legislative department, contilaw
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
1/98
The Legislative
Department
Article VI, 1987 Constitution
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
2/98
Kinds of Legislative power:
original legislative power this power is possessedby the sovereign people.
derivative legislative power the power which hasbeen delegated by the sovereign people to legislativebodies i.e., Congress.
constituent legislative power the power to amend
or revise the Constitution.
ordinary legislative power the power to passordinary laws.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
3/98
Section 1 Who can exercise
legislative power? Legislative power is vested in Congress.
Congress is consist of two houses:
- upper house or Senate- lower house or House of Representatives
The sovereign people has reserved legislative
power (initiative and referendum)
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
4/98
Initiative and referendum:
Sec. 32, Art. VI also recognized the power of thepeople called initiative and referendum which isfirst mentioned in Sec. 1, Art. VI.
This is the power to directly propose and enactlaws or approve or reject any act or law or partthereof passed by Congress or local legislativebody.
The mechanics in the exercise of this power isnot stated in details in the Constitution but isprovided by law Republic Act No. 6735
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
5/98
R.A. 6735 definition ofInitiative:
Initiative is the power of the people to propose amendmentsto the Constitution or to propose and enact legislationsthrough an election called for the purpose.
There are three (3) systems of initiative, namely:
1. Initiative on the Constitution which refers to a petitionproposing amendments to the Constitution;
2. Initiative on statutes which refers to a petition proposing
to enact a national legislation; and
3. Initiative on local legislation which refers to a petitionproposing to enact a regional, provincial, city, municipal, orbarangay law, resolution or ordinance.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
6/98
How is local initiative conducted?(SBMA vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 125416, Sept. 26, 1996)
Initiative is resorted to (or initiated) by the people directlyeither because the law-making body fails or refuses to enactthe law, ordinance, resolution or act that they desire orbecause they want to amend or modify one already existing.Under Sec. 13 of R.A. 6735, the local legislative body is giventhe opportunity to enact the proposal. If its refuses/neglectsto do so within thirty (30) days from its presentation, theproponents through their duly-authorized and registeredrepresentatives may invoke their power of initiative, givingnotice thereof to the local legislative body concerned. Should
the proponents be able to collect the number of signedconformities within the period granted by said statute, theCommission on Elections shall then set a date for theinitiative (not referendum) at which the proposition shall besubmitted to the registered voters in the local government
unit concerned.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
7/98
R.A. 6735 definition of Referendum:
Referendum is the power of the electorate to approveor reject a legislation through an election called for thepurpose.
Two classes of Referendum:1. Referendum on statutes which refers to a petition toapprove or reject an act or law, or part thereof, passedby Congress; and
2. Referendum on local law which refers to a petition toapprove or reject a law, resolution or ordinanceenacted by regional assemblies and local legislativebodies.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
8/98
Garcia vs. ComelecG.R. No. 111230, Sept. 30, 1994
Issue:
Does an exercise of local initiative includes as subjecta resolution and not just an ordinance?
Ruling:
Sec. 32, Art. VI of the Constitution clearly includes notonly ordinances but resolutions as appropriate subjects
of a local initiative. The term act found thereinincludes resolution. Thus, Sec. 3 of R.A. 6735 expresslystated the term resolution in the definition ofinitiative on local legislation.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
9/98
Santiago vs. ComelecG.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997
Facts: PIRMA (Peoples Initiative for Reforms, Modernizationand Action) filed a petition before the Comelec to amend thesome provisions of the Constitution relying on R.A. 6735.
Issue: Does R.A. 6735 provides sufficient mechanism for the
conduct of initiative on the Constitution?
Ruling: The Court ruled that the constitutional provisiongranting the people the power to directly amend theConstitution through initiative is not self-executory. Anenabling law is necessary to implement the exercise of thepeoples right. Examining the provisions of R.A. 6735, theCourt held that said law was incomplete, inadequate, orwanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative
on amendments to the Constitution is concerned.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
10/98
Initiative and referendum, distinguished(SBMA vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 125416, Sept. 26, 1996)
Initiative is entirely the work of the electorate whilereferendum is begun and consented to by the law-makingbody.
Initiative is a process of law-making by the people themselves
without the participation and against the wishes of theirelected representatives, while referendum consists merely ofthe electorate approving or rejecting what has been drawn upor enacted by a legislative body.
Hence, the process and the voting in an initiative isunderstandably more complex than in a referendum whereexpectedly the voters will simply write either "Yes" or "No" inthe ballot.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
11/98
Sanidad vs. ComelecG.R. No. 90878, January 29, 1990
Referendum is merely consultative in character.It is simply a means of assessing public reactionto the given issues submitted to the people for
their consideration.
If the issue submitted to the people is intendedto work more permanent changes in the
political structure like a proposal to amend orratify the Constitution, it is to be done througha plebiscite.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
12/98
Non-delegability of legislative power:
Rule: Congress cannot delegate its legislative power.
The powers which Congress is prohibited from delegating
are those which are strictly, or inherently and exclusively,
legislative. Purely legislative power, which can never be
delegated, has been described as the authority to make a
complete law complete as to the time when it shall
take effect and as to whom it shall be applicable and to
determine the expediency of its enactment. (ABAKADA
vs. Eduardo Ermita, G.R. No. 168056, September 1, 2005)
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
13/98
Exceptions to the Non-delegability of legislative power:
1. delegation of tariff powers to the President (Sec. 28 (2),Art. VI);
2. delegation of emergency powers to the President (Sec.23(2), Art. VI);
3. delegations to administrative agencies Congress findsits necessary to entrust to administrative agencies theauthority to issue rules to carry out the general provisionsof a statute. (Power of subordinate legislation)
4. delegation to local legislative bodies Congress admitsthat local legislative bodies are more knowledgeable onmatters of purely local concern and are therefore in abetter position to enact legislations peculiarly affectingthem.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
14/98
Two tests of valid delegation:
completeness test the law must be complete
in all its terms and conditions such that when
it reaches the delegate the only thing that he
will have to do is to enforce it.
sufficient standard test the law must have
adequate guidelines and limitations to map
out the boundaries of the delegates authorityand prevent the delegation from running riot.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
15/98
ABAKADA vs. Eduardo ErmitaG.R. No. 168056, September 1, 2005
Facts: Sections 4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Sections 106, 107and 108, respectively, of the NIRC give the President the stand-byauthorityto raise the VAT rate from 10% to 12% when certain conditionsare met.
Issue: Does this constitute undue delegation of legislative power?
Ruling: It is not a delegation of legislative power. It is simply a delegation of
ascertainment of facts upon which enforcement and administration ofthe increase rate under the law is contingent. The legislature maydelegate to executive officers or bodies the power to determine certainfacts or conditions, or the happening of contingencies, on which theoperation of a statute is, by its terms, made to depend, but thelegislature must prescribe sufficient standards, policies or limitations on
their authority.While the power to tax cannot be delegated to executive agencies,
details as to the enforcement and administration of an exercise of suchpower may be left to them, including the power to determine theexistence of facts on which its operation depends.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
16/98
Tio vs. Videogram Regulatory BoardG.R. No. 75697, June 18, 1987
The grant in Section 11 of the P.D. 1987 ofauthority to the BOARD to "solicit the directassistance of other agencies and units of the
government and deputize, for a fixed and limitedperiod, the heads or personnel of such agenciesand units to perform enforcement functions forthe Board" is not a delegation of the power to
legislate but merely a conferment of authority ordiscretion as to its execution, enforcement, andimplementation.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
17/98
Case law on non-delegation of
legislative power:
Eastern Shipping Lines vs. POEA (166 SCRA 533)
- The provisions of the MC No. 2 of the POEA whichprescribes a standard contract to be adopted by both
foreign and domestic shipping companies in the hiringof Filipino seamen for overseas employment is upheldas a valid delegation of legislative power based on thestandard imposed by Executive Order No. 797 whichcreated the POEA.
- The standard provided by law is for POEA to protectthe rights of Filipino overseas workers to fair andequitable employment practices.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
18/98
People vs. Dacuycuy (G.R. No. L-45127, May 5, 1989)
Facts: Sec. 32 of R. A. No. 4670 (Magna Carta for Public School Teachers)provides:
"Sec. 32. Penal Provision. - A person who shall wilfully interfere with, restrainorcoerce any teacher in theexercise of his rights guaranteed by this Act or whoshall in any other mannercommit any act to defeat any of the provisions of this
Act shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not less than one hundredpesos nor more than one thousand pesos, or by imprisonment, in the discretion
of thecourt.
Issue: Is this a valid delegation of legislative power?
Ruling: It is not for the courts to fix the term of imprisonment where nopoints of reference have been provided by the legislature. What validdelegation presupposes and sanctions is an exercise of discretion tofix the length of service of a term of imprisonment which must beencompassed within specific or designated limits provided by law, theabsence of which will constitute such exercise as an unduedelegation. Thus, the penalty of imprisonment should be, as it hereby,declared unconstitutional.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
19/98
PHILCOMSAT vs. Alcuaz, NTCG.R. No. 84818, Dec. 18, 1989
Delegation of legislative power may be sustained only upon theground that some standard for its exercise is provided and thatthe legislature in making the delegation has prescribed themanner of the exercise of the delegated power. Therefore,when the administrative agency concerned, respondent NTC in
this case, establishes a rate, its act must both be non-confiscatory and must have been established in the mannerprescribed by the legislature; otherwise, in the absence of afixed standard, the delegation of power becomesunconstitutional. In case of a delegation of the rate-fixing
power, the only standard which the legislature is required toprescribe for the guidance of the administrative authority is thatthe rate be reasonable and just. However, it has been held thateven in the absence of an express requirement as toreasonableness, this standard may be implied.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
20/98
Ynot vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtG.R. No. 74457, March 20, 1987
Facts: Under EO 626-A, it is authorized that the seized property shall "be distributed to
charitable institutions and other similar institutions as the Chairman of theNational Meat Inspection Commission may see fit, in the case of carabeef, and to
deserving farmers through dispersal as the Director of Animal Industry may see fit,
in the case of carabaos.
Issue: Is this valid delegation of legislative power?
Ruling: The phrase "may see fit" is an extremely generous and dangerous condition. It
is laden with perilous opportunities for partiality and abuse, and even corruption.
One searches in vain for the usual standard and the reasonable guidelines, or
better still, the limitations that the said officers must observe when they make
their distribution. There is none. Their options are apparently boundless. Who
shall be the fortunate beneficiaries of their generosity and by what criteria shall
they be chosen? Only the officers named can supply the answer, they and they
alone may choose the grantee as they see fit, and in their own exclusive discretion.
Definitely, there is here a "roving commission," a wide and sweeping authority that
is not "canalized within banks that keep it from overflowing," in short, a clearly
profligate and therefore invalid delegation of legislative powers.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
21/98
Lokin vs. ComelecG.R. No.179431-32, June 22, 2010
To be valid, therefore, the administrative IRRs must comply with thefollowing requisites to be valid:
1. Its promulgation must be authorized by the Legislature;
2. It must be within the scope of the authority given by the Legislature;
3. It must be promulgated in accordance with the prescribed procedure;and
4. It must be reasonable
IRRs must not be ultra vires as to be issued beyond the limits of the
authority conferred.It is basic that an administrative agency cannotamend an act of Congress, for administrative IRRs are solely intended to
carry out, not to supplant or to modify, the law. The administrative
agency issuing the IRRs may not enlarge, alter, or restrict the provisions
of the law it administers and enforces, and cannot engraft additional
non-contradictory requirements not contemplated by the Legislature.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
22/98
Magtajas vs. Pryce PropertiesG.R. No. 111097, July 20, 1994
Facts: The Sangguniang Panglungsod of Cagayan de Oro City enacted an ordinance
that prohibits the entry of casino in the city. However, PD 1869, the charter ofPAGCOR, allows PAGCOR to operate casinos within the territorial jurisdiction of
the Philippines.
Issue: Is the city ordinance of the Cagayan de Oro valid?
Ruling: No. To be valid an ordinance must conform to the following requirements:
1. it must not contravene the Constitution or any statute;
2. it must not be unfair or oppressive;
3. it must not be partial or discriminatory;
4. it must not prohibit but may regulate trade;
5. it must be general and consistent with public policy;
6. it must not be unreasonable.
Municipal governments are only agents of the national government. Local
councils exercise only delegated legislative powers conferred only them by
Congress as the national lawmaking body. The delegate cannot be superior to
the principal. The ordinance violate PD 1869 which has the character and force
of a law, thus, the ordinance is invalid.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
23/98
Senate: (Sections 2,3 & 4, Art. VI)
consisting of 24 senators who are elected atlarge;
the term of office of senators is 6 years;
no senator shall serve for more than two
consecutive terms; qualifications of the office:
1. citizenship natural born Filipino
2. age at least 35 years of age
3. literacy able to read and write4. registered voter
5. residency at least two years immediately before theday of election
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
24/98
Social Justice Society vs.DDB & PDEAG.R. No.157870, November 3, 2008
Facts: On December 23, 2003, the Comelec issued Resolution No. 6486,requiring the mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office inconnection with the May 10, 2004 synchronized national and localelections. The said resolution was issued in order to implementSection 36 (g) of Republic Act No. 9165 provides that All candidatesfor public office x x x both in the national or local government shallundergo a mandatory drug test.
Issue: Is the said provision of R.A. 9165 constitutional?
Ruling: Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 should be, as it is hereby declared as,unconstitutional. It is basic that if a law or an administrative rule
violates the Constitution, that issuance is null and void and has noeffect. The Constitution is the basic law to which all laws mustconform; no act shall be valid if it conflicts with the Constitution.Congress cannot require a candidate for senator to meet suchadditional qualification not stated in Sec. 3, Art. VI and the COMELECis also without such power.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
25/98
House of Representatives:
Two kinds of membership in the House: District representatives those representing the different
legislative districts.Qualifications:
1. citizenship natural born Filipino
2. age at least 25 years old3. literacy able to read and write
4. registered voter in the district
5. residency at least one year immediately before the election
Party-list representatives those representing the marginalizedand underrepresented sectors.
Qualifications:
Same as above-mentioned and he must be a bona fide member of theorganization which he seeks to represent. (Sec. 9, R.A. 7941)
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
26/98
Four parameters of party-list election:
1. Twenty percent allocation the combined number of allparty-list congressmen shall not exceed twenty percent ofthe total membership of the House including those electedunder the party-list.
2. Two percent threshold only those parties garnering aminimum of two percent of the total valid votes cast for theparty-list system are qualified to have a seat in the House.
3. Three-seat limit each qualified party, regardless of thenumber of votes it obtained, is entitled to a maximum of
three seats.
4. Proportional representation the additional seats which aqualified party is entitled to shall be computed inproportion to the total number of votes.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
27/98
Ang Bagong Bayani vs. ComelecG.R. No. 147589, June 26, 2001
only those Filipinos who are marginalized andunderrepresented will become members of Congressunder the party-list system.
Sec. 5 of R.A. 7941 enumerates the marginalized andunderrepresented sectors: labor, peasant, fisherfolk,
urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly,handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseasworkers, and professionals.
the enumeration in Sec. 5 is not exclusive, themarginalized and underrepresented in our midst arethe majority who wallow in poverty, destitution andinfirmity.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
28/98
Grounds for disqualification of a party:
1. It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or
association organized for religious purposes;
2. It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal;
3. It is a foreign party or organization;
4. It is receiving support from any foreign organization;
5. That the party must not be adjunct of, or a projectorganized or an entity funded or assisted by thegovernment;
6. That the party must really be representing any of themarginalized and underrepresented sector;
7. The nominees of the party must also belong to themarginalized and underrepresented sector whom it/hewish to represent.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
29/98
How will the party-list seats be allocated?Sections 11 &12 of R.A. 7941
Section 11. Number of Party-List Representatives. x x x
In determining the allocation of seats for the second vote, the followingprocedure shall be observed:
(a) The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked from thehighest to the lowest based on the number of votes they garnered duringthe elections.
(b) The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least twopercent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitledto one seat each: Provided, That those garnering more than two percent(2%) of the votes shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to theirtotal number of votes: Provided, finally, That each party, organization, orcoalition shall be entitled to not more than three (3) seats.
Section 12. Procedure in Allocating Seats for Party-List Representatives.
The COMELEC shall tally all the votes for the parties, organizations, orcoalitions on a nationwide basis, rank them according to the number ofvotes received and allocate party-list representatives proportionatelyaccording to the percentage of votes obtained by each party, organization,or coalition as against the total nationwide votes cast for the party-list
system.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
30/98
BANAT vs. ComelecG.R. No. 179271, April 21, 2009
xxx in computing the allocation ofadditional seats, the continuedoperation of the two percent threshold for the distribution of theadditional seats as found in the second clause of Section 11(b) of R.A.No. 7941 is unconstitutional. This Court finds that the two percentthreshold makes it mathematically impossible to achieve the maximumnumber of available party list seats when the number of available party
list seats exceeds 50. The continued operation of the two percentthreshold in the distribution of the additional seats frustrates theattainment of the permissive ceiling that 20% of the members of theHouse of Representatives shall consist of party-list representatives. Wetherefore strike down the two percent threshold only in relation to thedistribution of the additional seats as found in the second clause ofSection 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941. The two percent threshold presents anunwarranted obstacle to the full implementation ofSection 5(2), ArticleVI of the Constitution and prevents the attainment of the broadestpossible representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the Houseof Representatives.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
31/98
What does total votes cast mean?
Sec. 10, R.A. 7941 provides that the votes cast for aparty, a sectoral organization or a coalition not entitledto be voted for shall not be counted.
Thus, the votes garnered by those disqualified party-list
groups will be subtracted from the total votes cast underthe party-list system.
This means that the two percent threshold can be moreeasily attained by the other qualified parties, thusincreasing and broadening the number ofrepresentatives from these sectors.
(Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs. Comelec
G.R. No. 147589, June 25, 2003)
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
32/98
BA-RA 7941 vs. ComelecG.R. No. 177271, May 4, 2007
Facts: Loreta Ann Rosales requested the Comelec to reveal the names ofnominees of some party-list groups. However, the Comelec refused.
Issue: Can the Comelec be compelled to reveal the names of nominees?
Ruling: Yes. The right to information and its companion right of access toofficial records are not absolute. The peoples right to know is limited to
matters of publicconcern and is further subject to such limitation asmay be provided by law. Similarly, the policy of full disclosure isconfined to transactions involving public interestand is subject toreasonable conditions prescribed by law. Too, there is also the need ofpreserving a measure of confidentiality on some matters, such asmilitary, trade, banking and diplomatic secrets or those affecting
national security. As may be noted, no national security or like concernsis involved in the disclosure of the names of the nominees of the party-list groups in question. Doubtless, the Comelec committed grave abuseof discretion in refusing the legitimate demands of the petitioners for alist of the nominees of the party-list groups subject of their respectivepetitions. Mandamus, therefore, lies.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
33/98
Lokin vs. ComelecG.R. No.179431-32, June 22, 2010
Facts: CIBAC party submitted the names of its nominees with the Comelec and
Lokin is the second nominee. After the Comelec had published the names ofnominees of all the party-list groups, CIBAC withdrew the names of three ofits nominees including Lokin which the Comelec had favorably acted upon.
Issue: Is the act of CIBAC in withdrawing the names of its nominees which wasapproved by the Comelec valid and legal?
Ruling: No. The provisions ofSec. 8 of RA 7941 is daylight clear which readsNo change of names or alteration of the order of nominees shall be allowedafter the same shall have been submitted to the COMELEC except in caseswhere the nominee dies, or withdraws in writing his nomination, becomesincapacitated in which the name of the substitute nominee shall be placedlast in the list.
Allowing the party-list organization to change its nominees throughwithdrawal of their nominations, or to alter the order of the nominationsafter the submission of the list of nominees circumvents the voters demandfor transparency. The lawmakers exclusion of such arbitrary withdrawal haseliminated the possibility of such circumvention.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
34/98
District representatives(Apportionment of legislative districts)
The territories (towns) comprising each
legislative district must be contiguous,
compact and adjacent. No gerrymandering
is allowed.
Each province irrespective of the population is
entitled to one representative.
Each city with a population of at least 250,000
is entitled to at least one representative.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
35/98
Residence qualification:
Rationale:
The manifest intent of the law in fixing a
residence qualification is to exclude a stranger
or newcomer, unacquainted with the
conditions and needs of a community and not
identified with the latter, from an elective
office to serve that community...(Gallego vs. Vera, G.R. No. L-48641, Nov. 24, 1941)
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
36/98
Residence means domicile:
The term residence is synonymous with domicile.
Domicile of origin has two elements:
1. fact of residing or physical presence, and
2. intention to remain (animus manendi) or
whenever absent, there is intention to return(animus revertendi)
In order to acquire a new domicile (domicile of choice) ,three (3) elements must concur:
1. residence or bodily presence in a new locality;2. an intention to remain there (animus manendi), and
3. an intention to abandon the old domicile (animusnon revertendi)
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
37/98
Romualdez-Marcos vs. Comelec(G.R. No. 119976, Sept. 18, 1995)
Facts: Imelda R. Marcos was born and raised in Tacloban,Leyte. In 1952, she went to Manila. In 1954, she marriedFerdinand Marcos and they lived in San Juan, M.M. WhenFerdinand became President, they lived in MalacanangPalace, part ofSan Miguel, Manila. In 1986, they were
exiled in Hawaii. In 1995, she filed her certificate ofcandidacy for Congress in First district of Leyte.
Issue: Is Imelda qualified to run for Congress in Leyte?
Ruling: Yes, she possesses the residence qualification.
Although Imelda held various residences for differentpurposes during the past four decades, none of thesepurposes unequivocally point to an intention to abandonher domicile of origin in Tacloban, Leyte.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
38/98
Aquino vs. Comelec(G.R. No. 120265, Sept. 18, 1995)
Facts: Butz Aquino, after his stint in the Senate, decided torun for Congress in Makati. He resided in Makati byrenting a condo unit. But Butz Aquino was born inConcepcion, Tarlac and this is his domicile of origin while
he was in theSenate.
In 1995, he filed his certificate ofcandidacy for Congress in the 2nd district ofMakati.
Issue: Is Butz qualified to representMakati in Congress?
Ruling: No, Aquino is not considered a resident ofMakati.
There is no proof that he has abandon his domicile oforigin which is Tarlac. He has no intention to establish anew domicile in Makati. His act of just leasing a condo unitdoes not engender the kind of permanency required toprove abandonment of ones original domicile.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
39/98
Domino vs. Comelec(G.R. No. 134015, July 19, 1999)
Facts: Juan Domino resides in Quezon City but he also rented ahouse in Alabel Sarangani. He registered as a voter in QuezonCity. However, the MeTC of Quezon City in an exclusionproceedings declared that Domino is not a resident of QuezonCity but he is a resident ofSarangani. Domino ran for Congressin Sarangani.
Issue: Is he qualified to run for Congress in Sarangani?
Ruling: No, he is not a resident ofSarangani but he is a resident ofQuezon City. The determination of the MeTC of Quezon City inthe exclusion proceedings as to the right of Domino to be
included in the list of voters does not preclude the Comelec indetermining Dominos qualification as a candidate, to pass uponthe issue of compliance with the residency requirement. Inshort, the findings of the MeTC is not conclusive or binding onthe Comelec.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
40/98
Citizenship requirement:
must be a natural born Filipino
- Sec. 2, Art. IV: Natural-born citizens are those
who are citizens of the Philippines from birthwithout having to perform any act to acquire orperfect their citizenship. Those who electPhilippine citizenship in accordance with
paragraph 3 hereof shall be deemed naturalborn citizens.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
41/98
Who are citizens under the 1935 Constitution?
Sec. 1, Art.
IV of the 1935 Constitution provides:
Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:
(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at thetime of the adoption of this Constitution;
(2) Those born in the Philippines Islands of foreign parentswho, before adoption of this Constitution, had beenelected to public office in the Philippine Islands;
(3) Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines;
(4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippinesand, upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippinecitizenship;
(5) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
42/98
Who are citizens under the 1973 Constitution?
Sec. 1, Art. III of the 1973 Constitution provides:Section 1. The following are citizens of thePhilippines:
(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippine at the
time of the adoption of this Constitution;(2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens ofthe Philippines;
(3) Those who elect Philippine citizenship pursuantto the provisions of the Constitution of nineteenhundred thirty five;
(4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with
law.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
43/98
Who are citizens under the 1987 Constitution?
Sec. 1, Art. IV of the 1987 Constitution provides:Section 1. The following are citizens of thePhilippines:
(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippine at the
time of the adoption of this Constitution;(2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens ofthe Philippines;
(3) Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipinomothers, who elect Philippine citizenship uponreaching the age of majority; and
(4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with
law.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
44/98
Jus sanguinis principle:
This principle ofjus sanguinis is citizenship by
blood, meaning a child follows the citizenship of
his parents regardless of the place of his birth.
This was first adopted by the 1935 Constitution.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
45/98
Co vs. HRETG.R. No. 92191-92, July 30, 1991
Facts: Jose Ong, Jr. was born in 1948 in Samar of a Chinesefather and a Filipina mother. When he was 9 years old, hisfather had been naturalized. In 1987, he ran for Congressin the 2nd district of Northern Samar.
Issue: Is he a natural-born Filipino and thus, qualified to runfor Congress?
Ruling: Yes. Since his mother is a Filipino, he would beconsidered a natural born if he elected Philippinecitizenship upon reaching the age of majority. However,since his father became a naturalized Filipino when he wasstill 9 years old, the effect of this is that it was the lawitself that had already elected Philippine citizenship forhim. Besides, his exercise of his right to suffrage constitutea positive act of election of Philippine citizenship.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
46/98
Bengzon vs. CruzG.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001
Facts: Teodoro Cruz was born in Tarlac in 1960 of Filipinoparents. In 1985, he was enlisted in the USMarine andthus, he lost his Philippine citizenship. In 1994, hereacquired his Philippine citizenship through repatriation
under R.A. 2630. In 1998, he ran for Congress inPangasinan and won against his rival Bengzon.
Issue: Is he a natural born Filipino?
Ruling: Yes. His repatriation results in the recovery of hisoriginal nationality. Cruz is deemed to have recovered hisoriginal status as a natural born citizen, a status which heacquired at birth as the son of Filipino parents.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
47/98
HoR term of office:
Members of the House (district and party-list)
have a term of three years
No member of the House shall serve for more
than three consecutive terms
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
48/98
vacancy in the Senate or House:
Sec. 9, Art. VI provides that in case of vacancyin the Senate or in the House, a special
election may be called to fill such vacancy
But the Senator or member of the House thus
elected shall serve only for the unexpired
term.
l l
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
49/98
Tolentino vs. ComelecG.R. No. 148334, January 21, 2004
Facts: After PGMA succeeded the presidency in January, 2001, she
nominated Sen. Teofisto Guingona as Vice-President. WhenGuingona ultimately assumed the vice-presidency, it created a
vacancy in the Senate. In the May, 2001 elections, the Comelec
proclaimed Gringo Honasan, the 13th placer in the senatorial race as
the one to serve the unexpired term ofSen. Guingona.
Issue: Was there a valid special election for the Senate vacant seat?
Ruling: The calling of an election, that is, the giving of notice of the time
and place of its occurrence is indispensable to the elections validity.
S
ec. 2, R.A. 6645 provides that in case of vacancy in theS
enate, thespecial election to fill such vacancy shall be held simultaneously with
the next succeeding election. Thus, the law charges the voters with
knowledge of this statutory notice and the Comelecs failure to give
the additional notice did not negate the calling of such special
election, much less invalidate it.
Di Mi
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
50/98
Dimaporo vs. MitraG.R. No. 96859, Oct 15, 1991
Facts: Dimaporo was elected representative of the 2nd district of Lanao del
Sur in the 1987 elections. He then took his oath and discharges his dutiesas a member of Congress. However, on January 15, 1990, he ran for the
position of Governor for the ARMM. However, he lost and when he went
back to Congress to resume his duties, Speaker Mitra refused to accept
him since his name has been dropped from the roll of members.
Issue: Does the act of Dimaporo in filing his certificate of candidacy forgovernor created a vacancy of his seat in Congress?
Ruling: Yes. Sec. 67, Art. IX ofB.P. Blg. 881 provides: Any elective official
whether national or local running for any office other than the one which
he is holding in a permanent capacity, except the President and Vice-
President shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon thefiling of his certificate of candidacy. The mere fact of filing of a
certificate should be considered the overt act of abandoning or
relinquishing his mandate to the people and that he should therefore
resign if he wants to seek another position which he feels he could be of
better service.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
51/98
Farinas vs. Executive SecretaryG.R. No. 147387, Dec. 10, 2003
Facts:S
ec. 14 of RA 9006 expressly repealsS
ec. 67 ofB
P 881. Thepetitioners questioned the constitutionality of RA 9006. They
argued that Sec. 67 ofBP 881 is a good law since it is based on the
principle of accountability of public officers. Thus, the repeal of this
law is a bad policy.
Issue: Is RA 9006, the repealing law unconstitutional?
Ruling: No. Government policy is within the exclusive dominion of the
political branches of the government. It is not for this Court to look
into the wisdom or propriety of legislative determination. Indeed,
whether an enactment is wise or unwise, whether it is based onsound economic theory, whether it is the best means to achieve
the desired results, whether, in short, the legislative discretion
within its prescribed limits should be exercised in a particular
manner are matters for the judgment of the legislature.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
52/98
Parliamentary immunities:(Section 11, Article VI)
1. Immunity from arrest any member of Congress (Senatoror member of the House) cannot be arrested in alloffenses punishable by not more than six years ofimprisonment while Congress is in session.
2. Privilege of speech and debate No member of Congresscan be questioned nor be held liable for any speech orutterance he made while in session in Congress or in anycommittee thereof.
Purpose: To make the legislator unimpeded in theperformance of his duties and protect him againstharassment which will keep him away from legislativesessions
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
53/98
People vs. JalosjosG.R. No. 132875-76, February 3, 2000
Facts: Romeo Jalosjos, a member of the House, was confinedat the national penitentiary upon his conviction of rapeand acts of lasciviousness. While his case is on appeal, heasked that he be allowed to attend sessions in Congressand perform his duties as congressman.
Issue: Can his immunity from arrest justify his release?
Ruling: No. A congressman convicted under Title 11 of theRPC could not claim parliamentary immunity from arrest.One rationale behind confinement, whether pending
appeal or after final conviction is public self-defense.Society must protect itself. It also serves as an exampleand warning to others. The performance of legitimate andeven essential duties by public officers has never been anexcuse to free a person validly from prison.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
54/98
Jimenez vs. CabangbangG.R. No. L-15905, August 3, 1966
Facts: Bartolome Cabangbang, a congressman from Boholcaused the publication of an open letter to the Presidentof the Philippines in several newspapers. The persons whoclaimed to have been maligned by the letter filed anaction for damages against the congressman.
Issue: Whether or not the publication is privileged?
Ruling: The publication of such communication is notprivileged. The phrase speech or debate therein refers toutterances made by congressmen in the performance of
their official functions, such as speeches delivered,statements made, or votes cast in the halls of Congress,while the same is in session. In causing the communicationto be published, the congressman was not performing hisofficial duty.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
55/98
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
56/98
Osmena vs. PendatunG.R. No. L-17144, Oct. 28, 1960
Facts: Congressman Sergio Osmena, Jr. delivered a privilegedspeech in the House wherein he made serious accusationsagainst President Carlos P. Garcia. The majority members of theHouse loyal to the President questioned his speech. He wasordered to substantiate his charges. When he refused, he wasdisciplined by suspending him for 15 months. Osmena went tothe Supreme Court and questioned the legality of hissuspension.
Issue: Would his suspension violate his parliamentary immunity?
Ruling: No. The parliamentary immunity guarantees the legislator
complete freedom of expression without fear of being maderesponsible in criminal and civil actions before the courts or anyother forum outside of the congressional hall. But it does notprotect him from responsibility before the legislative body itselfwhenever his words and conduct are considered by the latter
disorderly or unbecoming a member thereof.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
57/98
Duty on conflict of interest:Sec. 12, Art. VI
All members of Congress shall, upon
assumption of office, make 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.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
58/98
Incompatible office:First sentence, Sec. 13, Art. VI
No Senator or Member of the House of Representativesmay hold any other office oremployment in the
Government, or any subdivision, agency, orinstrumentality thereof, including government-owned orcontroll
edcorporations or th
eir subsidiari
es, during histerm without forfeiting his seat.
- The prohibition from holding this office is not absolute,what is not allowed is simultaneous holding of that office
and the seat in Congress.
- When the legislator opted to hold an incompatible office,his seat in Congress will automatically be forfeited.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
59/98
Adaza vs. Pacana135 SCRA 431
Facts: Adaza, the governor ofMisamis Oriental and Pacana, thevice-governor, both ran for the Batasang Pambansa election.Adaza won while Pacana lost. After Adaza took his oath asmember of the Batasang Pambansa, Pacana assumed the
governorship. Adaza objected, saying that no vacancy is createdin the position of governor since he could concurrently serve asgovernor and member of the Batasan.
Issue: Can Adaza simultaneously hold these two positions?
Ruling: No. When Adaza took his oath as member of the BatasangPambansa, he automatically forfeited the govenorship ofMisamis Oriental. The office of the governor is an incompatibleoffice to the position of being a member of the legislature.
Liban vs Gordon
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
60/98
Liban vs. GordonG.R. No. 175352, July 15, 2009
Facts: Senator Richard Gordon, during his term as Senator, was elected as
chairman of the board of the Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC).
Issue: Did Gordon forfeit his Senate seat upon his acceptance to the PNRCChairmanship post?
Ruling: No. PNRC is a private organization merely performing publicfunctions and that the PNRC Chairman is not a government official oremployee. Not being a government office, the PNRC Chairmanship maybe held by any individual, including a Senator or Member of the Houseof Congress. PNRC is autonomous, neutral and independent of thePhilippine Government. It is a voluntary organization that does not havegovernment assets and does not receive any appropriation from thePhilippine Congress. The PNRC is not a part of any of the government
branches. PNRC is neither owned nor controlled by the Government.The PNRC Charter provides that The President has no control in thedecisions nor actions of the PNRC Chairman. The lack of Presidentialsupervision proves that the PNRC Chairman is not an official oremployee of the Executive Branch or any of the remaining branches ofthe government, but rather, a private official.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
61/98
Forbidden Offices:Second sentence, Sec. 13, Art. VI
Neither shall he be appointed to any office which
may have been created or theemoluments
thereof increased during the term for which he
was elected.- the prohibition is absolute since even if a
member of Congress is willing to forfeit his seat,he cannot be appointed to this kind of office.
- the prohibition exist only during the term of themember of Congress when the said office iscreated or its emoluments were increased.
h b
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
62/98
Prohibitions:Sec. 14, Art. VI
Not to personally as counsel before any court ofjustice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other administrative bodies;
Not to, directly or indirectly, be interested financially
in any contract with, or in any franchise or specialprivilege granted by the Government, or anysubdivision, agency or instrumentality thereofincluding GOCCs or its subsidiary;
Not to intervene in any matter before any office ofthe Government for his pecuniary benefit or wherehe may be called upon to act on account of hisoffice.
P t D G J
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
63/98
Puyat vs. De Guzman, Jr.113 SCRA 31 (1982)
Facts: Assemblyman Estanislao Fernandez appeared ascounsel of a party in a case before the SEC. Puyat, theopposing party, objected to the appearance ofAssemblyman Fernandez. However, Fernandez purchasedten shares of the company of his client and proceeded tointervene in the case.
Issue: Whether or not Fernandez violated the constitutionalprohibition not to appear as counsel?
Ruling: Yes, Fernandez is in effect appearing as counsel,albeit indirectly, before an administrative body incontravention of the constitutional provision. His act ofacquiring shares of the company was done after the factand his intervention was an afterthought to enable him toappear actively in the proceedings in some other capacity.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
64/98
Legislative sessions:Sec. 15, Art. VI
The two houses of Congress hold their session on separate venues.- Senate building is in Pasay City
- Batasan complex is in Quezon City
Each house will convene every year on the 4th Monday of July andsince then it shall continue to be in session until it will adjourned amonth before the opening of its next regular session.
However, the President may call a special session any time.
Congress itself will hold special session on its own initiativewithout the Presidents call when necessary such as in thefollowing cases:- to canvass presidential elections (Sec. 4, Art. VII)
- to call a special election when both the Presidency and the Vice-Presidency are vacated (Sec. 10, Art. VII)
- to initiate impeachment case
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
65/98
Officers of both houses:Sec. 16 (1), Art. VI
Senate is headed by the Senate President House of Representatives is headed by its Speaker
The Senate President and the Speaker do not have afixed term and they may be replaced anytime at the
pleasure of the majority of all the members of eachhouse
The Senate will elect also a Senate Presidentprotempore and the HoR its Speakerpro tempore
Other officers in the Senate and in the HoR are:1. Majority Floor Leader;
2. Minority Floor Leader and
3. Chairmen of different committees
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
66/98
Quorum requirement:Sec. 16 (2), Art. VI
A majority of all members of each house shall
constitute a quorum to do business.
A smaller number may adjourn from day today and may compel the attendance of absent
members in such manner, and under such
penalties, as such house may provide.
A li C
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
67/98
Avelino vs. CuencoG.R. No. L-2821, March 4, 1949
Facts: On Feb. 21, 1949, the Senate had its session with SenatePresident Avelino presiding. During the session, Avelino ignoredSenator Taada who was prepared to deliver his speech whichwould enumerate charges against him. Avelino finally adjournedthe session and walked out with his followers. However, the 12senators who were left behind continued the session and
passed a resolution which declared the position of the SenatePresident vacant and elected Senator Cuenco as Acting SenatePresident.
Issue: Is the act of the remaining 12 senators in continuing withthe session and in electing an acting Senate President valid?
Ruling: The constitutional grant to the Senate of the power to electits own president should not be interfered with nor taken overby the judiciary. The continuation of the session was valid sincethe twelve senators constitute a quorum of 23 senators since
one senator was outside the country at that time.
Santiago vs Guingona
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
68/98
Santiago vs. GuingonaG.R. No. 134577, November 18, 1998
Facts: During the Senates first regular session on July 27, 1998, by a vote of20 to 2, Senator Fernan was elected Senate President as against SenatorTatad. Tatad and Senator Santiago, the one who voted for him insistedthat they would constitute the minority and those who voted for Fernanwould constitute the majority. Thus, the election ofSenator Guingona asthe minority floor leader is illegal since he did not belong to the minority.
Issue: Who constitute the majority? Who constitute the minority?Ruling: While the Constitution mandates that the Senate President must be
elected by a number constituting more than one-half of all membersthereof, it does not provide that the members who will not vote for himshall ipso facto constitute the minority, who could thereby elect theminority leader. Verily, no law or regulation states that the defeated
candidate shall automatically become the minority leader. The majorityin either house of Congress refers to the political party which has themost numbers of lawmakers while the minority normally referred to aparty with a lesser number of members. In a government with multi-party system such as in the Philippines, there could be several minorityparties, one of which has to be identified as dominant minority party.
P t l t l f it
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
69/98
Power to promulgate rules of its
proceedings (Sec. 16 [3], Art. VI):
one of the most basic powers of each house of
the legislature is to formulate and implement its
own rules of proceedings
as a rule, the interpretation and the
enforcement of these rules of proceedings lies
within the exclusive discretion of each house
Thus, unless such rules violate fundamental orindividual rights, they may not be inquired into
by the courts
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
70/98
P t di i li b
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
71/98
Power to discipline members:Sec. 16 (3), Art. VI
Ground: disorderly behavior the interpretation of this phrasedisorderly behavior is a prerogative of Congress and cannotbe judicially reviewed.
Required vote: majority vote of all members for censure orreprimand and 2/3 vote of all members for suspension or
expulsion. Suspension shall not exceed 60 days.Kinds of punishment: Punishment by way of reprimand or fine
vindicates the outraged dignity of the House without deprivingthe constituency of representation; expulsion, whenpermissible, likewise vindicates the honor of the legislative
body while giving to the constituency an opportunity to electanew; but suspension deprives the electoral district ofrepresentation without that district being afforded any meansby which to fill the vacancy. By suspension, the seat remainsfilled, but the occupant is silenced.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
72/98
Journals and Records of proceedings:Sec. 16 (4), Art. VI
Journal is only a resume of minutes of what
transpired during a legislative session.
Record is the word-for-word transcript of theproceedings taken during the session.
United States vs Pons
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
73/98
United States vs. Pons34 Phil. 729 (1916)
Facts: Pons was charged for having violated Act No. 2381.However, his counsel argued that the law is null and void forthe same was passed beyond the last day of special session ofthe Philippine Legislature in 1914. The legislature can validlyhold session only until midnight of February 28, 1914 however,
the law was approved only on the next day March 1, 1914.Issue: How will the true date of adjournment of the legislature be
proved?
Ruling: The journal clearly showed that the legislature adjournedat midnight of February 28, 1914. The journals are notambiguous or contradictory as to the actual date ofadjournment. Thus, the court will take judicial notice of thelegislative journals . The contains of the journals are conclusiveevidence as to the date of adjournment.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
74/98
Enrolled bill doctrine:
In the case of acts of the Philippine legislature,when there is in existence a copy signed by thepresiding officers and secretaries of said bodies, itshall be conclusive proof of the provisions of such
acts and the due enactment thereof.
This doctrine is based on the respect due to co-equal and independent departments which
requires the judicial department to accept ashaving passed by Congress all bills authenticatedin the manner stated.
Casco Philippine Chemical Co vs Gimenez
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
75/98
Casco Philippine Chemical Co. vs. Gimenez7 SCRA 347 (1963)
Facts: Sec. 2 of RA 2609 provides that the product urea formaldehyde
is exempted from payment of margin fee. The petitioner companyinsisted that the term urea formaldehyde in the law should be
construed as urea and formaldehyde citing a statement made on
the Senate floor, thus, Congress intended to also exempt urea and
formaldehyde from the payment of margin fee.
Issue: Whether or not urea and formaldehyde are exempt?
Ruling: It is well settled that the enrolled bill which uses the term urea
formaldehydeis conclusive upon the courts as regards the tenor of
the measure passed by Congress and approved by the President. If
there has been any mistake in the printing of the bill before it was
certified by the officer of Congress and approved by the President
on which the court cannot speculate without jeopardizing the
principle of separation of powers, the remedy is by amendment or
curative legislation, not by judicial decree.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
76/98
Journal entry rule:
The court may consult the recitals of the journalsof the legislature in order to verify mattersrelating to the passage of a bill such as the realtext of a bill as approved by both houses orwhether the required number of votes for theapproval of the bill was really obtained.
The court respect the entries of legislative
journals these being acts of the Government andthus, court will not inquire into the veracity of the
journals.
Astorga vs Villegas
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
77/98
Astorga vs. Villegas56 SCRA 714 (1974)
Facts: House Bill No. 9266 was passed by Congress and was signed into law,
thus, it became R.A. 4065. However, Senator Tolentino issued a pressstatement that the enrolled copy of House Bill 9266 which was signed bythe President was a wrong version of the bill actually passed by theSenate because it did not embody the amendments introduced by himand approved on the Senate floor. The Senate President confirmedTolentinos statement and he withdrew his signature therein. The
President of the Philippines also withdrew his signature on the bill.Issue: Which will be the basis in determining whether the bill was validly
passed by Congress, the enrolled bill or the entries of the journals?
Ruling: Since the signature of the Senate President was withdrawn, theattestation is now lacking and there is practically no enrolled bill to speak
of. Thus, the court will have to go to the journals. The Senate journalreveals that substantial and lengthy amendments were introduced on thefloor and approved by the Senate but were not incorporated into theprinted text sent to the President and signed by him. Thus, it is clear thatthe bill was not validly enacted.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
78/98
Electoral Tribunals:Sec. 17, Art. VI
Each house will have an Electoral Tribunal. This is aconstitutionally-created body
The Electoral Tribunals shall be the sole judge of allcontests relating to the election, returns, and
qualifications of their respective members.
Composition: total of 9 members, 3 SC justices and 6senators or representatives chosen on the basis ofproportional representation.
The Electoral Tribunals have implied powers topromulgate their own rules of procedure necessary in theproper exercise of their express powers. (Angrara vs.Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 134)
Abbas vs Senate
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
79/98
Abbas vs. Senate166 SCRA 651 (1988)
Facts: During the May 11, 1987 elections, some losing senatorial candidates
filed an election protest before the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) against22 proclaimed senators. Since the 6 senator-members of the SET wererespondents, thus, the petitioners moved to disqualify them all and theyproposed that the rules of procedure of the SET be amended to allowthat only the 3 justices-members will validly decide the case.
Issue: Would this proposed amendment be legally allowed?
Ruling: No. The Constitution ordains the composition of the ElectoralTribunal to be staffed by both justices of the Supreme Court andmembers of the Senate. It intended that both the judicial andlegislative components commonly share the duty and authority ofdeciding all contests relating to election, returns and qualifications of
Senators. Said intent is even more clearly signalled by the fact that theproportion of senators to justices in the prescribed membership of theSET is 2 to 1 an unmistakable indication that the legislative componentcannot be totally excluded from participation in the resolution ofsenatorial election contests, without doing violence to the spirit andintent of the Constitution.
Bondoc vs Pineda
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
80/98
Bondoc vs. PinedaG.R. No. 97710, September 26, 1991
Facts: In the congressional race in the 4th district of Pampanga, Pineda wasproclaimed as winner. Bondoc filed a protest before the HRET. When theHRET heard the case, Bondoc actually won over Pineda. Cong. Camasura,a member of HRET and a partymate of Pineda in the LDP voted in favorofBondoc and this angered the LDP leadership in the House that he wasexpelled from the party for disloyalty and ultimately he was removedfrom the HRET.
Issue: Is the termination of Cong. Camasura from the HRET valid and legal?
Ruling: No. As judges, the members of the tribunal must be non-partisan.They must discharge their functions with complete detachment,impartiality and independence even independence from the politicalparty to which they belong. Hence, disloyalty to party and breach of
party discipline are not valid grounds for the expulsion of a member ofthe tribunal. In expelling Cong. Camasura from the HRET for having cast aconscience vote in favor ofBondoc, the House of Representativescommitted a grave abuse of discretion and in justice and a violation ofthe Constitition.
Guerrero vs Comelec
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
81/98
Guerrero vs. ComelecG.R. No. 137004, July 26, 2000
Facts: Before May 11, 1998 elections, a petition to disqualify Farinas ascandidate for congress was filed with the Comelec. On election eve,Comelec dismissed the case. Farinas came out as winner in the electionand was proclaimed and later, he took his oath of office as member ofCongress. A motion for reconsideration was filed with the Comelec butthe Comelec denied the motion on the ground that the issue on validityof the certificate of candidacy of Farinas is already within the jurisdiction
of the HRET.
Issue: Is the Comelec correct that it has no more jurisdiction over the issue?
Ruling: Yes. While the Comelec is vested with the power to declare valid orinvalid a certificate of candidacy, its refusal to exercise that powerfollowing the proclamation and assumption by Farinas to the position as
member of Congress is a recognition of the jurisdictional boundariesseparating the Comelec and the HRET. Once a winning candidate hasbeen proclaimed, taken his oath and assumed office as member of theHouse of Representatives, Comelecs jurisdiction over election contestsrelating to his elections, returns and qualifications ends and the HRETsown juridiction begins.
Commission on Appointments:
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
82/98
Commission on Appointments:Sec. 18, Art. VI
The CA is a constitutionally-created body which willcheck the appointing power of the President
Composition: Senate President ex-officio chairman;
members 12 senators and 12 congressmen
However, it is not mandatory to elect 12 senators to theCA. The Constitution does not contemplate that the CA
must necessarily include 12 senators and 12
congressmen. What the Constitution requires is that
there be at least a majority of the entire membership.
The senator-members and the congressmen-members
constitute a body and they will vote jointly and not
separately.
Appointments that requires CA approval:
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
83/98
Appointments that requires CA approval:Sec. 16, First Sentence, Art. VII
The President shall nominate and, with the consent
of the Commission on Appointments, appoint
1. the heads of the executive departments,
2. ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls,3. officers of the armed forces from the rank of
colonel or naval captain, and
4. other officers whose appointments are vested in
him in this Constitution.
Guingona vs. Gonzales
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
84/98
gG.R. No. 106971, Oct. 20, 1992
Facts: After the May 11, 1992 elections, the Senate composition as to
party affiliation and corresponding proportional membership and itselection of CA members is as follows:
LDP 15 senators 7.5 8 members elected
NPC 5 senators 2.5 2 members elected
LAKAS-NUCD 3 senators 1.5 1 member electedLP-PDP-LABAN 1 senator .5 1 member elected
Issue: Is the rule of proportional representation strictly followed in filling
up membership in the CA?
Ruling: No. There is a violation ofSec. 18 on the rule on proportional
representation. This provision is mandatory in character and does not
leave any discretion to the majority party in the Senate to disobey or
disregard this rule. In the Senate, a political party must have at least
two duly elected senators for every seat in the Commission on
Appointments.
Matibag vs. Benipayo
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
85/98
Matibag vs. BenipayoG.R. No. 149036, April 2, 2002
Two modes in appointing officials who are subject to confirmation by the CA:
First, while Congress is in session, the President may nominate the
prospective appointee, and pending consent of the CA, the nominee cannot
qualify and assume office.
Second, during recess if Congress, the President may extend an ad interim
appointment which allows the appointee to immediately qualify andassume office. An ad interim appointee disapproved by the CA can no
longer be extended a new appointment. The disapproval is a final decision
of the CA in the exercise of its checking power on the appointing authority
of the President. However, an ad interim appointment that is by-passed by
the CA because of lack of time or failure of the CA to organize is anothermatter. A by-passed appointment is one that has not been finally acted
upon on the merits by the CA at the close of the session of Congress.
Absent of such decision, the President is free to renew the ad interim
appointment of a by-passed appointee.
The power of inquiry
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
86/98
The power of inquirySec. 21, Art. VI
The Senate or the House or any of itscommittees may conduct inquiries in aid of
legislation.
The inquiry or investigation must be:
1. made in accordance with Senate or House
duly published rules of procedure and
2. the rights of the persons appearing in or
affected by such inquiries must be respected.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
87/98
Bengzon vs. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
88/98
Bengzon vs. Senate Blue Ribbon CommitteeG.R. No. L-89914, Nov. 20, 1991
Facts: Bengson was requested to testify before the Senate hearing on the
alleged sale of Romualdez assets to Ricardo Lopa, a relative of President
Cory Aguino. These Romualdez assets are subject of sequestration by
the PCGG.
Issue: Can the Senate compel Bengzon to appear and testify?
Ruling: No. The power of both houses of Congress to conduct inquires isnot absolute or unlimited. The investigation must be in aid of legislation
meaning such inquiries may refer to the implementation or re-
examination of any law or in connection with any proposed legislation or
the formulation of future legislation. However, the purpose of inquiry to
be conducted by the Senate is to find out whether or not the relative ofthe President has violate the law which is not really in aid of legislation.
Besides, there is already a case filed before the Sandiganbayan involving
this issue, thus, the Senate investigation would be an encroachment into
the exclusive domain of judicial jurisdiction.
Senate Blue Ribbon vs. Judge Majaducon
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
89/98
g jG.R. No. 136760, July 29, 2003
Facts: The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee conducted an inquiry on the
alleged fund irregularities of the Armed Forces Retirement and
Separation Benefits System (AFP-RSBS). It subpoenaed Atty. Flaviano
to appear before it. Atty. Flaviano secured a TRO against the Senate
issued by Judge Majaducon of RTC-23 of General Santos City.
Issue: Is the TRO issued by the Judge ordering the Senate to cease anddesist from proceeding with its heaing valid?
Ruling: No. The principle of separation of powers essentially means
that legislation belongs to Congress, execution to the Executive and
settlement of legal controversies to the Judiciary. Each is preventedfrom invading the domain of the others. The RTC of General Santos
or any court for that matter, had no authority to prohibit the Senate
committee from requiring the respondent (Atty. Flaviano) to appear
and testify before it.
Question Hour under the 1987 Constitution
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
90/98
Sec. 22, Art. VI
Two ways of conducting the Question Hour, Philippine style:
1. Appearance upon initiative of Department Head - When a
department head desires to appear before either house of
Congress on any matter pertaining to his department, he may,
with the consent of the President, notify the house in Congress
where he intends to appear.
2. Appearance upon request of the House - A department head may
be requested to appear before either house and be heard on any
matter pertaining to his/her department. The request shall state
specifically the questions to be answered and the date and hourfor his/her appearance.
Purpose: The appearance during question hour is for Congress to be
informed on how department heads are implementing the
statutes which it had enacted .
Senate vs. Executive Secretary Ermita
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
91/98
yG.R. No. 169777, April 20, 2006
Facts: Pres. Arroyo issued EO 464 and under Section1 thereof, it
requires all heads of departments of the Executive branch to
secure the consent of the President prior to appearing before
either house of Congress.
Issue: Is EO 464 valid and constitutional?
Ruling: The requirement to secure presidential consent under Sec. 1is valid if the appearance of the department secretary before
Congress is under the question hour. The attendance of the
department heads is discretionary during question hour. However,
if the appearance of the department head is sought during ahearing in Congress in the exercise of its power of inquiry in aid of
legislation, the appearance is mandatory with or without
presidential consent. The only way for department heads to
exempt themselves is by a valid claim of executive privilege.
Wh i i i il ?
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
92/98
What is executive privilege?
Executive privilege is the power of the President andhigh-level executive branch officers to withhold
information from the public, the courts, and the
Congress.
The matters covered under executive privilege include:
(1) Information between inter-government agencies prior to
the conclusion of treaties and executive agreements;
(2) Presidential conversations, correspondences, anddiscussions in closed-door Cabinet meetings; and
(3) Matters affecting national security and public order.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
93/98
k l ?
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
94/98
How to invoke executive privilege?
When an official is being summoned by Congress on a matterwhich, in his own judgment, might be covered by executive
privilege, he must be afforded reasonable time to inform the
President or the Executive Secretary of the possible need for
invoking the privilege. This is necessary in order to provide the
President or the Executive Secretary with fair opportunity to
consider whether the matter indeed calls for a claim of executive
privilege.
If, after the lapse of that reasonable time, neither the
President nor the Executive Secretary invokes the privilege,Congress is no longer bound to respect the failure of the official
to appear before Congress and may then opt to avail of the
necessary legal means to compel his appearance.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
95/98
Power to declare the existence of a state of war:Sec. 23 (1), Art. VI
The power to wage war is lodged in the President,
he being the commander-in-chief of the armed
forces. In other words, the power of the sword
is in him. He can wage war only in defense of thestate and the people.
However, when a war has been waged already,
Congress has to declare the existence of a state ofwar in order to justify the appropriation of money
to finance the war since the power of the purse
is vested in Congress.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
96/98
Steps in the passage of a bill in Congress:
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
97/98
1. A bill may be introduced in the House of Representatives or the Senate.
2. On 1st Reading, the title and number of the bill is read, and then, it is
referred to the appropriate committee.
3. A committee studies the bill and conducts hearings on it. Thereafter, a
committee report is prepared on the bill.
4. The committee report is read in open session, and together with the bill, it
is referred to the Rules Committee. The Rules Committee can place the billin the 2nd Reading Calendar or in the Calendar of Unassigned Business.
5. On 2nd Reading, a bill is subject to debate and amendment before being
placed in the 3rd Reading Calendar for final passage.
6. After its passage by one house, the bill goes through the same process in
the other house.
7. If amendments are made in one house, the other house must concur.
8. When the bill is passed by both houses, it is signed by their respective
leaders and sent to the President for approval.
-
8/9/2019 Legislative Department, Contilaw
98/98