports, iports, forei!n ails and the clearance of vessels and aircrafts in allports of entry

+)/ Adinister all le!al requireents that are appropriate

+>/ :revent and prosecute su!!lin! and other ille!al activities in all ports under its 8urisdiction

+-/ E7ercise supervision and control over its constituent units

+


20/94

Two tests deterine the validity of dele!ation of le!islative power +/ the copleteness test and +'/ the suIcientstandard test. A law is coplete when it sets forth therein the policy to #e e7ecuted, carried out or ipleented #ythe dele!ate.')5t lays down a suIcient standard when it provides adequate !uidelines or liitations in the law toap out the #oundaries of the dele!ateSs authority and prevent the dele!ation fro runnin! riot.'>To #e suIcient,the standard ust specify the liits of the dele!ateSs authority, announce the le!islative policy and identify theconditions under which it is to #e ipleented.'-

RA $#3#+% (7.5), /%-# 3"+/#*%/"+ "> *== #=#0*+% >*3%" *#3%/+? %-# =#0#= "> 3"==#3%/"+ as provided in the rulesand re!ulations proul!ated under this Act, '@#3% %" 3/0/= #0/3# =*, =# *+ #?=*%/"+ *+3"&$=/*+3# /%- '%*+%/0# *+ $"3#*= # $"3# :rovided, That the followin! e7eptionsshall apply

. Khere the district or area of responsi#ility is newly6created, not e7ceedin! two years inoperation, as has no historical record of collection perforance that can #e used as #asis forevaluation and

'. Khere the revenue or custos oIcial or eployee is a recent transferee in the iddle of theperiod under consideration unless the transfer was due to nonperforance of revenue tar!ets orpotential nonperforance of revenue tar!ets :rovided, however, That when the district or area ofresponsi#ility covered #y revenue or custos oIcials or eployees has su4ered fro econoicdiIculties #rou!ht a#out #y natural calaities or force ma)eureor econoic causes as ay #edeterined #y the Board, terination shall #e considered only after careful and proper review #ythe Board.

+c/ To terinate personnel in accordance with the criteria adopted in the precedin! para!raph :rovided,That such decision shall #e iediately e7ecutory :rovided, further, That %-# *$$=/3*%/"+ "> %-#3/%#/* >" %-# #$**%/"+ "> *+ "3/*= " #&$="## >"& #0/3# +# %-/ A3% -*== '#/%-"% $#@/3# %" %-# *$$=/3*%/"+ "> "%-# #=#0*+% =* "+ *33"+%*'/=/% "> $'=/3 "3#
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt30


21/94

*+ #&$="##, 3- * %-# C"# "> C"+3% *+ E%-/3*= S%*+* "> P'=/3 O3# *+E&$="## *+ %-# A+%/6G*>% *+ C"$% P*3%/3# A3%

777 777 777 +ephasis supplied/

Clearly, RA *+ /+#+3# "0# %-# implementation"> =#?/=*%/"+ /% -*#+*3%#. C=#*=, "0#/?-% 3"+3#+post-enactment*# +#%*#+ ' C"+?#: (*) %"&"+/%" '#*3*%/3 3"&$=/*+3# /%- $"?*& "'@#3%/0#, (') %" #%#&/+# -#%-# *?#+3/#*# $"$#= *&/+/%##, (3) %" #=/&/+*%# ##3%/0# *%# *+ /-"+#%, () %" $#0#+%##3%/0# $*%/"+ "> =#?/=*%/0# *%-"/%, *+ () %" *# ##3%/0# 3"+>"&/% /%- %-#3"+?#/"+*= $#3#$%/"+ "> $'=/3 /+%##%.

The power of oversi!ht has #een held to #e intrinsic in the !rant of le!islative power itself and inte!ral tothe chec0s and #alances inherent in a deocratic syste of !overnent. 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

Dver the years, Con!ress has invo0ed its oversi!ht power with increased frequency to chec0 the perceived3e7ponential accuulation of power3 #y the e7ecutive #ranch. By the #e!innin! of the '*thcentury,

Con!ress has dele!ated an enorous aount of le!islative authority to the e7ecutive #ranch and theadinistrative a!encies. Con!ress, thus, uses its oversi!ht power to a0e sure that the adinistrativea!encies perfor their functions within the authority dele!ated to the. 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

Categories of congressional oversight functions

The acts done #y Con!ress purportedly in the e7ercise of its oversi!ht powers ay #e dividedinto threecate!ories, naely scrutiny, investigationand su#ervision.

a. crutiny

Con!ressional scrutinyiplies a lesser intensity and continuity of attention to adinistrativeoperations. 5ts priary purpose is to deterine econoy and eIciency of the operation of!overnent activities. 5n the e7ercise of le!islative scrutiny, Con!ress ay request inforation andreport fro the other #ranches of !overnent. 5t can !ive recoendations or pass resolutions forconsideration of the a!ency involved.

777 777 777

b. Congressional investigation

Khile con!ressional scrutiny is re!arded as a passive process of loo0in! at the facts that arereadily availa#le, congressional investigation involves a more intense digging of facts. The power ofCon!ress to conduct investi!ation is reco!ni9ed #y the Constitution under section ', Article=5, 777 777 777
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/aug2008/gr_166715_2008.html#fnt34


22/94

c. $egislative su#ervision

The third and most encom#assingfor #y which Con!ress e7ercises its oversi!ht power is thru le!islativesupervision. 3%upervision3 connotes a continuin! and infored awareness on the part of a con!ressionalcoittee re!ardin! e&ecutive o#erationsin a !iven adinistrative area. Khile #oth con!ressionalscrutiny and investi!ation involve inquiry into#ast e&ecutive branch actionsin order to inGuence futuree7ecutive #ranch perforance, congressional su#ervision allows Congress to scrutini4e the e&ercise ofdelegated law5ma:ing authority, and #ermits Congress to retain #art of that delegated authority.

Congress e&ercises su#ervision over the e&ecutive agencies through its veto #ower. ?t ty#ically utili4es veto#rovisions when granting the !resident or an e&ecutive agency the #ower to #romulgate regulations with

the force of law. These #rovisions re(uire the !resident or an agency to #resent the #ro#osed regulationsto Congress, which retains a "right" to a##rove or disa##rove any regulation before it ta:es eect.%uchle!islative veto provisions usually provide that a proposed re!ulation will #ecoe a law after the e7pirationof a certain period of tie, only if Con!ress does not aIratively disapprove of the re!ulation in theeantie. (ess frequently, the statute provides that a proposed re!ulation will #ecoe law if Con!ressaIratively approves it.

u##orters of legislative vetostress that it is necessary to aintain the #alance of power #etween thele!islative and the e7ecutive #ranches of !overnent as it o4ers lawa0ers a way to dele!ate vast powerto the e7ecutive #ranch or to independent a!encies while retainin! the option to cancel particular e7erciseof such power without havin! to pass new le!islation or to repeal e7istin! law. They contend that thisarran!eent prootes deocratic accounta#ility as it provides le!islative chec0 on the activities ofunelected adinistrative a!encies. Dne proponent thus e7plains

5t is too late to de#ate the erits of this dele!ation policy the policy is too deeply e#edded in our

law and practice. 5t suIces to say that the cople7ities of odern !overnent have often ledCon!ress6whether #y actual or perceived necessity6 to le!islate #y declarin! #road policy !oals and!eneral statutory standards, leavin! the choice of policy options to the discretion of an e7ecutiveoIcer. Con!ress articulates le!islative ais, #ut leaves their ipleentation to the 8ud!ent ofparties who ay or ay not have participated in or a!reed with the developent of those ais.Consequently, a#sent safe!uards, in any instances the reverse of our constitutional scheecould #e e4ected Con!ress proposes, the E7ecutive disposes. Dne safe!uard, of course, is thele!islative power to enact new le!islation or to chan!e e7istin! law. But without soe eans ofoverseein! post enactent activities of the e7ecutive #ranch, Con!ress would #e una#le todeterine whether its policies have #een ipleented in accordance with le!islative intent andthus whether le!islative intervention is appropriate.

5ts opponents, however, critici4e the legislative vetoas +# #+3"*3-+% $"+ %-# ##3%/0#$#"?*%/0#. They ur!e that *+ $"%6#+*3%+% *# +#%*#+ ' %-# =#?/=*%/0# '*+3--"= '# =/&/%# %" 3%/+ *+ /+0#%/?*%/"+ *+ *# '#"+ %-*% "= +#&/+# %-##$**%/"+ "> $"# ?**+%## ' %-# C"+%/%%/"+. They contend that le!islative veto constitutesan iperissi#le evasion of the :residentSs veto authority and intrusion into the powers vested in thee7ecutive or 8udicial #ranches of !overnent. :roponents counter that le!islative veto enhancesseparation of powers as it prevents the e7ecutive #ranch and independent a!encies fro accuulatin! toouch power. They su#it that reportin! requireents and con!ressional coittee investi!ations allowCon!ress to scrutini9e only the e7ercise of dele!ated law6a0in! authority. They do not allow Con!ress toreview e7ecutive proposals #efore they ta0e e4ect and they do not a4ord the opportunity for on!oin! and#indin! e7pressions of con!ressional intent. 5n contrast, le!islative veto perits Con!ress to participateprospectively in the approval or disapproval of 3subordinate law3 or those enacted #y the e7ecutive #ranchpursuant to a dele!ation of authority #y Con!ress. They further ar!ue that le!islative veto 3is a necessaryresponse #y Con!ress to the accretion of policy control #y forces outside its cha#ers.3 5n an era ofdele!ated authority, they point out that le!islative veto 3is the ost eIcient eans Con!ress has yetdevised to retain control over the evolution and ipleentation of its policy as declared #y statute.3

5n ?mmigration and Daturali4ation ervice v. Chadha, %-# U.S. S$# C"% #"=0# %-# 0*=//% ">=#?/=*%/0# 0#%" $"0//"+. The case arose fro the order of the ii!ration 8ud!e suspendin! thedeportation of Chadha pursuant to Y '+c/+/ of the 5i!ration and Nationality Act. The &nited %tatesHouse of Representatives passed a resolution vetoin! the suspension pursuant to Y '+c/+'/ authori9in!either House of Con!ress, #y resolution, to invalidate the decision of the e7ecutive #ranch to allow aparticular deporta#le alien to reain in the &nited %tates. The ii!ration 8ud!e reopened the deportationproceedin!s to ipleent the House order and the alien was ordered deported. The Board of 5i!rationAppeals disissed the alienSs appeal, holdin! that it had no power to declare unconstitutional an act ofCon!ress. The &nited %tates Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit held that the House was withoutconstitutional authority to order the alienSs deportation and that Y '+c/+'/ violated the constitutionaldoctrine on separation of powers.

Dn appeal, the &.%. %upree Court declared Y '+c/+'/ unconstitutional.B% %-# C"% -/# ** >"&%-# /# "> #$**%/"+ "> $"#and instead held that the provision violates the presentent clauseand #icaeralis. 5t held that the one6house veto was essentially le!islative in purpose and e4ect. As

such, it is su#8ect to the procedures set out in Article 5 of the Constitution requirin! the passa!e #y aa8ority of #oth Houses and presentent to the :resident. 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

Two wee0s after the Chadhadecision, the Court upheld, in eorandu decision, two lower courtdecisions invalidatin! the le!islative veto provisions in the Natural 1as :olicy Act of - and the ederal

Trade Coission 5proveent Act of


23/94

Houses of Con!ress and thus et the #icaeralis requireent of Article 5. 5ndeed, soe of these vetoprovisions were not even e7ercised.;+ephasis supplied/

5n Macalintal, !iven the concept and con2!uration of the power of con!ressional oversi!ht and considerin! thenature and powers of a constitutional #ody li0e the Coission on Elections, the Court struc0 down the provisionin RA


24/94

Additionally, %ection '>+/, Article =5 of the Constitution provides

%ection '>. +/ E0# '/== $*# ' %-# C"+?# -*==, '#>"# /% '#3" * =*, '# $##+%# %"%-# P#/#+%. 5f he approves the sae, he shall si!n it, otherwise, he shall veto it and return the saewith his o#8ections to the House where it ori!inated, which shall enter the o#8ections at lar!e in its ournaland proceed to reconsider it. 5f, after such reconsideration, two6thirds of all the Me#ers of such Houseshall a!ree to pass the #ill, it shall #e sent, to!ether with the o#8ections, to the other House #y which itshall li0ewise #e reconsidered, and if approved #y two6thirds of all the Me#ers of that House, it shall#ecoe a law. 5n all such cases, the votes of each House shall #e deterined #yyeasor nays, and thenaes of the e#ers votin! for or a!ainst shall #e entered in its ournal. The :resident shallcounicate his veto of any #ill to the House where it ori!inated within thirty days after the date ofreceipt thereof otherwise, it shall #ecoe a law as if he had si!ned it. +ephasis supplied/

Every #ill passed #y Con!ress ust #e presented to the :resident for approval or veto. 5n the a#sence ofpresentent to the :resident, no #ill passed #y Con!ress can #ecoe a law. 5n this sense, law6a0in! under theConstitution is a 8oint act of the (e!islature and of the E7ecutive. Assuin! that le!islative veto is a validle!islative act with the force of law, it cannot ta0e e4ect without such presentent even if approved #y #othcha#ers of Con!ress.

5n su, two steps are required #efore a #ill #ecoes a law. irst, it ust #e approved #y #oth Houses ofCon!ress.;%econd, it ust #e presented to and approved #y the :resident.;;As suari9ed #y ustice 5sa!aniCru9;)and r. oaquin 1. Bernas, %..;>,the followin! is the procedure for the approval of #ills

A #ill is introduced #y any e#er of the House of Representatives or the %enate e7cept for soeeasures that ust ori!inate only in the forer cha#er.

The 2rst readin! involves only a readin! of the nu#er and title of the easure and its referral #y the%enate :resident or the %pea0er to the proper coittee for study.

The #ill ay #e 30illed3 in the coittee or it ay #e recoended for approval, with or withoutaendents, soeties after pu#lic hearin!s are 2rst held thereon. 5f there are other #ills of the saenature or purpose, they ay all #e consolidated into one #ill under coon authorship or as a coittee#ill.

Dnce reported out, the #ill shall #e calendared for second readin!. 5t is at this sta!e that the #ill is read inits entirety, scrutini9ed, de#ated upon and aended when desired. The second readin! is the ostiportant sta!e in the passa!e of a #ill.

The #ill as approved on second readin! is printed in its 2nal for and copies thereof are distri#uted at leastthree days #efore the third readin!. Dn the third readin!, the e#ers erely re!ister their votes ande7plain the if they are allowed #y the rules. No further de#ate is allowed.

Dnce the #ill passes third readin!, it is sent to the other cha#er, where it will also under!o the threereadin!s. 5f there are di4erences #etween the versions approved #y the two cha#ers, a conferencecoittee;-representin! #oth Houses will draft a coproise easure that if rati2ed #y the %enate andthe House of Representatives will then #e su#itted to the :resident for his consideration.

The #ill is enrolled when printed as 2nally approved #y the Con!ress, thereafter authenticated with thesi!natures of the %enate :resident, the %pea0er, and the %ecretaries of their respective cha#ersZ;and Dcto#er ,'**>.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt14


27/94

5ntervenin! as respondents,;%enators Aquilino J. :ientel, r., Beni!no Noynoy C. Aquino, Rodolfo 1. Bia9on,:an2lo M. (acson, (oren B. (e!arda, M.A. a#y A.%. Madri!al and Antonio . Trillanes 2led their Coent)on thepetition on %epte#er ';, '**>.

The Court su#sequently heard the case on oral ar!uent.>

Dn Dcto#er '), '**>, Ma8. (indsay Re7 %a!!e, a e#er of the 5%A: and one of the resource persons suoned#y the %enate to appear and testify at its hearin!s, oved to intervene as petitioner in 1.R. No. >;.*-, and !rants the second, 1.R. No. >*-, petitioner 1arcillano 8usti2es his standin! to initiate the petition #y alle!in! that he is theperson alluded to in the 3Hello 1arci3 tapes. urther, his was pu#licly identi2ed #y the e#ers of the respondentcoittees as one of the voices in the recordin!s.'>D#viously, therefore, petitioner 1arcillano stands to #e directlyin8ured #y the House coitteesS actions and char!es of electoral fraud. The Court reco!ni9es his standin! toinstitute the petition for prohi#ition.

5n 1.R. No. >


28/94

(i0ewise, a readin! of the petition in 1.R. No. >;, the Court !rants the sae. The %enate cannot #e allowed to continue withthe conduct of the questioned le!islative inquiry without duly pu#lished rules of procedure, in clear dero!ation ofthe constitutional requireent.

%ection ', Article =5 of the Constitution e7plicitly provides that 3VtWhe %enate or the House ofRepresentatives, or any of its respective coittees ay conduct inquiries in aid of le!islation in accordance withits duly #ublished rules of #rocedure.3 The requisite of pu#lication of the rules is intended to satisfy the #asicrequireents of due process.':u#lication is indeed iperative, for it will #e the hei!ht of in8ustice to punish orotherwise #urden a citi9en for the trans!ression of a law or rule of which he had no notice whatsoever, not even aconstructive one.Khat constitutes pu#lication is set forth in Article ' of the Civil Code, which provides that3VlWaws shall ta0e e4ect after ; days followin! the copletion of their pu#lication either in the DIcial 1a9ette, orin a newspaper of !eneral circulation in the :hilippines.3

The respondents in 1.R. No. >"#, $"3#*== /+H&.

ustice Antonio T. Carpio, in his @issentin! and Concurrin! Dpinion, reinforces this rulin! with the followin!rationali9ation

The present %enate under the Constitution is no lon!er a continuin! le!islative #ody. The present%enate has twenty6four e#ers, twelve of who are elected every three years for a ter of si7 years

each. Thus, the ter of twelve %enators e7pires every three years, leavin! less %-*+ * &*@"/% ">S#+*%" %" 3"+%/+# /+%" %-# +#% C"+?#. The Constitution, li0e the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt40http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt41http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt42http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt43http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt44http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt45http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt46http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt47


29/94

The su#8ect was e7plained with !reater lucidity in our 1esolution-+9n the Motion for 1econsideration/ in the saecase, vi4.

Dn the nature of the %enate as a 3continuin! #ody,3 this Court sees 2t to issue a clari2cation. Certainly,there is no de#ate that the %enate * *+ /+%/%%/"+is 3continuin!,3 as it is not dissolved as an entity witheach national election or chan!e in the coposition of its e#ers. However, in the conduct of its day6to6day #usiness the %enate of each Con!ress acts separately and independently of the %enate of theCon!ress #efore it. The Rules of the %enate itself con2rs this when it states

R&(E (5=&N5N5%HE@ B&%5NE%%

%EC. '. &n2nished #usiness at the end of the session shall #e ta0en up at the ne7t session in thesae status.

A== $#+/+? &*%%# *+ $"3##/+? -*== %#&/+*%# $"+ %-# #$/*%/"+ "> "+# (1)C"+?#, #ut ay #e ta0en #y the succeedin! Con!ress as if present for the 2rst tie.

&ndenia#ly fro the fore!oin!, all pendin! atters and proceedin!s, i.e., unpassed #ills and evenle!islative investi!ations, of the %enate of a particular Con!ress are considered %#&/+*%#upon thee7piration of that Con!ress and it is erely optional on the %enate of the succeedin! Con!ress to ta0e upsuch un2nished atters, +"% /+ %-# * %*%, #ut as if presented >" %-# H% %/. The lo!ic andpracticality of such a rule is readily apparent considerin! that the %enate of the succeedin! Con!ress+which will typically have a di4erent coposition as that of the previous Con!ress/ should not #e #ound #ythe acts and deli#erations of the %enate of which they had no part. 5f the %enate is a continuin! #ody evenwith respect to the conduct of its #usiness, then pendin! atters will not #e deeed terinated with thee7piration of one Con!ress #ut will, as a atter of course, continue into the ne7t Con!ress with the saestatus.

This dichotoy of the continuity of the %enate as an institution and of the opposite nature of the conduct ofits #usiness is reGected in its Rules. The Rules of the %enate +i.e. the %enateSs ain rules of procedure/states

RULE LIAMENDMENTS TO, OR REVISIONS OF, TE RULES

%EC. ). At the start of each session in which the %enators elected in the precedin! elections shall#e!in their ter of oIce, the :resident ay endorse the Rules to the appropriate coittee foraendent or revision.

The Rules ay also #e aended #y eans of a otion which should #e presented at least one day#efore its consideration, and the vote of the a8ority of the %enators present in the session shall #e

required for its approval.RULE LII

DATE OF TAJING EFFECT

%EC. >. These Rules shall ta0e e4ect on the date of their adoption and shall reain in force untilthey are aended or repealed.

%ection ) of the %enate Rules quoted a#ove ta0es into account the new coposition of the %enate afteran election and the possi#ility of the aendent or revision of the Rules at the start of each session inwhich the newly elected %enators shall #e!in their ter.

However, it is evident that the %enate has deterined that its ain rules are intended to #e valid fro thedate of their adoption until they are aended or repealed. %uch lan!ua!e is conspicuously a#sent frothe1ules. The 1ulessiply state 3+t/hese Rules shall ta0e e4ect seven +>/ days after pu#lication in two +'/newspapers of !eneral circulation.3 The latter does not e7plicitly provide for the continued e4ectivity of

such rules until they are aended or repealed. 5n view of the di4erence in the lan!ua!e of the two sets of%enate rules, it cannot #e presued that the Rules +on le!islative inquiries/ would continue into the ne7tCon!ress. The %enate of the ne7t Con!ress ay easily adopt di4erent rules for its le!islative inquirieswhich coe within the rule on un2nished #usiness.

The lan!ua!e of %ection ', Article =5 of the Constitution requirin! that the inquiry #e conducted inaccordance with the duly pu#lished rules of procedure is cate!orical. 5t is incu#ent upon the %enate topu#lish the rules for its le!islative inquiries in each Con!ress or otherwise a0e the pu#lished rules clearlystate that the sae shall #e e4ective in su#sequent Con!resses or until they are aended or repealed tosuIciently put pu#lic on notice.

5f it was the intention of the %enate for its present rules on le!islative inquiries to #e e4ective even in thene7t Con!ress, it could have easily adopted the sae lan!ua!e it had used in its ain rules re!ardin!e4ectivity.

Respondents 8ustify their non6o#servance of the constitutionally andated pu#lication #y ar!uin! that the ruleshave never #een aended since


30/94

amendments or revision. The constitutional andate to pu#lish the said rules prevails over any custo, practice ortradition followed #y the %enate.

ustice CarpioSs response to the sae ar!uent raised #y the respondents is illuinatin!

The pu#lication of the 1ules of !rocedurein the we#site of the %enate, or in paphlet for availa#le at the%enate, is not suIcient under the Taada v. Tuverarulin! which requires pu#lication either in the DIcial1a9ette or in a newspaper of !eneral circulation. The 1ules of !rocedureeven provide that the rules 3shallta0e e4ect seven +>/ days after pu#lication in two +'/ newspapers of !eneral circulation,3 precludin! anyother for of pu#lication. :u#lication in accordance with Taadais andatory to coply with the dueprocess requireent #ecause the 1ules of !rocedureput a personSs li#erty at ris0. A person who violates

the 1ules of !rocedurecould #e arrested and detained #y the %enate.

The invocation #y the respondents of the provisions of R.A. No. ->; is 1RANTE@. (et awrit of prohi#ition #e issued en8oinin! the %enate of the Repu#lic of the :hilippines andPor any of its coitteesfro conductin! any inquiry in aid of le!islation centered on the 3Hello 1arci3 tapes.

SO ORDERED.

2. EECUTIVE PRIVILEGE JINDSCASE: SENATE OF TE PIL. VS. ERMITA, GR NO. 1!9777, APR 2 2!

EN BANC

G.R. N". 1!9777 A$/= 2, 2!

SENATE OF TE PILIPPINES, #$##+%# ' FRANJLIN M. DRILON, /+ -/ 3*$*3/% * S#+*%#P#/#+%, UAN M. FLAVIER, /+ -/ 3*$*3/% * S#+*%# P#/#+% P" T#&$"#, FRANCIS N.PANGILINAN, /+ -/ 3*$*3/% * M*@"/% L#*#, AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, R., /+ -/ 3*$*3/% * M/+"/%L#*#, SENATORS RODOLFO G. BIA;ON, COMPANERA PIA S. CAETANO, INGGO EERCITO ESTRADA,LUISA LOI EERCITO ESTRADA, UAN PONCE ENRILE, RICARD . GORDON, PANFILO M. LACSON,ALFREDO S.LIM, M. A. MADRIGAL, SERGIO OSMENA III, RALP G. RECTO, *+ MAR ROAS, :etitioners,vs.EDUARDO R. ERMITA, /+ -/ 3*$*3/% * E#3%/0# S#3#%* *+ *=%#6#?" "> P#/#+% G="/*M*3*$*?*=6A"", *+ *+"+# *3%/+? /+ -/ %#* *+ /+ '#-*=> "> %-# P#/#+% "> %-#

P-/=/$$/+#,Respondents.

@ E C 5 % 5 D N

CARPIO MORALES,J.:

A transparent !overnent is one of the hallar0s of a truly repu#lican state. Even in the early history of repu#licanthou!ht, however, it has #een reco!ni9ed that the head of !overnent ay 0eep certain inforation con2dentialin pursuit of the pu#lic interest. E7plainin! the reason for vestin! e7ecutive power in only one a!istrate, adistin!uished dele!ate to the &.%. Constitutional Convention said 3@ecision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch will!enerally characteri9e the proceedin!s of one an, in a uch ore einent de!ree than the proceedin!s of any!reater nu#er and in proportion as the nu#er is increased, these qualities will #e diinished.3

History has #een witness, however, to the fact that the power to withhold inforation lends itself to a#use, hence,the necessity to !uard it 9ealously.

The present consolidated petitions for certiorari and prohi#ition pro4er that the :resident has a#used such power#y issuin! E7ecutive Drder No. ) +E.D. )/ last %epte#er '-, '**;. They thus pray for its declaration as nulland void for #ein! unconstitutional.

5n resolvin! the controversy, this Court shall proceed with the reco!nition that the issuance under review has coefro a co6equal #ranch of !overnent, which thus entitles it to a stron! presuption of constitutionality. Dnce thechallen!ed order is found to #e indeed violative of the Constitution, it is duty6#ound to declare it so. or the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169777_2006.html#fntahttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169777_2006.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt51http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html#fnt52http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169777_2006.html#fntahttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169777_2006.html#fnt1


31/94

Constitution, #ein! the hi!hest e7pression of the soverei!n will of the ilipino people, ust prevail over anyissuance of the !overnent that contravenes its andates.

5n the e7ercise of its le!islative power, the %enate of the :hilippines, throu!h its various %enate Coittees,conducts inquiries or investi!ations in aid of le!islation which call for, inter alia, the attendance of oIcials andeployees of the e7ecutive departent, #ureaus, and oIces includin! those eployed in 1overnent Dwned andControlled Corporations, the Ared orces of the :hilippines +A:/, and the :hilippine National :olice +:N:/.

Dn %epte#er ' to ', '**;, the Coittee of the %enate as a whole issued invitations to various oIcials of theE7ecutive @epartent for the to appear on %epte#er ', '**;, requested for its postponeent 3due to a pressin!operational situation that deands Vhis utost personal attention3 while 3soe of the invited A: oIcers arecurrently attendin! to other ur!ent operational atters.3

Dn %epte#er '-, '**;, %enate :resident ran0lin M. @rilon received fro E7ecutive %ecretary Eduardo R. Erita aletterdated %epte#er '>, '**; 3respectfully requestVin!W for the postponeent of the hearin! Vre!ardin! theNorthRail pro8ectW to which various oIcials of the E7ecutive @epartent have #een invited3 in order to 3a4ord saidoIcials aple tie and opportunity to study and prepare for the various issues so that they ay #etter enli!htenthe %enate Coittee on its investi!ation.3

%enate :resident @rilon, however, wrote;E7ecutive %ecretary Erita that the %enators 3are una#le to accede toVhis requestW3 as it 3was sent #elatedly3 and 3VaWll preparations and arran!eents as well as notices to all resourcepersons were copleted Vthe previousW wee0.3

%enate :resident @rilon li0ewise received on %epte#er '-, '**; a letter)fro the :resident of the North (u9onRailways Corporation ose (. Cortes, r. requestin! that the hearin! on the NorthRail pro8ect #e postponed orcancelled until a copy of the report of the &: (aw Center on the contract a!reeents relative to the pro8ect had#een secured.

Dn %epte#er '-, '**;, the :resident issued E.D. ), 3Ensurin! D#servance of the :rinciple of %eparation of:owers, Adherence to the Rule on E7ecutive :rivile!e and Respect for the Ri!hts of :u#lic DIcials Appearin! in(e!islative 5nquiries in Aid of (e!islation &nder the Constitution, and or Dther :urposes,3>which, pursuant to%ection ) thereof, too0 e4ect iediately. The salient provisions of the Drder are as follows

%ECT5DN . Appearance #y Heads of @epartents Before Con!ress. U 5n accordance with Article =5, %ection '' ofthe Constitution and to ipleent the Constitutional provisions on the separation of powers #etween co6equal#ranches of the !overnent, all heads of departents of the E7ecutive Branch of the !overnent shall secure theconsent of the :resident prior to appearin! #efore either House of Con!ress.

Khen the security of the %tate or the pu#lic interest so requires and the :resident so states in writin!, theappearance shall only #e conducted in e7ecutive session.

%ECT5DN. '. Nature, %cope and Covera!e of E7ecutive :rivile!e. U

+a/ Nature and %cope. 6 The rule of con2dentiality #ased on e7ecutive privile!e is fundaental to the operation of!overnent and rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution +Alonte vs. =asque9, 1.R. No. ,' May


32/94

Military, diploatic and other national security atters which in the interest of national security should not #edivul!ed +Alonte vs. =asque9, 1.R. No. , ' May


33/94

5n 1.R. No. )> and prays that E.D. ) #e declared unconstitutional.

Dn Dcto#er , '**;, :@:6(a#an, a re!istered political party with e#ers duly elected into the :hilippine %enateand House of Representatives, 2led a siilar petition for certiorari and prohi#ition, doc0eted as 1.R. No. )and those fro the @epartent of Bud!et and Mana!eent-havin! invo0ed E.D. ).

5n the #ud!et hearin!s set #y the %enate on e#ruary - and , '**), :ress %ecretary and :residential%po0esperson 5!nacio R. Bunye,'), and pray that E.D. ) #e declared nulland void.

All the petitions pray for the issuance of a Teporary Restrainin! Drder en8oinin! respondents fro ipleentin!,enforcin!, and o#servin! E.D. ).

5n the oral ar!uents on the petitions conducted on e#ruary ', '**), the followin! su#stantive issues wereventilated +/ whether respondents coitted !rave a#use of discretion in ipleentin! E.D. ) prior to itspu#lication in the DIcial 1a9ette or in a newspaper of !eneral circulation and +'/ whether E.D. ) violates thefollowin! provisions of the Constitution Art. 55, %ec. '-, Art. 555, %ec. , Art. 555, %ec. >, Art. 5=. %ec. , Art. =5, %ec. ',Art. =5, %ec. '', Art. 5, %ec. , and Art. 555, %ec. ). The procedural issue of whether there is an actual case orcontroversy that calls for 8udicial review was not ta0en up instead, the parties were instructed to discuss it in theirrespective eoranda.

After the conclusion of the oral ar!uents, the parties were directed to su#it their respective eoranda, payin!particular attention to the followin! propositions +/ that E.D. ) is, on its face, unconstitutional and +'/assuin! that it is not, it is unconstitutional as applied in four instances, naely +a/ the so called ertili9er sca+#/ the NorthRail investi!ation +c/ the Kiretappin! activity of the 5%A: and +d/ the investi!ation on the =ena#lecontract.''

:etitioners in 1.R. No. ), '**), while those in 1.R.No. )';and 1.R. No. )')did not 2le any eorandu.

:etitioners Bayan Muna et al. in 1.R. No. )


34/94

Art. =5, %ec. '

Art. 5, %ec.

Art. 555, %ec. >

Art. 555, %ec. ;

Art. 555, %ec. ) )

Art. 55, %ec. '->

Respondents E7ecutive %ecretary Erita et al., on the other hand, pray in their consolidated eorandu-onMarch , '**) for the disissal of the petitions for lac0 of erit.

T-# C"% +%-#/# %-# /# %" '# #"=0# * >"==":

1. "&*%/"+ "+ &*%%# "> $'=/33"+3#+ *+

8. ?#+#*= 3/3=*%/"+.

Essential requisites for 8udicial review

Before proceedin! to resolve the issue of the constitutionality of E.D. ), ascertainent of whether the requisitesfor a valid e7ercise of the CourtSs power of 8udicial review are present is in order.

(i0e alost all powers conferred #y the Constitution, the power of 8udicial review is su#8ect to liitations, to wit +/there ust #e an actual case or controversy callin! for the e7ercise of 8udicial power +'/ the person challen!in!the act ust have standin! to challen!e the validity of the su#8ect act or issuance otherwise stated, he ust have

a personal and su#stantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct in8ury as a result ofits enforceent +/ the question of constitutionality ust #e raised at the earliest opportunity and +/ the issue ofconstitutionality ust #e the very lis ota of the case.> and )%peci2cally with re!ard to the A: oIcers who did not attend the hearin!on %epte#er '-, '**;, respondents clai that the instruction not to attend without the :residentSs consent was#ased on its role as Coander6in6Chief of the Ared orces, not on E.D. ).

Respondents thus conclude that the petitions erely rest on an unfounded apprehension that the :resident willa#use its power of preventin! the appearance of oIcials #efore Con!ress, and that such apprehension is notsuIcient for challen!in! the validity of E.D. ).

The Court 2nds respondentsS assertion that the :resident has not withheld her consent or prohi#ited theappearance of the oIcials concerned iaterial in deterinin! the e7istence of an actual case or controversyinsofar as E.D. ) is concerned. or E.D. ) does not require either a deli#erate withholdin! of consent or ane7press prohi#ition issuin! fro the :resident in order to #ar oIcials fro appearin! #efore Con!ress.

As the ipleentation of the challen!ed order has already resulted in the a#sence of oIcials invited to thehearin!s of petitioner %enate of the :hilippines, it would a0e no sense to wait for any further event #eforeconsiderin! the present case ripe for ad8udication. 5ndeed, it would #e sheer a#andonent of duty if this Court

would now refrain fro passin! on the constitutionality of E.D. ).

Constitutionality of E.9. =F=

E.D. ), to the e7tent that it #ars the appearance of e7ecutive oIcials #efore Con!ress, deprives Con!ress of theinforation in the possession of these oIcials. To resolve the question of whether such withholdin! of inforationviolates the Constitution, consideration of the !eneral power of Con!ress to o#tain inforation, otherwise 0nown asthe power of inquiry, is in order.

The power of inquiry

The Con!ress power of inquiry is e7pressly reco!ni9ed in %ection ' of Article =5 of the Constitution which reads

%ECT5DN '. The %enate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective coittees ay conductinquiries in aid of le!islation in accordance with its duly pu#lished rules of procedure. The ri!hts of personsappearin! in or a4ected #y such inquiries shall #e respected. +&nderscorin! supplied/

This provision is worded e7actly as %ection - of Article =555 of the Constitution e7cept that, in the latter, itvests the power of inquiry in the unicaeral le!islature esta#lished therein U the Batasan! :a#ansa U and itscoittees.

The


36/94

Arnault involved a %enate investi!ation of the reportedly anoalous purchase of the Buenavista and Ta#o#on!Estates #y the Rural :ro!ress Adinistration. Arnault, who was considered a leadin! witness in the controversy,was called to testify thereon #y the %enate. Dn account of his refusal to answer the questions of the senators on aniportant point, he was, #y resolution of the %enate, detained for contept. &pholdin! the %enateSs power topunish Arnault for contept, this Court held

Althou!h there is no provision in the Constitution e7pressly investin! either House of Con!ress with power to a0einvesti!ations and e7act testiony to the end that it ay e7ercise its le!islative functions advisedly ande4ectively, such power is so far incidental to the le!islative function as to #e iplied. 5n other words, the power ofinquiry U with process to enforce it U is an essential and appropriate au7iliary to the le!islative function. Ale!islative #ody cannot le!islate wisely or e4ectively in the a#sence of inforation respectin! the conditions whichthe le!islation is intended to a4ect or chan!e and where the le!islative #ody does not itself possess the requisiteinforation U which is not infrequently true U recourse ust #e had to others who do possess it. E7perience hasshown that ere requests for such inforation are often unavailin!, and also that inforation which is volunteeredis not always accurate or coplete so soe eans of copulsion is essential to o#tain what is needed.;


37/94

ore accurate to spea0 of e7ecutive privile!es 3since presidential refusals to furnish inforation ay #e actuated#y any of at least three distinct 0inds of considerations, and ay #e asserted, with di4erin! de!rees of success, inthe conte7t of either 8udicial or le!islative investi!ations.3

Dne variety of the privile!e, Tri#e e7plains, is the state secrets privile!e invo0ed #y &.%. :residents, #e!innin! withKashin!ton, on the !round that the inforation is of such nature that its disclosure would su#vert crucial ilitaryor diploatic o#8ectives. Another variety is the inforerSs privile!e, or the privile!e of the 1overnent not todisclose the identity of persons who furnish inforation of violations of law to oIcers char!ed with theenforceent of that law. inally, a !eneric privile!e for internal deli#erations has #een said to attach tointra!overnental docuents reGectin! advisory opinions, recoendations and deli#erations coprisin! part ofa process #y which !overnental decisions and policies are forulated.)-

Tri#eSs coent is supported #y the rulin! in 5n re %ealed Case, thus

%ince the #e!innin!s of our nation, e7ecutive oIcials have claied a variety of privile!es to resist disclosure ofinforation the con2dentiality of which they felt was crucial to ful2llent of the unique role and responsi#ilities ofthe e7ecutive #ranch of our !overnent. Courts ruled early that the e7ecutive had a ri!ht to withhold docuentsthat i!ht reveal ilitary or state secrets. The courts have also !ranted the e7ecutive a ri!ht to withhold theidentity of !overnent inforers in soe circustances and a quali2ed ri!ht to withhold inforation related topendin! investi!ations. 7 7 73)*+Ephasis and underscorin!supplied/

That a type of inforation is reco!ni9ed as privile!ed does not, however, necessarily ean that it would #econsidered privile!ed in all instances. or in deterinin! the validity of a clai of privile!e, the question that ust#e as0ed is not only whether the requested inforation falls within one of the traditional privile!es, #ut alsowhether that privile!e should #e honored in a !iven procedural settin!.>

The leadin! case on e7ecutive privile!e in the &nited %tates is &.%. v. Ni7on,>'decided in . 5n issue in thatcase was the validity of :resident Ni7onSs clai of e7ecutive privile!e a!ainst a su#poena issued #y a district courtrequirin! the production of certain tapes and docuents relatin! to the Kater!ate investi!ations. The clai ofprivile!e was #ased on the :residentSs !eneral interest in the con2dentiality of his conversations andcorrespondence. The &.%. Court held that while there is no e7plicit reference to a privile!e of con2dentiality in the&.%. Constitution, it is constitutionally #ased to the e7tent that it relates to the e4ective dischar!e of a :residentSspowers. The Court, nonetheless, re8ected the :residentSs clai of privile!e, rulin! that the privile!e ust #e#alanced a!ainst the pu#lic interest in the fair adinistration of criinal 8ustice. Nota#ly, the Court was careful toclarify that it was not there addressin! the issue of clais of privile!e in a civil liti!ation or a!ainst con!ressionaldeands for inforation.

Cases in the &.%. which involve clais of e7ecutive privile!e a!ainst Con!ress are rare.>@espite frequentassertion of the privile!e to deny inforation to Con!ress, #e!innin! with :resident Kashin!tonSs refusal to turnover treaty ne!otiation records to the House of Representatives, the &.%. %upree Court has never ad8udicated theissue.>However, the &.%. Court of Appeals for the @istrict of Colu#ia Circuit, in a case decided earlier in thesae year as Ni7on, reco!ni9ed the :residentSs privile!e over his conversations a!ainst a con!ressionalsu#poena.>;Anticipatin! the #alancin! approach adopted #y the &.%. %upree Court in Ni7on, the Court of Appealswei!hed the pu#lic interest protected #y the clai of privile!e a!ainst the interest that would #e served #ydisclosure to the Coittee. Rulin! that the #alance favored the :resident, the Court declined to enforce the

su#poena.>)

5n this 8urisdiction, the doctrine of e7ecutive privile!e was reco!ni9ed #y this Court in Alonte v. =asque9.>>Alonteused the ter in reference to the sae privile!e su#8ect of Ni7on. 5t quoted the followin! portion of the Ni7ondecision which e7plains the #asis for the privile!e

3The e7pectation of a :resident to the con2dentiality of his conversations and correspondences, li0e the clai ofcon2dentiality of 8udicial deli#erations, for e7aple, has all the values to which we accord deference for the privacyof all citi9ens and, added to those values, is the necessity for protection of the pu#lic interest in candid, o#8ective,and even #lunt or harsh opinions in :residential decision6a0in!. A :resident and those who assist hi ust #efree to e7plore alternatives in the process of shapin! policies and a0in! decisions and to do so in a way anywould #e unwillin! to e7press e7cept privately. These are the considerations 8ustifyin! a presuptive privile!e for:residential counications. The privile!e is fundaental to the operation of !overnent and ine7trica#ly rootedin the separation of powers under the Constitution 7 7 7 3 +Ephasis and underscorin! supplied/

Alonte involved a su#poena duces tecu issued #y the D#udsan a!ainst the therein petitioners. 5t did notinvolve, as e7pressly stated in the decision, the ri!ht of the people to inforation.>-Nonetheless, the Courtreco!ni9ed that there are certain types of inforation which the !overnent ay withhold fro the pu#lic, thusac0nowled!in!, in su#stance if not in nae, that e7ecutive privile!e ay #e claied a!ainst citi9ensS deands forinforation.

5n Chave9 v. :C11,>


38/94

other national security atters.3-*The sae case held that closed6door Ca#inet eetin!s are also a reco!ni9edliitation on the ri!ht to inforation.

%iilarly, in Chave9 v. :u#lic Estates Authority,-the Court ruled that the ri!ht to inforation does not e7tend toatters reco!ni9ed as 3privile!ed inforation under the separation of powers,3-'#y which the Court eant:residential conversations, correspondences, and discussions in closed6door Ca#inet eetin!s. 5t also held thatinforation on ilitary and diploatic secrets and those a4ectin! national security, and inforation oninvesti!ations of cries #y law enforceent a!encies #efore the prosecution of the accused were e7epted frothe ri!ht to inforation.

ro the a#ove discussion on the eanin! and scope of e7ecutive privile!e, #oth in the &nited %tates and in this

8urisdiction, a clear principle eer!es. E7ecutive privile!e, whether asserted a!ainst Con!ress, the courts, or thepu#lic, is reco!ni9ed only in relation to certain types of inforation of a sensitive character. Khile e7ecutiveprivile!e is a constitutional concept, a clai thereof ay #e valid or not dependin! on the !round invo0ed to 8ustifyit and the conte7t in which it is ade. Noticea#ly a#sent is any reco!nition that e7ecutive oIcials are e7ept frothe duty to disclose inforation #y the ere fact of #ein! e7ecutive oIcials. 5ndeed, the e7traordinary character ofthe e7eptions indicates that the presuption inclines heavily a!ainst e7ecutive secrecy and in favor ofdisclosure.

=alidity of %ection

%ection is siilar to %ection in that #oth require the oIcials covered #y the to secure the consent of the:resident prior to appearin! #efore Con!ress. There are si!ni2cant di4erences #etween the two provisions,however, which constrain this Court to discuss the validity of these provisions separately.

%ection speci2cally applies to departent heads. 5t does not, unli0e %ection , require a prior deterination #yany oIcial whether they are covered #y E.D. ). The :resident herself has, throu!h the challen!ed order, adethe deterination that they are. urther, unli0e also %ection , the covera!e of departent heads under %ection is not ade to depend on the departent headsS possession of any inforation which i!ht #e covered #ye7ecutive privile!e. 5n fact, in ar0ed contrast to %ection vis6\6vis %ection ', there is no reference to e7ecutiveprivile!e at all. Rather, the required prior consent under %ection is !rounded on Article =5, %ection '' of theConstitution on what has #een referred to as the question hour.

%ECT5DN ''. The heads of departents ay upon their own initiative, with the consent of the :resident, or uponthe request of either House, as the rules of each House shall provide, appear #efore and #e heard #y such Houseon any atter pertainin! to their departents. Kritten questions shall #e su#itted to the :resident of the %enateor the %pea0er of the House of Representatives at least three days #efore their scheduled appearance.5nterpellations shall not #e liited to written questions, #ut ay cover atters related thereto. Khen the securityof the %tate or the pu#lic interest so requires and the :resident so states in writin!, the appearance shall #econducted in e7ecutive session.

@eterinin! the validity of %ection thus requires an e7aination of the eanin! of %ection '' of Article =5.%ection '' which provides for the question hour ust #e interpreted vis6\6vis %ection ' which provides for thepower of either House of Con!ress to 3conduct inquiries in aid of le!islation.3 As the followin! e7cerpt of thedeli#erations of the Constitutional Coission shows, the fraers were aware that these two provisions involveddistinct functions of Con!ress.

MR. MAAMBDN1. 7 7 7 Khen we aended %ection '* Vnow %ection '' on the Juestion HourW yesterday, 5 noticedthat e#ers of the Ca#inet cannot #e copelled anyore to appear #efore the House of Representatives or#efore the %enate. 5 have a particular pro#le in this re!ard, Mada :resident, #ecause in our e7perience in theRe!ular Batasan! :a#ansa U as the 1entlean hiself has e7perienced in the interi Batasan! :a#ansa U oneof the ost copetent inputs that we can put in our coittee deli#erations, either in aid of le!islation or incon!ressional investi!ations, is the testionies of C

consti law special class

Documents