This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
L-18684 September 14, 1961
RATIO: Constitution directs that the one hundred twenty Members of the House of Representatives "shall be apportioned among the several provinces as nearly as may be according to the member of their respective inhabitants." Such disproportion of representation provided has been held sufficient to avoid apportionment laws enacted in States having Constitutional provisions similar to ours. Whenever this kind of inequality of apportionment has been before the courts, it has been held to be contrary to the Constitution. It has been said to be "arbitrary and capricious and against the vital principle of equality.
LAMBERTO MACIAS, LORENZO TEVES, FAUSTO DUGENIO, ROGACIANO MERCADO and MARIANO PERDICES, petitioners, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and VICENTE GELLA in his Capacity as National Treasurer, respondents. BENGZON, C.J.:
It may be added in this connection, that the mere impact of the suit upon the political FACTS: Petitioners request that respondent officials be prevented from implementing R.A. No. 3040 that apportions representative districts in this country. The alleged circumstance that this statute improves the present set-up constitutes no excuse Petitioners allege that it is unconstitutional and void because it apportioned districts without regard to the number of inhabitants of the several provinces. The respondents aver they were merely complying with their duties under the statute, which they presume and allege to be constitutional. Needless to say, equality of representation in the Legislature being such an essential The respondent National Treasurer further avers that the Act complies with the principle of proportional representation prescribed by the Constitution. ISSUE: Whether R.A. No 3040 is unconstitutional for apportioning districts without regard to the number of inhabitants of the several provinces. HELD: The statute should be declared invalid.. Whereas such Republic Act 3040 clearly violates the said constitutional provision in several ways namely, (a) it gave Cebu seven members, while Rizal with a bigger number of inhabitants got four only; (b) it gave Manila four members, while Cotabato with a bigger population got three only;
situation does not render it political instead of judicial.
for approving a transgression of constitutional limitations, because the end does not justify the means. Furthermore, there is no reason to doubt that, aware of the existing inequality of representation, and impelled by its sense of duty, Congress will opportunely approve remedial legislation in accord with the precepts of the Constitution.
feature of republican institutions, and affecting so many lives, the judiciary may not with a clear conscience stand by to give free hand to the discretion of the political departments of the Government. An unconstitutional apportionment law may be declared void by the courts, notwithstanding the fact that such statute is an exercise of political power. The constitutionality of a statute forming a delegate district or apportioning delegates for the house of delegates is a judicial question for the courts, although the statute is an exercise of political power.
G.R. No. 73155 July 11, 1986 PATRICIO TAN, FELIX FERRER, JUAN M. HAGAD, SERGIO HILADO, VIRGILIO GASTON, CONCHITA MINAYA, TERESITA ESTACIO, DESIDERIO DEFERIA, ROMEO GAMBOA, ALBERTO LACSON, FE HOFILENA, EMILY JISON, NIEVES LOPEZ AND CECILIA MAGSAYSAY, petitioners, vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and THE PROVINCIAL TREASURER OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, respondents.
The plebiscite was confined only to the inhabitants of the territory of Negros del Norte. Petitioners plead, nevertheless, that- Finding that the exclusion and non-participation of the voters of the Province of Negros Occidental other than those living within the territory of the new province of Negros del Norte to be not in accordance with the Constitution , that a writ of mandamus be issued to schedule the holding of another plebiscite at which all the qualified voters of the entire Province of Negros Occidental as now existing shall participate. Respondents argue that the remaining cities and municipalities of the Province of Negros
ALAMPAY, J.: Prompted by the enactment of Batas Pambansa Blg. 885-An Act Creating a New Province in the Island of Negros to be known as the Province of Negros del Norte, which took effect on December 3, 1985, Petitioners herein, who are residents of the Province of Negros Occidental, in the various cities and municipalities therein, , filed with this Court a case for Prohibition for the purpose of stopping respondents Commission on Elections from conducting the plebiscite which, pursuant to and in implementation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 885-An Act Creating a New Province in the Island of Negros to be known as the Province of Negros del Norte. Section 197 of the Local Government Code enumerates the conditions which must exist to provide the legal basis for the creation of a provincial unit and these requisites are:
Occidental not included in the area of the new Province of Negros del Norte, do not fall within the meaning and scope of the term "unit or units affected", as referred to in Section 3 of Art. XI of our Constitution. ISSUE: Whether or not the the voters of the Province of Negros Occidental other than those living within the territory of the new province of Negros del Norte should be allowed to participate in the challenged plebiscite. HELD: the voters of the Province of Negros Occidental other than those living within the territory of the new province of Negros del Norte should be allowed to participate in the challenged plebiscite.
RATIO: Aside from the simpler factual issue relative to the land area of the new province of SEC. 197. Requisites for Creation territory-at least 3,500 sq km, population-500,000 average estimated annual income- not less than 10M for the last three consecutive years creation shall not reduce the population and income of the mother province or provinces at the time of said creation to less than the minimum requirements under this section.
Negros del Norte, the more significant and pivotal issue in the present case revolves around in the interpretation and application in the case at bar of Article XI, Section 3 of the Constitution, which being brief and for convenience, We again quote: SEC. 3. No province, city, municipality or barrio may be created, divided, merged abolished, or its boundary substantially altered, except in accordance with the criteria established in the local government code, and subject to the approval by a majority of the votes in a plebiscite in the unit or units affected.
It can be plainly seen that the aforecited constitutional provision makes it imperative that there be first obtained "the approval of a majority of votes in the plebiscite in the unit or units affected" whenever a province is created, divided or merged and there is substantial alteration of the boundaries. It is thus inescapable to conclude that the boundaries of the existing province of Negros Occidental would necessarily be substantially altered by the division of its existing boundaries in order that there can be created the proposed new province of Negros del Norte. Plain and simple logic will demonstrate than that two political units would be affected. The first would be the parent province of Negros Occidental because its boundaries would be substantially altered. The other affected entity would be composed of those in the area subtracted from the mother province to constitute the proposed province of Negros del Norte. We find no way to reconcile the holding of a plebiscite that should conform to said constitutional requirement but eliminates the participation of either of these two component political units. 2. ... when the Constitution speaks of "the unit or units affected" it means all of the people of the municipality if the municipality is to be divided such as in the case at bar or and of the people of two or more municipalities if there be a merger. This dissenting opinion of Justice Vicente Abad Santos is the— forerunner of the ruling which We now consider applicable to the case at bar The environmental facts in the case before Us readily disclose that the subject matter under consideration is of greater magnitude with concomitant multifarious complicated problems. To form the new province of Negros del Norte no less than three cities and eight municipalities will be subtracted from the parent province of Negros Occidental. This will result in the removal of approximately 2,768.4 square kilometers from the land area of an existing province whose boundaries will be consequently substantially altered.
It becomes easy to realize that the consequent effects of the division of the parent province necessarily will affect all the people living in the separate areas of Negros Occidental and the proposed province of Negros del Norte. The economy of the parent province as well as that of the new province will be inevitably affecte d, either for the better or for the worse. Whatever be the case, either or both of these political groups will be affected and they are, therefore, the unit or units referred to in Section 3 of Article XI of the Constitution which must be included in the plebiscite contemplated therein. We agree with the petitioners that in the case of Negros what was involved was a division, a separation; and consequently, as Sec. 3 of Article XI of the Constitution anticipates, a substantial alteration of boundary. As contended by petitioners,— Indeed, the terms 'created', 'divided', 'merged', 'abolished' as used in the constitutional provision do not contemplate distinct situation isolated from the mutually exclusive to each other. A Province maybe created where an existing province is divided or two provinces merged. Such cases necessarily will involve existing unit or units abolished and definitely the boundary being substantially altered. It would thus be inaccurate to state that where an existing political unit is divided or its boundary substantially altered, as the Constitution provides, only some and not all the voters in the whole unit which suffers dismemberment or substantial alteration of its boundary are affected. Rather, the contrary is true.
G.R. No. 136781
October 6, 2000
ALAGAD (PARTIDO NG MARALITANG-LUNGSOD), NATIONAL CONFEDERATION OF SMALL COCONUT FARMERS' ORGANIZATIONS (NCSFCO), and LUZON FARMERS' PARTY (BUTIL),
VETERANS FEDERATION PARTY, ALYANSANG BAYANIHAN NG MGA MAGSASAKA, MANGGAGAWANG BUKID AT MANGINGISDA, ADHIKAIN AT KILUSAN NG ORDINARYONG TAO PARA SA LUPA, PABAHAY AT KAUNLARAN, and LUZON FARMERS PARTY, petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, PAG-ASA, SENIOR CITIZENS, AKAP AKSYON, PINATUBO, NUPA, PRP, AMIN, PAG-ASA, MAHARLIKA, OCW-UNIFIL, PCCI, AMMA-KATIPUNAN, KAMPIL, BANTAY-BAYAN, AFW, ANG LAKAS OCW, WOMEN-POWER, INC., FEJODAP, CUP, VETERANS CARE, 4L, AWATU, PMP, ATUCP, NCWP, ALU, BIGAS, COPRA, GREEN, ANAKBAYAN, ARBA, MINFA, AYOS, ALL COOP, PDP-LABAN, KATIPUNAN, ONEWAY PRINT, AABANTE KA PILIPINAS -- All Being Party-List Parties/Organizations -- and Hon. MANUEL B. VILLAR, JR. in His Capacity as Speaker of the House of Representatives, respondents. PANGANIBAN, J.: x-----------------------x
petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, SENIOR CITIZENS, AKAP, AKSYON, PINATUBO, NUPA, PRP, AMIN, PAG-ASA, MAHARLIKA, OCW, UNIFIL, PCCI, AMMA-KATIPUNAN, KAMPIL, BANTAYBAYAN, AFW, ANG LAKAS OCW, WOMENPOWER INC., FEJODAP, CUP, VETERANS CARE, 4L, AWATU, PMP, ATUCP, NCWP, ALU, BIGAS, COPRA, GREEN, ANAK-BAYAN, ARBA, MINFA, AYOS, ALL COOP, PDP-LABAN, KATIPUNAN, ONEWAY PRINT, and AABANTE KA PILIPINAS, respondents. DECISION
FACTS: The party-list method of representation. Under this system, any national, regional or G.R. No. 136786 October 6, 2000 sectoral party or organization registered with the Commission on Elections may participate in the election of party-list representatives who, upon their election and proclamation, AKBAYAN! (CITIZENS' ACTION PARTY), ADHIKAIN AT KILUSAN NG ORDINARYONG TAO PARA SA LUPA, PABAHAY AT KAUNLARAN (AKO), and ASSOCIATION OF PHILIPPINE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES (APEC), petitioners, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC), HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES represented by Speaker Manuel B. Villar, PAG-ASA, SENIOR CITIZENS, AKAP, AKSYON, PINATUBO, NUPA, PRP, AMIN, MAHARLIKA, OCW, UNIFIL, PCCI, AMMA-KATIPUNAN, KAMPIL, BANTAYBAYAN, AFW, ANG LAKAS OCW, WOMENPOWER INC., FEJODAP, CUP, VETERANS CARE, FOUR "L", AWATU, PMP, ATUCP, NCWP, ALU, BIGAS, COPRA, GREEN, ANAK-BAYAN, ARBA, MINFA, AYOS, ALL COOP, PDP-LABAN, KATIPUNAN, ONEWAY PRINT, AABANTE KA PILIPINAS, respondents. x-----------------------x G.R. No. 136795 October 6, 2000
shall sit in the House of Representatives as regular members.
"Sec. 5. (2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total number of representatives including those under the party-list. For three consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution, one half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector." Complying with its constitutional duty to provide by law the "selection or election" of partylist representatives, Congress enacted RA 7941 on March 3, 1995. The requirements for entitlement to a party-list seat in the House are prescribed by this law (RA 7941) in this wise:
"Sec. 11. Number of Party-List Representatives. -- The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum (20%) of the total number of the members of the House of Representatives including those under the party-list. Pursuant to Section 18 of RA 7941, the Comelec en banc promulgated Resolution No. 2847, prescribing the rules and regulations governing the election of party-list representatives through the party-list system.
The twelve (12) parties and organizations, which had earlier been proclaimed winners on the basis of having obtained at least two percent of the votes cast for the party-list system, objected to the proclamation of the 38 parties and filed separate Motions for Reconsideration. ISSUE (1) : Whether the Twenty Percent Constitutional Allocation Is Mandatory HELD: The 20% allocation is a mere ceiling.
The first election for party-list representation was held simultaneously with the national elections. Comelec en banc proclaimed thirteen (13) party-list representatives from twelve (12) parties and organizations. Two of the proclaimed representatives belonged to Petitioner APEC. "Sec. 5. (2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total Comelec en banc further determined that COCOFED (Philippine Coconut Planters’ Federation, Inc.) was entitled to one party-list seat for having garnered 186,388 votes, which were equivalent to 2.04 percent of the total votes cast for the party-list system. PAG-ASA (People’s Progressive Alliance for Peace and Good Government Towards Alleviation of Poverty and Social Advancement) filed with the Comelec a "Petition to Proclaim [the] Full Number of Party-List Representatives provided by the Constitution." It alleged that the filling up of the twenty percent membership of party-list representatives in the House of Representatives, as provided under the Constitution, was mandatory. Comelec Second Division promulgated the present assailed Resolution granting PAG-ASA's Petition. It also ordered the proclamation of herein 38 respondents who, in addition to the 14 already sitting, would thus total 52 party-list representatives. It held that "at all times, the total number of congressional seats must be filled up by eighty (80%) percent district representatives and twenty (20%) percent party-list representatives." In allocating the 52 seats, it disregarded the two percent-vote requirement prescribed under Section 11 (b) of RA 7941. Instead, it identified three "elements of the party-list system," which should supposedly determine "how the 52 seats should be filled up." Twenty Percent Allocation a Mere Ceiling Does the Constitution require all such allocated seats to be filled up all the time and under all circumstances? Our short answer is "No."
RATIO: The pertinent provision
of the Constitution on the composition of the House of
Representatives reads as follows:
number of representatives including those under the party-list. For three consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution, one half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector." Determination of the Total Number of Party-List Lawmakers Clearly, the Constitution makes the number of district representatives the determinant in arriving at the number of seats allocated for party-list lawmakers, who shall comprise "twenty per centum of the total number of representatives including those under the partylist." This formulation means that any increase in the number of district representatives, as may be provided by law, will necessarily result in a corresponding increase in the number of party-list seats.
easily conveys the equally simple message that Congress was vested with the broad power to define and prescribe the mechanics of the party-list system of representation. finally." 6 . 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. That each party. no winning party. organizations. In the exercise of its constitutional prerogative. or coalition shall be entitled to not more than three (3) seats. 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. organizations and coalitions participating in the system to obtain at least two percent of the total votes cast for the party-list system in order to be entitled to a party-list seat. Thus the relevant portion of Section 11(b) of the law provides: "(b) The parties. Article VI of the Constitution. It deemed it necessary to require parties. Provided. Congress enacted RA 7941.The Constitution simply states that "[t]he party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total number of representatives including those under the party-list. organization or coalition can have more than three seats in the House of Representatives." A simple reading of Section 5." Furthermore. The Constitution explicitly sets down only the percentage of the total membership in the House of Representatives reserved for party-list representatives. Those garnering more than this percentage could have "additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes. organization. Provided.
the two percent threshold . the three-seat limit . regardless of the number of votes it actually Congress set the seat-limit to three (3) for each qualified party. organization or coalition.there is no dispute on this . but with the very essence of "representation. ISSUE (3): If the answer to Issue 2 is in the affirmative. if not the entire House. The Three-Seat-Per-Party Limit An important consideration in adopting the party-list system is to promote and encourage a multiparty system of representation. including those elected under the party list. is entitled to a maximum of three seats. would dominate the party-list seats. When the law is clear." Under a republican or representative state. organizations and coalitions having a sufficient number of constituents deserving of representation are actually represented in Congress. All those that garnered at least two percent of the total votes cast have an assured or guaranteed seat in the House of Representatives. that is. Second. 23 House of Representatives. These are: First. Fourth. The percentage of their respective votes as against the total number of votes cast for the party-list system is then determined. Such three-seat limit ensures the entry of various interest-representations into the legislature.the additional seats which a qualified party is entitled to shall be computed "in proportion to their total number of votes. organizations and coalitions (hereafter collectively referred to as "parties") according to the votes they each obtained. All in all.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 But to have meaningful representation. the twenty percent allocation . 21 The Legal and Logical Formula for the Philippines To determine the winners in a Philippine-style party-list election. how should the additional seats of a qualified party be determined? HELD: Method of Allocating Additional Seats The very first step . no matter how large its membership. not interpretation or circumvention.is to rank all the participating parties.the combined number of all party-list congressmen shall not exceed twenty percent of the total membership of the House of Representatives. we hold that the statutory provision on this two percent requirement is precise and crystalline." . one "qualifying" and two additional seats. proportional representation . Congress wanted to ensure that only those parties. all government authority emanates from the people. 7941 mandate at least four inviolable parameters. One Additional Seat Per Two Percent Increment The two percent threshold is consistent not only with the intent of the framers of the Constitution and the law. the function of courts is simple application.ISSUE (2): Are the two percent threshold requirement and the three-seat limit provided in Section 11 (b) of RA 7941 constitutional? HELD: Yes. 7 obtained. Third. thus.each qualified party. no single group. the three-seat limit provided in Section 11 (b) of RA 7941 constitutional? RATIO: The Two Percent Threshold In imposing a two percent threshold. but is exercised by representatives chosen by them. the Constitution and Republic Act (RA) No. the elected persons must have the mandate of a sufficient number of people. "Qualified" means having hurdled the two percent vote threshold.
It would be a violation of the constitutional mandate of proportional representation. is to find a way to translate "proportional representation" into a mathematical formula that will not contravene. then the first party shall be entitled to two additional seats or a total of three seats overall. in the case of ABA. because the first party is not always entitled to the maximum number of additional seats. based on proportional representation. then the first party shall have one additional or a total of two seats. then the first party shall not be entitled to any additional seat. but less than six percent. After careful deliberation. Then the ratio for each party is computed by dividing its votes by the total votes cast for all the parties participating in the system.. Likewise. such as in an extreme case wherein 18 or more parties tie for the highest rank and are thus entitled to three seats each. Additional seats for concerned party No. as already stated. circumvent or amend the abovementioned parameters. A fractional membership cannot be converted into a whole membership of one when it would. Step Two. If the proportion of votes without a rounding off is equal to or greater than four percent. APEC. we now explain such formula. The next step is to determine the number of seats the first party is entitled to. first party = of votes of No. organizations and coalitions from the highest to the lowest based on the number of votes they each received. of additional seats allocated to the first party = of ABA party (ABA) 8 . it would prevent the allotment of more than the total number of available seats. in order to be able to compute that for the other parties.The problem. Additional seats for concerned No.5% of the total votes cast. step by step. In such scenario. No. Formula for Additional Seats of Other Qualified Parties Step Three The next step is to solve for the number of additional seats that the other qualified parties are entitled to. is entitled to one additional seat or a total of two seats. the number of seats to be allotted to the other parties cannot possibly exceed that to which the first party is entitled by virtue of its obtaining the most number of votes. the number of seats to which all the parties are entitled may exceed the maximum number of party-list seats reserved in the House of Representatives. We said further that "no party can claim more than what it is entitled to x x x. rank all the participating parties. the additional number of seats it would be entitled to is computed as follows: of votes x No. And if the proportion is less than four percent. All parties with at least two percent of the total votes are guaranteed one seat each." Formula for Determining Additional Seats for the First Party If the proportion of votes received by the first party without rounding it off is equal to at least six percent of the total valid votes cast for all the party list groups. in effect. Applying the above formula. of concerned party additional seats x allocated to of votes of the party first Thus. which received 5. Since the distribution is based on proportional representation. We adopted this six percent bench mark. Step One. deprive another party's fractional membership.
CREBA. 147613 June 26. LIBERAL PARTY. LAKAS NUCD-UMDP. respondents. ANG BAGONG BAYANI-OFW LABOR PARTY GO! GO! PHILIPPINES. Section 5. ENVIRONMENT AND PEACE. Petitioner Bayan Muna also filed before this Court a Petition. ECONOMY. private respondents cannot be disqualified from the party-list elections. together with Manifestations of their intent to participate in the party-list elections. PDP-LABAN. 2001 The registered parties and organizations filed their respective Manifestations. ISSUE (1): Whether or not political parties may participate in the party-list elections. No.: FACTS: Comelec received several Petitions for registration filed by sectoral parties. NATIONALIST PEOPLE'S COALITION. THE TRUE MARCOS LOYALIST ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES. 3785. MOHAMMAD OMAR FAJARDO. LABAN NG DEMOKRATIKONG PILIPINO (LDP). x---------------------------------------------------------x G. G. regional. CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE BUILDERS ASSOCIATION. 3785. merely on the ground that they are political parties. petitioner. Article VI of the Constitution provides that members of the House of Representatives may "be elected through a party-list system of registered national. J. petitioner. SPORTS & HEALTH ADVANCEMENT FOUNDATION.R. and BAGONG BAYANI ORGANIZATION. No. LIBERAL PARTY. Under the Constitution and RA 7941. BAGONG BAYANI ORGANIZATION and others under "Organizations/Coalitions" of Omnibus Resolution No. MAMAMAYANG AYAW SA DROGA. represented herein by its secretary-general. NATIONALIST PEOPLE'S COALITION (NPC). 147589 June 26. of vites of first party (APEC) PANGANIBAN. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS. No. Participation of Political Parties We now rule on this issue. 2001 BAYAN MUNA. JEEP. PARTIDO NG MASANG PILIPINO. and others under "Political Parties" of Omnibus Resolution No. The Comelec gave due course or approved the Manifestations (or accreditations) of 154 parties and organizations." 9 ANG BAGONG BAYANI-OFW LABOR PARTY (under the acronym OFW). AKSYON DEMOKRATIKO. INC. respondents. Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party contends that the inclusion of political parties in the party-list system is the most objectionable portion of the questioned Resolution. vs. PHILIPPINE LOCAL AUTONOMY. vs. stating their intention to participate in the party-list elections. NACIONALISTA PARTY. organizations and political parties. ANG LAKAS NG OVERSEAS CONTRACT WORKERS (OCW). ANG BUHAY HAYAANG YUMABONG.. LABAN NG DEMOKRATIKONG PILIPINO. but denied those of several others. NATIONAL . Other sectoral and political parties and organizations whose registrations were denied also filed Motions for Reconsideration. PARTIDO NG MASANG PILIPINO (PMP). Akbayan Citizens Action Party filed before the Comelec a Petition praying that "the names of [some of herein respondents] be deleted from the 'Certified List of Political Parties/Sectoral Parties/Organizations/Coalitions Participating in the Party List System. and sectoral parties or organizations. CITIZENS MOVEMENT FOR JUSTICE.FEDERATION OF SUGARCANE PLANTERS. LAKAS-NUCDUMDP.R.
political parties – even the major ones -.Furthermore. or organizations or coalitions registered under the partylist system. boards of election inspectors. The purpose of the party-list provision was to open up the system. "Sec. regularly nominates and supports certain of its leaders and members as candidates for public office.may participate in the party-list elections. No votes cast in favor of a political party. shall not be represented in the voters' registration boards. boards of canvassers. or coalition shall be valid." 30 Indubitably. as the most immediate means of securing their adoption. Political parties. 7. therefore. "Sec. political parties may be registered under the party-list system. or other similar bodies. x x x" 10 . under Sections 7 and 8. Article IX (C) of the Constitution." Furthermore. 8. However. 34 The law defines "political party" as "an organized group of citizens advocating an ideology or platform. Section 11 of RA 7941 leaves no doubt as to the participation of political parties in the party-list system. We quote the pertinent provision below: "x x x "For purposes of the May 1998 elections. the first five (5) major political parties on the basis of party representation in the House of Representatives at the start of the Tenth Congress of the Philippines shall not be entitled to participate in the party-list system. organization. except for those registered under the party-list system as provided in this Constitution. principles and policies for the general conduct of government and which. they shall be entitled to appoint poll watchers in accordance with law. in order to give a chance to parties that consistently place third or fourth in congressional district elections to win a seat in Congress.
it must be applied according to its express terms. the persons nominated by the party-list candidate-organization must be "Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors. 1. who lack well-defined constituencies. because the party-list election is national in scope. as laid down in the Constitution and RA 7941. "Proportional representation" here does not refer to the number of people in a particular district. is likewise clear: "to enable Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors. like voters of a congressional district or territorial unit of government. organizations and parties. "labor.or any organization or group for that matter -. Towards this end." The intent of the Constitution is clear: to give genuine power to the people. peasant. who belong to marginalized and underrepresented sectors. Rather.The State shall promote proportional representation in the election of representatives to the House of Representatives through a party-list system of registered national. and giving more law to those who have less in life." The party-list organization or party must factually and truly represent the marginalized and underrepresented constituencies mentioned in Section 5. urban poor. it refers to the representation of the "marginalized and underrepresented" as exemplified by the enumeration in Section 5 of the law. 2. handicapped. elderly. regional and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof. It laid out the statutory policy in this wise: "SEC. veterans.ISSUE (2): Whether or not the party-list system is exclusive to 'marginalized and underrepresented' sectors and organizations. x x x. organizations and parties. 36 Concurrently. the State shall develop and guarantee a full. sectoral or group interests in the House of Representatives by enhancing their chances to compete for and win seats in the legislature. namely. however. which states: 11 . and professionals. "lack of well-defined constituency" refers to the absence of a traditionally identifiable electoral group. -. which will "enable" the election to the House of Representatives of Filipino citizens. which will enable Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors." Finally. indigenous cultural communities. overseas workers. but 3.may do so. and shall provide the simplest scheme possible. free and open party system in order to attain the broadest possible representation of party. but more so by enabling them to become veritable lawmakers themselves. to become members of the House of Representatives. women. fisherfolk. to become members of the House of Representatives. Declaration of Policy. the policy of the implementing law. and who lack well-defined political constituencies but who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole. youth. 37 The marginalized and underrepresented sectors to be represented under the party-list system are enumerated in Section 5 of RA 7941. not only by The Marginalized and Underrepresented to Become Lawmakers Themselves The foregoing provision mandates a state policy of promoting proportional representation by means of the Filipino-style party-list system. RA 7941 was enacted. Neither does it allude to numerical strength in a distressed or oppressed group. organizations and parties. 2. The requisite character of these parties or organizations must be consistent with the purpose of the partylist system. it points again to those with disparate interests identified with the "marginalized or underrepresented. we repeat." legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole. organizations and parties. who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate Marginalized and Underrepresented That political parties may participate in the party-list elections does not mean. Rather." Where the language of the law is clear. Consistent with this intent. that any political party -.
a tiny minority. fisherfolk. 38 The Party-List System Desecrated by the OSG Contentions Notwithstanding the unmistakable statutory policy. overseas workers. women. it demonstrates the clear intent of the law that not all sectors can be represented under the party-list system. it contends that any party or group that is of RA 7941 may participate in the elections. Registration. elderly. It is a fundamental principle of statutory construction that words employed in a statute are interpreted in connection with. In its noblest sense."SEC.xxx Provided. indigenous cultural communities. qualified or specialized by those in immediate association. and their meaning is ascertained by reference to. We stress that the party-list system seeks to enable certain Filipino citizens – specifically those belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors." not disqualified under Section 6 40 39 In fact. 5. handicapped. the words and the phrases with which they are associated or related. peasant. numerically speaking. the Office of the Solicitor General submits that RA No. youth. and professionals. the party-list system truly empowers the masses and ushers a new hope for genuine change. organizations and parties – to be elected to the House of Representatives. While the business moguls and the mega-rich are. the meaning of a term in a statute may be limited. urban poor." While the enumeration of marginalized and underrepresented sectors is not exclusive. -. veterans. Thus. they are neither marginalized nor underrepresented. The declared policy of RA 7941 contravenes the position of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). for the stark reality is that their economic clout engenders political power more awesome than their numerical limitation. that the sector shall include labor. 7941 "does not limit the participation in the party-list system to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors of society. 12 .
Sixth. Qualifications of Party-List Nominees." In other words. or a project organized or an entity funded or assisted by. In case of a nominee of the youth sector. – No person shall be nominated as Fourth. a resident of the Philippines for a period of not less than one (1) year immediately preceding the day of the election. (2) It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal. its nominees must Third. than thirty (30) years of age on the day of the election. majority of its membership should belong to the marginalized and underrepresented. rules or regulations relating to elections. organization or coalition must represent the marginalized and underrepresented groups identified in Section 5 of RA 7941. or (8) It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections or fails to obtain at least two per centum (2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system in the two (2) preceding elections for the constituency in which it has registered. while they are not disqualified merely on the ground that they are political parties. the Court notes the express constitutional provision that the religious sector may not be represented in the party-list system. while even major political parties are expressly allowed by RA 7941 and the Constitution to participate in the party-list system. Seventh. organized by citizens and operated by citizens. 13 . organization or association organized for religious purposes. Verily. a bona fide member of the party or organization which he seeks to represent for at least ninety (90) days preceding the day of the election.Guidelines for Screening Party-List Participants First. they must show. he must at least be twenty-five (25) but not more (3) It is a foreign party or organization. the party must not only comply with the requirements of the law. (6) It declares untruthful statements in its petition. (5) It violates or fails to comply with laws. it has chosen or is likely to choose the interest of such sectors. sector. whether directly or through any of its officers or members or indirectly through third parties for partisan election purposes. they must comply with the declared statutory policy of enabling "Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors x x x to be elected to the House of Representatives. organization. (4) It is receiving support from any foreign government. not only the candidate party or organization must represent marginalized and underrepresented sectors. the government. so also must its nominees. able to read and write. 9. the political party. a registered voter. (7) It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year." 59 Fifth. a party or an organization must not be disqualified under Section 6 of RA 7941. the party or organization must be a group of citizens. foreign political party. foundation. likewise do so. Section 9 of RA 7941 reads as follows: "SEC. and is at least twenty-five (25) years of age on the day of the election. party-list representative unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. It must be independent of the government. And it must demonstrate that in a conflict of interests. the party or organization must not be an adjunct of. that they represent the interests of the marginalized and underrepresented. which enumerates the grounds for disqualification as follows: "(1) It is a religious sect or denomination. Second. however. By the very nature of the party-list system.
After hearing of the petition for disqualification. 1995 private respondents filed a motion to Suspend Proclamation of petitioner. the place "where a party actually or constructively has his permanent home. as previously discussed. 17 The Constitution requires that a person seeking election to the House of Representatives should be a resident of the district in which he seeks election for a period of not less than one (l) year prior to the elections. RATIO: In order that petitioner could qualify as a candidate for Representative of the (8) RESIDENCE IN THE CONSTITUENCY WHERE I SEEK TO BE ELECTED IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ELECTION: ______ Years and 10 Months. viz:. Petitioner filed another certificate of candidacy amending the certificate dated March 20. the Second Division of the COMELEC promulgated a Resolution dismissing the petition for Disqualification. the nominee must likewise be able to contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole.. G. vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS. COMELEC en banc issued a Resolution reversing the resolution declaring petitioner ineligible and thus disqualified as a candidate for the Office of Representative of the Second Legislative District of Makati City for lack of the constitutional qualification of residence ISSUE: Whether petitioner has complied with the constitutional qualification of residence to be eligible to run as a Representative for the new Second Legislative District of Makati City FACTS: Petitioner Agapito A. petitioner garnered the highest number of votes. MOVE MAKATI. while lacking a well-defined political constituency. Aquino filed his Certificate of Candidacy for the position of Representative for the new Second Legislative District of Makati City. petitioner stated that he had resided in the constituency where he sought to be elected for one (l) year and thirteen (13) days.Eighth. Clearly. No. in our jurisdiction. should be for a period not less than one (1) year immediately preceding the May 8. The term "residence" has always been understood as synonymous with "domicile" not only under the previous Constitutions but also under the 1987 Constitution. Art.R.." 21 18 Residence. It should be by domicile and not physical and actual residence.: HELD: Second District of Makati City the latter "must prove that he has established not just residence but domicile of choice. is that to which the Constitution refers when it speaks of 14 . 1995. for election law purposes. Aquino on the ground that the latter lacked the residence qualification as a candidate for congressman which. In Makati City. This time. and Mateo Bedon. Aquino provided the following information in his certificate of candidacy.e. Chairman of the LAKASNUCD-UMDP filed a petition to disqualify Agapito A. i. 1995 elections. J. has a settled meaning where he. AQUINO. a duly registered political party. VI of the 1987 the Constitution. 120265 September 18. MATEO BEDON and JUANITO ICARO. petitioner. KAPUNAN. Among others. AGAPITO A. no matter where he may be found at any given time. under Section 6. xxx xxx xxx Move Makati. respondents. eventually intends to return and remain. 3 2 COMELEC en banc issued an Order suspending petitioner's proclamation. his domicile.
a bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new one and definite acts which correspond with the purpose. 30 These requirements are hardly met by the evidence adduced in support of petitioner's claims of a change of domicile from Tarlac to the Second District of Makati. 26 While property ownership is not and should never be an indicia of the right to vote or to be voted upon. The manifest purpose of this deviation from the usual conceptions of residency in law 22 is "to exclude strangers or newcomers unfamiliar with the conditions and needs of the community" from taking advantage of favorable circumstances existing in that community for electoral gain. his certificate indicated that he was also a registered voter of the same district. the time. Concepcion. by its terms. his assertion that he has transferred his domicile from Tarlac to Makati is a bare assertion which is hardly supported by the facts in the case at bench. 23 24 At While a lease contract maybe indicative of respondent's intention to reside in Makati City. petitioner must prove an actual removal or an actual change of domicile. To successfully effect a change of domicile." Moreover. it is only for a period of two (2) years. Domicile of origin is not easily lost.residence for the purposes of election law. Tarlac in 1992 but that he was a resident of the same for 52 years immediately preceding that election. and respondent Aquino himself testified that his intention was really for only one (l) year because he has other "residences" in Manila or Quezon City. it does not engender the kind of permanency required to prove abandonment of one's original domicile especially since. the fact that petitioner himself claims that he has other residences in Metro Manila coupled with the short length of time he claims to be a resident of the condominium unit in Makati "indicate that the sole purpose of (petitioner) in transferring his physical residence" 27 is not to acquire's new residence or domicile "but only to qualify 28 as a candidate for Representative of the Second District of Makati City. Petitioner indicated not only that he was a resident of San Jose. 15 .
However. 1995 elections.: Petitioner Imelda Romualdez-Marcos filed her Certificate of Candidacy for the position of Representative of the First District of Leyte providing the following information in item no. Sec. 5 used to indicate a place of abode.an individual's "permanent home". denotes a fixed permanent residence to which. 1995 IMELDA ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS. Private respondent Montejo filed a "Petition for Cancellation and Disqualification" Elections alleging that petitioner did not meet the constitutional requirement for residency. respondents. 19 ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner was a resident. whether permanent or temporary. whenever absent for business or for pleasure. 119976 September 18. but also personal presence in that place. If a person's intent be to remain. if his intent is to leave as soon as his purpose is established it is residence.It is the physical presence of a person in a given area. "a place to which. includes the twin elements of "the fact of residing or physical presence in a fixed place" and animus manendi. The term residence is synonymous with domicile which imports not only intention to reside in a fixed place. for election purposes. it becomes his domicile. one intends to return. coupled with conduct indicative words "since childhood" in her Amended/Corrected Certificate of Candidacy and that "she has always maintained Tacloban City as her domicile or residence. of the First District of Leyte for a period of one year at the time of the May 9. 6 of the 1987 Constitution? Of what 16 . of such intention. a person can only have a single domicile. has petitioner Imelda Romualdez Marcos satisfied the residency requirement mandated by Article VI." In the light of the principles just discussed. Residence . changing the entry "seven" months to "since childhood" in item no. vs. J. No. HELD: Petitioner has complied with the residency required to run as Representative of the KAPUNAN. permanently. for various reasons. community or country. when absent. The essential distinction between residence and domicile in law is that residence involves Petitioner filed an Amended/Corrected Certificate of Candidacy. quite perfectly normal for an individual which she sought to rectify by adding the 11 to have different residences in various places.R. one has the intention of returning. or the intention of returning there RESIDENCE IN THE CONSTITUENCY WHERE I SEEK TO BE ELECTED IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ELECTION: __________ Years and seven Months. 22 It is thus. The COMELEC en banc declared petitioner as not qualified to run for the position of Member of the House of Representatives for the First Legislative District of Leyte. Petitioner got the highest number of votes in the election however COMELEC issued a resolution suspending proclamation of petitioner in the event that she obtains the highest number of votes.".G. and depends on facts and circumstances in the sense that they disclose intent. 8 of the amended certificate. 8: 4 First District of Leyte RATIO: Domicile . unless. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and CIRILO ROY MONTEJO. Petitioner averred that the entry of the word "seven" in her original Certificate of Candidacy was the result of an "honest misinterpretation" 10 the intent to leave when the purpose for which the resident has taken up his abode ends. petitioner.
one The circumstances leading to her filing the questioned entry obviously resulted in the subsequent confusion which prompted petitioner to write down the period of her actual stay in Tolosa. to study or to do other things of a temporary or semi-permanent nature does not constitute loss of residence. and 3. Second. domicile of origin is not easily lost. it cannot be correctly argued that petitioner lost her domicile of origin by 8. Marcos in 1952. 2. it follows that in spite of the fact of petitioner's being born in Manila.d must demonstrate: 37 1. not a statement in a certificate of candidacy which ought to be decisiv. Tolosa. once acquired is retained until a new one is gained. Olot. A bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of residence and 7. it appears that petitioner had jotted down her period of stay in her legal residence or domicile. To successfully effect a change of domicile. Tolosa. Tacloban. that petitioner merely committed an honest mistake in jotting the word "seven" in the space provided for the residency qualification requirement. minor follows the domicile of his parents. First. It stands to reason therefore. The absence from legal residence or domicile to pursue a profession. Leyte. Leyte POST OFFICE ADDRESS FOR ELECTION PURPOSES: Brgy. None of these purposes unequivocally point to an intention to abandon her domicile of origin in Tacloban. An actual removal or an actual change of domicile. Leyte was her domicile of origin by operation of law. An individual does not lose his domicile even if he has lived and maintained residences in different places. RESIDENCE IN THE CONSTITUENCY WHERE I SEEK TO operation of law as a result of her marriage to the late President Ferdinand E. RESIDENCE (complete Address): Brgy. which was "since childhood" in the space provide. Acts which correspond with the purpose. 17 . Olot. As domicile. Having been forced by private respondent to register in her place of actual residence in Leyte instead of petitioner's claimed domicile. In this connection. Petitioner held various residences for different purposes during the last four decades. BE ELECTED IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ELECTION:_________ Years and Seven Months. Leyte instead of her period of residence in the First district.significance is the questioned entry in petitioner's Certificate of Candidacy stating her residence in the First Legislative District of Leyte as seven (7) months? It is the fact of residence. Leyte establishing a new one.
It was his third consecutive term as governor of the province.. one year prior to the May 11. EMANO. residing therein while exercising one's office as governor. on the other hand. GENEROSO ELIGAN and JACQUELINE M. private respondent remained a resident of the province.G. until he filed his candidacy for mayor in March 1998. and proclaimed provincial governor of Misamis Oriental. there is no law that prevents an elected official from transferring residence while in office. Respondent Vicente Y. as follows: 18 Private respondent contends further that his transfer of legal residence did not ipso facto divest him of his position as provincial governor. 1998 elections to qualify him to run for the mayorship thereof. TORAYNO SR. City at least one year prior to the May 11. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and VICENTE Y. Cagayan de Oro City. COMELEC ruled in favor of RESPONDENT EMANO. Second. which provides for the qualifications of local elective officials. securing a residence certificate and registering as voter therein. petitioners. J. First. Misamis Oriental. In his Certificate of Candidacy his residence was declared to be in Tagoloan. Emano ran for. Naturally.R. Third. The pertinent provision sought to be enforced is Section 39 of the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991. the loss of any of the required qualifications for election merely renders the official's title or right to office open to challenge. on the ground that he had allegedly failed to meet the oneyear residence requirement. HELD: Private respondent had duly established his residence in Cagayan de Oro City at least Petitioners claim that in discharging his duties as provincial governor. 2000 Private respondent.. SERIÑO. Emano executed a Voter Registration Record in Cagayan de Oro City. While still the governor of Misamis Oriental. Petitioners further contend that the following were not sufficient to constitute a change of domicile: having a house in Cagayan de Oro City. He filed his Certificate of Candidacy for mayor of the city. he continued to discharge his functions as such. vs. respondents. no one challenged his right to the Office of Provincial Governor when he transferred his residence to Cagayan de Oro City. ROGELIO M. DECISION PANGANIBAN. In Emano's case. stating therein that his residence for the preceding two years and five months was Gusa. especially in private respondent's case in which the seat of government became his adopted place of residence. 137329 August 9. an elective official's transfer of residence does not prevent the performance of that official's duties. No.: FACTS: During the 1995 elections. They aver that residence is a continuing qualification that an elective official must possess throughout his term. in which he claimed 20 years of residence. was elected. 1998 elections to qualify him to run for the mayorship RATIO: Law on Qualifications of Local Elective Officials 18 . ISSUE: Whether private respondent had duly established his residence in Cagayan de Oro PETITIONERS filed a Petition before the Comelec in which they sought the disqualification of Emano as mayoral candidate. alleges that he actually and physically resided in Cagayan de Oro City while serving as provincial governor for three consecutive terms.
1âwphi1 He won by a margin of about 30. the provincial officials who carry out their functions in the city cannot avoid residing therein.(a) An elective local official must be a citizen of the Philippines. Undeniably. the actual. where the seat of the provincial government was located. . Furthermore. the Constitution or the law intends to prevent the possibility of a "stranger or newcomer unacquainted with the conditions and needs of a community and not identified with the latter from [seeking] an elective office to serve that community. In any action involving the possibility of a reversal of the popular electoral choice. having been the governor of Misamis Oriental for three terms and consequently residing in Cagayan de Oro City within that period. Cagayan de Oro City . 25 24 Facts Showing Change of Residence [T]his Court has repeatedly stressed the importance of giving effect to the sovereign will in In the case at bar. Interpretation to Favor Popular Mandate Generally. He owned a house in the city and resided there together with his family 19 order to ensure the survival of our democracy. much less. Emano was a resident of Cagayan de Oro City for a period of time sufficient to qualify him to run for public office therein . for it is merely sound public policy to cause elective offices to be filled by those who are the choice of the majority. As a consequence." In other words. he also registered as voter of the same city. and able to read and write Filipino or any other local language or dialect. Vicente Y. a resident therein for at least one (1) year immediately preceding the day of the election. Cagayan de Oro City was once an integral part of Misamis Oriental and remains a geographical part of the province. getting acquainted with its concerns and interests. These facts indubitably prove that Vicente Y. the Comelec found that private respondent and his family had actually been residing in Capistrano Subdivision. In case of doubt. when he decided to adopt it as his permanent place of residence. political laws must be interpreted to give life and spirit to the popular mandate. we find it apt to reiterate the principle that the manifest will of the people as expressed through the ballot must be given fullest effect. this Court must exert utmost effort to resolve the issues in a manner that would give effect to the will of the majority.000 votes. municipality. Private respondent was actually and physically residing in Cagayan de Oro City while discharging his duties as governor of Misamis Oriental. In June 1997. city. he physically lived in that city." 19 There is no question that private respondent was the overwhelming choice of the people of Cagayan de Oro City."SEC. 39. Gusa. a registered voter in the barangay. . during the three terms (1988-1998) that he was governor of Misamis Oriental. in a house he had bought in 1973. Qualifications. could not be said to be a stranger or newcomer to the city in the last year of his third term. physical and personal presence of herein private respondent in Cagayan de Oro City is substantial enough to show his intention to fulfill the duties of mayor and for the voters to evaluate his qualifications for the mayorship. Thus. or province x x x where he intends to be elected. Emano. in requiring candidates to have a minimum period of residence in the area in which they seek to be elected.
134577 November 18. JR. Blas F. In contrast. or faction with a smaller number of votes or adherents than the majority. 2. Was there an actual violation of the Constitution? 8 certain number out of a total or aggregate. TEOFISTO T.Tatad was also nominated to the same position by Sen. MARCELO B. He explained that those who had voted for Senator Fernan comprised the "majority." 36 The plain and unambiguous words of the subject constitutional clause simply mean that the Senate President must obtain the votes of more than one half of all the senators.: FACTS: Nominated by Sen. Not by any construal does it thereby delineate who comprise the "majority." who could thereby elect the minority leader. party. When referring to a PANGANIBAN. it simply "means the number greater than half or more than half of any total. Fernan. GUINGONA. No. Verily. the losing nominee. did the Senate or its officials. Did Respondent Fernan act with grave abuse of discretion in SEN. respondents. Flavier manifested that the senators belonging to the Lakas-NUCD-UMDP Party minority — had chosen Senator Guingona as the minority leader. while the Constitution mandates that the President of the Senate must be elected by a number constituting more than one half of all the members thereof. Senators Santiago and Tatad instituted an original petition seeking the ouster of Senator Guingona. Majority may also refer to "the group." During the discussion on who should constitute the Senate "minority. or faction with the larger number of votes. while the "minority" normally referred to a party with a lesser number of members. belonged to the "minority. Miriam Defenser Santiago. unlawfully holding and exercising the position of Senate minority leader? 4. and SEN." 41 not necessarily more than one half. History would also show that the "majority" in either house of Congress has referred to the political party to which the most number of lawmakers belonged." while only those who had voted for him. TATAD. one of which has to be 20 . recognizing Respondent Guingona as the minority leader? ISSUE: In recognizing Respondent Guingona as the Senate minority leader. Sen. In effect." in the said body. it does not provide that the members who will not vote for him shall ipso facto constitute the "minority. 1998 3. This is sometimes referred to as plurality." 42 In a government with a multi-party system such as in the Philippines (as pointed out by petitioners themselves). Marcelo B. petitioners. Senator Fernan was declared the duly elected President of the Senate. party.ELECTION OF OFFICERS G. Jr. Juan M. there could be several minority parties. as minority leader of the Senate and the declaration of Senator Tatad as the rightful minority leader. Senator Tatad thereafter manifested that he was assuming the position of minority leader. J. SEN. Ople to the position of Senate President was Sen. MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO and SEN." Sen." much less the "minority. FRANCISCO S. minority is "a group. vs. Was Respondent Guingona usurping.R. no law or regulation states that the defeated candidate shall automatically become the minority leader. By a vote of 20 to 2. particularly Senate President Fernan. FERNAN. violate the Constitution or the laws? The term "majority" has been judicially defined a number of times.
" 43 office. In this regard. and a Sergeant-atArms. But. 2. a President. in the manner hereinafter provided. 47 Congress verily has the power and prerogative to provide for such officers as it may deem. a nominal vote shall be taken. courts may not intervene in the internal affairs of the legislature.indentified by the Comelec as the "dominant minority party" for purposes of the general elections. the elections shall be by viva voce or by resolution. The Senate shall elect. the method of choosing who will be such other officers is merely a derivative of the exercise of the prerogative conferred by the aforequoted constitutional provision. Should there be more than one candidate for the same 21 the exercise of this prerogative. Rule II ELECTION OF OFFICER Sec. the Constitution vests in each house of Congress the power "to determine the rules of its proceedings. it is not within the province of courts to direct Congress how to do its work. such method must be prescribed by the Senate itself. Therefore. While the Constitution is explicit on the manner of electing a Senate President and a House Speaker. which provide: Rule I ELECTIVE OFFICERS Sec 1. in the absence of constitutional or statutory guidelines or specific rules. The officers of the Senate shall be elected by the majority vote of all its Members. 46 To our mind. And it is certainly within its own jurisdiction and discretion to prescribe the parameters for Pertinent to the instant case are Rules I and II thereof. On grounds of respect for the basic concept of separation of powers. before the courts may intervene. ." 44 This Court is of the opinion that where no specific. dead silent on the manner of selecting the other officers in both chambers of Congress. this Court is devoid of any basis upon which to determine the legality of the acts of the Senate relative thereto. All that the Charter says is that "[e]ach House shall choose such other officers as it may deem necessary. a President Pro Tempore. then the legislature must be given a real and effective opportunity to fashion and promulgate as well as to implement them. operable norms and standards are shown to exist. These officers shall take their oath of office before entering into the discharge of their duties. not by this Court. however. it is. a Secretary. otherwise.
M. then presiding. again. 67. Petitioners asked the Court to declare him the rightful President of the Philippines senate and oust respondent. MARIANO J. His request was approved. RESPONDENT was designated to preside. Senator Tañada repeatedly stood up to claim his right to deliver his one-hour privilege speech but the petitioner. The roll was called. but Senator Tirona opposed said motion. Senator Pablo Angeles David moved for adjournment of session in pursuance of the aboveJOSE AVELINO. ." Put to a vote. Senate President Pro-tempore. the said resolution was unanimously approved. CUENCO. senators present took the Chair and proceeded with the session. The petitioner finally called the meeting to order. L-2821 March 4. Senator Tañada was then finally able to deliver his privilege speech. continuosly ignored him 22 while the rest of the senators remained. and submitted his motion for approval thereof and the same was unanimously approved. RESOLUTION Suddenly. Although a sufficient number of senators to constitute a quorum were at the Senate session hall at the appointed time. Senator Cuenco took the oath.R. evidently. No. respondent. Senator Sanidad registered his opposition to the adjournment of the session and this opposition was seconded by herein respondent. Senator Sanidad introduced Resolution No.QUORUM G. mentioned conspiracy to muzzle Senator Tañada. Senator Sanidad moved to dispense with the reading of the minutes. vs. 68). President of the Philippines recognized the respondent as acting president of the Philippines Senate. Senator Tañadare requested to speak on the next session day to formulate charges against the then Senate President Avelino. but this motion was likewise opposed by Senator Tirona and David. Whereupon Senator Melencio Arranz. 1949 The petitioner announced that he would order the arrest of any senator who would speak without being previously recognized by him. entitled "Resolution declaring vacant the position of the President of the Senate and designated the Honorable Mariano Jesus Cuenco Acting President of the Senate. the petitioner hurriedly walked out of the session hall followed by six senators. said petitioner delayed his appearance at the session hall until about 11:35 A. urged by those Hours before the opening of the session Senator Tañada and Senator Sanidad filed a resolution enumerating charges against the Senate President and ordering the investigation thereof. in pursuance of the abovementioned conspiracy. Thereafter Senator Sanidad read aloud the complete text of said Resolution (No. all the Senators were present. Senator Sanidad moved that the roll call be dispensed with. Except Senator Sotto who was confined in a hospital and Senator Confesor who is in the United States. petitioner. and the petitioner was already in his office.
Mr. the rule of the Senate about tenure of the President of that body being amenable at any time by that majority. twelve senators will support Senator Cuenco and. and Senator Cuenco would have been elected just the same inasmuch as there would be eleven for Cuenco. of the absent members. all the four justice agree that the Court being confronted with the practical situation that of the twenty three senators who may participate in the Senate deliberations in the days immediately after this decision. there would be no doubt Quorum then. And at any session hereafter held with thirteen or more senators. "the House: does not mean "all" the members. the latter requiring less number than the first.ISSUE: (1) Was the session of the so-called rump Senate a continuation of the session validly assembled with twenty two Senators in the morning of February 21. if one had been so arrested. In fine. Therefore an absolute majority (12) of all the members of the Senate less one (23) constitutes constitutional majority of the Senate for the purpose of a quorum.the said twelve senators who approved the resolutions herein involved could ratify all their acts and thereby place them beyond the shadow of a doubt. Even a majority of all the members constitute "the House". one against and one abstained. (2) Was there a quorum in that session? RULING: When the Constitution declares that a majority of "each House" shall constitute a quorum. 1949?. it would be most injudicious to declare the latter as the rightful President of the Senate. in order to avoid all controversy arising from the divergence of opinion here about quorum and for the benefit of all concerned. Justice Pablo believes furthermore than even if the twelve did not constitute a quorum. 23 . at least. that office being essentially one that depends exclusively upon the will of the majority of the senators. they could have ordered the arrest of one. There is a difference between a majority of "the House". at most. eleven will side with Senator Avelino.
in the courts. J. Once an appointment is approved by that majority. the ground being that his appointment had been by-passed. Marcos. As his appointment was made during the recess of Congress. 2 and with the consent of the Commission on Appointments. as he had not been duly confirmed. 1971 FELIZARDO S. Respondent Secretary of Justice advised petitioner that he should vacate his position as municipal judge. As a matter of fact. petitioner." 18 The other provision is worded. officers of the Army from the rank of colonel. or in the heads of departments. Cotabato. of the Navy and air forces from the rank of captain or commander. the approval becomes an act of the Commission and it cannot be changed. THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE and THE DISBURSING OFFICER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of inferior officers. he was sent a congratulatory telegram by the then Senate President Ferdinand E. vacated or set aside except by the same Commission acting thru the required majority. 24 he may be authorized by law to appoint.: Petitioner Pacete alleged that he was appointed by the then President of the Philippines on as Municipal Judge of Pigcawayan. shall appoint the heads of the executive departments and bureaus. it was submitted to the Commission on Appointments at its next session in 1965. The Commission exercises this power thru the vote of the majority of the members present at a quorum as provided by Section 10 of its Rules. the then Secretary of Justice advised petitioner to vacate his position as municipal judge. He was informed that a day after his confirmation. and all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for. ISSUE: HELD: RULING: Rule 21 of the Commission on Appointments reads "The President shall nominate On May 20 of that year. No. thus: "The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of the Congress. L-25895 July 23.RULES of PROCEEDING G. one of the members of the Commission on Appointments. he was unanimously confirmed. in the President alone. but such appointments shall be effective only until disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the Congress. Petitioner contends that: the confirmation of his appointment had become final and executory upon the adjournment of the fourth regular session of the Fifth Congress the power to approve or disapprove appointments is conferred by the Constitution on the Commission on Appointments as a body and not on the members individually. two days later.R. vs. THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES. PACETE." . FERNANDO. Senator Guanzon. respondents. and those whom More than nine months after such confirmation. wrote to its Chairman stating that he was filing a motion for the reconsideration of the confirmation of the appointment of petitioner. who was likewise the Chairman of the Commission on Appointments. voided. He assumed office on and discharged his duties as such.
the appointment is effective "until disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the Congress. For respondents to argue that the mere filing of a motion for reconsideration did suffice to set it aside. He could thus invoke constitutional protection. There must either be a rejection by the Commission on Appointments or nonaction on its part. even in the absence of any further action. and only upon the consent of the Commission Appointments may the person thus named assume office . is. That would be moreover tantamount to imparting to a move of a single member of a collective body a decisive weight." 20 The constitutional requirement is clear. In the former. Petitioner's stand is thus unassailable. No such thing happened in this case. It takes effect at once. It is bad enough if the minority were to prevail. which is the effect of what respondent Secretary of the Commission on Appointments contends. It is indefensible in principle and pernicious in operation. to lose sight of what is provided in the Constitution.A distinction is thus made between the exercise of such presidential prerogative requiring confirmation by the Commission on Appointments when Congress is in session and when it is in recess. had instead in his favor a unanimous vote of confirmation. The individual chosen may thus qualify and perform his function without loss of time. 25 . A one-man rule. as pointed out. It is not so with reference to ad interim appointments. as stressed by petitioner. It can find no shelter in the constitutional prescription. the President nominates. Petitioner. In the language of the Constitution. Rather it makes a mockery of what is therein ordained. His title to such office is complete. is infinitely worse.
RODOLFO ALBANO. collectively or individually. the Chair allegedly ignored him and instead declared the report approved. As a result. Manner of Addressing the Chair. with the exception of motions to adjourn. Nor is it correct to say that the question ("What is that. Speaker?" Apparently. — Questions of privilege are those affecting the RULING: Rep. hearing none. he shall rise and respectfully address the Chair "Mr. He was simply not heard because he had not first obtained recognition from the Chair. No. declared the report approved. Mr. When the Majority Leader moved for the approval of the conference committee report and the Chair asked if there was any objection to the motion. LAGMAN. dignity. Rule XVI. ISSUE: Whether the question "What is that. WIGBERTO E. J." The Rules of the Senate are even more emphatic. §121 of the Rules of the House defines a question of privilege as follows — Sec. "What is that. he shall rise and request the President or the Presiding Officer to allow him to have the floor which consent shall be necessary before he may proceed. petitioners. vs. Speaker?'') he was raising was a question of privilege or a point of older. leading the Chair to ask if there was any objection to the motion. declared the report approved and brought down the gavel. No. Whenever a Senator wishes to speak. the Chair did not hear Rep. the Chair did not hear him and proceeded to ask if there were objections to the Majority Leader's motion. Thus. Mr. Speaker. Rule XX. true that Rep. Petitioners claim that the question "What is that. If various Senators wish to have the floor. Without first drawing the attention of the Chair. Mr. asked. Arroyo asked. Rodolfo Albano) moved for the approval of the conference committee report on the bill that became R. Speaker?". RAUL DAZA. Rep. their contention is that when the Majority Leader (Rep. Definition. ARROYO. he duties. JOHN HENRY R. OSMEÑA. Mr. JOSE DE VENECIA. AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE. rights. — When a member desires to speak. under the rules of the House. without requesting to be recognized. Speaker?" was a privileged question or a point of order which. ZAMORA. Officer shall recognize the one who first made the request. Arroyo did not have floor. integrity or reputation of the House or of its members. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY. and Rep. TAÑADA. he proceeded to ask if there was any objection and. privileges. 8240. Speaker?" was a privileged question or a point of order which. Arroyo stood up again and.G. Mr. MENDOZA. "What is that. 127255 June 26. the President or Presiding Basically. is not. EDCEL C. and RONALDO B. Arroyo since his attention was on the Majority Leader. 1998 JOKER P. he simply stood up and started talking. has precedence over other matters. Rule XXVI.: FACTS: Petitioners seek a rehearing and reconsideration of the Court's decision dismissing their petition for certiorari and prohibition. while a point of order is defined as follows — 26 .A. therefore.R. under the rules of the House. conduct. Hearing none. §96 of the Rules of the House of Representatives provides: §96. with the exception of motions to adjourn. HELD: The contention has no merit. §59 says: §59. Arroyo was ignored. 121. has precedence over other matters. respondents. Joker P.
It has been the procedure in this House that if somebody objects. then a debate follows and after the debate. 2 The practice in cases involving the approval of a conference committee report is for the Chair simply to ask if there are objections to the motion for approval of the report.Points of order or questions of order are legislative devices used in requiring the House or any of its Members to observe its own rules and to follow regular or established parliamentary procedure. In effect. 27 . then the voting comes in. The fact that nobody objects means a unanimous action of the House. TOLENTINO. MR. they are either objections to pending proceedings as violative of some of those rules or demands for immediate return to the aforementioned parliamentary procedure.
QUEZON.. or in the power to "remove. when permissible." a power granted to the two Houses of the Legislature by the Constitution. Organic Act authorizes the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands to appoint two senators and nine representatives to represent the non-Christian regions in the Philippine Legislature. The Constitution has purposely withheld from the two Houses of the Legislature and the Governor-General alike the power to suspend an appointive member of the Legislature. vs. 22041 September 11. Senator ISSUE: Whether the power to "suspend" is then included in the power to "punish. These senators and representatives "hold office until removed by the Governor-General. expulsion. privileges. Neither House may expel an 28 district being afforded any means by which to fill the vacancy. 17. to the Senate and the House of Representatives. 1924 . expel an elective member. with the concurrence of two-thirds.guilty of disorderly conduct and flagrant violation of the privileges of the Senate for having treacherously assaulted the Honorable Vicente de Vera. MALCOLM. 1924 appointive member for any reason.) Either House may thus punish an appointive member for disorderly behavior." (Organic Act. Punishment by way of reprimand or fine vindicates the outraged dignity of the House without depriving the constituency of representation." (Organic Act. it must be dismissed without costs. is granted the power to "punish its members for disorderly behavior. sec. No. but suspension deprives the electoral district of representation without that JOSE ALEJANDRINO. 16. We rule that neither the Philippine Legislature nor a branch thereof can be directly controlled in the exercise of their legislative powers by any judicial process. for the all-conclusive reason that the Supreme Court does not possess the power of coercion to make the Philippine Senate take any particular action. . It is beyond the power of any branch of the Government of the Philippine Islands to exercise its functions in any other way than that prescribed by the Organic Law or by local laws which conform to the Organic Law.DISCIPLINE of MEMBERS G.R. likewise vindicates the honor of the legislative body while giving to the constituency an opportunity to elect anew.: The casus belli is a resolution adopted by the Philippine Senate composed of the respondent Senators depriving Senator Alejandrino of all the prerogatives. Such is the judgment of the court. ET AL. 18. secs." a power granted to the Governor-General by the Constitution HELD: Neither is the correct hypothesis. By suspension. Conceding therefore that the power of the Senate to punish its members for disorderly behavior does not authorize it to suspend on appointive member from the exercise of his office for one year. and emoluments of his office for the period of one year from the first of January. and. The court accordingly lacks jurisdiction to consider the petition and the demurrer must be sustained.) They may not be removed by the Philippine Legislature. the seat remains filed but the occupant is silenced. respondents. J. respectively. MANUEL L. So ordered. petitioner. As it is unlikely that the petition could be amended to state a cause of action. However. The resolution reads as follows: Senator Alejandrino . Suspension for one year is equivalent to qualified expulsion or removal.
" In issuing the preventive suspension of petitioner. Section 13 of Republic Act No.G. Suspension and loss of benefits. ISSUE: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has authority to decree a 90-day preventive suspension against a Senator of the Republic of the Philippines HELD: The authority of the Sandiganbayan to order the preventive suspension of an incumbent public official charged with violation of the provisions of Republic Act No.: "In the event that such convicted officer. he shall lose all retirement or gratuity benefits under any law. March 16." 4 It would appear. or permanent or temporary employees. FRANCIS E." "The validity of Section 13. or pertaining to the career or non-career service. CHICONAZARIO. but if he is acquitted. with evident bad faith and manifest partiality in the exercise of her official functions. shall be suspended from office. It was alleged that petitioner. Thus. it has been held that the use of the word "office" would indicate that it applies to any office which the officer charged may be holding. to be a ministerial duty of the court to issue an order of suspension upon determination of the validity of the information filed before it. The Sandiganbayan then issued an order for her suspension effective for 90 days. SANDIGANBAYAN. R. Should he be convicted by final judgment. No. 8 . as amended — treating of the suspension pendente lite of an accused public officer — may no longer be put at issue. he shall be entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries and benefits 29 "xxx xxx xxx "The provision of suspension pendente lite applies to all persons indicted upon a valid information under the Act. the court is bound to issue an order of suspension as a matter of course. has already received such benefits he shall be liable to restitute the same to the Government. 3019 has both legal and jurisprudential support.A. 195. indeed. having been repeatedly upheld by this Court. VITUG. respondents. approved the application for legalization of the stay of several disqualified aliens. (As amended by BP Blg. whether they be appointive or elective officials. J. unless in the meantime administrative proceedings have been filed against him. and not only the particular office under which he stands accused. BALAJADIA AND MINITA V. 3019. GARCHITORENA. AS PRESIDING JUSTICE AND MEMBERS OF THE FIRST DIVISION. and there seems to be "no ifs and buts about it. "SECTION 13. JOSE S. Book II of the Revised Penal Code or for any offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or property whether as a simple or as a complex offense and in whatever stage of execution and mode of participation. — Any incumbent public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid information under this Act or under Title 7. 1982). 3019 does not state that the public officer concerned must be suspended only in the office where he is alleged to have committed the acts with which he has been charged. FACTS: A group of employees of the Commission of Immigration and Deportation (CID) filed a complaint for violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act against then CID Commissioner Miriam Defensor-Santiago. who may have already been separated from the service. MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO. the Sandiganbayan merely adhered to the clear and unequivocal mandate of the law. 128055 April 18. Once the information is found to be sufficient in form and substance. vs.R. is pending in court. petitioner. 2001 which he failed to receive during suspension.
' and 'suspend or expel a Member' by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members subject to the qualification that the penalty of suspension. Republic Act No.All it secures to the accused is adequate opportunity to challenge the validity or regularity of the proceedings against him. as the case may be. branches of the government — the Legislative. that the acts imputed to him do not constitute a specific crime warranting his mandatory suspension from office under Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019 nor from its sanctions. should not exceed sixty days — is unavailing. The order of suspension prescribed by Republic Act No. of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. preventive measure. such as. or that the information is subject to quashal on any of the grounds set out in Section 3. The maxim simply recognizes each of the three co-equal and independent. shall not exceed sixty days. and. albeit coordinate." The doctrine of separation of powers by itself may not be deemed to have effectively excluded members of Congress from Republic Act No. Rule 117. upon an erring member. when imposed. punish its Members for disorderly behavior. which is not a penalty but a preliminary. the Sandiganbayan did not err in thus decreeing the assailed preventive suspension order. prescinding from the fact that the latter is not being imposed on petitioner for misbehavior as a Member of the House of Representatives. therefore. the Executive and the Judiciary — has 30 . 3019 is distinct from the power of Congress to discipline its own ranks under the Constitution which provides that each — "x x x . when imposed." 17 The suspension contemplated in the above constitutional provision is a punitive measure that is imposed upon determination by the Senate or the House of Representatives. 3019 does not exclude from its coverage the members of Congress and that. 10 exclusive prerogatives and cognizance within its own sphere of influence and effectively prevents one branch from unduly intruding into the internal affairs of either branch. with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its Members. house may determine the rules of its proceedings. suspend or expel a Member. 3019. Petitioner's invocation of Section 16 (3). that he has not been afforded the right to due preliminary investigation. A penalty of suspension. as it appears to be quite distinct from the suspension spoken of in Section 13 of RA 3019. "x x x . Article VI of the Constitution — which deals with the power of each House of Congress inter alia to 'punish its Members for disorderly behavior.
Roberto P. Jr. the suspension or expulsion contemplated in the Constitution is a House-imposed sanction against its members. Tuaño. No. Cashier. in his capacity as Secretary-General of the House of Representatives. On the other hand. a penalty for disorderly behavior to enforce discipline. petitioners. therefore.G. It is thus an incident to the criminal proceedings before the court. Jr. Antonio B. Jose Ma. 3019 (The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. 130240 (Jose de Venecia. FACTS: An Information was filed with the Sandiganbayan against then Congressman Ceferino S. vs. Speaker De Venecia filed a motion for reconsideration invoking the rule on separation of powers and claiming that he can only act as may be dictated by the House as a body. HELD: The suspension provided for in the Anti-Graft law is mandatory and is of different nature and purpose. Chan. de Venecia. Sandiganbayan granted the motion and ordered the Speaker to suspend the accused. or vindicate its honor and integrity. ISSUE: is whether of not the Sandiganbayan may cite in contempt of court the Speaker of the House of Representatives for refusing to implement the preventive suspension order it issued in a criminal case against a member of the House. House of Representatives. Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution requiring Speaker De Venecia to appear before it.) It is imposed by the court. in his capacity as Speaker of the House of Representatives. to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court. as amended).R. Property Division. House of Representatives. The Honorable Sandiganbayan (First Division). 31 . in contempt of court. respondent. Paredes for violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. Sandiganbayan rendered a resolution declaring Speaker Jose C. It is. Chief. Nazareno. Its purpose is to prevent the accused public officer from frustrating his prosecution by influencing witnesses or tampering with documentary evidence and from committing further acts of malfeasance while in office . but as a precautionary measure resorted to upon the filing of a valid Information.But the Speaker did not comply. maintain order in its proceedings. not as a penalty. Antonio M..
B. REYES.. 2609 Foreign Exchange Margin Fee Law. Urea Pursuant to R. and HON. Petitioners filed a refund request to the Central Bank and the Central Bank issued the vouchers but was not accepted by the Auditor of the Bank. 2609. respondents. not the latter as a finished product. L-17931 February 28. ISMAEL MATHAY. PEDRO GIMENEZ. without jeopardizing the principle of separation of powers and undermining one of the cornerstones of our democratic system — the remedy is by amendment or curative legislation. in his capacity as Auditor General of the Philippines. 2609 they wanted to avail the exemption from the payment of said fee as provided by RA..ENROLLED BILL DOCTRINE G. 2809 is urea formaldehyde. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners contentions that the bill approved in Congress copulative conjunction "and" between the terms "urea" and CASCO PHILIPPINE CHEMICAL CO. petitioner. because what is allowed in RA. which is patently distinct and different from “urea and formaldehyde”. HON. not by judicial decree.A. The bank also issued memorandum establishing the procedure for the applications for exemption from the payment of said fee as provided by R. Because section 2 of R.L. 2609. acidity. Petitioners paid the required margin fee with their 2 import transactions.. formaldehyde is clearly a finished product. The refusal was based on the fact that the separate importation of "urea and formaldehyde" is not in accord with the provisions of R. No.A. What is printed in the enrolled bill would be conclusive upon the courts. The refusal was also affirmed by the Auditor General.. vs. 1963 "formaldehyde" separately as essential elements in the manufacture of the synthetic resin glue called "urea" formaldehyde". It is well settled that the enrolled bill — which uses the term “urea formaldehyde” instead of “urea and formaldehyde” — is conclusive upon the courts as regards the tenor of the measure passed by Congress and approved by the President. contained the "formaldehyde" RULING: No. If there has been any mistake in the printing of the bill before it was certified by the officers of Congress and approved by the Executive — on which we cannot speculate. The main components of the said glue are "urea and formaldehyde" which are both being imported abroad. Petitioner contends that the bill approved in Congress contained the copulative conjunction "and" between the terms "urea" and "formaldehyde". "urea The National Institute of Science and Technology defines urea formaldehyde is the synthetic FACTS: Casco Philippine Chemical Co. Inc.A. not and formaldehyde" . .R.A. and time of reaction. 2609 clearly provides “Urea formaldehyde” and not “urea and formaldehyde” Petitioner maintains that the term "urea formaldehyde" appearing in this provision should be construed as "urea and formaldehyde". 2609. J. This produce when applied in water solution and extended with inexpensive fillers constitutes a fairly low cost adhesive for use in the manufacture of plywood. The Central Bank issued Circulars fixing a uniform margin fee of 25% on foreign exchange transactions. both are different from each other.A. was engaged in the production resin formed as a condensation product from definite proportions of “urea and formaldehyde” under certain conditions relating to temperature. and that the members of Congress intended to exempt "urea" and 32 of synthetic resin glues used primarily in the production of plywood. INC. J. In both of their transactions through R. in his capacity as Auditor of the Central Bank.
when it shall find it necessary for its own information. From their very nature and object the records of the Legislature are as important as those of the judiciary. as a Chamber of the Philippine Legislature. and to inquire into the veracity of the journals of the Philippine Legislature. and judicial departments of the United States and of the Philippine Islands … shall be judicially recognized by the court without the introduction of proof. 1 of Act No. of the same Code also provides that: Such journals may be noticed by the courts in determining the question whether a particular bill became a law or not. The Act of Congress. 1029). These journals are not ambiguous or contradictory as to the actual time of the adjournment. HELD: And rules 15 and 16 of the Legislative Procedure of the Philippine Commission provides. The hour of midnight having arrived. the Commission. Act 2381 should be null and void. or evidence. Pons appealed the sentence arguing that Act 2381 was not approved while the Philippine Commission (Congress) was not in session. 1914. Beliso subsequently delivered 5 barrels to Pons’ house. JUAN PONS. The said barrels of wine were delivered to Beliso. Adjournment sine die of the Commission as a Chamber of the Philippine Legislature. . but the court may receive evidence upon any of the subjects in this section states. Since this is the case. which shall be published . . L-11530 THE UNITED STATES. that the Assembly adjourned sine die at 12 o’clock midnight on February 28. Pons and Beliso were charged for illegally and fraudulently importing and introducing such contraband material to the Philippines.” And section 313 [as amended by sec. 9. accurately stated on the journal. And so the customs officers conducted an investigation thereby discovering that the 25 barrels of wine actually contained tins of opium. p. No. Section 275 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the existence of the “official acts of the legislative. . and may resort for its aid to appropriate books.” and that it shall be the duty of the Secretary “to keep a correct journal of the proceedings of the Commission. February 28. provides. 1914. “that the proceedings of the Commission shall be briefly and 33 the Philippine Assembly “shall keep in journal of its proceedings. executive. 1916 G. Since thea ct of trading and dealing opium is against Act 2381. the journal of the Assembly’s proceedings for the sessions of 1914 was duly published and it appears therein (vol. that FACTS: Pons and Gabino Beliso were trading partners The steamer Lopez y Lopez arrived at Manila from Spain and it contained 25 barrels of wine. the following appears: The Journal for Saturday.” In obedience to this mandate. . adjourned sine die. vs. that the Legislature adjourned sine die at 12 o’clock midnight on February 28. was approved. He said that his witnesses claim that the said law was passed/approved on 01 March 1914 while the special session of the Commission was adjourned at 12MN on 28 Feb 1914. the customs authorities noticed that the said 25 barrels listed as wine on record were not delivered to any listed merchant (Beliso not being one). on motion of Commissioner Palma. approved July 1.PROBATIVE VALUE OF THE JOURNAL August 12. documents. 1902. On the other hand.” On page 793 of volume 7 of the Commission Journal for the ordinary and special sessions of the Third Philippine Legislature. with absolute certainty. 1914. in section 7. among other things. They show. among other things.R. plaintiff-appellee. defendant-appellant. 2210]. The result is that the law and the adjudicated cases make it our duty to take judicial notice of the legislative journals of the special session of the Philippine Legislature of 1914. ISSUE: Whether or not the SC must go beyond the recitals of the Journals to determine if Act 2381 was indeed made a as law on 28 Feb 1914.
would be to violate both the letter and the spirit of the organic laws by which the Philippine Government was brought into existence. This settles the question. 34 .when they are clear and explicit. 1914. and the court did not err in declining to go behind these journals. to invade a coordinate and independent department of the Government. and to interfere with the legitimate powers and functions of the Legislature. The journals say that the Legislature adjourned at 12 midnight on February 28.
the fundamental consideration is that the terms of office of all members of the Legislature that enacted the measure (whether Senators or Representatives) must have expired before the increase in compensation can become operative. L-25554 October 4. Petitioner has filed a suit against the former Acting Auditor General of the Philippines and the Auditor of the Congress of the Philippines seeking to permanently enjoin them from authorizing or passing in audit the payment of the increased salaries authorized by RA 4134 to the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives before December 30. without distinction or separation between them. underscores that in the application of Article VI. 1969. Section 14. increase. when attending sessions of the Congress. 4134.. The reason given being that the term of the 8 senators elected in 1963. This unitary treatment is emphasized by the fact that the provision speaks of the "expiration of the full term" of the Senators and Representatives that approved the measure. despite the difference in the terms of office (six years for Senators and four for Representatives thereby rendering more evident the intent to consider both houses for the purpose as indivisible components of one single Legislature. approved just the preceding year 1964. when combined with the following phrase "all the members of the Senate and of the House". receive an annual compensation of seven thousand two hundred pesos each. 1969. (Emphasis supplied) PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION. ISSUE: Does Section 14. using the singular form. The Senators and the Members of the House of Representatives shall. vs. while the term of the members of the House who participated in the approval of said Act expired on December 30. and who took part in the approval of RA 4134. . Petitioner contends that such implementation is violative of Article VI. the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall each receive an annual compensation of sixteen thousand pesos. No increase in said compensation shall take effect until after the 35 House of Representatives" in the same sentence. ISMAEL MATHAY and JOSE VELASCO. including per diems and other emoluments or allowances. The reason given being that the term of the eight senators elected in 1963. Sec. would have expired only on December 30. Section 14. accords in turn with the fact that the enactment of laws rests on the shoulders of the entire Legislative body. 1969. petitioner. will expire only on December 30. as amended in 1940. responsibility therefor is not apportionable between the two chambers. Such disregard of the separate houses. No.R. while the term of the members of the House who participated in the approval of said Act expired on December 30. and who took part in the approval of Republic Act No. Art. The petitioner contends that such implementation is violative of Article VI. 14. unless otherwise provided by law. of the Constitution require that not only the term of all the members of the House but also that of all the Senators who approved the increase must have fully expired before the increase becomes effective? HELD: The constitutional provision refers to "all the members of the Senate and of the The 1965-1966 Budget implemented the increase in salary of the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives set by RA 4134. and not the plural.SALARIES G. INC. 1965. 10) of the Constitution. 1965. 1966 expiration of the full term of all the Members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives approving such. respondents. of the Constitution. The use of the word "term" in the singular. Until otherwise provided by law. 14(now Sec. and exclusive only of traveling expenses to and from their respective districts in the case of Members of the House of Representatives. that provides as follows: SEC. and to and from their places of residence in the case of Senators. as a single unit. in favor of the whole. VI.
unless otherwise fixed by law: Provided. (Emphasis supplied) . modified to suit the final choice of a unicameral legislature. was carried over and made more rigid in the first draft of the constitutional provision. appropriation for such increased compensation may not be disbursed until December 30. it also violates the Constitution and must be held null and void. Consequently. 4134 is not operative until December 30. 1964 will have expired. when the full term of all members of the Senate and House that approved it on June 20. In so far as Republic Act No. p. 4642 (1965-1966 Appropriation Act) authorizes the disbursement of the increased compensation prior to the date aforesaid. 1969. That no increase in this yearly compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of the terms of office of all the Members of the Legislature that approved such increase. In resume. 36 . the Court agrees with petitioners that the increased compensation provided by Republic Act No. This salutary precaution should not be nullified by resorting to technical and involved interpretation of the constitutional mandate. 1. (Aruego. which read: Provided. The spirit of this restrictive proviso. That any increase in said compensation shall not take effect until after the expiration of the term of office of the Members of the National Assembly who may be elected subsequent to the approval of such increase. 1969. 297) The reason for the minimum interval of four years is plainly to discourage the approval of increases of compensation just before an election by legislators who can anticipate their reelection with more or less accuracy.The Senator and Representatives shall receive for their services an annual compensation of four thousand pesos including per diems and other emoluments or allowances and exclusive of travelling expenses to and from their respective residences when attending sessions of the National Legislature.
1969. The thrust of Ligot’s appeal is that his claim for retirement gratuity computed on the basis of the increased salary of P32. Velasco.00 per annum. section 14 of the 1935 Constitution. Auditor General and JOSE V. this Court held that "it is evident that retirement benefit is a form or another species of emolument. the compensation they received "as provided by law" and the Constitution during their term of office. No.” Ligot’s term expired on December 30. petitioner. Since the salary increase to P32. RA 4134 “fixing the salaries of constitutional officials and certain other officials of the national government” was enacted into law and under section 7 thereof took effect on July 1. J. 1957 to December 30. HELD: Petitioner's contention is untenable RATIO: 1. but the Act expressly provided that said increases “shall take effect in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. because it is a part of compensation for services of one possessing any office" and that . 1969.00 per annum. ISSUE: Whether or not Ligot is entitled to such retirement benefit. 2. the then Congress Auditor refused to so issue certification. "(S)uch a scheme would contravene the Constitution for it would lead to the same prohibited result by enabling administrative authorities to do indirectly what can not be done directly. L-34676 April 30. 1969) should not have been disallowed. with a total of at least twenty years of service. Auditor.G.” HOR granted his petition however. 1969 for incoming members of Congress when the full term of all members of Congress (House and Senate) that approved the increase (such as petitioner) will have expired.000.00 per annum for members of Congress under Republic Act 4134 could be operative only from December 30.00 per annum for members of Congress (which was not 37 applied to him during his incumbency which ended December 30. LIGOT. 1974 BENJAMIN T. it is self-evident that the "rate of pay as provided by law" for members of Congress retiring on December 30. Congress of the Philippines. The salaries of members of Congress (senators and congressman) were increased under said Act from P7. also disallowed the same.000. appointive or elective. because at the time of his retirement." 3 Republic Act No. so he filed a claim for retirement under Commonwealth Act 186.200. by virtue of the constitutional mandate of Article VI. During his second term in office (1961-1965).000.00 per annum would be to pay them prohibited emoluments which in effect increase the salary beyond that which they were permitted by the Constitution to receive during their incumbency. section 12 (c) as amended by RA 4968 which provided for retirement gratuity of any official or employee. 1964. respondents. To grant retirement gratuity to members of Congress whose terms expired on December 30. 1969 such as petitioner must necessarily be P7. the last three years of which are continuous on the basis therein provided “in case of employees based on the highest rate received and in case of elected officials on the rates of pay as provided by law. ISMAEL MATHAY. VELASCO. Mathay that such increases would become operative only for members of Congress elected to serve therein commencing December 30. The Auditor General Mathay.000. the increased salary for members of Congress “as provided by law” (under Republic Act 4134) was already P32.00 per annum.R. 1969 computed on the basis of an increased salary of P32.000. while the Court held in Philconsa vs. 1969.00 to P32.:p FACTS: Ligot served as a member of the House of Representatives for three consecutive four-year terms covering a twelve-year span from December 30. 3836 is null and void insofar as it referred to the retirement of members of Congress and the elected officials thereof for being violative of the Constitution.200. TEEHANKEE. vs.
"Republic Act No." 6 38 . section 14 of the Constitution . which was on June 22. without awaiting the expiration of the full term of all the Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives approving such increase. Retirement benefits were immediately available thereunder. to take effect upon the approval of said Act. 3836 provides for an increase in the emoluments of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives. Such provision clearly runs counter to the prohibition in Article VI. 1963.
To deprive the electorate of their elected representative amounts to taxation without representation. ROMEO G. but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day and may compel the attendance of absent Members in such manner. For relatively minor offenses. J. 2.FREEDOM FROM ARREST [G. ISSUE: Does membership in Congress exempt an accused from statutes and rules which apply to validly incarcerated persons in general? 39 Sec. A congressman like the accused-appellant. and under such penalties. The accused-appellant filed this motion asking that he be allowed to fully discharge the duties of a Congressman. giving priority to any right or interest – not even the police power of the State. February 3. 9. The 1973 Constitution broadened the privilege of immunity as follows: The accused-appellant’s "Motion To Be Allowed To Discharge Mandate As Member of House of Representatives" was filed on the grounds that – 1. Romeo G. there was no immunity from arrest. Article VI of the Constitution which states that– (2) A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business. The Senators and Members of the House of Representatives shall in all cases except treason. as such House may provide. vs. felony. 4. be privileged from arrest during his attendance at its sessions and in going to and returning from the same. The House treats accused-appellant as a bona fide member thereof and urges a co-equal branch of government to respect its mandate. accusedappellant. Nos. and in going to and returning from the same. JALOSJOS. including attendance at legislative sessions and committee meetings despite his having been convicted in the first instance of a non-bailable offense. legislative. it is enough that Congress is in session. the exemption applied only to civil arrests.: FACTS: The accused-appellant.R. convicted under Title Eleven of the Revised Penal Code could not claim parliamentary immunity from arrest. YNARES-SANTIAGO. . To bar accused-appellant from performing his duties amounts to his suspension/removal and mocks the renewed mandate entrusted to him by the people. Because of the broad coverage of felony and breach of the peace. 132875-76. Sec.. 2000] All top officials of Government-executive. Accused-appellant’s reelection being an expression of popular will cannot be rendered inutile by any ruling. 15. plaintiff-appellee. in all offenses punishable by not more than six years imprisonment. xxx. He was subject to the same general laws governing all persons still to be tried or whose convictions were pending appeal. Article VIII. A Member of the Batasang Pambansa shall. For offenses punishable by more than six years imprisonment. Jalosjos is a full-fledged member of Congress who is now confined at the national penitentiary while his conviction for statutory rape on two counts and acts of lasciviousness on six counts is pending appeal. The 1935 Constitution provided in its Article VI on the Legislative Department: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. and judicial are subject to the majesty of law. and breach of the peace be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the sessions of Congress. The accused-appellant argues that a member of Congress’ function to attend sessions is underscored by Section 16 (2). 3.
The functions and duties of the office are not substantial distinctions which lift him from the class of prisoners interrupted in their freedom and restricted in liberty of movement. Gustil. A person charged with crime is taken into custody for purposes of the administration of justice. whether pending appeal or after final conviction. it has constitutional foundations. Society must protect itself. the accused-appellant has not given any reason why he should be exempted from the operation of Section 11. As stated in United States v.. The confinement of a Congressman charged with a crime punishable by imprisonment of more than six years is not merely authorized by law. 40 . it is the injury to the public which State action in criminal law seeks to redress. Lawful arrest and confinement are germane to the purposes of the law and apply to all those belonging to the same class. find that election to the position of Congressman is not a reasonable classification in criminal law enforcement. One rationale behind confinement. The members of Congress cannot compel absent members to attend sessions if the reason for the absence is a legitimate one. After conviction in the Regional Trial Court.However. Does being an elective official result in a substantial distinction that allows different treatment? Is being a Congressman a substantial differentiation which removes the accusedappellant as a prisoner from the same class as all persons validly confined We. It also serves as an example and warning to others. It is not the injury to the complainant . the accused may be denied bail and thus subjected to incarceration if there is risk of his absconding. Article VI of the Constitution. therefore. is public self-defense.
1 The publication involved in this case does not belong to this category.R. L-15905 August 3. No. be reassigned. defendant was a member of the House of Representatives and Chairman of its Committee on National Defense. (8) that the Regular Division of the AFP stationed in Laur. they shall not be questioned in any other place. be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the sessions of the Congress. Arellano be asked to resign or retire. JIMENEZ. Arellano". such as speeches delivered. at the time of the performance of the acts in question. not a professional military man. NBI. plaintiffs and appellants. Arellano. C. and. and breach of the peace. and defendant caused said letter to be published in several newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines. while the same is in session. BARTOLOME CABANGBANG. in thus causing the communication to be so published. (5) that Gen.. either in Congress or outside the premises housing its offices. they belong to the Vargas-Arellano clique". whether the same is in session or not. in the official discharge of their duties as members of Congress and of Congressional Committees duly 41 According to the complaint herein. Nueva Ecija.: It is obvious that. it was an open letter to the President of the Philippines .) “SPEECH or DEBATE therein” refers to utterances made by Congressmen in the performance of their official functions. and that. when Congress presumably was not in session. vs. if not. 1966 authorized to perform its functions as such. (3) that the Secretary of National Defense be a civilian. Section 15. Although the letter says that plaintiffs are under the control of the unnamed persons therein alluded to as "planners". and in going to and returning from the same. considering that "they were handpicked by Secretary Vargas and Gen. CONCEPCION. performing his official duty. either as a member of Congress or as officer or any Committee thereof. insofar as the plaintiffs herein are concerned? ISSUE: (1) whether the publication in question is a privileged communication. as well as bills introduced in Congress. (2) whether it is libelous or not. (Article VI. "most probably. and (9) that Vargas and Arellano should disqualify themselves from holding or undertaking an investigation of the planned coup d'etat". (2) that the Armed Forces be divorced absolutely from politics. The letter in question recommended. and other intelligence agencies mentioned elsewhere in the letter. at the time of said publication.J.SPEECH AND DEBATE CLAUSE G. NICANOR T. and for any speech or debate therein. felony. or votes cast in the halls of Congress. (7) that all military personnel now serving civilian offices be returned to the AFP. (6) that the present chiefs of the various intelligence agencies in the Armed Forces including the chiefs of the NICA. HELD: The first issue stems from the fact that. and that pursuant to the Constitution: The Senators and Members of the House of Representatives shall in all cases except treason. and other acts performed by Congressmen. except those holding positions by provision of law. he was not FACTS: PETIONERS JIMENEZ ET AL filed this civil action for the recovery of sum of money by way of damages for the publication of an allegedly libelous letter of DEFENDANT CABANGBANG Was it libelous. plaintiffs "probably belong to the Vargas-Arellano clique". it should . ET AL. (4) that no Congressman be appointed to said office. statements made. having been handpicked by Secretary Vargas and Gen. We are satisfied that the letter in question is not sufficient to support plaintiffs' action for damages. be dispersed by batallion strength to the various stand-by or training divisions throughout the country. defendant and appellee.: (1) that Secretary Vargas be asked to resign. and that.
the aforementioned passage in the defendant's letter clearly implies that plaintiffs were not among the "planners" of said coup d'etat. and that they may be merely unwitting tools of the planners. added that "it is of course possible" that plaintiffs "are unwitting tools of the plan of which they may have absolutely no knowledge". much less. We do not think that this statement is derogatory to the plaintiffs. considering that they are officers of our Armed Forces. of said "planners". Again. unwittingly on their part. to the point of entitling them to recover damages .be noted that defendant. that as such they are by law. under the control of the Secretary of National Defense and the Chief of Staff. otherwise. In other words. 42 . they could not be "tools". likewise. the very document upon which plaintiffs' action is based explicitly indicates that they might be absolutely unaware of the alleged operational plans. and that the letter in question seems to suggest that the group therein described as "planners" include these two (2) high ranking officers. for.
except that of prime minister or member of the cabinet.: Petitioner Homobono A.. Thus. The only exceptions mentioned therein are the offices of prime minister and cabinet member. Section 10. during his tenure. The constitutional prohibition against a member of the Batasan Pambansa from holding any other office or employment in the government during his tenure is clear and unambiguous. ISSUES: other office or employment in the government or any subdivision. No. there is no question that petitioner has taken his oath of office as an elected Mambabatas Pambansa and has been discharging his duties as such. Adaza was elected governor of the province of Misamis Oriental in the January 30. A member of the National Assembly [now Batasan Pambansa shall not hold any Elected vice-governor for said province in the same elections was respondent Fernando Pacana. : HELD: 1.R. J. The dictate of the people in whom legal sovereignty lies is explicit. while it may be said that within the purely parliamentary system of government no incompatibility exists in the nature of the two offices under consideration. the incompatibility herein present is one created by no less than the constitution itself. FERNANDO PACANA. PETITIONER won and took his oath of office as Mambabatas Pambansa RESPONDENT PACANA took his oath of office as governor of Misamis Oriental/ Claiming to be the lawful occupant of the governor's office . 1985 HOMOBONO ADAZA. vs. but lost. Under the law. can continue serving as vice-governor and subsequently succeed to the office of governor if the said office is vacated. including government owned or controlled corporations. that he remains to be the governor of the province until his term expires and a local elective official can hold the position to which he had been elected and simultaneously be an elected member of Parliament. He argues that he was elected to said office for a term of six years. L-68159 March 18. as incompatibility is understood in common law. In the case at bar. Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution provides as follows: Section 10.  whether or not a provincial governor who was elected and had qualified as a Mambabatas Pambansa [MP] can exercise and discharge the functions of both offices simultaneously..DISQUALIFICATIONS G. JR. petitioner has brought this petition to exclude respondent therefrom. agency or instrumentality thereof.  whether or not a vice-governor who ran for the position of Mambabatas Pambansa. In the light of 43 . 1980 elections. Jr. It is therefore of no avail to petitioner that the system of government in other states allows a local elective official to act as an elected member of the parliament at the same time. It provides no exceptions save the two offices specifically cited in the above-quoted constitutional provision. 1986.. petitioner. . respondent ESCOLIN. Petitioner Adaza and Respondent Pacana filed his certificate of candidacy for Batasan Pambansa elections. their respective terms of office would expire on March 3.
which reads as follows: SECTION 204. Section 13 of Batas Pambansa Blg. considering that at the time he filed his certificate of candidacy. members of the various sangguniang or barangay officials shall. 697 is explained by the following interchange between Assemblymen San Juan and Davide during the deliberations on said legislation: Thus. Duties and Privileges: 1] x x x 2] He shall: a] Assume the office of the governor for the unexpired term of the latter in the cases provided for in Section 48. 6 44 . Powers. His succession to the governorship was equally legal and valid.the oft-mentioned constitutional provision. he was a member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. the same being in accordance with Section 204 [a] of the same Local Government Code. mayors." Indubitably. 2. upon filing a certificate of candidacy. respondent falls within the coverage of this provision. he was acting within the law. be considered on forced leave of absence from office. when respondent reassumed the position of vice-governor after the Batas Pambansa elections. 697 "governors. paragraph 1 of this Code. this fact operated to vacate his former post and he cannot now continue to occupy the same. nor attempt to discharge its functions. The reason the position of vice-governor was not included in Section 13 of BP Blg.
DE GUZMAN. REYES. G. EUSTAQUIO T. J. RESPONDENT Fernandez inhibited himself from appearing as counsel for Acero. BELO. RECTO and REYNALDO L.: SEC. called to act on account of his office. or in any criminal case wherein any officer or employee of the Government is accused of an offense committed in relation to his office. The SEC Commissioner granted the motion in effect granting Fernandez leave to intervene. or instrumentality thereof is the adverse party. intervene not as a counsel but as a legal owner of IPI shares and as a person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation.R. Assemblyman Fernandez cannot be said to be appearing as counsel. PUYAT. No. as a then stockholder of IPI may intervene in the SEC Case without violating Section 11. FACTS: On 14 May 1979. respondents. RESPONDENT Estanislao Fernandez entered his appearance as counsel for Acero. or before any administrative body. PETITIONER Puyat and his group were elected as directors of the International Pipe Industries. SIXTO T. 11. JAIME R. Neither shall he. Ostensibly. He instead filed an Urgent Motion for Intervention in this said SEC case for him to Ordinarily. or any subdivision. JR. before any court in any civil case wherein the Government. or any subdivision. HON. ISSUE: Whether or not Assemblyman Fernandez. He shall not accept employment to intervene in any cause or matter where he may be This being cleared. ENRIQUE M. directly or indirectly be interested financially in any contract with. including any government-owned or controlled corporation. agency or instrumentality thereof. RAFAEL R. Article VIII of the Constitution HELD: MELENCIO-HERRERA. LARDIZABAL. Prior to Acero’s filing of the case. ERWIN L. C. agency. R. or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the Government. And during a conference held by RESPONDENT SEC Commissioner de Guzman to have the parties confer with each other. SERVILLANO DOLINA. as Associate Commissioner of the Securities & Exchange Commission. MANUEL G. FERNANDEZ. petitioners. ACERO. PUYAT. ABELLO. during his term of office. BLANCO. The election was subsequently questioned by Acero (Puyat’s rival) claiming that the votes were not properly counted – hence he filed a quo warranto proceeding before the Securities and Exchange Commission on 25 May 1979. JUANITO MERCADO and ESTANISLAO A.G. by virtue of the Motion for Intervention. ANTONIO G. although he 45 No Member of the Batasang Pambansa shall appear as counsel before any court without appellate jurisdiction. VILDZIUS. then a member of the Interim Batasang Pambansa purchased ten shares of stock of IPI from a member of Acero’s group. (Emphasis supplied) . J. Puyat then moved to question the Commissioner’s action. he is not appearing on behalf of another. vs. 1982 EUGENIO J. EDGARDO P. L-51122 March 25.. Petitioner Puyat objected arguing that it is unconstitutional for an assemblyman to appear as counsel (to anyone) before any administrative body (such as the SEC). CHIONGBIAN. Respondent Estanislao Fernandez.
His appearance could theoretically be for the protection of his ownership of ten (10) shares of IPI in respect of the matter in litigation and not for the protection of the petitioners nor respondents who have their respective capable and respected counsel. that is a circumvention of the Constitutional prohibition. A ruling upholding the "intervention" would make the constitutional provision ineffective. certain salient circumstances militate against the intervention of Assemblyman Fernandez in the SEC Case. if he wants to influence an administrative body is to acquire a minimal participation in the "interest" of the client and then "intervene" in the proceedings. Article VIII of the Constitution. an administrative body" and.. The "intervention" was an afterthought to enable him to appear actively in the proceedings in some other capacity.00 worth of stock in IPI. 3 In brief. he decided. That which the Constitution directly prohibits may not be done by indirection or by a general legislative act which is intended to accomplish the objects specifically or impliedly prohibited. He had acquired a mere P200. C.is joining the cause of the private respondents. Realizing. he had signified his intention to appear as counsel for respondent Eustaquio T. 1747 falls within the ambit of the prohibition contained in Section 11. No.843 outstanding shares. And what is more. representing ten shares out of 262. 46 . to "intervene" on the ground of legal interest in the matter under litigation. However. All an Assemblyman need do. the validity of the objection. He would still appear as counsel indirectly. Under those facts and circumstances.. perhaps. we hold that the intervention of Assemblyman Fernandez in SEC. instead. Acero. before he moved to intervene. in our opinion. we are constrained to find that there has been an indirect "appearance as counsel before .
MAGSAYSAY. abstentions. OPLE. VICENTE P. TOLENTINO. the Constitution intended that both those "judicial' and 'legislative' components commonly share the duty and authority of deciding all contests relating to the election. No. VICENTE G... respondent. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of nine Members. and qualifications of their respective Members. HOMOBONO A. ESTRADA-KALAW. as the case may be. shall be resolved by a panel or body in which their (the Senators') peers in that Chamber are represented. and the remaining six shall be Members of the Senate or the House of Representatives. JEREMIAS U. GANCAYCO.R. if not less than three (3) including one (1) Justice. PUYAT. JR. . TATAD. FRANCISCO S. and may adopt resolutions by majority vote with no 47 Justices in the prescribed membership of the Senate Electoral Tribunal is 2 to 1-an unmistakable indication that the "legislative component" cannot be totally excluded from participation in the resolution of senatorial election contests. RAFAEL P. It seems quite clear to us that in thus providing for a Tribunal to be staffed by both Justices of The SENATE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL was at the time composed of three (3) Justices of the Supreme Court and six (6) Senators. Abbas suggested the following amendment: Tribunal’s Rules (Section 24) —. in the context of that situation. ALMENDRAS. 83767 October 27. the remaining members shall constitute a quorum. whose disqualification is not sought. RODRIGUEZ. this would. 17. ZOSIMO JESUS M.: FACTS: On 9 Oct 1987.. GAMBOA. ADAZA. BLAS F. The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal hall be its Chairman. The respondent Tribunal correctly stated one part of this proposition when it held that said provision ". Abbas argue that considerations of public policy and the norms of fair play and due process imperatively require the mass disqualification sought. JUAN PONCE ENRILE. WILSON P.ELECTORAL TRIBUNALS G." 1 Said intent is even more clearly signalled by the fact that the proportion of Senators to To accommodate the proposed disqualification. returns and qualifications of Senators.. ISSUE: Whether or not the Senate Electoral Tribunal can function without the senators HELD: Sec. petitioners.. PETITIONERS Abbas et al filed before the SENATE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL an election contest docketed against 22 candidates of the LABAN coalition who were proclaimed senators-elect congressional elections by the COMELEC. LORENZO G. Abbas later on filed for the disqualification of the 6 senator members from partaking in the said election protest on the ground that all of them are interested parties to said case. is a clear expression of an intent that all (such) contests . without doing violence to the spirit and intent of the Constitution. three of whom shall be Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice. who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and the parties or organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein. ISIDRO S. returns. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election. WENCESLAO R. ALONTO. PAREDES. TEVES. ARTURO M. and FERNANDO R.requiring the concurrence of five (5) members for the adoption of resolutions of whatever nature —. THE SENATE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL. J. LAGUMBAY. ROMEO G. ALEJANDRO D. PALMARES. ABUL KAHYR D. Obviously tailored to fit the situation created by the petition for disqualification. GOLEZ. leave the resolution of the contest to the only three Members who would remain. vs. all Justices of this Court. JALOSJOS EVA R. RABAT. the Supreme Court and Members of the Senate. RENE G. EDITH N. ESPINA.is a proviso that where more than four (4) members are disqualified. ROILO S. VELOSO. 1988 FIRDAUSI SMAIL ABBAS. MONTEMAYOR.
The Tribunal should not prevented from discharging a duty which it alone has the power to perform. absent its entire membership of Senators and that no amendment of its Rules can confer on the three Justices-Members alone the power of valid adjudication of a senatorial election contest. the performance of which is in the highest public interest as evidenced by its being expressly imposed by no less than the fundamental law. 48 . What we are merely saying is that in the light of the Constitution. the Senate Electoral Tribunal cannot legally function as such.
EMIGDIO A. the House of Representatives decided to withdraw the nomination and rescind the election of Cong. GRIO-AQUIÑO. The 1935 constitutional provision reads as follows: 49 . (2) to express the concern over the intrusion of non-judicial factors in the proceedings of the HRET and (3) To note that the term of HRET members cannot be terminated at will but only for valid legal cause – it is co-extensive with legislative term ISSUE: Is the House of Representatives empowered by the Constitution to interfere with FACTS: In the elections held in 1987. instead of equal representation of three members from each of the first and second largest political aggrupations in the Legislature. Jr. the decision lacks concurrence of 5 votes. Article VI of the 1935 Constitution. therefore cannot be validly promulgated. Article VI of the 1987 Constitution supplies the answer to that question. On the same day. A decision had been reached and Bondoc won by 23 votes. petitioner. J. and the remaining six shall be Members of the Senate or House of Representatives.:p After. Camasura’s vote. 1991 DR. REPRESENTATIVES MARCIANO M. It Bondoc protested in the HRET (House of Rep. th the disposition of an election contest in the House Electoral Tribunal through the ruse of "reorganizing" the representation in the tribunal of the majority party? HELD: Section 17. Camasura to the HRET. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of nine Members. as the case may be. BONDOC. JUANITO G. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election. the HRET cancelled the promulgation because without Cong.. provides: Section 17. The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman. vs. Section 17 reechoes Section 11. or any other representative who may be appointed vice representative Juanita G. Four months after. except the provision on On the day of the promulgation of the decision. respondents. the 3 Justices of the HRET asked to be relieved from the HRET because “political factors are blocking the accomplishment of the task of the HRET”. Camasura voted “consistent with truth and justice and self-respect” (a conscience vote as the 3 Justices in that HRET called it). who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and the parties or organizations registered under the party list system represented therein. JR. PALACOL. the representation of the main political parties in the tribunal which is now based on proportional representation from all the political parties. No. 97710 September 26. Camasura. returns and qualifications of their respective members. the Chairman of HRET received a letter informing the Tribunal that on the basis of the letter from the LDP. On the eve of the promulgation of the Bondoc decision. Cong. Camasura of the LDP voted with the SC Justices and Congressman Cerilles of the NP to proclaim Bondoc the winner of the contest.R. a recount resulted in increasing Bondoc’s margin to 107 votes. CAMASURA. and THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL. PINEDA. three of whom shall be Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice. Congressman Camasura received a letter informing him that he was already expelled from the LDP for allegedly helping to organize the Partido Pilipino of Eduardo Cojuangco and for allegedly inviting LDP members in Davao Del Sur to join said political party. COL. Electoral Tribunal). the court resolved: (1) To decline the request of the Justices to be relieved. RESPONDENT Pineda of LDP (Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino) won over PETITIONER Bondoc of NP (Nacionalista Party) for the congressional seat of the 4 district of Pampanga. As answer to the act of the 3 Justices.. MAGDALENO M.G.
Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of nine Members. 11. the House Electoral Tribunal must be independent. In expelling Congressman Camasura from the HRET for having cast a conscience vote" in favor of Bondoc. Its resolution of expulsion against Congressman Camasura is. The 1973 Constitution did not provide for an electoral tribunal in the Batasang Pambansa. null and void. Hence. and independence even independence from the political party to which they belong.Sec. and a violation of the Constitution. aid it was impossible for any political party to control the voting in the tribunal. because he cast his vote in favor of the Nacionalista Party's candidate. devoid of partisan consideration. As judges. the Justices held the deciding votes. They must discharge their functions with complete detachment. the House of Representatives committed a grave abuse of discretion.) Under the above provision. impartiality." are not valid grounds for the expulsion of a member of the tribunal. — The use of the word "sole" in both Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution and Section 11 of the 1935 Constitution underscores the exclusive jurisdiction of the House Electoral Tribunal as judge of contests relating to the election. returns and qualifications of the members of the House of Representatives. three upon nomination of the party having the largest number of votes and three of the party having the second largest member of votes therein. "disloyalty to party" and "breach of party discipline. who shall be chosen by each House. and the remaining six shall be Members of the Senate or of the House of Representatives. The senior Justice in each Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman. (1 935 Constitution of the Philippines. Resolution of the House of Representatives violates the independence of the HRET. — The resolution of the House of Representatives removing Congressman Camasura from the House Electoral Tribunal for disloyalty to the LDP. is a clear impairment of the constitutional prerogative of the House Electoral Tribunal to be the sole judge of the election contest between Pineda and Bondoc. as the case may be. three of whom shall be Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice. based strictly on the result of the examination and appreciation of the ballots and the recount of the votes by the tribunal. therefore. and qualifications of their respective Members. The purpose of the constitutional convention creating the Electoral Commission was to provide an independent and impartial tribunal for the determination of contests to legislative office. The tribunal was created to function as a nonpartisan court although two-thirds of its members are politicians. the members of the tribunal must be non-partisan. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election. The power granted to the electoral Commission to judge contests relating to the election and qualification of members of the National Assembly is intended to be as complete and unimpaired as if it had remained in the legislature. returns. Bondoc. 50 . Its jurisdiction to hear and decide congressional election contests is not to be shared by it with the Legislature nor with the Courts. and to transfer to that tribunal all the powers previously exercised by the legislature in matters pertaining to contested elections of its members. To be able to exercise exclusive jurisdiction. an injustice. Disloyalty to party is not a valid cause for termination of membership in the HRET.
the administration of oath and the registration of the petitioner in the Roll of Members of the House of Representatives representing the 4th legislative district of Leyte is no longer a matter of discretion on the part of the public respondents. any person may file a verified petition for mandamus "when any tribunal. After hearing of his disqualification case." 11 For a petition for mandamus to prosper. 51 for mandamus is a ministerial act or duty. HON. JOSE DE VENECIA. . However. as the legally elected Representative of the 4th legislative district of Leyte vice EUFROCINO M.R. NAZARENO. respondents. haul and distribute gravel and sand to the residents of Kananga and Matagob. J. 68(a) of the Omnibus Election Code. and Respondent Locsin. the incumbent Representative of the 4th legislative district of Leyte. ROBERTO P.: respondent Locsin. 2001 elections. trust. VICTORIA L. were candidates for the position of Representative of the 4th legislative district of Leyte. then sitting as Mayor of Ormoc City. and MA. Leyte. officer or person.350 votes as against respondent Locsin who only got 53. 2002 ISSUE: Whether it is the ministerial duty of the public respondents to recognize petitioner Codilla. his proclamation as winner was suspended by order of the Comelec.G. petitioner. Codilla’s votes being considered stray. Locsin was thus proclaimed as the duly elected Representative and subsequently took her oath of office. The COMELEC Second Division initially ordered the proclamation of respondent Locsin. and there is no other plain. Codilla then filed a timely Motion for Reconsideration with the Comelec and also sought the annulment of Locsin’s proclamation In the case at bar. SR. 150605 December 10. he was found guilty and ordered disqualified. A petition for disqualification was filed against Codilla for violating Sec. 447 votes in the May 14. for the purpose of inducing. in obedience to the mandate of a legal authority. without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done. The duty is ministerial only when the discharge of the same requires neither the exercise of official discretion or judgment. CODILLA. or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled. A purely ministerial act or duty is one which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts. on Motion for Reconsideration the COMELEC en banc set aside the order of its Second Division and ordered the proclamation of the petitioner. vs. influencing or corrupting them to vote for him. such duty is discretionary and not ministerial. section 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. board. corporation. No. respectively. The facts are settled and beyond dispute: petitioner garnered 71. in their official capacities as Speaker and Secretary-General of the House of Representatives. officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office. HELD: Under Rule 65. LOCSIN. and not purely discretionary on the part of the board. Sr. In fact. speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. he garnered the highest number of votes. and that the petitioner has a well-defined. alleging that he used the equipment and vehicles owned by the City Government of Ormoc to extract. clear and certain right to warrant the grant thereof.. or station. Codilla’s name remained in the list of candidates and was voted for. DECISION PUNO. in a prescribed manner. it must be shown that the subject of the petition FACTS: Petitioner Codilla. 113 If the law imposes a duty upon a public officer and gives him the right to decide how or when the duty shall be performed.
In sum. the issue of who is the rightful Representative of the 4th legislative district of Leyte has been finally settled by the COMELEC en banc. the constitutional body with jurisdiction on the matter. The rule of law demands that its Decision be obeyed by all officials of the land. There is no alternative to the rule of law except the reign of chaos and confusion. 52 .
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.