You are on page 1of 18

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS: LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

ROBERT V. TOBIAS, ET. AL. VS. HON. CITY MAYOR BENJAMIN S. WON RA 7675 contravene Secs. 5(1) and 5(4), Article VI of the 1987
ABALOS, ET.AL. Constitution?
GR No. L-114783 December 8, 1994
HELD:
DOCTRINE:
NO. The conversion of Mandaluyong into a highly urbanized city complies
The creation of a separate congressional district for Mandaluyong is not a with the mandate of the Constitution that a city with a population of at
subject separate and distinct from the subject of its conversion into a least 250,000 or each province shall have at least one representative. This
highly urbanized city, but is a natural and logical consequence of such mandate necessitated the creation of a new congressional district for
conversion. Mandaluyong. Such creation is not a subject separate and distinct from the
subject of the conversion into a highly urbanized city, but is actually a
FACTS: natural and logical consequence of it. The one-subject-one-bill rule must
be interpreted so as not to cripple or impede legislation.
Prior to the enactment of RA 7675, otherwise known as An Act Converting
the Municipality of Mandaluyong into a Highly Urbanized City to be known NO. While there is no mention of any census to show that Mandaluyong
as the City of Mandaluyong, the municipalities of Mandaluyong and San and San Juan have attained the minimum requirement of 250,000
Juan belonged only to one legislative district. Hon. Ronaldo Zamora, the inhabitants to justify their separation into to legislative districts, this is not
then incumbent representative of the district, sponsored the bill, which enough to invalidate RA 7675. The law enjoys the presumption of
was eventually enacted as RA 7675, signed into law by President Ramos constitutionality, including due consideration of the members of Congress
on February 9, 1994. as to whether or not the minimum requirements for the establishments of
separate legislative districts have been complied with.
Pursuant to the Local Government Code of 1991, a plebiscite was held on
April 10, 1994 where the people of Mandaluyong were asked whether they RA 7675 also does not violate Section 5(1) of Article VI, because the
approved of the conversion. The turn-out of the plebiscite was only present limit of 250 members for the House of Representatives is actually
14.41% but 18, 621 voted yes, whereas 7, 911 voted no.. Based on flexible. The words unless provided by law illustrates that that the
such results, RA 7675 was deemed ratified and in effect. present composition of Congress may be increased if Congress itself
mandates through legislative enactment. Such increase is therefore not
Petitioners now come to the Supreme Court alleging that RA 7675 is unconstitutional.
unconstitutional for violating the one-subject-one-bill rule, and that the
law violates Article VI, Sections 5(1) and (4) of the 1987 Constitution ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS V. COMELEC
which provide: G.R. No. 119976, September 18, 1995
GATACELO
Sec. 5(1). The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more
than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who DOCTRINE:
shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces,
cities and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of Mere absence of an individual from his permanent residence without the
their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive intention to abandon it does not result in a loss or change of domicile.
ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party
list system of registered national, regional and sectoral parties or FACTS:
organizations. Sec. 5(4). Within three years following the return of every Imelda Marcos filed her Certificate of Candidacy for the position of
census, the Congress shall make a reapportionment of legislative districts Representative of the First District of Leyte with the information that she
based on the standard provided in this section. had been a resident of said district [OF TOLOSA, LEYTE] for 7 months.
Montejo, the incumbent Representative and a candidate for the same
ISSUES: position, filed a "Petition for Cancellation and Disqualification" with the
WON RA 7675 violate the one-subject-one-bill rule? COMELEC alleging that Marcos lacked the Constitution's one year residency

1 AREVALO, CRUZ (CHANINE), CRUZ (CHRISTINE), DUMALANTA, GATACELO, GLORIA, GOMEZ, LAZARO, MATILLANO, MUNEZ, MURILLO
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS: LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
requirement on the evidence of declarations made by her in the Voter In addition, it is the fact of residence, not a statement in a certificate of
Registration Recordand in her Certificate of Candidacy. Marcos, candidacy which ought to be decisive in determining whether or not an
subsequently, filed an Amended/Corrected Certificate of Candidacy, individual has satisfied the constitution's residency qualification
changing the entry "seven" months to "since childhood" due to an honest requirement. The said statement becomes material only when there is or
misinterpretation, but the Provincial Election Supervisor of Leyte denied appears to be a deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact
the correction because it was filed out of time. On appeal, the Second which would otherwise render a candidate ineligible. In the cast at bar, it
Division of the COMELECT found the Petition for Disqualification stands to reason therefore, that petitioner merely committed an honest
meritorious. COMELEC en banc also denied Marcoss Motion for mistake in jotting down the word "seven" in the space provided for the
Reconsideration. Thereafter, COMELEC issued second Resolution directing residency qualification requirement. The circumstances leading to her filing
that the proclamation of Marcos be suspended in the event that she the questioned entry obviously resulted in the subsequent confusion which
obtains the highest number of votes, which eventually happened (70,471 prompted petitioner to write down the period of her actual stay in Tolosa,
votes vs 36,833 votes in favor of Marcos). [WHILE NOT STATED, HER Leyte instead of her period of residence in the First district, which was
NAME WAS INCLUDED I THE BALLOTS PENDING FINAL DETERMINATION "since childhood" in the space provided. These circumstances and events
OF THE CASE FILED BY MONTEJO.] are amply detailed in the COMELEC's Second Division's questioned
resolution, albeit with a different interpretation. For instance, when herein
ISSUE: petitioner announced that she would be registering in Tacloban City to
make her eligible to run in the First District, Montejo opposed the same,
WON Marcos was a resident, for election purposes, of the First District of claiming that petitioner was a resident of Tolosa, not Tacloban City.
Leyte. Petitioner then registered in her place of actual residence in the First
District, which was Tolosa, Leyte, a fact which she subsequently noted
HELD: down in her Certificate of Candidacy. A close look at said certificate would
reveal the possible source of the confusion: the entry for residence (item
Yes. Domicile includes the twin elements of "the fact of residing or 7) is followed immediately by the entry for residence in the constituency
physical presence in a fixed place" and animus manendi, or the intention where a candidate seeks election (item 8). Having been forced by Montejo
of returning there permanently. Moreover, the essential distinction to register in her place of actual residence in Leyte instead of Marcoss
between residence and domicile in law is that residence involves the intent claimed domicile, it appears that Marcos had jotted down her period of
to leave when the purpose for which the resident has taken up his abode stay in her legal residence or domicile. The juxtaposition of entries in Item
ends. One may seek a place for purposes such as pleasure, business, or 7 and Item 8 the first requiring actual residence and the second
health. If a person's intent be to remain, it becomes his domicile; if his requiring domicile coupled with the circumstances surrounding
intent is to leave as soon as his purpose is established it is residence. It is petitioner's registration as a voter in Tolosa obviously led to her writing
thus, quite perfectly normal for an individual to have different residences down an unintended entry for which she could be disqualified. This honest
in various places. However, a person can only have a single domicile, mistake should not, however, be allowed to negate the fact of residence in
unless, for various reasons, he successfully abandons his domicile in favor the First District if such fact were established by means more convincing
of another domicile of choice. than a mere entry on a piece of paper.

In our election/political law, what has clearly and unequivocally emerged is It must be stressed, likewise, that absence from legal residence or
the fact that residence for election purposes is used synonymously with domicile to pursue a profession, to study or to do other things of a
domicile. Thus, the mere absence of an individual from his permanent temporary or semi-permanent nature does not constitute loss of residence.
residence without the intention to abandon it does not result in a loss or A minor follows the domicile of his parents. As domicile, once acquired is
change of domicile. The deliberations of the 1987 Constitution on the retained until a new one is gained, it follows that in spite of the fact of
residence qualification for certain elective positions have placed beyond petitioner's being born in Manila, Tacloban, Leyte was her domicile of
doubt the principle that when the Constitution speaks of "residence" in origin by operation of law. This domicile was not established only when her
election law, it actually means only "domicile." father brought his family back to Leyte contrary to private respondent's
averments.

2 AREVALO, CRUZ (CHANINE), CRUZ (CHRISTINE), DUMALANTA, GATACELO, GLORIA, GOMEZ, LAZARO, MATILLANO, MUNEZ, MURILLO
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS: LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Domicile of origin is not easily lost. To successfully effect a change of COMPUTATION OF ADDITONAL SEATS of QUALIFIED PARTIES UNDER THE
domicile, one must demonstrate: 1. An actual removal or an actual change PARTY-LIST SYSTEM and adopted a new formula.
of domicile; 2. A bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of FACTS:
residence and establishing a new one; and 3. Acts which correspond with
the purpose. In the absence of clear and positive proof based on these The 2007 elections included the elections for the party-list
criteria, the residence of origin should be deemed to continue. In the case representatives. The COMELEC counted 15,950,900 votes cast for 93
at bench, the evidence adduced by Montejo lacks the degree of parties under the Party-List System.
persuasiveness required to convince this court that an abandonment of
domicile of origin in favor of a domicile of choice indeed occurred. To effect In June 2007, BANAT filed a Petition to Proclaim the Full Number of Party-
an abandonment requires the voluntary act of relinquishing petitioner's List Representatives Provided by the Constitution, before the COMELEC
former domicile with an intent to supplant the former domicile with one of sitting as the National Board of Canvassers (NBC). BANAT filed its petition
her own choosing (domicilium voluntarium). because the Chairman and the Members of the COMELEC have recently
In this connection, it cannot be correctly argued that petitioner lost her been quoted in the national papers that the latter is duty bound to and
domicile of origin by operation of law as a result of her marriage to the shall implement the Veterans ruling, that is, would apply the Panganiban
late President Marcos, for there is a clearly established distinction between formula in allocating party-list seats.
the Civil Code concepts of "domicile" and "residence." The presumption
that the wife automatically gains the husband's domicile by operation of The Panganiban formula, hereinafter referred to as the Veterans Formula
law upon marriage cannot be inferred from the use of the term "residence" (VF) provides separate formulas for the (1) determination of meeting the
in Article 110 of the Civil Code because the Civil Code is one area where 2% [of the total party-list votes cast] threshold for 1 guaranteed seat and
the two concepts are well delineated. Insofar as the Civil Code is (2) determination of the number of additional seats to be given to the
concerned affecting the rights and obligations of husband and wife FIRST party-list which received more than 2% of the votes and (3)
the term residence should only be interpreted to mean "actual residence." determination of the number of additional seats to be given to the Second
When petitioner married the former President in 1954, she kept her as provided for by RA 7941 (Party List System Act).
domicile of origin and merely gained a new home, not a domicilium
necessarium. The FIRST formula (w/n the 2% threshold is met) is as follows:
NB. Commission does not lose jurisdiction to hear and decide a pending
disqualification case under Section 78 of B.P. 881 even after the elections. Number of votes of each party/ Total votes for the party-list
And as to the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal's supposed system = Percentage of votes garnered by the Party
assumption of jurisdiction, suffice it to say that HRET's jurisdiction as the
sole judge of all contests relating to the elections, returns and If the percentage garnered is at least 2%, then the party is guaranteed
qualifications of members of Congress begins only after a candidate has ONE seat. This is in consonance with the first clause of Section 11(b) of
become a member of the House of Representatives. Petitioner not being a R.A. No. 7941 which states that parties, organizations, and coalitions
member of the House of Representatives, it is obvious that the HRET at receiving at least two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list
this point has no jurisdiction over the question. system shall be entitled to one seat each. This clause guarantees a seat
to the two-percenters.
(BANAT) BARANGAY ASS'N. FOR NATIONAL ADVANCEMENT AND
TRANSPARENCY V. COMELEC The SECOND formula (how to determine the additional seats if the
G.R. NO. 179271, 179295, APRIL 21, 2009 percentage is more than 2% for the FIRST party) is as follows:
[CAVEAT: NOT MY DIGEST. ANG SAKIT SA ULO NG CASE; MAY NUMBERS.
AYOKO MAGPANGGAP.] No. of votes of FIRST1 party/ Total No. For Party List System =

DOCTRINE:

The SC ABANDONED the Panganiban formula adopted in the case of 1


First party is the party garnering the highest number of votes among all party-candidates and
Veterans v. COMELEC (aka Veterans Formula) WITH RESPECT TO THE accordingly, has the highest percentage as against the total number of votes cast for the party
list.

3 AREVALO, CRUZ (CHANINE), CRUZ (CHRISTINE), DUMALANTA, GATACELO, GLORIA, GOMEZ, LAZARO, MATILLANO, MUNEZ, MURILLO
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS: LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Proportion of Votes of FIRST party relative to total votes for number of representatives as the one obtaining twenty percent. The
the proper solution, therefore, is to grant the first party a total of three seats;
Party List System and the party receiving six percent, additional seats in proportion to those
of the first party.
The only basis given by the law is that a party receiving at least two
percent of the total votes shall be entitled to one seat. Proportionally, if Note that the SECOND formula is for the additional seats of the FIRST
the first party were to receive twice the number of votes of the second party only. As for the additional seats of the succeeding QUALIFIED
party, it should be entitled to twice the latters number of seats and so on. PARTIES i.e. 2nd party and so on, a different formula is used (THIRD
If the proportion of votes received by the first party without rounding it off formula), to wit:
is equal to at least six percent of the total valid votes cast for all the party
list groups, then the first party shall be entitled to two additional seats or a Additional Seats for parties concerned = [No. Of votes of
total of three seats overall. If the proportion of votes without a rounding concerned party/ No. Of votes of FIRST party] x No. Of additional
off is equal to or greater than four percent, but less than six percent, then seats allocated to FIRST party
the first party shall have one additional or a total of two seats. And if the
proportion is less than four percent, then the first party shall not be Incidentally, if the first party is not entitled to any additional seat, then the
entitled to any additional seat. ratio of the number of votes for the other party to that for the first one is
multiplied by zero. The end result would be zero additional seat for each of
PROPORTION OF VOTES ADDITIONAL SEATS the other qualified parties as well.
RECEIVED BY FIRST PARTY
Equal to or at least 6% 2 additional seats The above formula does not give an exact mathematical representation of
Equal to or greater than 4% but 1 additional seat the number of additional seats to be awarded since, in order to be entitled
less than 6% to one additional seat, an exact whole number is necessary. In fact, most
Less than 4% No additional seat of the actual mathematical proportions are not whole numbers and are not
rounded off for the reasons explained earlier. To repeat, rounding off may
The Court in Veterans adopted this 6% bench mark, because the first result in the awarding of a number of seats in excess of that provided by
party is not always entitled to the maximum number of additional seats. the law. Furthermore, obtaining absolute proportional representation is
Likewise, it would prevent the allotment of more than the total number of restricted by the three-seat-per-party limit to a maximum of two
available seats, such as in an extreme case wherein 18 or more parties tie additional slots. An increase in the maximum number of additional
for the highest rank and are thus entitled to three seats each. In such representatives a party may be entitled to would result in a more accurate
scenario, the number of seats to which all the parties are entitled may proportional representation. But the law itself has set the limit: only two
exceed the maximum number of party-list seats reserved in the House of additional seats. Hence, we need to work within such extant parameter.
Representatives. All parties agree on the formula to determine the maximum number of
seats reserved under the Party-List System (Three seat Cap Rule), as well
However, the SECOND formula cannot be used to determine the as on the formula to determine the guaranteed seats to party-list
number of additional seats of the other qualified parties. As candidates garnering at least two-percent of the total party-list votes
explained earlier, the use of the same formula for all would contravene the (FIRST Formula).
proportional representation parameter.
However, there are numerous interpretations of the provisions of
For example, a second party obtains six percent of the total number of R.A. No. 7941 on the allocation of additional seats under the
votes cast. According to the above formula, the said party would be Party-List System. Veterans produced the First Party Rule, and
entitled to two additional seats or a total of three seats overall. However, if Justice Vicente V. Mendozas dissent in Veterans presented
the first party received a significantly higher amount of votes say, Germanys Niemeyer formula as an alternative. This is the MAIN
twenty percent to grant it the same number of seats as the second ISSUE in this case (to be discussed in a while).
party would violate the statutory mandate of proportional representation,
since a party getting only six percent of the votes will have an equal

4 AREVALO, CRUZ (CHANINE), CRUZ (CHRISTINE), DUMALANTA, GATACELO, GLORIA, GOMEZ, LAZARO, MATILLANO, MUNEZ, MURILLO
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS: LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
And because the formula in Veterans has flaws in its mathematical This formula allows for the corresponding increase in the number of seats
interpretation of the term proportional representation, this Court is available for party-list representatives whenever a legislative district is
compelled to revisit the formula for the allocation of additional seats to created by law. Since the 14th Congress of the Philippines has 220 district
party-list organizations. representatives, there are 55 seats available to party-list representatives.
Neither the Constitution nor R.A.7941 mandates the filling-up of
Note that the Court in Veterans laid down 4 inviolable parameters the entire 20% allocation of party-list representatives found in the
in the Philippine-Style Party-List System, to wit: Constitution. The Constitution, in paragraph 1, Section 5 of Article VI,
left the determination of the number of the members of the House of
(1) The 20% allocation the combined number of all party-list Representatives to Congress: The House of Representatives shall be
congressmen shall not exceed twenty percent of the total membership of composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless
the House of Representatives, including those elected under the party list; otherwise fixed by law, x x x.
After prescribing the ratio of the number of party-list representatives to
(2) The 2% threshold only those parties garnering a minimum of two the total number of representatives, the Constitution left the manner
percent of the total valid votes cast for the party-list system are qualified of allocating the seats available to party-list representatives to the
to have a seat in the House of Representatives; wisdom of the legislature.

(3) The 3-seat limit each qualified party, regardless of the number of The 20% allocation of party-list representatives is merely a
votes it actually obtained, is entitled to a maximum of three seats; that is, ceiling; party-list representatives cannot be more than 20% of the
one qualifying and two additional seat; and members of the House of Representatives.

(4) Proportional representation the additional seats which a qualified ISSUE 2: Is the 2% threshold prescribed in Section 11(b) of RA
party is entitled to shall be computed in proportion to their total number 7941 to qualify for additional seats constitutional - NO
of votes.
The Constitution left to Congress the determination of the manner
There are 5 issues involved in this case which basically involve the 4 of allocating the seats for party-list representatives. Congress enacted
inviolable parameters stated above. They will be discussed accordingly. R.A. 7941, paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 11 and Section 12 of which
provide:
ISSUE 1: Is the 20% allocation for party-list representatives in Section 11. Number of Party-List Representatives. x x x In determining
Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution mandatory or merely a the allocation of seats for the second vote, the following procedure shall be
ceiling? Ceiling. Hence, such is only permissive. observed:
(a) The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked from the
Section 5(1), Article VI of the Constitution states that the House of highest to the lowest based on the number of votes they garnered during
Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty the elections.
members, unless otherwise fixed by law. The House of Representatives (b) The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two
shall be composed of district representatives and party-list percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be
representatives. The Constitution allows the legislature to modify the entitled to one seat each: Provided, That those garnering more than
number of the members of the House of Representatives. two percent (2%) of the votes shall be entitled to additional seats
Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution, on the other hand, states the in proportion to their total number of votes: Provided, finally, That
ratio of party-list representatives to the total number of each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than
representatives. We compute the number of seats available to party-list three (3) seats.
representatives from the number of legislative districts. On this point,
we do not deviate from the first formula in Veterans, thus: The Court determined that only 17 party-list candidates received at least
No. Of seats available to party-list representatives = [No. Of seats 2% from the total number of votes cast for party-list candidates (total
available to legislative districts / 0.80] x .20 votes cast for the party list = 15, 950,900). The 17 qualified party-list
candidates, or the two-percenters, are the party-list candidates that are

5 AREVALO, CRUZ (CHANINE), CRUZ (CHRISTINE), DUMALANTA, GATACELO, GLORIA, GOMEZ, LAZARO, MATILLANO, MUNEZ, MURILLO
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS: LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
entitled to one seat each, or the guaranteed seat. In this first round of 1. The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked from
seat allocation, we distributed 17 guaranteed seats. the highest to the lowest based on the number of votes they
garnered during the elections.
The second clause of Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941 provides that those
garnering more than two percent (2%) of the votes shall be entitled to 2. The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two
additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes. This is percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list system shall
where petitioners problem with the formula in Veterans lies. Veterans be entitled to one guaranteed seat each.
interprets the clause in proportion to their total number of votes to be in
proportion to the votes of the first party. This interpretation is 3. Those garnering sufficient number of votes, according to the
contrary to the express language of R.A. No. 7941. ranking in paragraph 1, shall be entitled to additional seats in
This Court finds that the 2% threshold makes it mathematically impossible proportion to their total number of votes until all the additional
to achieve the maximum number of available party list seats when the seats are allocated.
number of available party list seats exceeds 50. The continued
operation of the two percent threshold in the distribution of the 4. Each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not
additional seats frustrates the attainment of the permissive ceiling more than three (3) seats.
that 20% of the members of the House of Representatives shall In computing the additional seats, the guaranteed seats shall no
consist of party-list representatives. longer be included because they have already been allocated, at
one seat each, to every two-percenter. Thus, the remaining
To illustrate: There are 55 available party-list seats. Suppose there are available seats for allocation as additional seats are the
50 million votes cast for the 100 participants in the party list elections. A maximum seats reserved under the Party List System less the
party that has two percent of the votes cast, or one million votes, gets a guaranteed seats. Fractional seats are disregarded in the absence
guaranteed seat. Let us further assume that the first 50 parties all get of a provision in R.A. No. 7941 allowing for a rounding off of
one million votes. Only 50 parties get a seat despite the availability of 55 fractional seats.
seats. Because of the operation of the two percent threshold, this
situation will repeat itself even if we increase the available party-list seats ISSUE 4: How should the second round of seat allocation, i.e
to 60 seats and even if we increase the votes cast to 100 million. Thus, additional seats, be computed? (This is the main issue).
even if the maximum number of parties get two percent of the votes for Total no. Of votes cast for the Party-list = 15, 950,900
every party, it is always impossible for the number of occupied party-list Total no. Of Seats allocated for Party list representatives = 55 (ISSUE 1)
seats to exceed 50 seats as long as the two percent threshold is present. No. Of seats guaranteed to those who met the 2% threshold (FIRST
The Court therefore strikes down the 2% threshold only in relation to ROUND) = 17
the distribution of the additional seats as found in the second No. Of seats available for SECOND ROUND = 38 [55-17=38]
clause of Section 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941 as it presents an
unwarranted obstacle to the full implementation of Section 5(2), Article VI 1. Get the percentage of votes garnered by each party-list
of the Constitution and prevents the attainment of the broadest possible candidate is arrived at by dividing the no. of votes garnered by
representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the House of each party by the total no. of votes cast for party-list candidates
Representatives. In other words, the SECOND AND THIRD [hereinafter PERCENTAGE].
FORMULAS provided for under the Veterans formula are hereby
abandoned. Votes garnered by the party x total no. of votes cast = PERCENTAGE
(%)
ISSUE 3: How shall the party-list representative seats be
allocated? See procedure below. 2. Multiply the PERCENTAGE by the remaining available seats,
In determining the allocation of seats for party-list representatives under which is 38 to get the partys share in the remaining additional
Section 11 of R.A. No. 7941, the following procedure shall be observed: seats.

% x 38 = partys ADDITIONAL seat

6 AREVALO, CRUZ (CHANINE), CRUZ (CHRISTINE), DUMALANTA, GATACELO, GLORIA, GOMEZ, LAZARO, MATILLANO, MUNEZ, MURILLO
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS: LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
elections. Excluding the major political parties in party-list
(The whole integer, i.e. if product is 2.79, the whole integer is 2, is the elections is manifestly against the Constitution, the intent of the
additional share of the party. DO NOT ROUND UP.) Constitutional Commission, and R.A. No. 7941. This Court cannot
engage in socio-political engineering and judicially legislate the exclusion
3. Assign one party-list seat to each of the parties next in rank of major political parties from the party-list elections in patent violation of
until all available seats are completely distributed. the Constitution and the law.

4. Finally, apply the 3-seat cap to determine the number of seats Read together, R.A. No. 7941 and the deliberations of the
each qualified party-list candidate is entitled. For example, Party A is Constitutional Commission state that major political parties are
guaranteed 1 seat already under the FIRST ROUND and has 2 additional allowed to establish, or form coalitions with, sectoral organizations
seats under the SECOND ROUND =3 seats. for electoral or political purposes.

There should not be a problem if, for example, the Liberal Party
In the May 2007 Elections, the Court applied the said formula which participates in the party-list election through the Kabataang Liberal ng
resulted in 36 winning party-list organizations and ALL the 55 party-list Pilipinas (KALIPI), its sectoral youth wing. The other major political
seats are filled up. parties can thus organize, or affiliate with, their chosen sector or
sectors. To further illustrate, the Nacionalista Party can establish a
ISSUE 5: Is the three-seat limit in Section 11(b) of RA 7941 fisherfolk wing to participate in the party-list election, and this
constitutional? - YES fisherfolk wing can field its fisherfolk nominees. Kabalikat ng Malayang
Pilipino (KAMPI) can do the same for the urban poor.
The three-seat cap, as a limitation to the number of seats that a
qualified party-list organization may occupy, remains a valid Under Section 9 of R.A. 7941, it is not necessary that the party-list
statutory device that prevents any party from dominating the organizations nominee wallow in poverty, destitution and infirmity as
party-list elections. Seats for party-list representatives shall thus be there is no financial status required in the law. It is enough that the
allocated in accordance with the procedure in ISSUE 4. nominee of the sectoral party/organization/coalition belongs to the
marginalized and underrepresented sectors, that is, if the nominee
ISSUE 6: Does the Constitution prohibit the major political parties represents the fisherfolk, he or she must be a fisherfolk, or if the nominee
from participating in the party-list elections? NO represents the senior citizens, he or she must be a senior citizen.

The Constitutional Commission adopted a multi-party system that allowed ISSUE 6-A: Since the Constitution and RA 7941 do not prohibit the
all political parties to participate in the party-list elections. They wanted to participation of major political parties, can they be subsequently
open up the system, and would like very much for the sectors to be barred from participating in the party-list elections? - YES
there. That is why they put a ceiling on the number of representatives
from any single party that can sit within the 50[55] allocated under the However, by a vote of 8-7, the Court decided to continue the ruling
party list system. in Veterans disallowing major political parties from participating in
the party-list elections, directly or indirectly. Those who voted to
Neither the Constitution nor R.A. No. 7941 prohibits major political continue disallowing major political parties from the party-list elections
parties from participating in the party-list system. On the joined Chief Justice Puno in his separate opinion.
contrary, the framers of the Constitution clearly intended the PUNO, Dissenting and Concurring Opinion:
major political parties to participate in party-list elections through
their sectoral wings. The Court effectively reversed the ruling in Ang Bagong Bayani v.
Comelec with regard to the computation of seat allotments and the
In defining a party that participates in party-list elections as either a participation of major political parties in the party-list system. Inasmuch
political party or a sectoral party, R.A. 7941 also clearly intended that as he agrees with the formula propounded by the majority as it benefits
major political parties will participate in the party-list the party-list system , Chief Justice Puno regrets that his interpretation of

7 AREVALO, CRUZ (CHANINE), CRUZ (CHRISTINE), DUMALANTA, GATACELO, GLORIA, GOMEZ, LAZARO, MATILLANO, MUNEZ, MURILLO
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS: LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Article VI, Section 5 of the Constitution with respect to the participation of representatives will exceed 50, regardless of the number of district
the major political parties in the election of party-list representatives is not representatives.
in direct congruence with the others, hence this dissent.
By virtue of the rigid 2% threshold requirement, the number of seats that
It will be remembered that the petitioners in Ang Bagong Bayani sought the political parties, organizations or coalitions registered under the party-
the disqualification of the major political parties on the ground that the list system could ever aspire for would still be limited to only 50 even if
party-list system was intended to benefit the marginalized and 100 [400 district seats x 80%] party-list seats are available.
underrepresented, and not the mainstream political parties, the non-
marginalized or overrepresented. Rising to the occasion, the Court ruled Accordingly, this stigmatizes the 2% minimum vote requirement in R.A.
through then Associate, later Chief Justice Panganiban, that while any duly 7941. A legal provision that poses an insurmountable barrier to the full
registered political party, organization or group may participate, the role of implementation and realization of the constitutional provision on the party-
the Comelec is to ensure that only those who are marginalized and list system should be declared void. Even if the 20% allocation is not
underrepresented become members of Congress through the Filipino- required to be filled up, and R.A. 7941, enacted by Congress for the
style party- precise purpose of implementing the constitutional provision, contains a
list elections. condition that places the constitutional ceiling completely beyond reach,
totally impossible of realization, then we must strike down the offending
Today, there is an attempt to undo the democratic victory achieved by the condition as an affront to the fundamental law.
marginalized in the political arena in Ang Bagong Bayani. In permitting
the major political parties to participate in the party-list system, Justice [He then presents a formula which I DO NOT get but which effectively
Carpio relies on the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission. lowers the threshold to 1%]. This 1%, is the more logical and equitable
However, more than the deliberations in the Constitutional Commission, formula. It would judiciously respond to the inevitable changes in the
the people have expressed their intention in the text of the Constitution composition of the House of Representatives; it would open opportunities
which the people ratified. Indeed, it is the intent of the sovereign people for the broadest peoples representation in the House of Representatives;
that matters in interpreting the Constitution. and more importantly, it would not violate the Constitution.

If we allow major political parties to participate in the party-list system ANG BAGONG BAYANI VS COMELEC
electoral process, we will surely suffocate the voice of the marginalized, G.R. No. 147589, June 26, 2001
frustrate their sovereignty and betray the democratic spirit of the Gloria
Constitution. That opinion will serve as the graveyard of the party-list
system. DOCTRINE:

NACHURA, Separate Opinion: The party-list system is a social justice tool designed not only to give more
law to the great masses of our people who have less in life, but also to
To provide the mechanics for the implementation of the party-list system, enable them to become veritable lawmakers themselves, empowered to
Congress enacted R.A. No. 7941, Section 11 of which sets, among others, participate directly in the enactment of laws designed to benefit them. It
the inviolable parameter that a party, sectoral organization or coalition, intends to make the marginalized and the underrepresented not merely
must obtain at least two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party- passive recipients of the State's benevolence, but active participants in the
list system in order to claim one seat in the House of Representatives. This mainstream of representative democracy.
is referred to as the threshold vote, or the minimum vote requirement.
Here lies the crux of its unconstitutionality. FACTS:
Given this fixed 2% threshold vote, the maximum number of seats in the
House of Representatives which may be occupied by party-list In the 2001 elections, the numerous petitions received by the Comelec
representatives can never exceed fifty (50) because [100% / 2% = 50]. In and processes observed in the disposition of such petitions hindered the
other words, there will never be a situation where the number of party-list early release of the Omnibus Resolutions of the Divisions which were
promulgated only on 10 February 2001. Before the February 12, 2001

8 AREVALO, CRUZ (CHANINE), CRUZ (CHRISTINE), DUMALANTA, GATACELO, GLORIA, GOMEZ, LAZARO, MATILLANO, MUNEZ, MURILLO
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS: LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
deadline prescribed under Comelec Resolution No. 3426 dated December the parties were directed to submit their respective Memoranda
22, 2000, the registered parties and organizations filed their respective simultaneously within a non-extendible period of five days.
Manifestations, stating their intention to participate in the party-list
elections. Other sectoral and political parties and organizations whose ISSUE:
registrations were denied also filed Motions for Reconsideration, together
with Manifestations of their intent to participate in the party-list elections. Whether or not political parties may participate in the party-list elections.
Still other registered parties filed their Manifestations beyond the deadline.
The Comelec gave due course or approved the Manifestations of 154 HELD:
parties and organizations, but denied those of several others in its assailed
March 26, 2001 Omnibus Resolution No. 3785, which we quote: "We Yes. The Petitions are partly meritorious. These cases should be remanded
carefully deliberated the foregoing matters, having in mind that this to the Comelec. Under the Constitution and RA 7941, private respondents
system of proportional representation scheme will encourage multi- cannot be disqualified from the party-list elections, merely on the ground
partisan [sic] and enhance the inability of small, new or sectoral parties or that they are political parties. Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution
organization to directly participate in this electoral window. It will be noted provides that members of the House of Representatives may "be elected
that as defined, the 'party-list system' is a 'mechanism of proportional through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral
representation' in the election of representatives to the House of parties or organizations." Furthermore, under Sections 7 and 8, Article IX
Representatives from national, regional, and sectoral parties or (C) of the Constitution, political parties may be registered under the party-
organizations or coalitions thereof registered with the Commission on list system. During the deliberations in the Constitutional Commission,
Elections. However, in the course of our review of the matters at bar, we Comm. Christian S. Monsod pointed out that the participants in the party-
must recognize the fact that there is a need to keep the number of list system may "be a regional party, a sectoral party, a national party,
sectoral parties, organizations and coalitions, down to a manageable level, UNIDO, Magsasaka, or a regional party in Mindanao." Commissioner
keeping only those who substantially comply with the rules and regulations Monsod stated that The purpose of this is to open the system. In the past
and more importantly the sufficiency of the Manifestations or evidence on elections, we found out that there were certain groups or parties that, if
the Motions for Reconsiderations or Oppositions." Bayan Muna and Bayan we count their votes nationwide, have about 1,000,000 or 1,500,000
Muna-Youth filed a Petition for Cancellation of Registration and Nomination votes. But they were always third or fourth place in each of the districts.
against some of herein respondents. Meanwhile, dissatisfied with the pace So, they have no voice in the Assembly. But this way, they would have
of the Comelec, Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party filed a Petition five or six representatives in the Assembly even if they would not win
before this Court on April 16, 2001. In its Petition, Ang Bagong Bayani- individually in legislative districts. So, that is essentially the mechanics,
OFW Labor Party contends that "the inclusion of political parties in the the purpose and objectives of the party-list system." For its part, Section 2
party-list system is the most objectionable portion of the questioned of RA 7941 also provides for "a party-list system of registered national,
Resolution." Petitioner Bayan Muna objects to the participation of "major regional and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof, x x x."
political parties." On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General, Section 3 expressly states that a "party" is "either a political party or a
like the impleaded political parties, submits that the Constitution and RA sectoral party or a coalition of parties." More to the point, the law defines
No. 7941 allow political parties to participate in the party-list elections. It "political party" as "an organized group of citizens advocating an ideology
argues that the party-list system is, in fact, open to all "registered or platform, principles and policies for the general conduct of government
national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations." In its Resolution and which, as the most immediate means of securing their adoption,
dated May 9, 2001, the Court ordered the consolidation of the two regularly nominates and supports certain of its leaders and members as
Petitions before it; directed respondents named in the second Petition to candidates for public office." Indubitably, therefore, political parties even
file their respective Comments on or before noon of May 15, 2001; and the major ones -- may participate in the party-list elections.
called the parties to an Oral Argument on May 17, 2001. It added that the That political parties may participate in the party-list elections does not
Comelec may proceed with the counting and canvassing of votes cast for mean, however, that any political party -- or any organization or group for
the party-list elections, but barred the proclamation of any winner therein, that matter -- may do so. The requisite character of these parties or
until further orders of the Court. Thereafter, Comments on the second organizations must be consistent with the purpose of the party-list system,
Petition were received by the Court and, on May 17, 2001, the Oral as laid down in the Constitution and RA 7941. The import of the open
Argument was conducted as scheduled. In an Order given in open court, party-list system may be more vividly understood when compared to a

9 AREVALO, CRUZ (CHANINE), CRUZ (CHRISTINE), DUMALANTA, GATACELO, GLORIA, GOMEZ, LAZARO, MATILLANO, MUNEZ, MURILLO
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS: LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
student dormitory "open house," which by its nature allows outsiders to that seeks to uplift the lives of the "marginalized and underrepresented."
enter the facilities. Obviously, the "open house" is for the benefit of These 13 petitioners (ASIN, Manila Teachers, ALA-EH, 1AAAP, AKIN, AAB,
outsiders only, not the dormers themselves who can enter the dormitory AI, ALONA, ALAM, KALIKASAN, GUARDJAN, PPP, and PBB) were not able
even without such special privilege. In the same vein, the open party-list to secure a mandatory injunction from this Court. The COMELEC, on 7
system is only for the "outsiders" who cannot get elected through regular January 2013 issued Resolution No. 9604, and excluded the names of
elections otherwise; it is not for the non-marginalized or overrepresented these 13 petitioners in the printing of the official ballot for the 13 May
who already fill the ranks of Congress. This Court, therefore, cannot allow 2013 party-list elections. Pursuant to paragraph 2 of Resolution No. 9513,
the party-list system to be sullied and prostituted by those who are neither the COMELEC En Banc scheduled summary evidentiary hearings to
marginalized nor underrepresented. It cannot let that flicker of hope be determine whether the groups and organizations that filed manifestations
snuffed out. The clear state policy must permeate every discussion of the of intent to participate in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections have
qualification of political parties and other organizations under the party-list continually complied with the requirements of R.A. No. 7941 and Ang
system. Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. COMELEC (Ang Bagong Bayani).

ATONG PAGLAUM VS COMELEC ISSUE:


G.R. No. 203766, April 20, 2013
Whether or not the criteria for participating in the party-list system laid
DOCTRINE: down in Ang Bagong Bayani and Barangay Association for National
Advancement and Transparency v. Commission on Elections should be
The party-list system is not synonymous with that of the sectoral applied by the COMELEC in the coming 13 May 2013 party-list elections.
representation. The disqualification of petitioners, and their nominees,
under such circumstances is contrary to the 1987 Constitution and R.A. HELD:
No. 7941.
No. Since the Court adopts in this Decision new parameters in the
FACTS: qualification of national, regional, and sectoral parties under the party-list
system, thereby abandoning the rulings in the decisions applied by the
These cases constitute 54 Petitions for Certiorari and Petitions for COMELEC in disqualifying petitioners, we remand to the COMELEC all the
Certiorari and Prohibition filed by 52 party-list groups and organizations present petitions for the COMELEC to determine who are qualified to
assailing the Resolutions issued by the Commission on Elections register under the party-list system, and to participate in the coming 13
(COMELEC) disqualifying them from participating in the 13 May 2013 May 2013 party-list elections, under the new parameters prescribed in this
party-list elections, either by denial of their petitions for registration under Decision. The 1987 Constitution provides the basis for the party-list
the party-list system, or cancellation of their registration and accreditation system of representation. Simply put, the party-list system is intended to
as party-list organizations. This Court resolved to consolidate the 54 democratize political power by giving political parties that cannot win in
petitions in the Resolutions dated 13 November 2012, 20 November 2012, legislative district elections a chance to win seats in the House of
27 November 2012, 4 December 2012, 11 December 2012, and 19 Representatives. The voter elects two representatives in the House of
February 2013. Pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act No. 7941 (Party- Representatives: one for his or her legislative district, and another for his
List System Act) and COMELEC Resolution Nos. 9366 and 9531, or her party-list group or organization of choice. Comm. Monsod, the main
approximately 280 groups and organizations registered and manifested sponsor of the party-list system, stressed that "the party-list system is not
their desire to participate in the 13 May 2013 party-list elections. In a synonymous with that of the sectoral representation."
Resolution dated 5 December 2012, the COMELEC En Banc affirmed the
COMELEC Second Division's resolution to grant Partido ng Bayan ng Bida's There can be no doubt whatsoever that the framers of the 1987
(PBB) registration and accreditation as a political party in the National Constitution expressly rejected the proposal to make the party-list system
Capital Region. However, PBB was denied participation in the 13 May 2013 exclusively for sectoral parties only, and that they clearly intended the
party-list elections because PBB does not represent any "marginalized and party-list system to include both sectoral and non-sectoral parties. The
underrepresented" sector; PBB failed to apply for registration as a party- common denominator between sectoral and non-sectoral parties is that
list group; and PBB failed to establish its track record as an organization they cannot expect to win in legislative district elections but they can

10 AREVALO, CRUZ (CHANINE), CRUZ (CHRISTINE), DUMALANTA, GATACELO, GLORIA, GOMEZ, LAZARO, MATILLANO, MUNEZ, MURILLO
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS: LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
garner, in nationwide elections, at least the same number of votes that The party-list system is primarily a tool for social justice. I believe that the
winning candidates can garner in legislative district elections. The party- ponencia may have further marginalized the already marginalized and
list system will be the entry point to membership in the House of underrepresented of this country. In the guise of political plurality, it
Representatives for both these non-traditional parties that could not allows national and regional parties or organizations to invade what is and
compete in legislative district elections. should be constitutionally and statutorily protected space. What the
ponencia fails to appreciate is that the party-list system under the 1987
R.A. No. 7941 does not require national and regional parties or Constitution and the party-list law or RA 7941 is not about mere political
organizations to represent the "marginalized and underrepresented" plurality, but plurality with a heart for the poor and disadvantaged.
sectors. The phrase "marginalized and underrepresented" should refer only
to the sectors in Section 5 that are, by their nature, economically LEONEN, J concurred, and dissented but only as to the lack of grave abuse
"marginalized and underrepresented." These sectors are: labor, peasant, of discretion as ruled by the Court.
fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, handicapped,
veterans, overseas workers, and other similar sectors. For these sectors, a REYES, J. concurring and dissenting:
majority of the members of the sectoral party must belong to the In its noblest sense, the party-list system truly empowers the masses and
"marginalized and underrepresented." ushers a new hope for genuine change. Verily, it invites those marginalized
and underrepresented in the past the farm hands, the fisher folk, the
The COMELEC excluded from participating in the 13 May 2013 party-list urban poor, even those in the underground movement to come out and
elections those that did not satisfy the two criteria: (1) all national, participate, as indeed many of them came out and participated during the
regional, and sectoral groups or organizations must represent the last elections. The State cannot now disappoint and frustrate them by
"marginalized and underrepresented" sectors, and (2) all nominees must disabling and desecrating this social justice vehicle.
belong to the "marginalized and underrepresented" sector they represent.
Petitioners may have been disqualified by the COMELEC because as LIGOT VS. MATHAY
political or regional parties they are not organized along sectoral lines and G.R. No. L-34676 April 30, 1974
do not represent the "marginalized and underrepresented." Also, GOMEZ
petitioners' nominees who do not belong to the sectors they represent may
have been disqualified, although they may have a track record of advocacy DOCTRINE:
for their sectors. Likewise, nominees of non-sectoral parties may have
been disqualified because they do not belong to any sector. Moreover, a That the increased compensation provided by Republic Act No. 4134 is
party may have been disqualified because one or more of its nominees not operative until December 30, 1969 when the full term of all members
failed to qualify, even if the party has at least one remaining qualified of the Senate and House that approved it on June 20, 1964 will have
nominee. As discussed above, the disqualification of petitioners, and their expired" by virtue of the constitutional mandate in Section 14, Article VI of
nominees, under such circumstances is contrary to the 1987 Constitution the 1935 Constitution which provides that "No increase in said
and R.A. No. 7941. This Court is sworn to uphold the 1987 Constitution, compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of the full term of
apply its provisions faithfully, and desist from engaging in socio-economic all the members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives
or political experimentations contrary to what the Constitution has approving such increase."
ordained. Judicial power does not include the power to re-write the
Constitution. Thus, the present petitions should be remanded to the FACTS:
COMELEC not because the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion
in disqualifying petitioners, but because petitioners may now possibly Petitioner served as a member of the House of Representatives of the
qualify to participate in the coming 13 May 2013 party-list elections under Congress of the Philippines for three consecutive four-year terms covering
the new parameters prescribed by this Court. WHEREFORE, all the present a twelve-year span from December 30, 1957 to December 30, 1969.A.
54 petitions are GRANTED. During his second term in office (1961-1965), R.A. No. 4134 "fixing the
salaries of constitutional officials and certain other officials of the national
SERENO, J. concurring and dissenting: government" was enacted into law and under section 7 thereof took effect
on July 1, 1964. The salaries of members of Congress (senators and

11 AREVALO, CRUZ (CHANINE), CRUZ (CHRISTINE), DUMALANTA, GATACELO, GLORIA, GOMEZ, LAZARO, MATILLANO, MUNEZ, MURILLO
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS: LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
congressman) were increased under said Act from P7,200.00 to (such as petitioner) will have expired, by virtue of the constitutional
P32,000.00 per annum, but the Act expressly provided that said increases mandate of Article VI, section 14 of the 1935 Constitution, it is self-evident
"shall take effect in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution." that the "rate of pay as provided by law" for members of Congress retiring
on December 30, 1969 such as petitioner must necessarily be P7,200.00
Petitioner was re-elected to a third term (December 30, 1965 to December per annum, the compensation they received "as provided by law" and the
30, 1969) but was held not entitled to the salary increase of P32,000.00 Constitution during their term of office.
during such third term by virtue of this Court's unanimous decision
in Philconsa vs. Mathay. 2. To grant retirement gratuity to members of Congress whose terms
expired on December 30, 1969 computed on the basis of an increased
Petitioner lost his bid for a consecutive fourth term in the 1969 elections salary of P32,000.00 per annum (which they were prohibited by the
and his term having expired on December 30, 1969, filed a claim for Constitution from receiving during their term of office) would be to pay
retirement under C.A. No. 186, section 12 (c) as amended by RA 4968 them prohibited emoluments which in effect increase the salary beyond
which provided for retirement gratuity of any official or employee, that which they were permitted by the Constitution to receive during their
appointive or elective, with a total of at least twenty years of service, the incumbency. As stressed by the Auditor General in his decision in the
last three years of which are continuous on the basis therein provided "in similar case of petitioner's colleague, ex-Congressman Singson, "(S)uch a
case of employees based on the highest rate received and in case of scheme would contravene the Constitution for it would lead to the same
elected officials on the rates of pay as provided by law." prohibited result by enabling administrative authorities to do indirectly
what cannot be done directly."
On May 8, 1970, the House of Representatives issued a treasury warrant
in the sum of P122,429.86 in petitioner's favor as his retirement gratuity, The Auditor-General further aptly observed that "(I)t should not escape
using the increased salary of P32,000.00 per annum of members of notice that during his entire tenure as Congressman (Dec. 30, 1965 to
Congress. Respondent Velasco as Congress Auditor did not sign the December 30, 1969) comprising the last four years of his government
warrant. service, the herein claimant-retiree was unable to receive the increased
salary of P32,000.00 per annum for Members of Congress precisely
Thereafter, respondent auditor Velasco formally requested petitioner to because of the constitutional ban. To allow him now to collect such amount
return the warrant and its supporting papers for a recomputation of his in the guise of retirement gratuity defies logic. Nor does it stand to reason
retirement claim, enclosing therewith copy of the Auditor General's that while he could not legally receive such rate as salary while still in the
adverse decision on ex-Congressman Singson's claim for retirement service, he would now be allowed to enjoy it thereafter by virtue of his
gratuity. retirement."

Petitioner's request for reconsideration was denied. Hence the present SAMPAYAN VS. DAZA
petition for review by way of appeal from the adverse decision of the G.R. NO. 103903. SEPTEMBER 11, 1992
Auditor General.
ISSUE: DOCTRINE:
Under Section 17 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, it is the House
WON petitioner is entitled to the increased salary of P32,000 despite the Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to
constitutional prohibition the election, returns and qualification of its members.

HELD: FACTS:

Petitioner's contention is untenable for the following reasons: On February 18, 1992, petitioners, residents of the second Congressional
1. Since the salary increase to P32,000.00 per annum for members of District of Northern Samar filed the instant petition for prohibition seeking
Congress under Republic Act 4134 could be operative only from December to disqualify respondent Raul Daza, then incumbent congressman of the
30, 1969 for incoming members of Congress when the full term of all same congressional district, from continuing to exercise the functions of
members of Congress (House and Senate) that approved the increase

12 AREVALO, CRUZ (CHANINE), CRUZ (CHRISTINE), DUMALANTA, GATACELO, GLORIA, GOMEZ, LAZARO, MATILLANO, MUNEZ, MURILLO
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS: LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
his office, on the ground that the latter is a greencard holder and a lawful respondent Daza's certificate of candidacy before the election or
permanent resident of the United States since October 16, 1974. a quo warranto case with the House Electoral Tribunal within ten (10) days
Petitioners allege that Mr. Daza has not, by any act or declaration, after Daza's proclamation.Third, a writ of prohibition can no longer be
renounced his status as permanent resident, thereby violating Section 68 issued against respondent since his term has already expired. A writ of
of Batas Pambansa Bilang 881 (Omnibus Election Code) and Section 18, prohibition is not intended to provide for acts already consummated.
Article XI of the 1987 Constitution. Fourth, as a de factopublic officer, respondent cannot be made to
reimburse funds disbursed during his term of office because his acts
On April 7, 1992, petitioners manifested before the SC that on April 2, are as valid as those of a de jure officer. Moreover, as a de facto officer,
1992, they filed a petition before the COMELEC to disqualify respondent he is entitled to emoluments for actual services rendered.
Daza from running in the recent May 11, 1992 elections on the basis of
Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code (SPC 92-084) and that the SARMIENTO vs. MISON
instant petition is concerned with the unlawful assumption of office by 156 SCRA 549; G.R. No. L-79974. December 17, 1987
respondent Daza from June 30, 1987 until June 30, 1992. LAZARO

Thereafter respondent Congressman Daza filed his comment denying the FACTS:
fact that he is a permanent resident of the United States; that although he
was accorded a permanent residency status on October 8, 1980 as In this petition for prohibition, the petitioners, who are taxpayers, lawyers,
evidenced by a letter order of the District Director, US Immigration and members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and professors of
Naturalization Service, Los Angeles, U.S.A., he had long waived his status Constitutional Law, seek to enjoin the respondent Salvador Mison from
when he returned to the Philippines on August 12, 1985. performing the functions of the Office of Commissioner of the Bureau of
Customs and the respondent Guillermo Carague, as Secretary of the
Eight (8) days later, respondent Daza, reacting to the petition before the Department of Budget, from effecting disbursements in payment of
COMELEC (SPC 92-084) and hypothesizing that the case before the Mison's salaries and emoluments, on the ground that Mison's appointment
COMELEC would become moot should this Court find that his permanent as Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs is unconstitutional by reason of
resident status ceased when he was granted a US non-immigrant visa, its not having been confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. The
asked this Court to direct the COMELEC to dismiss SPC No. 92-084. respondents, on the other hand, maintain the constitutionality of
respondent Mison's appointment without the confirmation of the
ISSUE: Commission on Appointments.

WON Daza should be disqualified as a member of the House of ISSUE:


Representatives for violation of Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code.
WON the confirmation of Mison's appointment by the Commission on
HELD: Appointments is necessary.

The SC voted to dismiss the instant prohibition case. First, this case is HELD:
already moot and academic for it is evident from the manifestation filed by
petitioners dated April 6, 1992 [8]that they seek to unseat respondent from No. There are four (4) groups of officers whom the President shall appoint.
his position as Congressman for the duration of his term of office These four (4) groups are:
commencing June 30, 1987 and ending June 30, 1992. Secondly, First, the heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public
jurisdiction of this case rightfully pertains to the House Electoral ministers and consuls, officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel
Tribunal. Under Section 17 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, it is the or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments are vested in him
House Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests in this Constitution;
relating to the election, returns and qualification of its members. Since
petitioners challenge the qualifications of Congressman Daza, the Second, all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not
appropriate remedy should have been to file a petition to cancel otherwise provided for by law;

13 AREVALO, CRUZ (CHANINE), CRUZ (CHRISTINE), DUMALANTA, GATACELO, GLORIA, GOMEZ, LAZARO, MATILLANO, MUNEZ, MURILLO
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS: LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Besides, the power to appoint is fundamentally executive or presidential in
Third, those whom the President may be authorized by law to appoint; character. Limitations on or qualifications of such power should be strictly
Fourth, officers lower in rank whose appointments the Congress may by construed against them. Such limitations or qualifications must be clearly
law vest in the President alone. stated in order to be recognized. But, it is only in the first sentence of Sec.
16, Art. VII where it is clearly stated that appointments by the President to
In the 1935 Constitution, almost all presidential appointments required the the positions therein enumerated require the consent of the Commission
consent (confirmation) of the Commission on Appointments. On the other on Appointments.
hand, the 1973 Constitution, consistent with the authoritarian pattern in
which it was molded and remolded by successive amendments, placed the it is evident that the position of Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs (a
absolute power of appointment in the President with hardly any check on bureau head) is not one of those within the first group of appointments
the part of the legislature. where the consent of the Commission on Appointments is required. As a
matter of fact, as already pointed out, while the 1935 Constitution includes
Given the above two in extremes, one, in the 1935 Constitution and the "heads of bureaus" among those officers whose appointments need the
other, in the 1973 Constitution, it is not difficult for the Court to state that consent of the Commission on Appointments, the 1987 Constitution, on
the framers of the 1987 Constitution and the people adopting it, struck a the other hand, deliberately excluded the position of "heads of bureaus"
"middle ground" by requiring the consent (confirmation) of the from appointments that need the consent (confirmation) of the
Commission on Appointments for the first group of appointments and Commission on Appointments.
leaving to the President, without such confirmation, the appointment of
other officers, i.e., those in the second and third groups as well as those in Moreover, the President is expressly authorized by law to appoint the
the fourth group, i.e., officers of lower rank. Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs as provided under the Tariff and
Customs Code of the Philippines. During the effectivity of the 1935
As may be seen from the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, Constitution, under which the President may nominate and, with the
appointments to the second and third groups of officers can be made by consent of the Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads of
the President without the consent (confirmation) of the Commission on bureaus, like the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs.
Appointments.
After the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution, however, said law has to be
As a result of the innovations introduced in Sec. 16, Article VII of the 1987 read in harmony with Sec. 16, Art. VII, with the result that, while the
Constitution, there are officers whose appointments require no appointment of the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs is one that
confirmation of the Commission on Appointments, even if such officers devolves on the President, as an appointment he is authorized by law to
may be higher in rank, compared to some officers whose appointments make, such appointment, however, no longer needs the confirmation of
have to be confirmed by the Commission on Appointments under the first the Commission on Appointments.
sentence of the same Sec. 16, Art. VII. Thus, to illustrate, the
appointment of the Central Bank Governor requires no confirmation by the PHIL JUDGES ASSOCIATION VS PRADO ENBANC
Commission on Appointments, even if he is higher in rank than a colonel in 227 SCRA 703 G.R. No. 105371 November 11, 1993
the Armed Forces of the Philippines or a consul in the Consular Service. MATILLANO MARIA VICTORIA Z.
But these contrasts, while initially impressive, merely underscore the
purposive intention and deliberate judgment of the framers of the 1987 DOCTRINE:
Constitution that, except as to those officers whose appointments require
the consent of the Commission on Appointments by express mandate of (KEYWORD TO RECALL THE CASE: FRANKING PRIVILEGE): A conference
the first sentence in Sec., 16, Art. VII, appointments of other officers are committee may, deal generally with the subject matter or it may be
left to the President without need of confirmation by the Commission on limited to resolving the precise differences between the two houses. Even
Appointments. This conclusion is inevitable, if we are to presume, as we where the conference committee is not by rule limited in its jurisdiction,
must, that the framers of the 1987 Constitution were knowledgeable of legislative custom severely limits the freedom with which new subject
what they were doing and of the foreseable effects thereof. matter can be inserted into the conference bill. But occasionally a
conference committee produces unexpected results, results beyond its

14 AREVALO, CRUZ (CHANINE), CRUZ (CHRISTINE), DUMALANTA, GATACELO, GLORIA, GOMEZ, LAZARO, MATILLANO, MUNEZ, MURILLO
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS: LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
mandate, These excursions occur even where the rules impose strict houses. Even where the conference committee is not by rule limited in its
limitations on conference committee jurisdiction. This is symptomatic of jurisdiction, legislative custom severely limits the freedom with which new
the authoritarian power of conference committee. subject matter can be inserted into the conference bill. But occasionally a
conference committee produces unexpected results, results beyond its
FACTS: mandate, These excursions occur even where the rules impose strict
limitations on conference committee jurisdiction. This is symptomatic of
A report came in showing that available data from the Postal Service Office the authoritarian power of conference committee (Davies, Legislative Law
show that from January 1988 to June 1992, the total volume of frank and Process: In a Nutshell, 1986 Ed., p.81).
mails amounted to P90,424,175.00, of this amount, frank mails from the
Judiciary and other agencies whose functions include the service of judicial It is a matter of record that the conference Committee Report on the bill in
processes, such as the intervenor, the Department of Justice and the question was returned to and duly approved by both the Senate and the
Office of the Ombudsman, amounted to P86,481,759. Frank mails coming House of Representatives. Thereafter, the bill was enrolled with its
from the Judiciary amounted to P73,574,864.00, and those coming from certification by Senate President Neptali A. Gonzales and Speaker Ramon
the petitioners reached the total amount of P60,991,431.00. The V. Mitra of the House of Representatives as having been duly passed by
postmasters conclusion is that because of this considerable volume of mail both Houses of Congress. It was then presented to and approved by
from the Judiciary, the franking privilege must be withdrawn from it. President Corazon C. Aquino on April 3, 1992. Under the doctrine of
Acting from this, Prado implemented Circ. No. 9228 as the IRR for the said separation powers, the Court may not inquire beyond the certification of
law. PJA assailed the said law complaining that the law would adversely the approval of a bill from the presiding officers of Congress. Casco
impair the communication within the judiciary as it may impair the sending Philippine Chemical Co. v. Gimenez 7 laid down the rule that the enrolled
of judicial notices. PJA averred that the law is discriminatory as it bill, is conclusive upon the Judiciary (except in matters that have to be
disallowed the franking privilege of the Judiciary but has not disallowed the entered in the journals like the yeas and nays on the final reading of
franking privilege of others such as the executive, former executives and the bill). 8The journals are themselves also binding on the Supreme Court,
their widows among others. as we held in the old (but still valid) case of U.S. vs. Pons, 9where we
explained the reason thus: To inquire into the veracity of the journals of
ISSUE: the Philippine legislature when they are, as we have said, clear and
explicit, would be to violate both the, letter and spirit of the organic laws
Whether or not the amendment in the bill may be settled through a by which the Philippine Government was brought into existence, to invade
conference committee? a coordinate and independent department of the Government, and to
interfere with the legitimate powers and functions, of the Legislature.
HELD: Applying these principles, we shall decline to look into the petitioners
charges that an amendment was made upon the last reading of the bill
YES. The petitioners also invoke Sec. 74 of the Rules of the House of that eventually became R.A. No. 7354 and that copies thereof in its final
Representatives, requiring that amendment to any bill when the House form were not distributed among the members of each House. Both the
and the Senate shall have differences thereon may be settled by a enrolled bill and the legislative journals certify that the measure was duly
conference committee of both chambers. They stress that Sec. 35 was enacted i.e., in accordance with Article VI, Sec. 26(2) of the Constitution.
never a subject of any disagreement between both Houses and so the We are bound by such official assurances from a coordinate department of
second paragraph could not have been validly added as an amendment. the government, to which we owe, at the very least, a becoming courtesy.
THESE ARGUMENT ARE UNACCEPTABLE. ADDITIONAL ISSUE: Whether or not there has been a violation of equal
protection before the law? The SC ruled that there is a violation of the
While it is true that a conference committee is the mechanism for equal protection clause. The judiciary needs the franking privilege so badly
compromising differences between the Senate and the House, it is not as it is vital to its operation. Evident to that need is the high expense
limited in its jurisdiction to this question. Its broader function is described allotted to the judiciarys franking needs. The Postmaster cannot be
thus: sustained in contending that the removal of the franking privilege from the
A conference committee may, deal generally with the subject matter or it judiciary is in order to cut expenditure. This is untenable for if the
may be limited to resolving the precise differences between the two Postmaster would intend to cut expenditure by removing the franking

15 AREVALO, CRUZ (CHANINE), CRUZ (CHRISTINE), DUMALANTA, GATACELO, GLORIA, GOMEZ, LAZARO, MATILLANO, MUNEZ, MURILLO
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS: LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
privilege of the judiciary, then they should have removed the franking However, under Republic Act No. 8760 the budget appropriated by
privilege all at once from all the other departments. Congress for the COMELEC's modernization project was only One (1)
Billion Pesos and that the actual available funds under the Certificate of
COMELEC VS. JUDGE QUIJANO-PADILLA Availability of Funds (CAF) issued by the Chief Accountant of
G.R. NO. 151992. SEPTEMBER 18, 2002 the COMELEC was only P1.2 Billion Pesos.
MUEZ
PHOTOKINA, as the winning bidder, wrote several letters to
DOCTRINE: the COMELEC requesting the formal execution of the contract, but to no
avail.
Mandamus does not lie to enforce the performance of contractual
obligations, especially where disbursement of public funds is concerned. Then Chairman Benipayo, through various press releases and public
statements, announced that the VRIS Project has been "scrapped,
FACTS: dropped, junked, or set aside." He further announced his plan to "re-
engineer" the entire modernization program of the COMELEC, emphasizing
In 1996, the Philippine Congress passed Republic Act No. 8189, otherwise his intention to replace the VRIS Project with his own version, the "Triple E
known as the "Voter's Registration Act of 1996," providing for the Vision."
modernization and computerization of the voters' registration list and the
appropriation of funds therefor "in order to establish a clean, complete, Unsatisfied with the adverse turn of events, PHOTOKINA filed with the
permanent and updated list of voters." Regional Trial Court, Branch 215, Quezon City a petition for mandamus,
prohibition and damages (with prayer for temporary restraining order,
Pursuant thereto, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) promulgated preliminary prohibitory injunction and preliminary mandatory injunction)
Resolution No. 00-0315 approving in principle the Voters' Registration and against the COMELEC and all its Commissioners.
Identification System Project (VRIS) Project for brevity). The VRIS Project
envisions a computerized database system for the May 2004 Elections. The ISSUE:
idea is to have a national registration of voters whereby each registrant's
fingerprints will be digitally entered into the system and upon completion WON a successful bidder may compel a government agency to formalize a
of registration, compared and matched with other entries to eliminate contract with it notwithstanding that its bid exceeds the amount
double entries. A tamper-proof and counterfeit-resistant voter's appropriated by Congress for the project.
identification card will then be issued to each registrant as a visual record
of the registration. HELD:

On September 9, 1999, the COMELEC issued invitations to pre-qualify and No. No rule of law is better settled than that mandamus does not lie to
bid for the supply and installation of information technology equipment enforce the performance of contractual obligations.
and ancillary services for its VRIS Project. Private respondent Photokina
Marketing Corporation (PHOTOKINA) pre-qualified and was allowed to The authority of public officers to enter into government contracts is
participate as one of the bidders. After the public bidding was conducted, circumscribed with a heavy burden of responsibility. In the exercise of
PHOTOKINA's bid in the amount of P6.588 Billion Pesos garnered the their contracting prerogative, they should be the first judges of the
highest total weighted score and was declared the winning bidder. Thus, legality, propriety and wisdom of the contract they entered into. They
on September 28, 2000, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. must exercise a high degree of caution so that the Government may not
3252 approving the Notice of Award to PHOTOKINA, which, in turn, be the victim of ill-advised or improvident action. In fine, we rule that
immediately accepted the same. The parties then proceeded to formalize PHOTOKINA, though the winning bidder, cannot compel the COMELEC to
the contract, with Commissioner Mehol K. Sadain and Atty. Rodrigo D. Sta. formalize the contract. Since PHOTOKINA's bid is beyond the amount
Ana, acting as negotiators for the COMELEC and PHOTOKINA, respectively. appropriated by Congress for the VRIS Project, the proposed contract is
not binding upon the COMELEC and is considered void; and that in issuing
the questioned preliminary writs of mandatory and prohibitory injunction

16 AREVALO, CRUZ (CHANINE), CRUZ (CHRISTINE), DUMALANTA, GATACELO, GLORIA, GOMEZ, LAZARO, MATILLANO, MUNEZ, MURILLO
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS: LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
and in not dismissing Special Civil Action No. Q-01-45405, should have rejected the bid for being excessive or should have withdrawn
respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion. Petitioners cannot the Notice of Award on the ground that in the eyes of the law, the same is
be compelled by a writ of mandamus to discharge a duty that involves the null and void.
exercise of judgment and discretion, especially where disbursement of
public funds is concerned. We are not saying that the party who contracts with the government has
no other recourse in law. The law itself affords him the remedy. Section 48
Enshrined in the 1987 Philippine Constitution is the mandate that "no of E.O. No. 292 explicitly provides that any contract entered into contrary
money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an to the above-mentioned requirements shall be void, and "the officers
appropriation made by law." Thus, in the execution of government entering into the contract shall be liable to the Government or other
contracts, the precise import of this constitutional restriction is to require contracting party for any consequent damage to the same as if the
the various agencies to limit their expenditures within the appropriations transaction had been wholly between private parties." So when the
made by law for each fiscal year. Complementary to the foregoing contracting officer transcends his lawful and legitimate powers by acting in
constitutional injunction are pertinent provisions of law and administrative excess of or beyond the limits of his contracting authority, the Government
issuances that are designed to effectuate the above mandate in a detailed is not bound under the contract. It would be as if the contract in such case
manner. It is quite evident from the tenor of the language of the law that were a private one, whereupon, he binds only himself, and thus, assumes
the existence of appropriations and the availability of funds are personal liability thereunder. Otherwise stated, the proposed contract is
indispensable pre-requisites to or conditions sine qua non for the execution unenforceable as to the Government.
of government contracts. The obvious intent is to impose such conditions
as a priori requisites to the validity of the proposed contract. Using this as BENGZON ET AL. vs. THE SENATE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE
our premise, we cannot accede to PHOTOKINA's contention that there is DOCTRINE:
already a perfected contract. While we held in Metropolitan Manila G.R. No. 89914 November 20, 1991
Development Authority vs. Jancom Environmental Corporation that "the MURILLO
effect of an unqualified acceptance of the offer or proposal of the bidder is
to perfect a contract, upon notice of the award to the bidder," however, DOCTRINE:
such statement would be inconsequential in a government where the
acceptance referred to is yet to meet certain conditions. To hold otherwise The power of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee is limited to inquiries in
is to allow a public officer to execute a binding contract that would obligate aid of legislation and not to inquiries involving private transactions for
the government in an amount in excess of the appropriations for the other purposes.
purpose for which the contract was attempted to be made. This is a
dangerous precedent. FACTS:

In the case at bar, there seems to be an oversight of the legal On 30 July 1987, the government, represented by the Presidential
requirements as early as the bidding stage. The first step of a Bids and Commission on Good Government (PCGG), assisted by the Solicitor
Awards Committee (BAC) is to determine whether the bids comply with General, filed with the Sandiganbayan a case for reconveyance, reversion,
the requirements. The BAC shall rate a bid "passed" only if it complies with accounting, restitution and damages against Benjamin Kokoy
all the requirements and the submitted price does not exceed the Romualdez. It was alleged that Benjamin Kokoy Romualdez and his wife,
approved budget for the contract." Extant on the record is the fact that the together with the Marcoses, unlawfully and unjustly enriched themselves
VRIS Project was awarded to PHOTOKINA on account of its bid in the at the expense of the Filipino people. Further, it was alleged that they
amount of P6.588 Billion Pesos. However, under Republic Act No. 8760, obtained, with the help of the Bengzon Law Office and Ricardo Lopa
the only fund appropriated for the project was P1 Billion Pesos and under Corys brother in law, among others, control over some of the biggest
the Certification of Available Funds (CAF) only P1.2 Billion Pesos was business enterprises in the country including MERALCO, PCI Bank, Shell
available. Clearly, the amount appropriated is insufficient to cover the cost Philippines and Benguet Consolidated Mining Corporation.
of the entire VRIS Project. There is no way that the COMELEC could enter
into a contract with PHOTOKINA whose accepted bid was way beyond the On 13 September 1988, Senator Juan Ponce Enrile subsequently delivered
amount appropriated by law for the project. This being the case, the BAC a privilege speech before the Senate on the alleged "take-over of SOLOIL

17 AREVALO, CRUZ (CHANINE), CRUZ (CHRISTINE), DUMALANTA, GATACELO, GLORIA, GOMEZ, LAZARO, MATILLANO, MUNEZ, MURILLO
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW CASE DIGESTS: LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Incorporated, the flagship of the First Manila Management of Companies The speech of Enrile contained no suggestion of contemplated legislation;
(FMMC) by Ricardo Lopa," alleging that Lopa also took over various GOCCs he merely called upon the Senate to look into a possible violation of Sec. 5
which is in violation of the law. He therefore called upon "the Senate to of RA No. 3019, otherwise known as The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
look into the possible violation of the law in the case, particularly with Act. In other words, the purpose of the inquiry to be conducted by the
regard to Republic Act No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act." Blue Ribbon Committee was to find out whether or not the relatives of
Cory, particularly Lopa, had violated the law in connection with the alleged
The motion was referred to the Committee on Accountability of Public sale of the 36 or 39 corporations belonging to Kokoy to the Lopa Group.
Officers or the Blue Ribbon Committee (SBRC). Thereafter, the SBRC There appears to be, therefore, no intended legislation involved. Hence,
started investigating on the matter and subpoenaed petitioners and Lopa. the contemplated inquiry by the SBRC is not really in aid of legislation,
Lopa, however, refused to testify before the committee for it may unduly because it is not related to a purpose within the jurisdiction of Congress.
prejudice a pending civil case against him. Bengzon likewise refused to The aim of the investigation is to find out whether or not the relatives of
testify, invoking his right to due process. Lopa, however, sent a letter to the President or Mr. Ricardo Lopa had violated Section 5 of the Anti-Graft
Enrile categorically denying his allegations and that his allegations are and Corrupt Practices Act, a matter that appears more within the province
baseless and malicious. of the courts rather than of the legislature. (FYI. Mr. Ricardo Lopa died
during the pendency of this case, but for the sake of espousing this
Enrile subsequently took advantage of the Senates privilege hour upon doctrine, the court underscored the limitations on SBRCs power.)
which he insisted to have an inquiry regarding the matter. The SBRC
rejected Lopas and Bengzons plea.

Claiming that the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee is poised to subpoena


them and require their attendance and testimony in proceedings before
the Committee, in excess of its jurisdiction and legislative purpose, in clear
and blatant disregard of their constitutional rights, and to their grave and
irreparable damage, prejudice and injury, and that there is no appeal nor
any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law, Bengzon et al filed a petition for prohibition with a prayer for
temporary restraining order and/or injunctive relief against the SBRC.

ISSUE:

W/N the SBRCs inquiry is validly in aid of legislation, and thus, within the
scope of its power

HELD:

NO. The inquiry of the SBRC cannot be given due course.

Section 21, Article VI thereof provides:

The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective


committee may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance
with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons
appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected. 15

18 AREVALO, CRUZ (CHANINE), CRUZ (CHRISTINE), DUMALANTA, GATACELO, GLORIA, GOMEZ, LAZARO, MATILLANO, MUNEZ, MURILLO