You are on page 1of 13

1) Philippine Congress

Historical Background

Originally Philippines under the colonial rule of Spain did not have the privilege to
be represented in the Spanish Cortes. It was only in 1809 where the Philippines were given
representation in the court. The Napoleonic wars ended the Cadiz constitution which
enables Philippines to be represented, the restoration of Philippines representation to the
Cortes was attributed to the act of the Illustrados. The formal beginning of the Philippine
Congress started on the short-lived Philippine Republic (1898-1899), where President
Emilio Aguinaldo headed the Malolos Congress and established the 1899 Constitution of
the Philippines.

Philippines under the American Colonial rule established the Philippines
Commission, where the President of the United States appointed its members. The
Philippine bill of 1902 compelled the creation of a bicameral Philippine Legislature with
Philippine Commission as the Upper House and the Philippine Assembly as the Lower
House. The Legislature was inaugurated in 1907 and the rules of the United States
Congress were adopted as Rules of the Philippine Legislature. After the enactment of the
Jones law in 1916, the Philippine Commission was abolished, and a new bicameral
Philippines Legislature was established, which consisted on the House of Representatives
and the Senate. The legislative system was changed by the 1935 constitution. The change
instituted the Commonwealth which gave the Filipinos a substantial role in the
government and the establishment of a unicameral National Assembly, an amendment on
the constitution restored the bicameral Congress of the Philippines. The Japanese invaders
set up the Second Philippine Republic and convene its own unilateral National Assembly.
At the end of world war two following the Japanese defeat, the Commonwealth and its
Congress was restored and the same structural make up continued until the Philippines
gained their independence on July 4, 1946.

Upon the Proclamation of the Republic of the Philippines on July 4, 1946, the
existing Congress would be known as the First Congress of the Republic of the Philippines.
(Republic of the Philippines) Over the years Congresses were elected until President
Ferdinand Marcos declared martial law on September 23, 1972, Marcos ruled then by

The new constitution discarded the bicameral Congress and created a unicameral National Assembly (Batasang Pambansa) in a semi-presidential system of government. Functions/Duties The legislative power is vested in a bicameral body. Finally. create. It defines and punishes crimes against the state and against persons and their property. When Marcos term was over. The duty of the Senate President are as follows Half of the population of the Senate are elected every three years and each senator serves a total of six years. in case of national emergency or war. The Senate is composed of twenty-four senators and is headed by the Senate President.decree.the Senate and the House Representatives. The House of Representatives are composed of not more than 250 members. It determines the taxes people should pay for the maintenance of the government. it is only Congress which was given by the Philippine Constitution the sole power to declare war and to authorize the President. Restoring the presidential system of government with a bicameral Congress of the Philippines. the Congress of the Philippines. District representatives or represent at least one congressional district. And it can create and abolish courts. The Congress of the Philippines is the country's highest lawmaking body. It appropriates the money to be spent for public purposes. The abolishment of the 1935 constitution brought upon the 1973 constitution. It can reorganize. which is composed of two houses -. The senators are elected by the whole electorate and do not represent any province in the country. There are two types of Representatives. but they cannot serve for more than three consecutive terms. The congressmen are elected for a term of three years. Congress passes laws that regulate the conduct of and relations between the private citizens and the government. (The Legislative Branch). President Corazon Aquino and the appointed constitutional commission drafted a new constitution and was approved. with the Speaker as its chief officer. district and sectoral representatives. or abolish offices under the civil service. while sectoral congressmen represent minority sectors of the population which enable the minority groups to be represented in the Congress. to issue executive orders embodying rules and . except the Supreme Court.

The case was a petition filed by Gutierrez to stop the House on Justice from Proceeding with her impeachment. We can see that the action of the ombudsman to stop the impeachment process on the ground of “no period of one year” is not justifiable. Co-Chairperson of Pagbabago. Lim. Jr. Case Study a. Chairperson. However. Ma. Secretary- General of Kilusang Magbukid ng Pilipanas (KMP). The House of Representatives Committee on Justice. the ombudsman only wants to maintain her position and she will find all ways to do so. Acting Secretary General of tge National Union of Peoples Lawyers (NUPL). Secretary General of Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan). Renato M. Mother Mary John Mananzan. Danilo D. the impeachment trial will proceed. Confederation for Unity. and James Terry Ridon of the League of Filipino Students (LFS) – This case is about an issue on the impeachment of the ombudsman Maria Merceditas Gutierrez filed by the House of Representatives on Comitee Justice based on betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of Constitution. by doing so the ombudsman’s betrayal of public trust can be punished. Atty Edre Olalia. Danilo Ramos. exclusive of Sundays. Risa Hontiveros-Barquel. This session may not exceed the prescribed 100 days. the court reiterated its previous ruling that what the 1987 Constitution prohibited was not the initiation of more than one complaint in one year but the initiation of more than one proceeding. The congress convenes in a regular session once a year. Gaite. these sessions may not exceed 30 days. Recognition and Advancement of Government Employees (COURAGE).. Special sessions may be called by the President to consider general legislations or any subjects which he may want to designate.” In the decision of the Court. Reyes. Moreover the decision to dismiss the petition was only correct and constitutional. The ombudsman claimed that there was a violation of the Constitution when the House committee heard two impeachment complaints against her which violated Article XI Section 3 (5) of the 1987 Constitution which provides that” no period of one year. Merceditas Gutierrez vs. Evelyn Pestao.regulations intended to carry out the national policy. Ferdinand R. Felipe Pestao. . starting on the fourth Monday of July.

S. Senate – This case is about the Senate investigation of anomalies concerning the NBN-ZTE project. However. the decision recognized Presidential communications as presumptively privileged. Senator Lacson inquired whether the Minority was ready to name their representatives. Thereafter. it led to Senator Villar. During the hearings. Senator Lacson reiterated his appeal to the Minority to nominate their representative to the Ethics Committee. Garcia Ave and C-5 Road which was said to cover the same stretch. 2008. Neri vs. the party seeking disclosure of the information has the burden of overcoming the presumption in favor of the confidentiality of Presidential communications. which states that there was indeed double entry of said project. On March 25. Lacson further stated that when he investigated on the double entry. Senator Enrile was elected Senate President and the Ethics Committee was reorganized with the Election of Lacson as Chairperson. the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Neri and upheld the claim of executive privilege. the Senate adopted the Rules of the Senate Committee on the Ethics and Privileges.b. the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Senate Committee of the Whole – The case ensued when Senator Pimentel called to attention the double insertion of 200Million appropriated separately for the construction of Carlos P. 2008 Senator Madrigal introduce P. then Senate President. Senator Lacson moved that the responsibility of the . Therefore it was resolved to direct the Committee on Ethics and Privileges to investigate the conduct of Senate President Villar. the Code of Conduct and Ethical standards of Public Officers. Pimintel vs. It also stated that the acts of the Senate President are indeirect violation of the Constitution. When the Senate cited him in contempt and ordered his arrest. Thus. with overwhelming evidence of abuse of authority of the Senate President (Villar) to profit from such project. Senator Pimentel informed the body that there would be no members from the Minority in the Ethics Committee. Neri filed a case against the Senate with the Supreme Court. On October 8. c. After consultation. Senator Pimentel stated that it is the stand of the Minority no to nominate any of their members to the Ethics Committee. Executive privilege is in the way of the search for truth. former NEDA head Romulo Neri refused to answer certain questions involving his conversations with President Arroyo on the ground they are covered by executive privilege. Resolution 706.

none against. The transfer of the complaint against Senator Villar from the Ethics Committee to the Senate Committee of the whole does not violate the right of the the senator’s right to equal protection provided that The rules of the Ethics Committee provide that all matters relating to the conduct. Majaducon – The case was started when Senator Blas F. After the public hearings conducted by the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee. while ordinarily an investigation about one of its member’s alleged irregular or unethical conduct is within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Committee. the referral of the investigation to the Committee of the Whole was an extraordinary remedy undertaken by the Ethics Committee and approved by a majority of the members of the Senate. the Minority effectively prevented if from pursuing the investigation when they refused to nominate their members to the Ethics Committee. Ople filed Senate Resolution No.S. the refusal of the Minority to name its members to the Ethics Committee stalled the investigation. acting as a whole. Given the circumstances. In short. pending the hearing of the petition for prohibition and injunction. and five absentees. 160. Respondent refused to appear at the hearing. the Committee thereafter caused the service of a subpoena to respondent Atty. rights. The motion was approved with ten members voting in favor. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee vs. However. integrity and reputation of the Senate and its Members shall be under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Ethics and Privileges. directing him to appear and testify before it. safety. privileges. in this case. The trial court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) directing the Committee "to CEASE and DESIST from proceeding with the inquiry in P. 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. into the charges of then Defense Secretary Orlando Mercado that a group of active and retired military officers were organizing a coup detat to prevent the administration of then President Joseph Estrada from probing alleged fund irregularities in the Armed Forces of the Philippines. Ethics Committee be undertaken by Senate. The principle of separation of powers essentially means that legislation belongs to Congress. Flaviano.157 directing the Committee on National Defense and Security to conduct an inquiry. dignity. d. and settlement of legal . in aid of legislation. execution to the Executive. Branch 23.

and finally President . President Diosdado Macapagal. is perceived to be a matter of public concern. pursuant to Section 6 thereof. When the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee served subpoena on respondent Flaviano to appear and testify before it in connection with its investigation of the alleged misuse and mismanagement of the AFP-RSBS funds. “Ensuring Observance of the Principle of Separation of Powers. Senate vs.” which. any executive issuance tending to unduly limit disclosures of information in investigations in Congress necessarily deprives the people of information which being to be in aid in legislation. Due process requires that the people should have been apprised of its issuance before it was implemented. the Presidential Complaints and Action Commission in 1957. 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. President Carlos P. President Elpidio Quirino established the Integrity Board in 1950. the Presidential Committee on Administration Performance Efficiency in 1958. The E. controversies to the Judiciary. President Ramon Magsaysay. Garcia. Each is prevented from invading the domain of the others. e. Ermita – The Committee of the Senate as a whole issued invitations to various officials of the Executive Department for them to appear as resource speakers in a public hearing on the railway project of the North Luzon Railways Corporation with the China National Machinery and Equipment Group. 2) The Ombudsman Historical Background The Office of the Ombudsman exists even before the Constitution of 1987. and for other purposes. there are several offices established under the various presidents of Philippines whose duties and functions are associated with the Office of the Ombudsman. the President then issued Executive Order 464. the Presidential Anti-Graft Committee in 1962. it did so pursuant to its authority to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation. It has a direct effect on the right of the people to information on matters of public concern.O 464 violates the right of the people to information on matters of public concern. took effect immediately.

at any stage. 6028 in 1969. upon complaint or at its own instance. any act or omission of any public officer or employee. Direct. agency or instrumentality thereof. When Marcos became the president he created the Complaints and Investigation Office and the Presidential Administrative Assistance Committee. functions and duties (Office of the Ombudsman): 1. 243 and 244) that established a new Office of the Ombudsman and changed the Tanodbayan into the Office of the Special Prosecutor under the Ombudsman. when such act or omission appears to be illegal. it may take over. the investigation of such cases (Sec. the Presidential Agency on Reform and Government Operations in 1966 (Office of the Ombudsman). to perform and expedite any act or duty required by law. 3. The office was primarily designed to conduct investigations and make recommendations to Congress and the President. No. and correct any abuse or impropriety in the performance of duties (Sec. Article XI. 13(1).A. No. office or agency. improper or inefficient. 15(2) R. 1987 Constitution). from any investigatory agency of Government. 15(1) R. or of any subdivision. Sec 13(2) Article XI.A. The Office of the Citizens was created by R. No. unjust.Ferdinand Marcos. 6770. in the exercise of his primary jurisdiction. Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person. In the martial law era the new Philippine Constitution created a special court called “Sandiganbayan” and an Office of the Ombudsman called “Tanodbayan”. 2. 6770. see also Sec. 1987 Constitution). any officer or employee of the Government. as well as any government-owned or controlled corporations with original charter. Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public officer or employee at fault or who neglects to perform an act or discharge a duty required by . or to stop. Functions/Duties The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers.A. prevent. It has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and. When Cory took the presidential helm. she issued two Executive Orders (Nos.

R. and ensure compliance therewith. or prosecution. 6770. 5. Determine the causes of inefficiency. (3) and (4) hereof. No. R. mismanagement. demotion. pertinent records and documents (Sec. see also Sec. R. see also Sec 13(3). demote. 1987 Constitution). 6770.A. No. That the refusal by any officer without just cause to comply with an order of the Ombudsman to remove. Article XI. or enforce its disciplinary authority as provided in Section 21 or this Act: Provided.6770. fraud. see also Sec. censure. fine. issue subpoena and subpoena duces tecum. 6770).A. 13(5). and to examine. and take testimony in any investigation or inquiry. 15(4) R. 1987 Constitution). or prosecute an officer or employee who is at fault or who neglects to perform an act or discharge a duty required by law shall be ground for disciplinary action against said officer (Sec. Administer oaths. to furnish it with copies of documents relating to contracts or transactions entered into by his office involving the disbursement or use of public funds or properties. and corruption in the Government and make recommendations for their elimination and the observance of high standards of ethics and efficiency (Sec 15(7) R.A. . suspend. fine. 6770). No. and true (Sec 15(6) R. red tape.A.A. 1987 Constitution). see also Sec 13(7). if necessary. (2). 9. censure. 8. fair. 13(4). and report any irregularity to the Commission on Audit for appropriate action (Sec. Direct the officer concerned. Request any government agency for assistance and information necessary in the discharge of its responsibilities. 6. No. No. 15(3) R.A. and recommend his removal. and subject to such limitations as it may provide in its rules of procedure. suspension. No. Punish for contempt in accordance with the Rules of Court and under the same procedure and with the same penalties provided therein (Sec 15(9). Article XI. No. 6770. 1987 Constitution). Publicize matters covered by its investigation of the matters mentioned in paragraphs (1). 4. 15(5). see also Sec 13(6). law. 7. when circumstances so warrant and with due determine what cases may not be made public: Provided further. 6770. including the power to examine and have access to bank accounts and records (Sec 15(8).A. 1987 Constitution). Article XI. Article XI. in any appropriate case. That any publicity issued by the Ombudsman shall be balanced. Article XI.

A. Article XI. R. 1986 and the prosecution of the parties involved therein (Sec 15(11). Appolonio – The case is formed through a petition for review on certiorari. The provisions in R. 2002 (docketed as OMB ADM-0-01-0405). 6770). Case Study a. Medrano – b. Office of the Ombudsman vs.A. The action of Dr. SP No. or its investigators or representatives such authority or duty as shall ensure the effective exercise of performance of the powers. 6770). These provisions cover the entire range of administrative adjudication which entails the authority to. No. and duties herein or hereinafter provided (Sec 15(10). and. 73357 and the resolution dated August 23. R. No. place under preventive suspension public officers and employees pending an investigation. 18. Apolonio guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty.R. in the exercise of its administrative disciplinary authority. Dr. 1987 Constitution. Delegate to the Deputies. 11. No. impose the said penalty. hold hearings in accordance with its rules of procedure. Promulgate its rules of procedure and exercise such other powers or perform such functions or duties as may be provided by law (Sec 13(7). suspension. Office of the Ombudsman vs. Nellie R. summon witnesses and require the production of documents. Apolonio was indeed an act of grave misconduct and the . Nellie R. R.A. Investigate and initiate the proper action for the recovery of ill-gotten and/or unexplained wealth amassed after February 25. 6770 taken together reveal the manifest intent of the lawmakers to bestow on the Office of the Ombudsman full administrative disciplinary authority.A. conduct investigations. fine. demotion. 6770). Victorio N. censure or prosecution of a public officer or employee. petitioner Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) seeks the reversal of the decision dated March 23. The Ombudsman has the power to impose the penalty of removal. No. The assailed decision annulled and set aside the decision of the Ombudsman dated August 16. 12. 2004 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G. functions. finding Dr. necessarily. determine the appropriate penalty imposable on erring public officers or employees as warranted by the evidence. receive complaints. which dismissed the Ombudsman’s Motion for Reconsideration. see also Sec. 2004. 10.

The validity of the arrest of the student suspects by the NBI could not be valid because the arresting officers did not witness the crime being committed. c. and a certain Atty. Posadas. Petitioner Posadas. Villamor. and Lambino vs. But such was disapproved. Villamor with violation of P. objected on the ground that the NBI did not have warrants of arrest with them.P. The Office of the Ombudsman – Dennis Venturina. and Torres-Yu. Lambino. Yu. Diliman. also of U.P. Chief of the Special Operations Group of the NBI. Dizon then filed a complaint in the Office of the Special Prosecutor. on the basis of the supposed positive identification of two alleged eyewitnesses. Taparan and Narag were not arrested by the NBI agents on that day.decision of the ombudsman to suspend her as NBDB executive officer for six months was justified and constitutional. 1829. Police. However. . charging petitioners Posadas. and Atty. criminal charges were filed later against the two student suspects. counsel for the suspects.P. Lambino. On motion of petitioners. Hence this petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside there solution of the Ombudsman's office ordering the prosecution of petitioners. asked the Director of the NBI for assistance in determining the persons responsible for the crime. and. With that. Eduardo Bentain. Petitioners Posadas. 1994. The Office of the Ombudsman directed the Special Prosecutor to proceed with the prosecution of petitioners in the Sandiganbayan. Col. officers/members of the Scintilla Juris Fraternity. Neither are the student fugitives from justice nor prisoners who had escaped from confinement. a member of Sigma Rho at the University of the Philippines.. they attempted to arrest Francis Carlo Taparan and Raymundo Narag. Police Station for a peace talk between their fraternity and the Sigma Rho Fraternity. respondent Dizon. and his men went to U.D.P. was killed in a rumble between his fraternity and another fraternity on December 8. then Chancellor of U. Chief of the Security Force of the U. the Special Prosecutor's Office recommended the dismissal of the case.P. As a result of their intervention. which makes it unlawful for anyone to obstruct the apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenders. It appears that the two suspects had come that day to the U. Torres-Yu. as suspects in the killing of Venturina.

EDSA revolution signaled the beginning of a new rule and caused substantial changes in the entire government machinery. 7975 and No. 1486 putted the Sandiganbayan on the same level as what were then known as the Courts of First Instance.D. Francis E. Shortly thereafter. In obedience to this mandate. the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is now confined to cases involving public officials occupying positions classified as salary grade 27 and higher. the late President Ferdinand E. However. The P. 6 of the 1976 Amendments to the 1973 Constitution. To further strengthen the functional and structural organization of the Sandiganbayan. both the 'Freedom Constitution' and the new Constitution have seen fit to maintain the Sandiganbayan as one of the principal instruments of public accountability. Under these new laws. As restructured. the resignation of some of the members of the Court was accepted leading to the appointment of a new Presiding Justice in the person of Hon. its jurisdiction has been broadened to include the so-called 'ill-gotten wealth' cases investigated by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) through Executive Orders No. In furtherance of this. however. Functions/Duties . 14 and No. 8249. now the Regional Trial Courts. several amendments have been introduced to the original law creating it. No. 1606. 14-A. the Sandiganbayan is presently composed of a Presiding Justice and fourteen Associate Justices who sit in five Divisions of three Justices each in the trial and determination of cases. the latest of which are Republic Acts No. Acop vs The Office of the Ombusman – e. Garchitorena. In the reorganization program of the new government. Marcos. d. Leyson vs The Office of the Ombudsman – 3) The Sandiganbayan Historical Background Sandiganbayan was created by the Article XII of the 1973 Constitution. including the judiciary. the Sandiganbayan was elevated to the level of the Court of Appeals by virtue of Presidential Decree No. exercising the emergency legislative power granted him under Amendment No.

thereby unjustly enriching himself to the damage of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines. Estrada vs. more or less. to be known as Sandiganbayan. 4 is merely a procedural measure. unlawfully and criminally amass. 1973 Constitution) The present anti-graft court known as the Sandiganbayan shall continue to function and exercise its jurisdiction as now or hereafter may be provided by law. meaning even without invoking it there could still be a conviction for . accumulate and acquire by himself ill-gotten wealth totaling P4. Sec. In the session of the Congress. on January 20. by himself and/or in connivance or conspiracy with his co-accused (Jinggoy Estrada. willfully. XIII. and then Vice-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo succeeded him in office.804. A motion for reconsideration was denied by the Sandiganbayan. Alma Alfaro. He was issued a warrant of arrest. (Art. Charlie ‘Atong’ Ang. from its preliminary investigations. which shall have jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases involving graft and corrupt practices and such other offenses committed by public officers and employees. et cetera. but rather the constitutionality of the law aiming to penalize his acts. Sandiganbayan – the issue emanated from when President Joseph Ejercito Estrada was forced to vacate his office at the call of People Power II. connection and influence. ruled that from June 1998 to January 2001.173. 1987 Constitution) Case Study a. (Art. who are either members of his extended family or business partners). ‘we will sum up the amounts involved in those transactions which were proved. in relation to their office as may be determined by law. Edward Serapio. by taking undue advantage of his official position. Sec.1B (P4. including those in government-owned or controlled corporations. Sec. To find the totality of the amount. XI. authority.097. the accused former President Estrada. what apparently needs to be proven is the element of the offense.’ The burden still remains with the prosecution to prove beyond any iota of doubt every fact or element necessary to constitute the crime. RA 7080.17). The Sandiganbayan. The Batasang Pambansa shall create a special court. The guilt of Estrada is not in question at this point. 5.4. 2001.

plunder. Legaspi vs. even by dispensing with the reasonable doubt standard in criminal prosecution. GSIS vs. Duncano vs. the R. Civil Service Commission – c. Sandiganbayan – 4) The Civil Service Institution Historical Background Functions/Duties Case Study a. Sandiganbayan – d. Civil Service Commission – b. People vs. Sandiganbayan – c. In conclusion. Ombudsman vs.A. Uy vs. b. Deloso vs. CSC – . Civil Service Commission vs. Civil Service Commission vs Lucas – d. Pililla Water District CD – e. 7080 did not violate any due process. Sandiganbaya – e.