The Legislative Department

Article VI, 1987 Constitution

Kinds of Legislative power:

original legislative power this power is possessed by the sovereign people. derivative legislative power the power which has been delegated by the sovereign people to legislative bodies i.e., Congress. constituent legislative power the power to amend or revise the Constitution. ordinary legislative power the power to pass ordinary laws.

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)

Initiative and referendum:

Sec. 32, Art. VI also recognized the power of the people called initiative and referendum which is first mentioned in Sec. 1, Art. VI. This is the power to directly propose and enact laws or approve or reject any act or law or part thereof passed by Congress or local legislative body.

The mechanics in the exercise of this power is not stated in details in the Constitution but is provided by law Republic Act No. 6735

R.A. 6735 definition of Initiative:

Initiative is the power of the people to propose amendments to the Constitution or to propose and enact legislations through an election called for the purpose. There are three (3) systems of initiative, namely: 1. Initiative on the Constitution which refers to a petition proposing 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 petition proposing to enact a regional, provincial, city, municipal, or barangay law, resolution or ordinance.

How is local initiative conducted?

(SBMA vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 125416, Sept. 26, 1996) Initiative is resorted to (or initiated) by the people directly either because the law-making body fails or refuses to enact the law, ordinance, resolution or act that they desire or because they want to amend or modify one already existing. Under Sec. 13 of R.A. 6735, the local legislative body is given the opportunity to enact the proposal. If its refuses/neglects to do so within thirty (30) days from its presentation, the proponents through their duly-authorized and registered representatives may invoke their power of initiative, giving notice thereof to the local legislative body concerned. Should the proponents be able to collect the number of signed conformities within the period granted by said statute, the Commission on Elections shall then set a date for the initiative (not referendum) at which the proposition shall be submitted to the registered voters in the local government unit concerned.

R.A. 6735 definition of Referendum:

Referendum is the power of the electorate to approve or reject a legislation through an election called for the purpose. Two classes of Referendum: 1. Referendum on statutes which refers to a petition to approve or reject an act or law, or part thereof, passed by Congress; and 2. Referendum on local law which refers to a petition to approve or reject a law, resolution or ordinance enacted by regional assemblies and local legislative bodies.

Garcia vs. Comelec

G.R. No. 111230, Sept. 30, 1994

Issue: Does an exercise of local initiative includes as subject a resolution and not just an ordinance? Ruling: Sec. 32, Art. VI of the Constitution clearly includes not only ordinances but resolutions as appropriate subjects of a local initiative. The term act found therein includes resolution. Thus, Sec. 3 of R.A. 6735 expressly stated the term resolution in the definition of initiative on local legislation.

Santiago vs. Comelec

G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997
Facts: PIRMA (Peoples Initiative for Reforms, Modernization and Action) filed a petition before the Comelec to amend the some 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 provision granting the people the power to directly amend the Constitution through initiative is not self-executory. An enabling law is necessary to implement the exercise of the peoples right. Examining the provisions of R.A. 6735, the Court held that said law was incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned.

Initiative and referendum, distinguished

(SBMA vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 125416, Sept. 26, 1996)
Initiative is entirely the work of the electorate while referendum is begun and consented to by the law-making body. Initiative is a process of law-making by the people themselves without the participation and against the wishes of their elected representatives, while referendum consists merely of the electorate approving or rejecting what has been drawn up or enacted by a legislative body. Hence, the process and the voting in an initiative is understandably more complex than in a referendum where expectedly the voters will simply write either "Yes" or "No" in the ballot.

Sanidad vs. Comelec

G.R. No. 90878, January 29, 1990

Referendum is merely consultative in character. It is simply a means of assessing public reaction to the given issues submitted to the people for their consideration.

If the issue submitted to the people is intended to work more permanent changes in the political structure like a proposal to amend or ratify the Constitution, it is to be done through a plebiscite.

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)

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 finds its necessary to entrust to administrative agencies the authority to issue rules to carry out the general provisions of a statute. (Power of subordinate legislation) 4. delegation to local legislative bodies Congress admits that local legislative bodies are more knowledgeable on matters of purely local concern and are therefore in a better position to enact legislations peculiarly affecting them.

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 authority and prevent the delegation from running riot.

ABAKADA vs. Eduardo Ermita

G.R. No. 168056, September 1, 2005
Facts: Sections 4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Sections 106, 107 and 108, respectively, of the NIRC give the President the stand-by authority to raise the VAT rate from 10% to 12% when certain conditions are 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 of

the increase rate under the law is contingent. The legislature may delegate to executive officers or bodies the power to determine certain facts or conditions, or the happening of contingencies, on which the operation of a statute is, by its terms, made to depend, but the legislature 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 such power may be left to them, including the power to determine the existence of facts on which its operation depends.

Tio vs. Videogram Regulatory Board

G.R. No. 75697, June 18, 1987

The grant in Section 11 of the P.D. 1987 of authority to the BOARD to "solicit the direct assistance of other agencies and units of the government and deputize, for a fixed and limited period, the heads or personnel of such agencies and units to perform enforcement functions for the Board" is not a delegation of the power to legislate but merely a conferment of authority or discretion as to its execution, enforcement, and implementation.

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 which prescribes a standard contract to be adopted by both foreign and domestic shipping companies in the hiring of Filipino seamen for overseas employment is upheld as a valid delegation of legislative power based on the standard imposed by Executive Order No. 797 which created the POEA. - The standard provided by law is for POEA to protect the rights of Filipino overseas workers to fair and equitable employment practices.

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, restrain or coerce any teacher in the exercise of his rights guaranteed by this Act or who shall in any other manner commit any act to defeat any of the provisions of this Act shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred pesos nor more than one thousand pesos, or by imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.

Issue: Is this a valid delegation of legislative power?

Ruling: It is not for the courts to fix the term of imprisonment where no points of reference have been provided by the legislature. What valid delegation presupposes and sanctions is an exercise of discretion to fix the length of service of a term of imprisonment which must be encompassed within specific or designated limits provided by law, the absence of which will constitute such exercise as an undue delegation. Thus, the penalty of imprisonment should be, as it hereby, declared unconstitutional.

PHILCOMSAT vs. Alcuaz, NTC

G.R. No. 84818, Dec. 18, 1989
Delegation of legislative power may be sustained only upon the ground that some standard for its exercise is provided and that the legislature in making the delegation has prescribed the manner 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 nonconfiscatory and must have been established in the manner prescribed by the legislature; otherwise, in the absence of a fixed standard, the delegation of power becomes unconstitutional. In case of a delegation of the rate-fixing power, the only standard which the legislature is required to prescribe for the guidance of the administrative authority is that the rate be reasonable and just. However, it has been held that even in the absence of an express requirement as to reasonableness, this standard may be implied.

Ynot vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

G.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 the National 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.

Lokin vs. Comelec

G.R. No.179431-32, June 22, 2010
To be valid, therefore, the administrative IRRs must comply with the following 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 cannot amend 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.

Magtajas vs. Pryce Properties

G.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 of PAGCOR, 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.

Senate: (Sections 2,3 & 4, Art. VI)

consisting of 24 senators who are elected at large; 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 write 4. registered voter 5. residency at least two years immediately before the day of election

Social Justice Society vs.DDB & PDEA

G.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 in connection with the May 10, 2004 synchronized national and local elections. The said resolution was issued in order to implement Section 36 (g) of Republic Act No. 9165 provides that All candidates for public office x x x both in the national or local government shall undergo 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 no effect. The Constitution is the basic law to which all laws must conform; no act shall be valid if it conflicts with the Constitution. Congress cannot require a candidate for senator to meet such additional qualification not stated in Sec. 3, Art. VI and the COMELEC is also without such power.

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 old 3. 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 marginalized and underrepresented sectors.

Qualifications: Same as above-mentioned and he must be a bona fide member of the organization which he seeks to represent. (Sec. 9, R.A. 7941)

Four parameters of party-list election:

1. Twenty percent allocation the combined number of all party-list congressmen shall not exceed twenty percent of the total membership of the House including those elected under the party-list. 2. Two percent threshold only those parties garnering a minimum of two percent of the total valid votes cast for the party-list system are qualified to have a seat in the House. 3. Three-seat limit each qualified party, regardless of the number of votes it obtained, is entitled to a maximum of three seats. 4. Proportional representation the additional seats which a qualified party is entitled to shall be computed in proportion to the total number of votes.

Ang Bagong Bayani vs. Comelec

G.R. No. 147589, June 26, 2001
only those Filipinos who are marginalized and underrepresented will become members of Congress under the party-list system. Sec. 5 of R.A. 7941 enumerates the marginalized and underrepresented sectors: labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, and professionals. the enumeration in Sec. 5 is not exclusive, the marginalized and underrepresented in our midst are the majority who wallow in poverty, destitution and infirmity.

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 project organized or an entity funded or assisted by the government; 6. That the party must really be representing any of the marginalized and underrepresented sector; 7. The nominees of the party must also belong to the marginalized and underrepresented sector whom it/he wish to represent.

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 following procedure shall be observed: (a) The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked from the highest to the lowest based on the number of votes they garnered during the elections. (b) The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled to one seat each: Provided, That those garnering more than two percent (2%) of the votes shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes: Provided, finally, That each party, organization, or coalition 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, or coalitions on a nationwide basis, rank them according to the number of votes received and allocate party-list representatives proportionately according to the percentage of votes obtained by each party, organization, or coalition as against the total nationwide votes cast for the party-list system.

BANAT vs. Comelec

G.R. No. 179271, April 21, 2009
xxx in computing the allocation of additional seats, the continued operation of the two percent threshold for the distribution of the additional seats as found in the second clause of Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941 is unconstitutional. This Court finds that the two percent threshold makes it mathematically impossible to achieve the maximum number of available party list seats when the number of available party list seats exceeds 50. The continued operation of the two percent threshold in the distribution of the additional seats frustrates the attainment of the permissive ceiling that 20% of the members of the House of Representatives shall consist of party-list representatives. We therefore strike down the two percent threshold only in relation to the distribution of the additional seats as found in the second clause of Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941. The two percent threshold presents an unwarranted obstacle to the full implementation of Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution and prevents the attainment of the broadest possible representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the House of Representatives.

What does total votes cast mean?

Sec. 10, R.A. 7941 provides that the votes cast for a party, a sectoral organization or a coalition not entitled to 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 under the party-list system. This means that the two percent threshold can be more easily attained by the other qualified parties, thus increasing and broadening the number of representatives from these sectors. (Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs. Comelec G.R. No. 147589, June 25, 2003)

BA-RA 7941 vs. Comelec

G.R. No. 177271, May 4, 2007
Facts: Loreta Ann Rosales requested the Comelec to reveal the names of nominees 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 to official records are not absolute. The peoples right to know is limited to matters of public concern and is further subject to such limitation as may be provided by law. Similarly, the policy of full disclosure is confined to transactions involving public interest and is subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law. Too, there is also the need of preserving a measure of confidentiality on some matters, such as military, trade, banking and diplomatic secrets or those affecting national security. As may be noted, no national security or like concerns is involved in the disclosure of the names of the nominees of the partylist groups in question. Doubtless, the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing the legitimate demands of the petitioners for a list of the nominees of the party-list groups subject of their respective petitions. Mandamus, therefore, lies.

Lokin vs. Comelec

G.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 of nominees of all the party-list groups, CIBAC withdrew the names of three of its nominees including Lokin which the Comelec had favorably acted upon. Issue: Is the act of CIBAC in withdrawing the names of its nominees which was approved by the Comelec valid and legal? Ruling: No. The provisions of Sec. 8 of RA 7941 is daylight clear which reads No change of names or alteration of the order of nominees shall be allowed after the same shall have been submitted to the COMELEC except in cases where the nominee dies, or withdraws in writing his nomination, becomes incapacitated in which the name of the substitute nominee shall be placed last in the list. Allowing the party-list organization to change its nominees through withdrawal of their nominations, or to alter the order of the nominations after the submission of the list of nominees circumvents the voters demand for transparency. The lawmakers exclusion of such arbitrary withdrawal has eliminated the possibility of such circumvention.

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.

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)

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 (animus non revertendi)

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 married Ferdinand Marcos and they lived in San Juan, M.M. When Ferdinand became President, they lived in Malacanang Palace, part of San Miguel, Manila. In 1986, they were exiled in Hawaii. In 1995, she filed her certificate of candidacy 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 different purposes during the past four decades, none of these purposes unequivocally point to an intention to abandon her domicile of origin in Tacloban, Leyte.

Aquino vs. Comelec

(G.R. No. 120265, Sept. 18, 1995)
Facts: Butz Aquino, after his stint in the Senate, decided to run for Congress in Makati. He resided in Makati by renting a condo unit. But Butz Aquino was born in Concepcion, Tarlac and this is his domicile of origin while he was in the Senate. In 1995, he filed his certificate of candidacy for Congress in the 2nd district of Makati. Issue: Is Butz qualified to represent Makati in Congress? Ruling: No, Aquino is not considered a resident of Makati. There is no proof that he has abandon his domicile of origin which is Tarlac. He has no intention to establish a new domicile in Makati. His act of just leasing a condo unit does not engender the kind of permanency required to prove abandonment of ones original domicile.

Domino vs. Comelec

(G.R. No. 134015, July 19, 1999)
Facts: Juan Domino resides in Quezon City but he also rented a house in Alabel Sarangani. He registered as a voter in Quezon City. However, the MeTC of Quezon City in an exclusion proceedings declared that Domino is not a resident of Quezon City but he is a resident of Sarangani. Domino ran for Congress in Sarangani. Issue: Is he qualified to run for Congress in Sarangani? Ruling: No, he is not a resident of Sarangani but he is a resident of Quezon City. The determination of the MeTC of Quezon City in the exclusion proceedings as to the right of Domino to be included in the list of voters does not preclude the Comelec in determining Dominos qualification as a candidate, to pass upon the issue of compliance with the residency requirement. In short, the findings of the MeTC is not conclusive or binding on the Comelec.

Citizenship requirement:
must be a natural born Filipino - Sec. 2, Art. IV: Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph 3 hereof shall be deemed natural born citizens.

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 the time of the adoption of this Constitution; (2) Those born in the Philippines Islands of foreign parents who, before adoption of this Constitution, had been elected to public office in the Philippine Islands; (3) Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines; (4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship; (5) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

Who are citizens under the 1973 Constitution?

Sec. 1, Art. III of the 1973 Constitution provides: Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines: (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 of the Philippines; (3) Those who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of nineteen hundred thirty five; (4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

Who are citizens under the 1987 Constitution?

Sec. 1, Art. IV of the 1987 Constitution provides: Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines: (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 of the Philippines; (3) Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; and (4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

Jus sanguinis principle:

This principle of jus 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.

Co vs. HRET
G.R. No. 92191-92, July 30, 1991
Facts: Jose Ong, Jr. was born in 1948 in Samar of a Chinese father and a Filipina mother. When he was 9 years old, his father had been naturalized. In 1987, he ran for Congress in the 2nd district of Northern Samar. Issue: Is he a natural-born Filipino and thus, qualified to run for Congress? Ruling: Yes. Since his mother is a Filipino, he would be considered a natural born if he elected Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. However, since his father became a naturalized Filipino when he was still 9 years old, the effect of this is that it was the law itself that had already elected Philippine citizenship for him. Besides, his exercise of his right to suffrage constitute a positive act of election of Philippine citizenship.

Bengzon vs. Cruz

G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001
Facts: Teodoro Cruz was born in Tarlac in 1960 of Filipino parents. In 1985, he was enlisted in the US Marine and thus, he lost his Philippine citizenship. In 1994, he reacquired his Philippine citizenship through repatriation under R.A. 2630. In 1998, he ran for Congress in Pangasinan and won against his rival Bengzon. Issue: Is he a natural born Filipino? Ruling: Yes. His repatriation results in the recovery of his original nationality. Cruz is deemed to have recovered his original status as a natural born citizen, a status which he acquired at birth as the son of Filipino parents.

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

vacancy in the Senate or House:

Sec. 9, Art. VI provides that in case of vacancy in 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.

Tolentino vs. Comelec

G.R. No. 148334, January 21, 2004
Facts: After PGMA succeeded the presidency in January, 2001, she nominated Sen. Teofisto Guingona as Vice-President. When Guingona 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 of Sen. 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. Sec. 2, R.A. 6645 provides that in case of vacancy in the Senate, the special 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.

Dimaporo vs. Mitra

G.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 duties as 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 for governor created a vacancy of his seat in Congress? Ruling: Yes. Sec. 67, Art. IX of B.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 VicePresident shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing 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.

Farinas vs. Executive Secretary

G.R. No. 147387, Dec. 10, 2003
Facts: Sec. 14 of RA 9006 expressly repeals Sec. 67 of BP 881. The petitioners questioned the constitutionality of RA 9006. They argued that Sec. 67 of BP 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 on sound 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.

Parliamentary immunities:
(Section 11, Article VI)
1. Immunity from arrest any member of Congress (Senator or member of the House) cannot be arrested in all offenses punishable by not more than six years of imprisonment while Congress is in session. 2. Privilege of speech and debate No member of Congress can be questioned nor be held liable for any speech or utterance he made while in session in Congress or in any committee thereof.
Purpose: To make the legislator unimpeded in the performance of his duties and protect him against harassment which will keep him away from legislative sessions

People vs. Jalosjos

G.R. No. 132875-76, February 3, 2000

Facts: Romeo Jalosjos, a member of the House, was confined at the national penitentiary upon his conviction of rape and acts of lasciviousness. While his case is on appeal, he asked that he be allowed to attend sessions in Congress and perform his duties as congressman. Issue: Can his immunity from arrest justify his release? Ruling: No. A congressman convicted under Title 11 of the RPC 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 example and warning to others. The performance of legitimate and even essential duties by public officers has never been an excuse to free a person validly from prison.

Jimenez vs. Cabangbang

G.R. No. L-15905, August 3, 1966

Facts: Bartolome Cabangbang, a congressman from Bohol caused the publication of an open letter to the President of the Philippines in several newspapers. The persons who claimed to have been maligned by the letter filed an action for damages against the congressman. Issue: Whether or not the publication is privileged? Ruling: The publication of such communication is not privileged. The phrase speech or debate therein refers to utterances 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 communication to be published, the congressman was not performing his official duty.

The phrase in any other place in the speech and debate clause
The privilege of speech and debate is not absolute. A member of Congress may be called to account for his remarks by his own colleagues in Congress itself and when warranted, punished for disorderly behavior.

Osmena vs. Pendatun

G.R. No. L-17144, Oct. 28, 1960
Facts: Congressman Sergio Osmena, Jr. delivered a privileged speech in the House wherein he made serious accusations against President Carlos P. Garcia. The majority members of the House loyal to the President questioned his speech. He was ordered to substantiate his charges. When he refused, he was disciplined by suspending him for 15 months. Osmena went to the Supreme Court and questioned the legality of his suspension. Issue: Would his suspension violate his parliamentary immunity? Ruling: No. The parliamentary immunity guarantees the legislator complete freedom of expression without fear of being made responsible in criminal and civil actions before the courts or any other forum outside of the congressional hall. But it does not protect him from responsibility before the legislative body itself whenever his words and conduct are considered by the latter disorderly or unbecoming a member thereof.

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.

Incompatible office:
First sentence, Sec. 13, Art. VI
No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may hold any other office or employment in the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries, during his term without forfeiting his seat. - 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.

Adaza vs. Pacana

135 SCRA 431
Facts: Adaza, the governor of Misamis Oriental and Pacana, the vice-governor, both ran for the Batasang Pambansa election. Adaza won while Pacana lost. After Adaza took his oath as member of the Batasang Pambansa, Pacana assumed the governorship. Adaza objected, saying that no vacancy is created in the position of governor since he could concurrently serve as governor and member of the Batasan. Issue: Can Adaza simultaneously hold these two positions? Ruling: No. When Adaza took his oath as member of the Batasang Pambansa, he automatically forfeited the govenorship of Misamis Oriental. The office of the governor is an incompatible office to the position of being a member of the legislature.

Liban vs. Gordon

G.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 PNRC Chairmanship post? Ruling: No. PNRC is a private organization merely performing public functions and that the PNRC Chairman is not a government official or employee. Not being a government office, the PNRC Chairmanship may be held by any individual, including a Senator or Member of the House of Congress. PNRC is autonomous, neutral and independent of the Philippine Government. It is a voluntary organization that does not have government assets and does not receive any appropriation from the Philippine 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 the decisions nor actions of the PNRC Chairman. The lack of Presidential supervision proves that the PNRC Chairman is not an official or employee of the Executive Branch or any of the remaining branches of the government, but rather, a private official.

Forbidden Offices:
Second sentence, Sec. 13, Art. VI Neither shall he be appointed to any office which may have been created or the emoluments thereof increased during the term for which he was elected.

- the 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 the member of Congress when the said office is created or its emoluments were increased.

Prohibitions:
Sec. 14, Art. VI

Not to personally as counsel before any court of justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasijudicial and other administrative bodies; Not to, directly or indirectly, be interested financially in any contract with, or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof including GOCCs or its subsidiary;

Not to intervene in any matter before any office of the Government for his pecuniary benefit or where he may be called upon to act on account of his office.

Puyat vs. De Guzman, Jr.

113 SCRA 31 (1982) Facts: Assemblyman Estanislao Fernandez appeared as counsel of a party in a case before the SEC. Puyat, the opposing party, objected to the appearance of Assemblyman Fernandez. However, Fernandez purchased ten shares of the company of his client and proceeded to intervene in the case.
Issue: Whether or not Fernandez violated the constitutional prohibition not to appear as counsel? Ruling: Yes, Fernandez is in effect appearing as counsel, albeit indirectly, before an administrative body in contravention of the constitutional provision. His act of acquiring shares of the company was done after the fact and his intervention was an afterthought to enable him to appear actively in the proceedings in some other capacity.

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 and since then it shall continue to be in session until it will adjourned a month 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 initiative without the Presidents call when necessary such as in the following cases: - to canvass presidential elections (Sec. 4, Art. VII) - to call a special election when both the Presidency and the VicePresidency are vacated (Sec. 10, Art. VII) - to initiate impeachment case

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 a fixed term and they may be replaced anytime at the pleasure of the majority of all the members of each house The Senate will elect also a Senate President pro tempore and the HoR its Speaker pro 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

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 to day and may compel the attendance of absent members in such manner, and under such penalties, as such house may provide.

Avelino vs. Cuenco

G.R. No. L-2821, March 4, 1949
Facts: On Feb. 21, 1949, the Senate had its session with Senate President Avelino presiding. During the session, Avelino ignored Senator Taada who was prepared to deliver his speech which would enumerate charges against him. Avelino finally adjourned the session and walked out with his followers. However, the 12 senators who were left behind continued the session and passed a resolution which declared the position of the Senate President vacant and elected Senator Cuenco as Acting Senate President. Issue: Is the act of the remaining 12 senators in continuing with the session and in electing an acting Senate President valid?

Ruling: The constitutional grant to the Senate of the power to elect its own president should not be interfered with nor taken over by the judiciary. The continuation of the session was valid since the twelve senators constitute a quorum of 23 senators since one senator was outside the country at that time.

Santiago vs. Guingona

G.R. No. 134577, November 18, 1998
Facts: During the Senates first regular session on July 27, 1998, by a vote of 20 to 2, Senator Fernan was elected Senate President as against Senator Tatad. Tatad and Senator Santiago, the one who voted for him insisted that they would constitute the minority and those who voted for Fernan would constitute the majority. Thus, the election of Senator Guingona as the 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 members thereof, it does not provide that the members who will not vote for him shall ipso facto constitute the minority, who could thereby elect the minority leader. Verily, no law or regulation states that the defeated candidate shall automatically become the minority leader. The majority in either house of Congress refers to the political party which has the most numbers of lawmakers while the minority normally referred to a party with a lesser number of members. In a government with multiparty system such as in the Philippines, there could be several minority parties, one of which has to be identified as dominant minority party.

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 or individual rights, they may not be inquired into by the courts

Arroyo vs. De Venecia

G.R. 127255, August 14, 1997
Facts: Rep. Joker Arroyo questioned the validity of the passage of R.A. 8240 which imposes sin taxes. He alleged that there were rules of the House which were violated when the bill was approved and these violations are tantamount to violation of the Constitution. Issue: Did Congress committed grave abuse in approving the bill which ultimately becomes a law?

Ruling: The rules that are allegedly violated are merely internal rules of procedure of the House rather than constitutional requirements for the enactment of the law. Courts have no power to inquire into allegations that in enacting a law, a house of Congress failed to comply its own rules, in the absence of showing that there was a violation of a constitutional provision or rights of private individuals. Besides, mere failure to conform to parliamentary usage will not invalidate the action when the requisite number of members have agreed to a particular measure.

Power to discipline members:

Sec. 16 (3), Art. VI
Ground: disorderly behavior the interpretation of this phrase disorderly behavior is a prerogative of Congress and cannot be judicially reviewed. Required vote: majority vote of all members for censure or reprimand 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 depriving the constituency of representation; expulsion, when permissible, likewise vindicates the honor of the legislative body while giving to the constituency an opportunity to elect anew; but suspension deprives the electoral district of representation without that district being afforded any means by which to fill the vacancy. By suspension, the seat remains filled, but the occupant is silenced.

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 the proceedings taken during the session.

United States vs. Pons

34 Phil. 729 (1916)
Facts: Pons was charged for having violated Act No. 2381. However, his counsel argued that the law is null and void for the same was passed beyond the last day of special session of the Philippine Legislature in 1914. The legislature can validly hold 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 adjourned at midnight of February 28, 1914. The journals are not ambiguous or contradictory as to the actual date of adjournment. Thus, the court will take judicial notice of the legislative journals . The contains of the journals are conclusive evidence as to the date of adjournment.

Enrolled bill doctrine:

In the case of acts of the Philippine legislature, when there is in existence a copy signed by the presiding officers and secretaries of said bodies, it shall be conclusive proof of the provisions of such acts and the due enactment thereof. This doctrine is based on the respect due to coequal and independent departments which requires the judicial department to accept as having passed by Congress all bills authenticated in the manner stated.

Casco Philippine Chemical Co. vs. Gimenez

7 SCRA 347 (1963)
Facts: Sec. 2 of RA 2609 provides that the product urea formaldehyde is exempted from payment of margin fee. The petitioner company insisted 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.

Journal entry rule:

The court may consult the recitals of the journals of the legislature in order to verify matters relating to the passage of a bill such as the real text of a bill as approved by both houses or whether the required number of votes for the approval of the bill was really obtained. The court respect the entries of legislative journals these being acts of the Government and thus, court will not inquire into the veracity of the journals.

Astorga vs. Villegas

56 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 press statement that the enrolled copy of House Bill 9266 which was signed by the President was a wrong version of the bill actually passed by the Senate because it did not embody the amendments introduced by him and approved on the Senate floor. The Senate President confirmed Tolentinos 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, the attestation 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 journal reveals that substantial and lengthy amendments were introduced on the floor and approved by the Senate but were not incorporated into the printed text sent to the President and signed by him. Thus, it is clear that the bill was not validly enacted.

Electoral Tribunals:
Sec. 17, Art. VI
Each house will have an Electoral Tribunal. This is a constitutionally-created body The Electoral Tribunals shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective members.

Composition: total of 9 members, 3 SC justices and 6 senators or representatives chosen on the basis of proportional representation. The Electoral Tribunals have implied powers to promulgate their own rules of procedure necessary in the proper exercise of their express powers. (Angrara vs. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 134)

Abbas vs. Senate

166 SCRA 651 (1988)
Facts: During the May 11, 1987 elections, some losing senatorial candidates filed an election protest before the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) against 22 proclaimed senators. Since the 6 senator-members of the SET were respondents, thus, the petitioners moved to disqualify them all and they proposed that the rules of procedure of the SET be amended to allow that 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 Electoral Tribunal to be staffed by both justices of the Supreme Court and members of the Senate. It intended that both the judicial and legislative components commonly share the duty and authority of deciding all contests relating to election, returns and qualifications of Senators. Said intent is even more clearly signalled by the fact that the proportion of senators to justices in the prescribed membership of the SET is 2 to 1 an unmistakable indication that the legislative component cannot be totally excluded from participation in the resolution of senatorial election contests, without doing violence to the spirit and intent of the Constitution.

Bondoc vs. Pineda

G.R. No. 97710, September 26, 1991
Facts: In the congressional race in the 4th district of Pampanga, Pineda was proclaimed as winner. Bondoc filed a protest before the HRET. When the HRET heard the case, Bondoc actually won over Pineda. Cong. Camasura, a member of HRET and a partymate of Pineda in the LDP voted in favor of Bondoc and this angered the LDP leadership in the House that he was expelled from the party for disloyalty and ultimately he was removed from 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 political party to which they belong. Hence, disloyalty to party and breach of party discipline are not valid grounds for the expulsion of a member of the tribunal. In expelling Cong. Camasura from the HRET for having cast a conscience vote in favor of Bondoc, the House of Representatives committed a grave abuse of discretion and in justice and a violation of the Constitition.

Guerrero vs. Comelec

G.R. No. 137004, July 26, 2000
Facts: Before May 11, 1998 elections, a petition to disqualify Farinas as candidate for congress was filed with the Comelec. On election eve, Comelec dismissed the case. Farinas came out as winner in the election and was proclaimed and later, he took his oath of office as member of Congress. A motion for reconsideration was filed with the Comelec but the Comelec denied the motion on the ground that the issue on validity of 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 or invalid a certificate of candidacy, its refusal to exercise that power following the proclamation and assumption by Farinas to the position as member of Congress is a recognition of the jurisdictional boundaries separating the Comelec and the HRET. Once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath and assumed office as member of the House of Representatives, Comelecs jurisdiction over election contests relating to his elections, returns and qualifications ends and the HRETs own juridiction begins.

Commission on Appointments:
Sec. 18, Art. VI The CA is a constitutionally-created body which will check 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 the CA. 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:

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

G.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 its election 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 elected LP-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 of Sec. 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

G.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 and assume 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 another matter. 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

Sec. 21, Art. VI

The Senate or the House or any of its committees 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.

Arnault vs. Nazareno

87 Phil. 29 (1950)

Rationale of the power of inquiry:

the power of inquiry-with process to enforce it-is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function. A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change; and where the legislative body does not itself possess the requisite information-which is not infrequently true-recourse must be had to others who do possess it.

Bengzon vs. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee

G.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 is not absolute or unlimited. The investigation must be in aid of legislation meaning such inquiries may refer to the implementation or reexamination 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 of the 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

G.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 and desist 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 prevented from 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

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 hour for 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

G.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. 1 is 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 a hearing 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.

What is executive privilege?

Executive privilege is the power of the President and high-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, and discussions in closed-door Cabinet meetings; and (3) Matters affecting national security and public order.

Neri vs. Senate

G.R. No. 180643, March 25, 2008
Facts: Romulo Neri, the NEDA chief, testified at the NBN-ZTE probe at the Senate that Abalos offered him P200M in exchange for the approval of the NBN project. He further declared that he informed President Arroyo about the bribery attempt. But when asked about these three questions: (1) whether or not the President followed up the NBN project, (2) whether or not she instructed him to prioritize it and (3) whether or not she instructed him to approve it, he refused to answer invoking the executive privilege. Issue: Are the communications to be elicited by these three questions covered by the executive privilege? Ruling: There are two kinds of executive privilege; one is the presidential communication privilege and the other is the deliberative process privilege. The former pertains to communications, documents or other materials that reflect presidential decision-making and deliberations and that the President believes should remain confidential. The latter includes advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated. The communications elicited by these three questions are covered by the presidential communication privilege.

How to invoke executive privilege?

When an official is being summoned by Congress on a matter which, 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.

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 the state and the people. However, when a war has been waged already, Congress has to declare the existence of a state of war in order to justify the appropriation of money to finance the war since the power of the purse is vested in Congress.

Lawmaking at the Lower House:

Sec. 24, Art. VI The following bills must originate from the House of Representatives:
1. appropriation bill 2. revenue or tariff bill 3. bills authorizing increase of public debt 4. bills of local application 5. private bills

Upon approval by the House of these bills, the same shall be forwarded to the Senate who may propose or concur with amendments.

Steps in the passage of a bill in Congress:

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 bill in 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.