FACTS

LEGISLATIVE INQUIRIES
 LIMITATIONS
1. ARNAULT V. NAZARENO
2. BENGZON V. SENATE
3. SENATE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE V. MAJADUCON (407 SCRA 356)
FULLTEXT: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jul2003/136760.htm
On August 28, 1998, Senator Blas F. Ople filed Senate Resolution No.157 directing the
Committee on National Defense and Security to conduct an inquiry, in aid of legislation,
into the charges of then Defense Secretary Orlando Mercado that a group of active and
retired military officers were organizing a coup d 'etat to prevent the administration of
then President Joseph Estrada from probing alleged fund irregularities in the Armed
Forces of the Philippines.
On the same date, Senator Vicente C. Sotto III also filed Resolution No.160, "directing
the appropriate senate committee to conduct an inquiry, in aid of legislation, into the
alleged mismanagement of the funds and investment portfolio of the Armed Forces
Retirement and Separation Benefits System (AFP-RSBS).
During the public hearings conducted by the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, it
appeared that the AFP-RSBS purchased a lot in General SantosCity, designated as Lot X,
MR-1160, for P10,500.00 per square meter from private respondent Atty. Nilo J.
Flaviano. However, the deed of sale filed with the Register of Deeds indicated that the
purchase price of the lot was only P3,000.00 per square meter.
The Committee thereafter caused the service of a subpoena to respondent Atty.
Flaviano, directing him to appear and testify before it. Respondent refused to appear at
the hearing. Instead, he filed a petition for prohibition and preliminary injunction with
prayer for temporary restraining order with the Regional Trial Court of General Santos
City, Branch 23, which was docketed as SP Civil Case No. 496.On October 21, 1998, the
trial court issued a Temporary Restraining Order directing the Committee "to CEASE
and DESIST from proceeding with the inquiry in P.S. 160 particularly in General Santos
City and/or anywhere in Region XI or Manila on matters affecting the patenting/titling
and sale of Lot X,MR-1160-D to AFP-RSBS," and "from issuing subpoenas to witnesses
from Region XI, particularly from General Santos City, pending the hearing of the
petition for prohibition and injunction.

JURISPRUDENCE

Issue: Whether the trial court (Judge Jose Majaducon) can
issue a Temporary Restraining Order directing the
Committee "to CEASE and DESIST from proceeding with
the inquiry. NO.
SC: Courts have no jurisdiction to restrain Congress from
performing its constitutionally vested function to conduct
investigations in aid of legislation, following the principle
of separation of powers.
The senate conducts legislative inquiries in aid of
legislation, and persons were subpoenaed and invited
thereto, the latter cannot go to the court of justice
because it has no authority to prohibit (issue a writ
of injunction) the committee from requiring that person
from appearing and testifying before it; otherwise it will
be inconsistent with the doctrine of separation of powers
as the same is an encroachment to one’s prerogatives.

Angara. Senator Enrile inquired who among those invited as resource persons were present and who were absent. delivered a privilege speech entitled “Arrogance of Wealth” before the Senate based on a letter from Atty. Petitioners. Senator Juan Ponce Enrile. respondent. to prevent the occurrence of a similar fraudulent activity in the future. INTO THE ILLEGAL SALE OF UNREGISTERED AND HIGH-RISK SECURITIES BY STANDARD CHARTERED BANK. NO. 8799) and urging the Senate to immediately conduct an inquiry. 2005 presenting their position. in aid of legislation. requesting them to submit their written position paper. WHICH RESULTED IN BILLIONS OF PESOS OF LOSSES TO THE INVESTING PUBLIC.judiciary. DIRECTING THE COMMITTEE ON BANKS. Resolution No. particularly stressing that there were cases pending in court allegedly involving the same issues subject of the legislative inquiry. FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND CURRENCIES. petitioners. the subject matter of the speech and resolution filed by Senator Enrile. set the initial hearing on February 28.judicial body should not automatically bar the conduct of legislative investigation. No.4.S. On February 28. Bocobo denouncing SCB-Philippines for selling unregistered foreign securities in violation of the Securities Regulation Code (R. Respondent invited petitioners to attend the hearing. made an Opening Statement that brought to the . Otherwise. thereby posing a challenge to the jurisdiction of respondent to continue with the inquiry. Senator Juan Flavier seconded the motion and the motion was approved. SC: The mere filing of a criminal or an administrative complaint before a court or a quasi. Upon motion of Senator Francis Pangilinan.A. Senator Enrile had introduced P. through its Chairperson. respondent commenced the investigation. 2005 to investigate. through the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation.htm Issue: Whether the pendency of the cases would bar the congress or senate from continuing with the investigation. Thereafter. the speech was referred to respondent. in aid of legislation. it would be extremely easy to subvert the intended inquiry. Towards the end of the hearing. Mark R. submitted to respondent a letter dated February 24.TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY.ph/jurisprudence/2007/december2007/167173. IN AID OF LEGISLATION. 166. through counsel. through counsel. Respondent then proceeded with the investigation proper. Prior to the privilege speech.gov. STANDARD VS SENATE COMMITTEE (541 SCRA 456) FULLTEXT:http://sc. Acting on the referral. Senator Enrile moved that subpoena be issued to those who did not attend the hearing and that the Senate request the Department of Justice. to issue an HDO against them and/or include them in the Bureau’s Watch List. 2005. Senator Edgardo J. Vice Chairperson of respondent.

and PHILCOMSAT Holdings Corporation (PHC) due to the alleged improprieties in their operations by their respective Board of Directors.attention of respondent the lack of proper authorization from affected clients for the bank to make disclosures of their accounts and the lack of copies of the accusing documents mentioned in Senator Enrile's privilege speech. on March 28. Inocencio. PHC and POTC. it was transferred to the Committee on Government Corporations and Public Enterprises. Anent the right against self-incrimination. No. Chairman Sabio refused to appear. Nicasio Conti. since they have no way of knowing in advance the nature or effect of the questions to be asked of them. 455 was submitted to the Senate and referred to the Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations and Committee on Public Services. he invoked Section 4(b) of E.lawphil. 2006. The purpose of the public meeting was to deliberate on Senate Res. Again. Senate Res."directing an inquiry in aid of legislation on the anomalous losses incurred by the Philippines Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (POTC). 455 (Senate Res. 8 On August 10. No. Tereso Javier and Narciso Nario to appear in the public hearing scheduled on August 23. At the same time. On May 8. 2006. No. as well as from Chairman Sabio and his Commissioners to aid it in crafting the necessary legislation to prevent corruption and formulate remedial measures and policy determination regarding PCGG's efficacy. In his letter to Senator Gordon dated August Issue: Whether Chairman Sabio and Board of Directors can invoke right to privacy and right against selfincrimination for refusing to appear before the Senate. and the conspiratorial participation of the PCGG and its officials are compelling reasons for the Senate to exact vital information from the directors and officers of Philcomsat Holdings Corporations. Chief of Staff Rio C. Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago introduced Philippine Senate Resolution No. There being no reasonable expectation of privacy on the part of those directors and officers over the subject covered by Senate Res. SC: The alleged anomalies in the PHILCOMSAT. and reiterated that there were pending court cases regarding the alleged sale in the Philippines by SCBPhilippines of unregistered foreign securities. wrote Chairman Camilo L. 2006. ranging in millions of pesos. it follows that their right to privacy has not been violated by respondent Senate Committees. approved by Senate President Manuel Villar. 455)." That this right may possibly be violated or abused is no ground for denying respondent Senate Committees their power of inquiry. February 20. what is important is that respondent Senate Committees have sufficient Rules to guide them .html On February 20. At this juncture. 2006. The consolation is that when this power is abused. Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation (PHILCOMSAT). Chairman Sabio declined the invitation because of prior commitment. 1 earlier quoted. inviting him to be one of the resource persons in the public meeting jointly conducted by the Committee on Government Corporations and Public Enterprises and Committee on Public Services. such issue may be presented before the courts. No. Sabio of the PCGG. requiring Chairman Sabio and PCGG Commissioners Ricardo Abcede. 2006. No. In re: Sabio 504 SCRA 77 http://www. 2006. No. 2006.O. Pangilinan. 455. upon motion of Senator Francis N. Senator Gordon issued a Subpoena Ad Testificandum. one of the herein petitioners. Gordon. it must be emphasized that this right maybe invoked by the said directors and officers of Philcomsat Holdings Corporation only when the incriminating question is being asked." On the same date. On May 9. under the authority of Senator Richard J. 455.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_174340_2006. However.

gov. The sub judice rule restricts comments and disclosures pertaining to judicial proceedings to avoid prejudging the issue.htm FACTS Petitioners Romero II and other members of the Board of Directors of R-II Builders. SC: It will not avail petitioners any to invoke the sub judice effect of Chavez and resist. .18. Conti. On the other hand. He sent a letter dated September 4. influencing the court. On September 11. Inc. 2008 in G. The notice was issued "under the same authority of the Subpoena Ad Testificandum previously served upon (him) last 16 August 2006. 164527. through the application of a law. No. Chief of Staff Ma. No. were invited on an investigation with regards to the investment of Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) funds in the Smokey Mountain project. 2006. On one hand. 3(d). Thereafter. A violation of the sub judice rule may render one liable for indirect contempt under Sec.. ISSUE Whether the Senate Committee’s inquiry is sub judice owing to the pendency of the Chavez petition. under the authority of Senator 10 Gordon.O. or obstructing the administration of justice. courts conduct hearings or like adjudicative procedures to settle. Rule 71 of the Rules of Court. when the right against self-incrimination is invoked. invoking Section 4(b) of E. Javier and Nario to show the caause why they should not be cited in contempt of the Senate. 2006 requiring Chairman Sabio and Commissioners Abcede.judiciary. the assailed congressional invitations and subpoenas. undertaken as tools to enable the legislative body to gather information and. SUBJUDISM. they submitted to the Senate their Compliance and Explanation.R. and to testify fully with respect to matters within the realm of proper investigation. he reiterated his earlier position. thus. it their duty to cooperate with them in their efforts to obtain the facts needed for intelligent legislative action. inter alia. party litigants and the lawyer in particular should not talk about it in public. Chairman Sabio did not comply with the notice. Let it be stressed at this point that so long as the constitutional rights of witnesses.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/174105. Coscolluela. 2006 to Senator Gordon reiterating his reason for declining to appear in the public hearing. will be respected by respondent Senate Committees. sent another notice to Chairman Sabio requiring him to appear and testify on the same subject matter set on September 6. inquiries in aid of legislation are. ROMERO V. A legislative investigation in aid of legislation and court proceedings has different purposes. to respect the dignity of the Congress and its Committees. The sub judice issue has been rendered moot and academic by the supervening issuance of the en banc Resolution of July 1. 2006. Carissa O. JINGGOY ESTRADA (2009) http://sc. SEN.is an ethical rule or professional rule that when use. 2006. on that ground. The unremitting obligation of every citizen is to respond to subpoenae. 1. actual controversies arising between adverse litigants and involving demandable rights. The said investigation will aid the Senate in determining possible amendments of Republic Act 8042 other known as the Migrant Workers Act." Once more. like Chairman Sabio and his Commissioners. This prompted Senator Gordon to issue an Order dated September 7.

When he testified before the Senate Committees. 2. when probed further on what they discussed about the NBN Project. he refused to answer the questions on 1. the petition is DENIED. requiring him to appear and testify on 20 November 2007. which involved the amount of US$ 329. and 3. offered him P200 million in exchange for his approval of the NBN Project. then Director General of NEDA.290. was invited by the respondent Senate Committees to attend their joint investigation on the alleged anomalies in the NBN Project.2[18] albeit the inquiry need not result in any potential legislation.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_180643_2008. SENATE (2008) http://www. http://en. On-going judicial proceedings do not preclude congressional hearings in aid of legislation. However.) whether or not she directed him to prioritize it. enough to shield petitioner Neri from any arrest order the Senate may issue against him for not answering such questions. respondent Committees issued a Subpoena Ad Testificandum to petitioner. brokering for ZTE. This project was contracted by the Philippine Government with the Chinese firm ZTE.) whether or not she directed him to approve it. WHEREFORE.lawphil.” In particular.wikipedia. Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita sent a letter dated 15 November to the Committees ISSUE: Whether the three questions that petitioner Neri refused to answer were covered by executive privilege.legislate wisely and effectively.org/wiki/Neri_vs.481. and that this privilege has been validly claimed by the executive department. he disclosed that then Commission on Elections Chairman Benjamin Abalos. invoking “executive privilege.) whether or not the President followed up the NBN Project.html Petitioner Romulo Neri. Later on. petitioner refused to answer. He further narrated that he informed President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo about the bribery attempt and that she instructed him not to accept the bribe. NERI V. SC: The court was convinced that the three questions are covered by presidential communications privilege.1[17] and to determine whether there is a need to improve existing laws or enact new or remedial legislation. However. making the arrest order issued by the respondent Senate Committees void._Senate .

” and given the confidential nature in which these information were conveyed to the President.html Tapes ostensibly containing a wiretapped conversation purportedly between the President of the Philippines and a high-ranking official of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) surfaced. allegedly contained the President’s instructions to COMELEC Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano to manipulate in her favor results of the 2004 presidential elections. The Rules of Procedure even provide that the rules "shall take effect seven (7) days after publication in two (2) newspapers of general circulation. On 29 November. Ermita invoked the privilege on the ground that “the information sought to be disclosed might impair our diplomatic as well as economic relations with the People’s Republic of China. he be informed in advance so he can prepare himself.” Thus. Issue: Whether or not publication of the Rules of Procedures Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation through the Senate’s website. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE (2008) http://www. Intervenor Sagge alleges violation of his right to due process considering that he is summoned to attend the Senate hearings without being apprised not only of his rights therein through the publication of the Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation. He added that his non-appearance was upon the order of the President.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008. On 22 November. Tuvera ruling which requires publication either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation. NO. but also of the intended legislation which underpins the investigation. is not sufficient under the Tañada v. Respondents found the explanation unsatisfactory. Neri replied to the Show Cause Letter and explained that he did not intend to snub the Senate hearing. The tapes. satisfies the due process requirement of law. Neri “cannot provide the Committee any further details of these conversations.requesting them to dispense with Neri's testimony on the ground of executive privilege. and requested that if there be new matters that were not yet taken up during his first appearance. respondents issued a Show Cause Letter to Neri requiring him to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt for his failure to attend the scheduled hearing on 20 November. and later on issued an Order citing Neri in contempt and consequently ordering his arrest and detention at the Office of the Senate Sergeant-AtArms until he appears and gives his testimony." precluding any other form of .lawphil. or in pamphlet form available at the Senate. These recordings were to become the subject of heated legislative hearings conducted separately by committees of both Houses of Congress. He further intervenes as a taxpayer bewailing the useless and wasteful expenditure of public funds involved in the conduct of the questioned hearings. without disclosing the very thing the privilege is designed to protect. SC: The publication of the Rules of Procedure in the website of the Senate. notoriously referred to as the "Hello Garci" tapes. on 20 November. and that his conversation with her dealt with delicate and sensitive national security and diplomatic matters relating to the impact of the bribery scandal involving high government officials and the possible loss of confidence of foreign investors and lenders in the Philippines. Neri did not appear before the respondent Committees. GARCILLANO V.

The doctrine of . The enumeration in Section 2 (b) of E. because it can do so only "in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. With respect to th the present Senate of the 14 Congress. could not. and accessible to the public at the Senate’s internet web page. 464. 464 is broad and is covered by the executive privilege. they are published in booklet form available to anyone for free. to support their claim of valid publication through the internet is all the more incorrect. no effort was undertaken for the publication of these rules when they first opened their session. therefore.A. rules and regulations. the respondent Senate Committees. In other words. The conduct of inquiries in aid of legislation by the Senate has to be deferred until it shall have caused the publication of the rules. No. 2007. A person who violates the Rules of Procedure could be arrested and detained by the Senate.The respondents in G. valid and constitutional? SC: No. ISSUE: Is Section 3 of E. despite that. the law merely recognizes the admissibility in evidence (for their being the original) of electronic data messages and/or electronic documents.lawphil. which requires all the public officials.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/gr_169777_2006. 8792.O. Respondents justify their non-observance of the constitutionally mandated publication by arguing that the rules have never been amended since 1995 and. use its unpublished rules in the legislative inquiry subject of these consolidated cases. It does not make the internet a medium for publishing laws.html This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition proffer that the President has abused power by issuing E. ERMITA (2006) http://www. of which the term of half of its members commenced on June 30. enumerated in Section 2(b) to secure the consent of the President prior to appearing before either house of Congress. 179275 admit in their pleadings and even on oral argument that the Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation had been published in newspapers of general circulation only in 1995 and in 2006. Petitioners pray for its declaration as null and void for being unconstitutional. Publication in accordance with Tañada is mandatory to comply with the due process requirement because the Rules of Procedure put a person’s liberty at risk. publication."  EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE SENATE V. No. 8792 considers an electronic data message or an electronic document as the functional equivalent of a written document only for evidentiary purposes. Adherence to the Rule on Executive Privilege and Respect for the Rights of Public Officials Appearing in Legislative Inquiries in Aid of Legislation Under the Constitution.O.O. however.R. Given this discussion.A. and for Other Purposes”. R. 464 “Ensuring Observance of the Principles of Separation of Powers. otherwise known as the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000. in violation of the Constitution. The invocation by the respondents of the provisions of R.

be kept confidential in pursuit of the public interest. the Senate of the Philippines. then Director General of NEDA. The Committee of the Senate issued invitations to various officials of the Executive Department for them to appear as resource speakers in a public hearing on the railway project. the attendance of officials and employees of the executive department. Said officials were not able to attend due to lack of consent from the President as provided by E. inter alia. it must so assert it and state the reason therefor and why it must be respected. When he testified before the Senate Committees. appointing. however. enough to shield petitioner Neri from any arrest order the Senate may issue against him for not answering such questions. invoking “executive privilege. In light of the doctrine of separation of powers. 464. NERI V.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_180643_2008. was invited by the respondent Senate Committees to attend their joint investigation on the alleged anomalies in the NBN Project. SC: The court was convinced that the three questions are covered by presidential communications privilege. pardoning. If the executive branch withholds such information on the ground that it is privileged. wire tapping. and the Philippine National Police (PNP). the said powers of the President enjoy a greater degree of confidentiality than other presidential powers. executive privilege may be validly claimed by the executive department only in cases where the power subject of the legislative inquiry is expressly granted by the Constitution to the President. conducts inquiries or investigations in aid of legislation which call for. the power of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation is frustrated. Such powers include the commander-in-chief.lawphil. which involved the amount of US$ 329.In the exercise of its legislative power. brokering for ZTE. and that this privilege has been validly claimed by the executive department. through its various Senate Committees. Congress undoubtedly has a right to information from the executive branch whenever it is sought in aid of legislation. offered him P200 million in exchange for his approval of the NBN Project. when probed further on what they discussed about the NBN Project. in this case to Congress. and the role of military in the so-called “Gloriagate Scandal”. he refused to answer the questions executive privilege is premised on the fact that certain information must. Section 3 which requires all the public officials enumerated in Section 2(b) to secure the consent of the President prior to appearing before either house of Congress. He further narrated that he informed President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo about the bribery attempt and that she instructed him not to accept the bribe. bureaus. This project was contracted by the Philippine Government with the Chinese firm ZTE.290.O. However.481. others on the issues of massive election fraud in the Philippine elections. ISSUE: Whether the three questions that petitioner Neri refused to answer were covered by executive privilege. html Petitioner Romulo Neri. By the mere expedient of invoking said provisions. In . The infirm provisions of E. as a matter of necessity. allow the executive branch to evade congressional requests for information without need of clearly asserting a right to do so and/or proffering its reasons therefor. and offices including those employed in Government Owned and Controlled Corporations. SENATE (2008) http://www. 464.O. making the arrest order issued by the respondent Senate Committees void. petitioner refused to answer. The privilege being. he disclosed that then Commission on Elections Chairman Benjamin Abalos. the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). by definition. the necessity must be of such high degree as to outweigh the public interest in enforcing that obligation in a particular case. an exemption from the obligation to disclose information.” In particular. and diplomatic powers.

VI.” Thus. without disclosing the very thing the privilege is designed to protect. and requested that if there be new matters that were not yet taken up during his first appearance. VI. being a member of the President's Cabinet. Gudani and Lt. Respondents found the explanation unsatisfactory.on 1. Under the “operational proximity” test. And as to the third element.” ISSUE: Whether the President prevent a member of the armed forces from testifying before a legislative inquiry. As to the second element. Instead. As ruled in Senate vs.judiciary. petitioner Neri can be considered a close advisor.” and given the confidential nature in which these information were conveyed to the President. GUDANI V. 21. On 22 November. Col. on 20 November.ph/jurisprudence/2006/august20 06/G. the questions veer more towards the exercise of the legislative oversight function under Sec. respondent Committees failed to show a compelling or critical need for the answers to the three questions in the enactment of any law under Sec. He added that his non-appearance was upon the order of the President. Soldiers are constitutionally obliged to obey the President they may dislike or distrust. Presidential communications are presumptively privileged and that the presumption can be overcome only by mere showing of public need by the branch seeking access to such conversations. respondents issued a Show Cause Letter to Neri requiring him to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt for his failure to attend the scheduled hearing on 20 November.%20No. respondent Committees issued a Subpoena Ad Testificandum to petitioner. 2. Neri replied to the Show Cause Letter and explained that he did not intend to snub the Senate hearing. and 3.” and that “the information sought to be disclosed might impair our diplomatic as well as economic relations with the People’s Republic of China.R. and later on issued an Order citing Neri in contempt and consequently ordering his arrest and detention at the Office of the Senate Sergeant-At-Arms until he appears and gives his testimony.htm The Senate invited Gen. Neri did not appear before the respondent Committees. Ermita invoked the privilege on the ground that “the information sought to be disclosed might impair our diplomatic as well as economic relations with the People’s Republic of China.) whether or not she directed him to prioritize it. Art. SENGA (2006) http://sc. Executive Secretary Ermita claimed executive privilege on the argument that the communications elicited by the three questions “fall under conversation and correspondence between the President and public officials” necessary in “her executive and policy decision-making process. the “the oversight function of Congress may be facilitated by compulsory process only to the extent that it is performed in pursuit of legislation.gov. Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita sent a letter dated 15 November to the Committees requesting them to dispense with Neri's testimony on the ground of executive privilege. there is no adequate showing of a compelling need that would justify the limitation of the privilege and of the unavailability of the information elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority.” It is clear then that the basis of the claim is a matter related to the quintessential and non-delegable presidential power of diplomacy or foreign relations. Balutan to the present case. Art.) whether or not she directed him to approve it. and that his conversation with her dealt with delicate and sensitive national security and diplomatic matters relating to the impact of the bribery scandal involving high government officials and the possible loss of confidence of foreign investors and lenders in the Philippines. In the present case. However. 22. he be informed in advance so he can prepare himself. On 29 November. Neri “cannot provide the Committee any further details of these conversations. SC: Yes.) whether or not the President followed up the NBN Project. requiring him to appear and testify on 20 November 2007. Later on. Ermita. The ability of the President to prevent military officials from testifying before . the communications were received by a close advisor of the President.%20170165.

movement and speech of military officers.O 164 enjoining officials of the executive department including the military establishment from appearing in any legislative inquiry without her approval.  QUESTION HOUR SENATE V. the Chief Executive is nonetheless obliged to comply with the final orders of the court. VI xxx The requirement then to secure presidential consent under Section 1. As a result. In as much as it is ill advised for Congress to interfere with the President’s power as Commander-in-Chief. he can be held in contempt of . However. By this. as commander-in-chief. VI. 22. EO 464 SC: Section 1. is valid on its face. For under Sec. VI and the absence of any reference to inquiries in aid of legislation. Even if the President has earlier disregarded with notion of officers appearing before the legislature to testify. Section 1 cannot. and it is precisely as a complement to or a supplement of the Legislative Inquiry. the President has absolute authority over the persons and actions of the members of the armed forces.” Congress DOES NOT TURN ON EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE BUT ON THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S POWER AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF to control the actions and speech of the armed forces. xxx Courts are empowered.clarify allegations of massive cheating in the 2004 elections and the surfacing of the “Hello Garci” controversy. both of them were relieved of their assignments for allegedly violating the Articles of War and the time honored principle of the “Chain of Command. to arbitrate disputes between the executive and legislative branches of the government on the proper parameters of power. may be summoned and if he refuses. Under the Commander in Chief Clause (Art. the two concluded their testimonies before the Senate in spite the fact that a directive has been given to them. unless a valid claim of privilege is subsequently made. 1. Section 21 would refer specifically to inquiries in aid of legislation. must be construed as limited in its application to appearances of department heads in the question hour contemplated in the provision of said Sec. The rule is not absolute. if the court so rule. to authorize the appearance of the military officers before Congress. be applied to appearances of department heads in inquiries in aid of legislation. in effect. Section 22 refers only to Question Hour. the appearance of department heads in the question hour is discretionary on their part. ERMITA (2006) ISSUE: Constitutionality of Sec. Art. Such authority includes the ability of the President to restrict travel. in aid of legislation. The appearance of the members of Cabinet would be very. 22. whereas. under which anybody for that matter. 22 of Art. it is similarly detrimental for the President to unduly interfere with Congress right to conduct legislative inquiries. XVl. in view of its specific reference to Sec. very essential not only in the application of check and balance but also. President Arroyo issued E. under the principle of JUDICIAL REVIEW. Section 22 on the other hand provides for the Question Hour. The Question Hour is closely related with the legislative power. Art. either by the President herself or by the Executive Secretary. Congress is not bound in such instances to respect the refusal of the department head to appear in such inquiry. activities which may otherwise be sanctioned under civilian law. limited as it is only to appearances in the question hour. section 5). the duty falls on the shoulders of the President. however.

Ultimately. 18.4 Billion in automatic appropriation (with P86. it being higher than the budget for education.” . 1177. Article XIV of the Constitution Congress the appropriations for the DECS amount to is mandated to “assign the highest budgetary priority to education. Sections 21 and 22.017.lawphil. while the other pertains to the power to conduct a question hour. guided only by its good judgment.8 Billion for debt service) and P155. should not be considered as pertaining to the same power of Congress. the Court finds and so holds that said appropriation cannot be thereby Philippines on its Contingent Liabilities Arising out of Relent assailed as unconstitutional. Thus.00.html Whether or not the automatic appropriation for debt service is unconstitutional.1967. More to Institutionalize the Budgetary Innovations of the New especially. ENACTMENT OF A LAW  ORIGIN OF BILLS GUINGONA V. While it is true that under Section 5(5). if in the process Society.5 Billion. therefore it is against Section 5(5). as Amended (Re: Foreign Borrowing Act). authorized by PD No.000. that can reasonably service our enormous debt…It is not PD No. to Hundred Sixty.net/judjuris/juri1991/apr1991/gr_94571 _1991. CARAGUE (1991) ISSUE: http://www. the very survival of our economy is at stake. “by provide an appropriation. the objective of which is to obtain information in pursuit of Congress’ oversight function. the aim of which is to elicit information that may be used for legislation. entitled “Revising the Budget Process in Order only a matter of honor and to protect the credit standing of the country. it being higher than the budget for education.” and by PD No. entitled “An Act Strengthening Congress appropriated an amount for debt service bigger than the share allocated to the Guarantee and Payment Positions of the Republic of the education.” The petitioners were questioning the constitutionality of the automatic appropriation for debt service. it was compulsory in inquiries in aid of legislation. Article XIV of the Constitution which mandates to “assign the highest budgetary priority to education. The 1990 budget consists of P98. and Guaranteed Loans by Appropriating Funds For The Purpose. A distinction was thus made between inquiries in aid of legislation and the question hour. One specifically relates to the power to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation. thereby follow that the hands of Congress are so hamstrung as to deprive it the power to respond to the imperatives of the national interest and for the attainment The said automatic appropriation for debt service is of other state policies or objectives.” it does not P27. or a total of P233.813.3 HELD: Billion appropriated under RA 6831. entitled “ Amending Certain Provisions of Republic Act Numbered Four Thousand Eight Congress is certainly not without any power. therefore. while No. otherwise known as the General Approriations Act. while closely related and complementary to each other. While attendance was meant to be discretionary in the question hour. the power of Congress to compel the appearance of executive officials under Section 21 and the lack of it under Section 22 find their basis in the principle of separation of powers.the House.

No. bills of local application. VI. constitutes undue delegation of legislative power? NO Facts: On May 24. Tolentino contends that RA 7716 did not originate exclusively from the House of Representatives but is a mere consolidation of HB. 1630. 11197 and SB. HELD No.html RA 7716. bills authorizing increase of the public debt.html Issue: Whether or not the RA 9337's stand-by authority to the Executive to increase the VAT rate. SB. ISSUE: Whether or not RA 7716 violated Art. VI. Art. respectively. is an act that seeks to widen the tax base of the existing VAT system and enhance its administration by amending the National Internal Revenue Code. Exec.lawphil. revenue or tariff bills. 1630 and it did not pass three readings on separate days on the Senate thus violating Article VI. VI. Upon the last reading of a bill. or inherently and exclusively. but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments.net/judjuris/juri2005/sep2005/gr_16805 6_2005. legislative. and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to its Members three days before its passage. The phrase “originate exclusively” refers to the revenue bill and not to the revenue law. SECRETARY (1994) http://www. ABAKADA v. no amendment thereto shall be allowed. No. Section 24 and Art. and the vote thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter. Purely legislative power which can . Art. Section 24: All appropriation. 2005. especially on account of the recommendatory power granted to the Secretary of Finance. except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency.lawphil. It is sufficient that the House of Representatives initiated the passage of the bill which may undergo extensive changes in the Senate.net/judjuris/juri1994/aug1994/gr_11545 5_1994.TOLENTINO V. the President signed into law Republic Act Held: The powers which Congress is prohibited from delegating are those which are strictly. Secretary (2005) http://www. otherwise known as the Expanded Value-Added Tax Law. and private bills shall originate exclusively in the House of Representatives. VI. No. Sections 24 and 26(2) of the Constitution. having been certified as urgent by the President need not meet the requirement not only of printing but also of reading the bill on separate days. There are various suits questioning and challenging the constitutionality of RA 7716 on various grounds. Section 26(2): No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed three readings on separate days. Section 26(2) of the Constitution. and the yeas and nays entered in the Journal.

after any of the following conditions has been satisfied: (a) delegation of tariff powers to President under Constitution (b) delegation of emergency powers to President under Constitution (c) delegation to the people at large (i) Value-added tax collection as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the previous year exceeds two and four-fifth percent (2 4/5%). No. Before the law took effect on July 1. it is not a delegation of legislative power BUT a delegation of ascertainment of facts upon which enforcement and administration of the increased rate under the law is contingent.judiciary. There is no undue delegation of legislative power but only of the discretion as to the execution of a law. raise the rate of value-added tax to 12%. and to determine the expediency of its enactment.9337 or the VAT Reform Act. Highlighting the absence of discretion is the fact that the word SHALL is used in the common proviso.A.ph/jurisprudence/1996/jan1996/1183 03.complete as to the time when it shall take effect and as to whom it shall be applicable. contingent upon a specified fact or condition. its own version of HB . 5 and 6: “That the President. (d) delegation to local governments (e) delegation to administrative bodies or (ii) National government deficit as a percentage of GDP of the previous year exceeds one and one-half percent (1½%)” Petitioners allege that the grant of stand-by authority to the President to increase the VAT rate is an abdication by Congress of its exclusive power to tax because such delegation is not covered by Section 28 (2). 2005. upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Finance.htm In this case. This is constitutionally permissible. They also said that the President has powers to cause. The use of the word SHALL connotes a mandatory order. The legislature has made the operation of the 12% rate effective January 1. 2006. influence or create the conditions provided by law to bring about the conditions precedent. Article VI Consti. No discretion would be exercised by the President. 2006. the Court issued a TRO enjoining government from implementing the law in response to a slew of petitions for certiorari and prohibition questioning the constitutionality of the new law. never be delegated is the authority to make a complete law. It leaves the entire operation or non-operation of the 12% rate upon factual matters outside of the control of the executive. 9337 is the common proviso in Sections 4. Alvarez v.gov. effective January 1. Moreover. tolls or tribute payable upon merchandise to the government and usually imposed on imported/exported goods. they allege that no guiding standards are made by law as to how the Secretary of Finance will make the recommendation. Its use in a statute denotes an imperative obligation and is inconsistent with the idea of discretion. They argue that VAT is a tax levied on the sale or exchange of goods and services which can’t be included within the purview of tariffs under the exemption delegation since this refers to customs duties. The exceptions are: The challenged section of R. Congress did not delegate the power to tax but the mere implementation of the law. shall. It is the nature of the power and not the liability of its use or the manner of its exercise which determines the validity of its delegation. Issue: whether or not considering that the Senate passed SB 1243. Guingona (1996) http://sc.

RA 7720 can be said to have originated in the House of Representatives Facts: HB 8817.judiciary. and transmitted to the Senate. and was passed as well. subsequently passed by the House of Representatives. The HB was approved on third reading 17 Dec. does not contravene the constitutional requirement that a bill of local application should originate in the House of Representatives. Large-scale anomalies in the registration of voters cannot be carried out without the complicity of election officers. it cannot be said to have originated in the House of Representatives.8817.ph/jurisprudence/2000/july2000/1291 18. Held: Yes. entitled “An Act Converting the Municipality of Santiago into an Independent Component City to be known as the City of Santiago. Bills of local application are required to originate exclusively in the House of Representatives. Such is untenable because it cannot be denied that the HB was filed first (18 Apr 1993). The filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in anticipation of its receipt of the bill from the House. A counterpart of HB 8817. COMELEC (2000) http://sc. Petitioners claim that the act violated the equal protection clause because not all election officials were covered by the prohibition. does not contravene the constitutional requirement that a bill of local application should originate in the House of Representatives. who are the highest representatives of Comelec in a city or municipality. HELD: The law does not violate the equal protection clause. It is intended to ensure the impartiality of election officials by preventing them from developing familiarity with the people of their place of assignment. The filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in anticipation of its receipt of the bill from the House of Representatives. ONE SUBJECT ONE TITLE RULE Guzman v. for as long as the Senate does not act thereupon until it receives the House bill. The enrolled bill was submitted to and signed by the Chief Executive as RA 7720. The Act prohibits election officers from holding office in a particular city or municipality for more than four years. 1994. Petitioners contend that since a bill of the same import was passed in the Senate.” was filed in the House of Representatives. . The SB was filed 19 May. and was transmitted to the Senate 28 Jan 1994.gov. SB 1243 was filed in the Senate. for as long as the Senate does not act thereupon until it receives the House bill. a great majority of the registered voters of Santiago voted in favor of the conversion of Santiago into a city. When a plebiscite on the Act was held on July 13.html The Comelec reassigned petitioners to other stations pursuant to Section 44 of the Voter’s Registration Act.

" This Court has held that an act having a single general subject. no matter how diverse they may be. is unconstitutional for being in violation of Section 26(1) of the Article VI of the Constitution. may contain any number of provisions. Orderly. Issue: Constitutionality of Sec. The Sec 14 of RA 9006 primarily deals with the lifting of the ban on the use of media for election propaganda and the elimination of unfair election practices. The EPC (equal protection clause) is embraced in the concept of due process.lawphil. Section 26(1) of the Constitution provides: Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof. whether national or local.html Facts: ISSUE: Whether or not Section 14 of RA 9006 is a rider.net/judjuris/juri1993/nov1993/gr_10537 1_1993. The avowed purpose of the constitutional directive that the subject of a bill should be embraced in its title is to apprise the legislators of the purposes. Peaceful and Credible Elections through Fair Elections Practices. the legislators were aware of the existence of the provision repealing Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code. 35of RA 7354 Held: Hereby declared unconstitutional. indicated in the title. The repeal of Sec 67 of the OEC is thus not embraced in the title. action and study of the legislators and the public. shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy. Executive (2003) http://www. as . Prado (1993) http://www. the petitioners as members of the House of Representatives. PJA v.html Facts: SEC. Honest.Farinas v. Petitioners alleged that Section 14 of RA 9006 entitled "An Act to Enhance the Holding of Free.lawphil. the nature and scope of its provisions. and prevent the enactment into law of matters which have not received the notice. Sec 67 of the OEC imposes a limitation of officials who run for office other than the one they are holding in a permanent capacity by considering them as ipso facto resigned therefrom upon filing of the certificate of candidacy. running for any office other than the one which he is holding in a permanent capacity. nor germane to the subject matter of RA 9006. 67 of the Omnibus Election Code reads: Candidates holding elective office. expressed their reservations regarding its validity prior to casting their votes. In fact.net/judjuris/juri2003/dec2003/gr_14738 7_2003. – Any elective official. The purported dissimilarity of Section 67 of the Code and the Section 14 of the RA 9006 does not violate "one subject-one title rule. requiring every law to have only one subject which should be in expressed in its title. and may be considered in furtherance of such subject by providing for the method and means of carrying out the general subject. In this case. The Court is convinced that the title and the objectives of RA 9006 are comprehensive enough to include the repeal of Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code within its contemplation. insofar as it repeals Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code. RULING: No. To require that the said repeal of Section 67 of the Code be expressed in the title is to insist that the title be a complete index of its content. The inclusion of Sec 14 repealing Sec 67 of the Omnibus Election Code in RA 9006 constitutes a proscribed rider. Undoubtedly. so long as they are not inconsistent with or foreign to the general subject. except for President and Vice-President. it cannot be claimed that the legislators were not apprised of the repeal of Section 67 of the Code as the same was amply and comprehensively deliberated upon by the members of the House.

are assailing the constitutionality of Sec 35 of RA 7354 due to. Section 11 of RA 1600 fails to disclose the relevance to any appropriation item. Section 35 has placed the courts of justice in a category to which it does not belong. should not be treated differently. we fail to understand why the Supreme Court should be similarly treated as that Committee. both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. the Kabataang Baranggay. the AFP.lawphil. Garcia v. Respondents counter that there is no discrimination as the franking privilege has also been withdrawn from the Office of Adult Education. The equal protection clause does not require the universal application of the laws on all persons or things without distinction. and the National Council for the Welfare of Disabled Persons. inter alia. the AFP Ladies Steering Committee. is to withdraw it altogether from all agencies of government. According to a long line of decisions. there is no reason why it should not recognize a similar and in fact greater need on the part of the Judiciary for such privilege. and the National Census and Statistics Office. the Telecommunications Office. the National Historical Commission. Hence it was A NON-APPROPRIATION ITEM INSERTED IN AN APPROPRIATION . the remedy. members of the lower courts. RA 1600 is an appropriation law for the operation of government while Section 11 refers to a fundamental governmental policy of calling to active duty and the reversion of inactive statute of reserve officers in the AFP. especially where there is no substantial distinction between those favored. In lumping the Judiciary with the other offices from which the franking privilege has been withdrawn. If the problem of the respondents is the loss of revenues from the franking privilege. the VP. He filed an action for mandamus to compel the DND and AFP to reinstate him to active service and readjust his rank and pay emoluments.net/judjuris/juri1975/jul1975/gr_l_3371 3_1975. the Provincial and City Assessors. in other words. every unfair discrimination offends the requirements of justice and fair play. members of Congress. 12 Similar subjects. The problem is not solved by retaining it for some and withdrawing it from others. the only acceptable reason for the grant of the franking privilege was the perceived need of the grantee for the accommodation. the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation. the Commission on the Filipino Language. and the Judiciary. the City and Provincial Prosecutors. the Comelec.html Facts : Garcia was a reserve officer on active duty who was reversed to inactive status. Mata (1975) http://www. so as to give undue favor to some and unjustly discriminate against others. former Presidents. it seems to us. its being discriminatory because of withdrawing the franking privilege from the Judiciary but retaining said privilege for the President. the Institute of National Language. which definitely needs it. The problem is not solved by violating the Constitution. If it recognizes the need of the President of the Philippines and the members of Congress for the franking privilege.Petitioners. including those who do not need it. which would justify a waiver of substantial revenue by the Corporation in the interest of providing for a smoother flow of communication between the government and the people. Issue: Whether RA 1600 is valid? Does it contain rider in an appropriation bill? Held: The incongruity and irrelevancy are already evident. which may or may not need it at all. In the SC’s view. While we may appreciate the withdrawal of the franking privilege from the Armed Forces of the Philippines Ladies Steering Committee. equal protection simply requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike. the Tanodbayan (Office of the Special Prosecutor).

It also violates the rule on one-bill.Garcia claims that his reversion to inactive status is violation of RA 1600 which prohibits the reversion of officers with at least 10 years of service. Garcia cannot compel the AFP to reinstate him. When an act contains provisions which are clearly not embraced in the subject of the act. SECTION 11 is unconstitutional. in violation of the constitutional prohibition against RIDERS to the general appropriation act. the AFP and DND contend that the said provision of RA 1600 has no relevance or pertinence to the budget in question or to any appropriation item therein. It was indeed a new and completely unrelated provision attached to the GAA. one subject. On the other hand. . (RA 1600 was an appropriation law for 1956-57). MEASURE. such provisions are void. as expressed in the title. inoperative and without effect. The subject to be considered must be expressed in the title of the act.