You are on page 1of 39

Freedom from Arrest Congress.

But 1987 Constitution states that for offenses


punishable by more than six years imprisonment, there
Martinez v Morfe was no immunity from arrest (VI.11).
1. Manuel Martinez (falsification of public document) and 6. Court stated that Jalosjos did not give enough reason to
Fernando Bautista, Sr. (violation of Revised Election Code be exempted from Art. VI, Sec. 11 which states that
for distributing food during campaigns) were delegates to Congress cannot compel absent members to attend
the 1972 Constitutional Convention. Both of them sessions if the reason for the absence is a legitimate one
were facing criminal prosecutions. 7. Leaving cell for emergency official or medical reasons is
2. Judge Morfe ordered their arrest and the two were later acceptable.
8. Being a detainee, Jalosjos should not even have been
on arrested while the Constitutional Convention was still
allowed by the prison authorities at the National
in session.
Penitentiary to perform his legislative functions.
3. Art 145 of RPC gives immunity to legislators: “arrest or a. Ang dami nang leniency na binigay sa kanya, so di
search any member thereof, except in case such member na talaga dapat pagbigyan pa.
has committed a crime punishable under [such] Code by a
penalty higher than prision mayor” Trillanes IV v Pimentel Sr.
4. NO immunity. Article VI, Section 15 of the 1935 1. BAIL SEASON. WALA PANG TRIAL. BAWAL LUMABAS KAHIT
Constitution provides that immunity from arrest does not WALA PANG TRIAL.
cover any prosecution for treason, felony and breach of 2. While being tried in a criminal case involving the Oakwood
the peace. (consti is ff since it came after rpc 1932) Incident, Antonio Trillanes files an Omnibus Motion before
5. Section 15 has revoked Art 145 of RPC (1932) since this the RTC to let him attend Senate Sessions and work within
RPC provision is inconsistent with this section of the his place of detention. SC Denied.
3. His case is similar too People v. Jalosjos whose privileges
constitution.
sought were similarly denied; that election to office does
6. Breach of the peace covers any offense whether defined
not obliterate a criminal charge; and, that emergency or
by the RPC or any special statute.
temporary leaves are under the discretion of the
7. In this case, the crimes for which Martinez and Bautista authorities or the courts as allowed to all detainees.
were arrested fall under the category of “breach of 4. Presumption of innocence does not carry with it the full
peace,” therefore, they cannot invoke the privilege from enjoyment of civil and political rights.
arrest provision of the Constitution. 5. The determination that the evidence of guilt strong,
8. Any person who acted against public peace is susceptible whether ascertained in a hearing of an application for bail
to prosecution. or imported from a trial court's judgment of conviction,
9. There is a full recognition of necessity to have members of justifies the detention of an accused as a valid curtailment
Congress, and likewise delegates to the Constitutional of his right to provisional liberty "regardless of the stage of
Convention, entitled to the utmost freedom to enable the criminal action." Such justification for confinement with
them to discharge their vital responsibilities. its underlying rationale of public self-defense applies
equally to detention prisoners like petitioner or convicted
10. In today’s rule, dapat immune sila.
prisoners appellants like Jalosjos.
People v Jalosjos 6. Trillanes’ election is NOT proper legal justification for him
1. Rep. Romeo Jalosjos, a re-elected Representative of the to work in his capacity as senator.
First District of Zamboanga del Norte, is asking that he be 7. The case against petitioner is not administrative in nature.
allowed to attend legislative and committee meetings And there is no "prior term" to speak of.
despite being confined at the national penitentiary while 8. The doctrine of condonation does not apply to criminal
his conviction for statutory rape on two counts and acts of cases.
lasciviousness on six counts is pending appeal. 9. Election, or more precisely, re-election to office, does not
2. NO member in Congress is exempts from statutes and obliterate a criminal charge.
rules which apply to validly incarcerated persons. 10. His electoral victory only signifies pertinently that when the
3. Being a member of Congress does not allow for a voters elected him to the Senate, "they did so with full
difference in treatment because the court cannot validate awareness of the limitations on his freedom of action
badges of inequality. [and] . . . with the knowledge that he could achieve only
4. The necessities imposed by public welfare (i.e. such legislative results which he could accomplish within
imprisonment and detention) may justify exercise of the confines of prison."
government authority to regulate even if thereby certain
groups may plausibly assert that their interests are Speech and Debate Clause
disregarded.
5. There is a provision in the 1935, 1973, and 1987 Jimenez v. Cabangbang
Constitution that allows for the immunity from arrest or 1. On November 14, 1958, Rep. Bartolome Cabangbang of
detention of Senators of members of the House of Bohol (2nd District), also chair of the House Committee on
National Defense, published in newspapers of general
circulation an open letter addressed to President Carlos P. 6. The Courts deemed it right to call her attention, as a
Garcia alleging that there were three operational plans by member of the Bar, to practice decency and professional
some members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, that conduct since the utterances made by Sen. Defensor-
these AFP officers had colluded with communists, and that Santiago are more personal than professional
the Secretary of National Defense, Jesus Vargas, was
planning a coup to place himself as President. Disqualifications and Other Prohibitions
2. The letter alleged that the planners of the coup had
petitioners Nicanor Jimenez, Carlos Albert, and Jose Roberto Flores, Daniel Figueroa, et al v. Hon. Franklin Drilon,
Lukban, among other AFP officers, under their guise and Executive Secretary, and Richard Gordon
that said officers may or may not have been aware that 1. Petitioners assail the constitutionality of paragraph d,
they were being used to meet such an end. Section 13 of RA 7227 which states that the President shall
3. Petitioners thus filed a civil action for recovery of damages appoint the Mayor of Olongapo City as the chairman and
against respondent for libel. Respondent moved to dismiss chief executive officer of the Subic Bay Metropolitan
the complaint, arguing that it was not libelous and that, Authority (SBMA) for the first year of its operations. Said
even if it were, said letter was privileged communication provision is claimed to contravene Sec 7, Article IX-B of the
due to it being part of his function in the House of Constitution which provides that elective officials shall not
Representatives. The lower court granted the motion, thus be eligible for appointment or designation to any public
petitioners appealing to the Supreme Court, SC affirmed. office or position during his tenure.
4. SC: Statement is not libelous since it noted that they may 2. The Court declared the provision as void as it obviously
have been “unwitting tools” and had “absolutely no runs counter to the said constitutional provision. It also
knowledge” of the plan. contravenes the President’s appointing authority because
5. The publication in question is NOT a privileged the power to appoint involves discretion or choice of who
communication because the letter, dated November 14, to appoint. Because only one individual qualifies for the
1958, was written when Congress was not in session and position, the Mayor of Olongapo City, the President is left
that Cabangbang’s act of publishing it in newspapers of with no choice but to appoint him.
general circulation was not part of his official duty in 3. Mayor Gordon however may retain per diems, salaries,
Congress or any of its Committees. allowances, and other emoluments which he may have
received during his tenure. His legitimate acts were also
Pobre v Defensor-Santiago upheld as a de facto officer.
1. Petitioner Antero J. Pobre submitted a letter of complaint 4. An RA may not remove from the president his authority to
containing an excerpt from Sen. Miriam Defensor- appoint an officer from a pool of choices (legislative
Santiago’s speech on the Senate floor which he deemed as encroachment).
a disrespect towards Chief Justice Panganiban BAGO 5. The provision violates the constitutional proscription
MAGING C.J.and the rest of the court. He asserted that against appointment or designation of elective officials to
such words constituted contempt of court and subjects other government posts.
Sen. Defensor-Santiago to disciplinary actions and even 6. Sec 7 of Article IX-B express the policy against the
disbarment. concentration of several public positions in one person, so
2. Sen. Defensor-Santiago asserted that the speech she made that a public officer or employee may serve full-time with
was covered by parliamentary immunity as it was given in dedication and thus be efficient in the delivery of public
discharge of her duties and was a statement against the services. It is an affirmation that a public office is a full-time
JBC for the injustice in their approach in the nomination job.
and application process for the soon-to-be vacant CJ post
3. Article VI, Section 11 of the Constitution provides: A Liban v. Gordon
Senator or Member of the House of Representative shall,  Gordon did not forfeit his seat in the Senate when he
in all offenses punishable by not more than six years accepted the chairmanship of the PNRC Board of Governors
imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the  An elected official is prohibited from being appointed to
Congress is in session. No member shall be questioned any other public office but since the PNRC is not a public
nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or office, Gordon can have his post there.
debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof.  PNRC enjoys a special status as an important ally and
4. Her privilege speech is not actionable criminally or in a auxiliary of the government in the humanitarian field in
disciplinary proceeding under the Rules of Court. accordance with its commitments under international law.
5. The Courts have no jurisdiction over matters in the It is the government’s humanitarian partner while
Legislative department and as such, any and all possible remaining independent.
actions to be taken against member of the Legislative is up  The President does not appoint the Chairman of the PNRC.
to the discretion of the authority of the assembly and the Neither does the head of any department, agency,
voters (Senate did not take any measures to address her commission or board appoint the PNRC Chairman. Thus,
unbecoming conduct) the PNRC Chairman is not an official or employee of the
Executive branch since his appointment does not fall
under Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution. Certainly, 6. Procedurally, no due process.
the PNRC Chairman is not an official or employee of the a. Compulsory drug testing defeats the purpose of
Judiciary or Legislature. This leads us to the obvious random drug testing.
conclusion that the PNRC Chairman is not an official or 7. Substantially, okay law.
employee of the Philippine Government. Not being a
government official or employee, the PNRC Chairman, as Clarifications:
such, does not hold a government office or employment.
 He can be, by means of letter of the law. 1. Police power delegated to…

DISSENTING OPINION Election of Officers


 Nachura, in his Main Dissenting Opinion claims that A) PNRC
is a GOCC since it was incorporated through a charter, a Santiago v Guingona SENATE
special law; thus, it is nothing but a GOCC. (Test if it is a 1. In the election of the officers of the Senate during the first
GOCC: Is it created by its own charter for the exercise of a regular session of the 11th Congress, Sen. Marcelo Fernan
public function, or by incorporation under the general and Sen. Francisco Tatad were both nominated for the
corporation law? – OWN CHARTER) and B) that Gordon position of Senate President.
holds two incompatible offices in violation of the 2. Sen. Fernan won by a vote of 20-2 and was declared duly
Constitution as it may result in a divided focus of his elected President of the Senate.
legislative functions, and in a conflict of interest as when a 3. Sen. Blas Ople was also elected as president pro tempore
possible amendment of the PNRC Charter is lobbied in while Sen. Franklin Drilon as majority leader.
Congress or when the PNRC and its officials become 4. Sen. Tatad alleged that he and Sen. Miriam Santiago were
subjects of legislative inquiries. members of the minority. As such, Sen. Tatad assumed the
o It is a creature of the law (letter of the law) position of minority leader. His basis was that those who
o His attention needs to be directed to one role only voted for Sen. Fernan were the majority, and those who
o There could be a conflict of interest – when PNRC voted for him belonged to the minority.
faces the gov for whatever reason. 5. However, Sen. Juan Flavier argued that the senators
belonging to the Lakas-NUCD-UMPD party were those
SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY V. DANGEROUS DRUG BOARD that constituted the minority and elected Sen. Guingona
1. Present qualifications: read and write, resident for certain as the minority leader.
years. The Constitution did not say other requirements o Gloria Arroyo is affiliated, Guingona is her VP.
could be added – express inclusion, implied exclusion. o LAKAS are members of majority, because they
2. Petitioner Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., a senator of the voted to Fernan, the winner.
Republic and a candidate for reelection in the May 10, o Dapat minority ang magvovote, ksi automatic
2004 elections, filed a Petition for Certiorari and that the 2nd ranker in the vote becomes the
Prohibition under Rule 65. In it, he seeks (1) to nullify Sec. minority leader.
36 (g) of RA 9165 and COMELEC Resolution No. 6486 dated 6. They debated on the matter on the following day. And on
December 23, 2003 for being unconstitutional in that they the third day, there was still no consensus met by the
impose a qualification of being drug-free for candidates for Senate.
senators in addition to those already provided for in the 7. Subsequently, the majority leader informed the body that
1987 Constitution; and (2) to enjoin the COMELEC from he received a letter from the Lakas-NUCD-UMPD senators
implementing Resolution No. 6486. stating that they elected Sen. Guingona as the minority
3. Social Justice Society (SJS), a registered political party, leader. By this virtue, Sen. Guingona was formally
seeks to prohibit the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) and recognized by the Senate President as the minority leader.
the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) from 8. Next day, Senators Santiago and Tatad filed a petition quo
enforcing paragraphs (c), (d), (f), and (g) of Sec. 36 of RA warranto seeking the ouster of Sen. Guingona and the
9165 on the ground that they are constitutionally infirm. declaration of Sen. Tatad as the rightful minority leader.
4. The Court partially grants their petition. 9. The court has jurisdiction because is within the power and
a. RA 9165, Sec. 36 (c – students schools) and (d – jurisdiction of the Court to inquire whether indeed the
public and private office employees) are Senate or its officials committed a violation of the
constitutional. Constitution or gravely abused their discretion in the
b. RA 9165, Sec. 36 (f – criminally convicted exercise of their functions or prerogatives.
persons) and (g – candidates for public office) are 10. There was no actual violation of the Constitution. While
unconstitutional. the Constitution expressly states the manner for election
5. Sec. 36 (g) of RA 9165 and COMELEC Resolution No. 6486 of Senate officers in Section 16(2) of Article VI, there is no
impose an additional qualification for candidates for provision regarding the election of minority floor leader.
senator. An RA cannot expand the letter of a It is implied that the Constitution vests in each house of
Constitutional Provision about the exact same topic Congress the power to determine the rules of its
(qualifications of a candidate).
proceeding. The method of choosing officers is upon the (a) All those who vote for the winning Speaker shall
prerogative of the Senate, not by the court. belong to the Majority and those who vote for the
11. Observed practices of are NOT BINDING. other candidates shall belong to the Minority
12. The Senate formulated and adopted rules for its internal (b) Those who abstain from voting shall likewise be
affairs (Rules of Senate). But RoS also doesn’t specify considered part of the Minority;
election process on majority/minority floor leaders (c) The Minority Leader shall be elected by the
(SenPres, President Pro Tempore, Sec, and Sgt at Arms) members of the Minority
13. Sen. Guingona was not usurping, unlawfully holding, and 4. Petitioners hoped that as a "long-standing tradition" of
exercising the position of Senate minority leader. There is the House — where the candidate who garnered the
no specific norm or standard set by the Constitution, second (2nd)-highest number of votes for Speakership
statutes, or Senate that can be viewed as a guide to (Rep. Baguilat) automatically becomes the Minority
determine who may lawfully occupy the said position. Leader. He was not recognized as such
Without such guidelines, it cannot be said that there was 5. After a judicious study of this case, the Court finds that
an irregularity or illegality in the assumption and exercise petitioners have no clear legal right to the reliefs sought
of Guingona of the position he held. There was also no because Records disclose that prior to the Speakership
Grave abuse of discretion shown in his acts as minority Election Rep. Fariñas responded to a parliamentary inquiry
leader. from Rep. Atienza as to who would elect the Minority and
14. Sen. Fernan did not act with Grave abuse of discretion in after the inquiry, the election of the Speaker of the House
recognizing Sen. Guingona as minority leader. Grave abuse proceeded without any objection from any member of
of discretion pertains to a capricious or whimsical exercise Congress, including herein petitioners.
of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. 6. Thus the House of Representatives had effectively adopted
Considering that the formal recognition came only after Rep. Fariñas' proposal anent the new rules regarding the
two Senate sessions and upon the unanimous resolution membership of the Minority, as well as the process of
of the members of the Lakas-NUCD-UMDP, it cannot be determining who the Minority Leader would be. This also
said that Sen. Fernan committed Grave abuse of demonstrates the House's deviation from the "legal bases"
discretion. of petitioners' claim for entitlement to the reliefs sought
15. Minority is more important ng majority. before this Court (i.e. long standing tradition and abstaining
o They are the essence of democracy. members as independent members of the House of
o We should therefore STOP feigning minority. Representatives)
7. The deviation by the Lower House from the aforesaid rules
Baguilat v Alvarez HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES is not averse to the Constitution. Section 16 (1), Article VI
Petition for mandamus filed by petitioners: of the 1987 Constitution reads:
1. Representatives Teddy Brawner Baguilat, Jr. Section 16. (1) The Senate shall elect its President
2. Edcel C. Lagman (Rep. Lagman) and the House of Representatives, its Speaker,
3. Raul A. Daza, Edgar R. Erice by a majority vote of all its respective
4. Emmanuel A. Billones, Tomasito S. Villarin, Members. Each house shall choose such other
5. Gary C. Alejano officers as it may deem necessary.
Respondents: Under this provision, the Speaker of
1. Speaker Pantaleon D. Alvarez (Speaker Alvarez) the House of Representatives shall be elected
2. Majority Leader Rodolfo C. Fariñas (Rep. Fariñas) by a majority vote of its entire membership.
3. Representative Danilo E. Suarez (Rep. Suarez) Said provision also states that the House of
1. Petition alleges that prior to the opening of the 17th Representatives may decide to have officers
Congress on July 25, 2016, several news articles surfaced other than the Speaker, and that the method
about Rep. Suarez's (yung kinakalaban) announcement and manner as to how these officers are
that he sought the adoption or anointment of President chosen is something within its sole control.
Rodrigo Roa Duterte's Administration as the "Minority 8. Section 16 (3), Article VI 26 of the Constitution vests in the
Leader" to lead a "cooperative minority" in the House of House of Representatives the sole authority to "determine
Representatives. the rules of its proceedings." These "legislative rules, unlike
2. The petition further claims that to ensure Rep. Suarez's statutory laws, do not have the imprints of permanence and
election as the Minority Leader, the supermajority obligatoriness during their effectivity. In fact, they 'are
coalition in the House allegedly "lent" Rep. Suarez some of subject to revocation, modification or waiver at the pleasure
its members to feign membership in the Minority, and of the body adopting them.' Being merely matters of
thereafter, vote for him as the Minority Leader. procedure, their observance is of no concern to the courts,
3. July 25, 2016, prior to the election of the Speaker of the for said rules may be waived or disregarded by the
House of Representatives, then-Acting Floor Leader Rep. legislative body at will, upon the concurrence of a majority
Fariñas and Rep. Jose Atienza (Rep. Atienza) had an [of the House of Representatives]."
interchange before the Plenary, wherein the Rep. Fariñas
said: Leonen’s Separate opinion
9. Concurrence: A writ of mandamus does not lie to compel 8. Now, Congress has full legislative powers and prerogatives
the Speaker and the House to recognize a specific member of a sovereign nation except as restricted by the
to be the Minority Leader. Constitution; now, the “Congress has inherent legislative
10. Dissent: There is grave abuse of discretion since the House prerogative of suspension”
itself accords due reverence to its established practices and o Decision ng Congress if it is an unparliamentary
traditions as its collective interpretation of its rules but it behavior.
did not honor them in this case. Where there can be an
ambiguity, practice and tradition should also be read into Clarifications:
its Rules. Rule XXV, Section 161 of the Rules of the House
of Representatives also provides that "[t]he parliamentary 1. Any standards can be implied from the text of the law.
practices of . . . the House of Representatives . . . shall be It is flexible!
suppletory to these Rules.”
11. The House collectively considers the votes for the second Arroyo v. De Venecia
placer for House Speaker as the votes of the Minority for its 1. Inisnob siya ng Mr. Speaker. He did not pay respect before
Minority Leader. Insofar as having the second placer speaker.
automatically become the Minority Leader, this 2. Speaker wanted to assail a tax law, and the house speaker
parliamentary practice was not merely suppletory to the did not ask for a vote, no one raised a hand. Dapat daw
Rules of the 15th and 16th Congresses — rather, it took nagpavote.
primacy over the Rules themselves. 3. What would be invalid is if people objected and and were
ignored.
Rules of Proceedings 4. Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings
5. What have been violated were internal rules and not
Osmeña v. Pendatun constitutional requirements for the enactment of the law
1. President: Garcia. 6. Said rules may be modified subject to the discretion and
2. Congressman Sergio Osmeña Jr. delivered a privilege pleasure of the body adopting them
speech with the following statement: “The people, Mr. 7. Court intruding into the internal rules would constitute
President, have been hearing of ugly reports that under your violation of separation of powers
unpopular administration the free things they used to get
from the government are now for sale at premium prices. Arroyo v. De Venecia (Resolution - additional)
1. Petitioners seek a rehearing and reconsideration of the
They say that even pardons are for sale, and that regardless
Court’s August 1997 decision dismissing their petition for
of the gravity or seriousness of a criminal case, the culprit
certiorari and prohibition regarding the validity of RA 8240
can always be bailed out forever from jail as long as he can on four grounds.
come across with a handsome dole. I am afraid, such an 2. Petitioners allege that when Rep. Joker Arroyo asked the
anomalous situation would reflect badly on the kind of question “What is that, Mr. Speaker?,” the Chair ignored
justice that your administration is dispensing. . . . .” him and the said line was allegedly a privileged question
3. Because of Osmeña’s imputation of bribery against the or point of order which, under the rules of the House, has
President, House Resolution No. 59 was passed which precedence over other matters, except motions to adjourn
created a special committee to investigate the truth of this hence they claim that the chair violated Rule XIX, 112 and
charge against the President; Osmeña was summoned to Rule XVII 103 of the Rules of house which require that the
substantiate his charges and if he fails to do so, show cause Chair should state a motion and ask for the individual
why he should not be punished by the House votes of the members instead of merely asking whether
4. Osmeña claimed that House Resolution No. 59 as it there was any objection to the motion.
3. The Court held that Rep. Arroyo was not ignored since he
infringed the principle of parliamentary immunity.
did not have the floor. He simply stood up and started
5. His words could be questioned because Section 15, Article
talking, and the Chair simply did not hear him.
VI of the 1987 Constitution provides that “for any speech or - Rules of House of Representatives Rule XVI, 96: Manner
debate” in Congress, the Senators or Members of the HOR of Addressing the Chair.- When a member desires to speak,
“shall not be questioned in any other place” means that he he shall rise & respectfully address the Chair Mr. Speaker.
can be questioned by Congress itself. - Rules of the Senate Rule XXVI, 59:
6. “For unparliamentary conduct, members of Parliament or Whenever a Senator wishes to speak, he shall rise and
of Congress have been, or could be censured, committed to request the President or the Presiding Officer to allow him
prison, even expelled by the votes of their colleagues” to have the floor which consent shall be necessary before
7. “the House has exclusive power; the courts have no he may proceed.
jurisdiction to interfere.” To judge whether the 4. The Chair was not wrong when it asked if there were
Congressman’s speech constituted disorderly behavior that objections. There being no objections, he need not ask
for voting anymore since this is a practice that was
could be punished.
regularly done and accepted.
5. Arturo Tolentino defended this practice back in 1957: “The 3. Where the alleged immateriality of the information sought
fact that nobody objects means a unanimous action of the by the legislative body from a witness is relied upon to
House. Insofar as the matter of procedure is concerned, contest its jurisdiction, the court is in duty bound to pass
this has been a precedent since I came here seven years upon the contention. The fact that the legislative body has
ago, and it has been the procedure in this House that if jurisdiction or the power to make the inquiry would not
somebody objects, then a debate follows and after the preclude judicial intervention to correct a clear abuse of
debate, then the voting comes in.” discretion in the exercise of that power.
6. Besides, Arroyo could have asked for reconsideration right 4. Testimony which is obviously false or evasive is equivalent
after the session was suspended for almost an hour, but to a refusal to testify and is punishable as contempt,
he didn’t. assuming that a refusal to testify would be so punishable.
5. When a specific right and a specific obligation conflict with
General Plenary Powers each other, and one is doubtful or uncertain while the other
is clear and imperative, the former must give way to the
Arnault v. Nazareno latter.
1. Nature of the Case: Original Petition for Habeas Corpus 6. The right to life is one of the most sacred that the citizen
2. Petitioner: Jean Arnault, agent of Ernest Burt in the subject may claim, and yet the state may deprive him of it if he
Estate Deals, SOLD 2 PIECES OF LAND TO GOV OVERPRICED. violates his corresponding obligation to respect the life of
3. Senate caught it, and asked where did Arnault give the others.
money??? 7. No person can be punished for contumacy as a witness
4. Arnault answered: before either House, unless his testimony is required in a
a. I don’t remember. matter into which that House has jurisdiction to inquire.
b. RIGHT AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION. (Kilbourn vs. Thompson, 26 L. ed., 377.).
i. This is contradictory!! Facts
5. PWEDE BA IKULONG SI ARNAULT UNTIL HE DISCLOSES THE 1. The Senate investigated the purchase by the government’s
INFO? Rural Progess Administration of two parcels of land, known
a. Depends. as Buenavista and Tambobong estates. An intriguing
b. The Senate is investigating, not to arrest, but in aid question that the Senate sought to resolve was the
of legislation. apparent irregularity of the government’s payment to one
c. Legislation is 3 pieces of legislation to prevent Ernest Burt, a non-resident American citizen, of the total
overpriced purchases. sum of Phps1.5 million for his alleged interest in the two
6. IS THE ANSWER SOUGHT RELEVANT TO LEGISLATION? estates that only amounted to Php20,000.00 (since the
a. YES. Buenavista estate was sold by San Juan de Dios Hospital to
b. Yes, Arnault can be arrested until disclosure. Burt for Php 5M, but Burt has only paid Php 10K and the
7. DISSENT: Tambobong estate was sold by the Philippine Trust
a. Arresting will be separation of powers. Company to Burt for Php 1.2M, but Burt has only paid Php
b. They do it themselves. 10K), hence both should have been forfeited by Burt long
8. Respondents: Leon Nazareno, Senate Segreant-at-arms & before due to non-payment of balances.
Eustaquio Balagtas, Director of Prisons 2. In February 27, 1950, the Senate issued Resolution No. 8
9. Once an inquiry is admitted or established to be within the creating an investigatory committee sought to determine
jurisdiction of a legislative body to make, the investigating who were responsible for and who benefited from the
committee has the power to require a witness to answer transaction at the expense of the government.
any question pertinent to that inquiry, subject of course to 3. Petitioner Jean Arnault, who acted as agent of Ernest Burt
his constitutional right against self-incrimination. in the subject transactions, was one of the witnesses
10. The inquiry, to be within the jurisdiction of the legislative summoned by the Senate to its hearings. In the course of
body to make, must be material or necessary to the exercise the investigation, the petitioner repeatedly refused to
of a power in it vested by the Constitution, such as to divulge the name of the person to whom he gave the
legislate, or to expel a Member. amount of Php440,000.00, which he withdrew from the
1. Every question which the investigator is empowered to Php1.5 million proceeds pertaining to Ernest Burt.
coerce a witness to answer must be material or pertinent to 4. In, May 15, 1950, A Senate Resolution was issued.
the subject of the inquiry or investigation. A witness may Arnault was therefore cited in contempt by the Senate and
not be coerced to answer a question that obviously has no was committed through to the custody of the Senate
relation to the subject of the inquiry. Sergeant-at-Arms for imprisonment in the New Bilibid
2. The necessity or lack of necessity for legislative action and Prison, Muntinlupa, Rizal until he answers the questions. He
the form and character of the action itself are determined thereafter filed a petition for habeas corpus directly with
by the sum total of the information to be gathered as a the Supreme Court questioning the validity of his detention.
result of the investigation, and not by a fraction of such Ruling:
information elicited from a single question. 5. The Court held that his detention was legal. Tuazon
dissented saying it was not legal since the answer to the
question asked to him was not material to the passing of
the new bills drafted by the investigatory committee. Protestas Delegata

Delegation of Legislative Powers 1. You can only have one delegation – here, it is the
president.
ABAKADA Guro Party List vs. Ermita a. Counting delegations is not based on
function, but by level.
DELEGATION OF POWERS IS OK. 2. Where is the other delegated?
a. The congress is the first delegee, by the
1. Petitioners: Samson Alcantara & Ed Vincent Albano, people, who elects them.
officers of Abakada Guro Party List (formerly AASJAS)
2. Respondents: Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, Emmanuel Pelaez vs. The Auditor General
DOF Secretary Cesar Purisima, 1. Nature of the Case: Special civil action to prohibit the
BIR Commissioner Guillermo Parayno, Jr. auditor general from disbursing funds
3. Nature of Case: Petition for prohibition questioning the 2. From September 4, 1964 to October 29, 1964, President
constitutionality of Sections 4-6 of RA 9337 Marcos issued executive orders (93-121, 124, 126-129) to
4. ABAKADA GURO Party List, et al., filed a petition for create thirty-three municipalities all around Mindanao
prohibition questioning the constitutionality of Sections 4, (purportedly pursuant to Section 68 of the Revised
5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Sections 106, 107 and Administrative Code of 1917).
108, respectively, of the National Internal Revenue Code 3. Section 68 ADMINISTRATIVE CODE states “The President
(NIRC). may by executive order… separate any political division
5. Section 4 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of goods and other than a province, into such portions… and may
properties; change the seat of government within any subdivision to
6. Section 5 imposes a 10% VAT on importation of goods; and such place therein as the public welfare may require…”.
7. Section 6 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of services and use or a. PWEDE MUNICIPIO
lease of properties; 4. Public funds thereby stood to be disbursed in the
8. CLEAR GUIDELINES ALLOW FOR DELEGATION OF POWERS. implementation of said executive orders.
9. These provisions contain a provision which authorizing 5. Suing as a private citizen and taxpayer, Vice President
the President, upon recommendation of the Secretary of Emmanuel Pelaez filed a petition for prohibition with
Finance, to raise the VAT rate to 12%, effective January 1, preliminary injunction against the Auditor General from
2006, after any of the specified conditions have been disbursing funds claiming that EOs were unconstitutional.
satisfied. 6. He said that Section 68 of the RAC had been impliedly
(i) Value-added tax collection as a percentage of repealed by Section 3 of RA 2370 which provides that
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the barrios may “not be created or their boundaries altered
previous year exceeds two and four-fifth nor their names changed” except by Act of Congress.
percent (2 4/5%); or a. BAWAL BARRIO
(ii) National government deficit as a percentage 7. Pelaez argues: “If the President, under this new law,
of GDP of the previous year exceeds one and cannot even create a barrio, how can he create a
one-half percent (1 ½%). municipality which is composed of several barrios, since
10. Petitioners argue that the law is unconstitutional, as it barrios are units of municipalities?”
constitutes abandonment by Congress of its exclusive 8. Congress may delegate to another branch of the
authority to fix the rate of taxes under Article VI, Section government the power to fill in the details in the
28(2) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. execution, enforcement or administration of a law, it is
11. The Court held that the law is constitutional since Article essential, to forestall a violation of the principle of
VI Sec 28(2) allows the Congress to delegate its legislative separation of powers, that said law: (a) be complete in
power if the statute was complete in all its terms and itself — it must set forth therein the policy to be
provisions when it left the hands of the legislature so that executed, carried out or implemented by the delegate
nothing was left to the judgment of any other appointee — and (b) fix a standard — whose limits are sufficiently
or delegate of the legislature. determinate or determinable — to which the delegate
12. Congress does not abdicate its functions or unduly must conform in the performance of his functions. In this
delegate power when it describes what job must be done, case, Sec. 68 lacked any such standard.
who must do it, and what is the scope of his authority; in 9. The Court declared that the power to create municipalities
our complex economy that is frequently the only way in is essentially and eminently legislative in character not
which the legislative process can go forward. administrative (not executive). As the SC of Washington
13. In this case, it is not a delegation of legislative power but a has put it (Territory ex rel. Kelly vs. Stewart), "municipal
delegation of ascertainment of facts upon which corporations are purely the creatures of statutes."
enforcement and administration of the increased rate 10. It may not be amiss to note that the executive orders in
under the law is contingent. question were issued after the legislative bills for the
creation of the municipalities involved in this case had
failed to pass Congress.
11. WHAT REPEALED THE ADMIN CODE???
12. Section 68, as part of the Revised Administrative Code,
approved or March 10, 1917, must be deemed repealed by
the subsequent adoption of the Constitution, in 1935,
which is utterly incompatible and inconsistent with said
statutory enactment. (Agreed with by Bengzon in his
separate opinion).
a. SAYS BAWAL EITHER.
13. The executive orders are null and void, upon the ground
that the President does not have the authority to create
municipalities as this power has been vested in the
legislative department.

Why does the legis have exclsive power to create


municipalities?

1. Because of local knowledge of the representatives


who come from the places which shall be affected
should they be subdivided

Can they delegate?

1. Yes
2. As long as the legis provides specific, and complete
instructions for the delegee to specifically and strictly
follow.
3. We vote for the people precisely so they can do their
jobs, make the difficult decisions, implement the
important rules. If they can simply pass along those
jobs,
4. If they can pass the job, they can increase the power
of other branches
5. Will also allow them to denounce accountability (hindi
naman kami ang gumawa ng batas yan an eh, sila)

Weakening of non-delegation doctrine

1. The congress had made all these specialized agencies


(ad hoc)
2. Dati, only congress can creating municipal and private
corporations. You need to go to congress to avail of
the many benefits of having a corporation, there
should be a law before you can establish a charter.
Corporations are juridical persons, can enter into
contracts, can buy, sell, deal, etc. It is like a slow-
moving AI, and has its own logic. Now, anyone can just
make their own corporations. They passed that power
to the SEC. Now we even have single-person
corporations.
When is a low really ever complete?

1. If it is complete, why the need to delegate?


2. Laws are never complete, which is a good thing. We
cannot always calculate the future. We need to have
space for changes in case of future need.
PHILCONSA v. Mathay (excluded) 2. Do the Speaker and the Members of the House need
to be included as respondents? NO
Suit against the State | G.R. No. L-25554 | October 4, 1966 - Since the action in question is the passing in audit and
|Reyes, J. | By Martinez, E. the payment of the increased salaries, and not the
collection or receipt thereof, only the involvement of
Recit Summary: the current respondents (Auditor General and Auditor
- RA 4134 was approved authorizing the payment of of the Congress) is needed.
increased salaries of the members of the Congress. 3. Does RA 4642 sufficiently comply with Art. VI, Sec. 14
- RA 4642 was then approved, which broke down the of the Constitution? NO
budget for the increase and stated that it was to take - The purpose of the provision is to place "a legal bar to
effect in 1966, right after the end of the term of the the legislators yielding to the natural temptation to
incumbent House members in 1965. However, the term of increase their salaries.
the incumbent Senators was not to end until 1969. - The Courts highlighted the fact that the Constitutional
- The Courts decided that is violative of Art. VI, Sec. 14 Convention of 1934, before the Legislature was
of the Constitution, which states that “No increase in bicameral, initially recommended that increases in
said compensation shall take effect until after the salary were not to take effect until the expiration of
expiration of the full term of all the Members of the the term of all members of the Legislature that
Senate and of the House of Representatives improved the increase.
approving such increase.” - The restrictive nature was carried over in the future
- Therefore, RA 4642 is null and void and RA 4134 should Constitutions of the Philippines:
take effect On December 30, 1969, the end of the o Constitution of the Commonwealth: No
incumbent Senators’ term. increase in said compensation shall take
effect until after the expiration of the full
Facts of the Case: term of the Members of the National
- June 10, 1964: RA 4134 was approved authorizing the Assembly elected subsequent to the approval
payment of increased salaries of the members of the of such increase.
Congress. o 1940 amendments (return to bicameralism):
- Senate President and Speaker of the House: P40,000 from No increase in said compensation shall take
P16,000; Senators and House Members: P32,000 from effect until after the expiration of the full
P7,200. term of all the Members of the Senate and
- The act provided "that the salary increase of the President of the House of Representatives approving
of the Senate and of the Speaker of the House of such increase.
Representatives shall take effect on the effectivity of the - Presently: the use of the word “term” instead of
salary increase of Congressmen and Senators.” “terms” in the Constitutional provision proves that
- RA 4642 (Appropriation Act) was then approved, breaking the framers intended for both Legislative bodies to
down the budget for the implementation of RA 4134. be considered as one unit. This fact is reinforced by
- RA 4642 stated that the budget increase of all officials the use of the word “all” in the same provision.
involved was to be implemented at the start of 1966, - Further, from the old Constitution to the present one,
because the term incumbent House Members was to end in maximum delay of six (6) years and a minimum of four
1965. (4) from the time of approval is necessary before an
- However, the term of the incumbent Senators was to end increase of legislators' compensation can take effect.
at 1969. o For example, if the legislators pass an
- Petitioners contend that this is violative of Art. VI, Sec. 14 of increase of salary at the end of all their
the Constitution, which provides that “No increase in said terms, they will have to wait for at least 4
compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of years before doing so.
the full term of all the Members of the Senate and of the o This is to avoid legislators who can anticipate
House of Representatives approving such increase.” their re-election from increasing their own
- Respondents allege that (1) Petitioners have no standing salary.
because of lack of showing of injury, (2) Speaker and
Members of the House should be joined parties defendant Ruling:
in the case, and (3) the expiration of the term of the House Petition granted. RA 4642 (Appropriation Act) is null and void
Members was sufficient in adhering to the Constitution, for being unconstitutional. RA 4134 (Salary Increase) is
regardless of the term of the members of the Senate. not operative until December 30, 1969, when the full
Issue: term of all members of the Senate and House that
1. Do the Petitioners have locus standi? YES approved it on June 20, 1964 will have expired.
- As taxpayers, they may bring an action to restrain
officials from wasting public funds through the Pertinent provision:
enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law. Consti Art. VI, Sec. 14
LIGOT v MATHAY (excluded)  Respondent Velasco, as Congress Auditor, did not sign
Salaries | G.R. No. L-34676 (April 30, 1974) | Teehankee, J. | by the warrant because of a pending resolution by the
Medina, R. Auditor General of a similar claim filed by former
Representative Melanio T. Singson, whose term had
PETITIONER: Benjamin Ligot also expired on Dec. 30, 1969
RESPONDENTS: Ismael Mathay and Jose V. Velasco  July 22, 1970 – Velasco formally requested petitioner
to return the warrant for re-computation of the latter’s
RECIT SUMMARY retirement claim
1. Petitioner Ligot was a member of the House of o Attached was the Auditor General’s decision
Representatives from 1957 to 1969. disallowing Singson’s claim for retirement
2. In 1964, RA 4134 was passed, increasing the salary of gratuity computed based on salary increase
members of Congress from P7,200 to P32,000 per under RA 4134
annum. However, the Court held in PHILCONSA v  Petitioner’s request for reconsideration was denied;
Mathay that the increase would only take effect on Dec. hence the present petition
30, 1969 in accordance with Art. VI, Sec. 14 of the 1935  He argues that his claim for retirement gratuity should
Constitution. not have been disallowed because at the time of his
3. When Ligot’s term expired on Dec. 30, 1969, he filed a retirement, the increased salary under RA 4134 was
claim for retirement and was issued a treasury warrant already P32,000 per annum
of P122,429.86 as retirement gratuity computed based o Recall: increased salary under RA 4134 would
on RA 4134. only take effect on Dec. 30, 1969, which was
4. Respondent Velasco requested petitioner to return this also when Ligot’s final term expired
warrant for re-computation of the latter’s retirement
claim in view of the Auditor General’s decision ISSUE: WON petitioner’s retirement gratuity should be
disallowing a similar claim. Hence, the present petition. computed on the basis of the increased salary of P32,000 per
5. The Court held that the salary increase under RA 4134 annum under RA 4134 – NO
only applies to incoming members of Congress after  Salary increase under RA 4134 is operative only from
Dec. 30, 1969, and not to petitioner. Dec. 30, 1969 for INCOMING members of Congress
6. Because the Constitution already prohibited him from and when the full term of all members that approved
receiving the increased salary during his tenure, it the increase (including petitioner) have expired
would be illogical to allow him to collect such amount o 1935 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 14: "No
now in the guise of retirement gratuity. increase in said compensation shall take effect
until after the expiration of the full term of all
FACTS OF THE CASE the members of the Senate and of the House
 Petitioner Benjamin Ligot served as a member of the of Representatives approving such increase”
House of Representatives for 3 consecutive 4-year o Therefore, the salary rate for members
terms (Dec. 30, 1957-Dec. 30, 1969) retiring ON Dec. 30, 1969 must be P7,200 per
 July 1, 1964 (during Ligot’s 2nd term in office) – RA 4134 annum, as this was the compensation
took effect provided by law DURING their term of office
o Salaries of members of Congress increased  During petitioner’s tenure from 1965-1969, he was
from P7,200 to P32,000 per annum unable to receive the increased salary precisely
 Ligot was re-elected to a 3rd term (1965-1969) but was because of the constitutional ban (see 1935
not entitled to the salary increase of P32,000 by virtue Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 14 above)
of the Court’s decision in PHILCONSA v Mathay (1966) o It would be illogical to allow him to collect
o Increased compensation provided by RA 4134 such amount now in the guise of retirement
is not operative until Dec. 30, 1969 when the gratuity
full term of all members of the Senate and  Retirement gratuity is limited to compensation and
House that approved it will have expired other emoluments to the individual’s salary as
 Dec. 30, 1969 – Ligot’s term expired provided by law
o He thereafter filed a claim for retirement o Sustaining petitioner’s claim would be a subtle
under Commonwealth Act 186, sec. 12(c), as way of increasing his compensation during his
amended by RA 4968 term and of achieving indirectly what he could
 May 8, 1970 – House of Representatives issued a not obtain directly
treasury warrant of P122,429.86 in petitioner’s favor as
his retirement gratuity RULING: Petition dismissed. Petitioner’s retirement gratuity
o This was computed based on the increased must be computed on the basis of P7,200 per annum, and not
salary of P32,000 per annum of members of P32,000 per annum under RA 4134.
Congress (RA 4134)
Article VI – The Legislative Department Article XI – Accountability of Public Officers
Section 8. Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular Section 17. A public officer or employee shall, upon
election of the Senators and the Members of the House of assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be
Representatives shall be held on the second Monday of May. required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his assets,
liabilities, and net worth. In the case of the President, the Vice-
Section 9. In case of vacancy in the Senate or in the House of President, the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the
Representatives, a special election may be called to fill such Supreme Court, the Constitutional Commissions and other
vacancy in the manner prescribed by law, but the Senator or constitutional offices, and officers of the armed forces with
Member of the House of Representatives thus elected shall general or flag rank, the declaration shall be disclosed to the
serve only for the unexpired term. public in the manner provided by law.

Section 10. The salaries of Senators and Members of the House Martinez v Morfe
of Representatives shall be determined by law. No increase in March 24, 1972| Fernando, J| Mendizabal, C.
said compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of
the full term of all the Members of the Senate and the House Facts:
of Representatives approving such increase.  Manuel Martinez and Fernando Bautista,
Sr. were delegates to the 1972 Constitutional
Section 11. A Senator or Member of the House of Convention. Both of them were facing criminal
Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable by not more prosecutions.
than six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while  Martinez was charged for falsification of a public
the Congress is in session. No Member shall be questioned nor
document before the sala of Judge Morfe. The basis of the
be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in
case against him was his statement under oath that he
the Congress or in any committee thereof.
was born on June 20, 1945 instead of June 20, 1946.
Section 12. All Members of the Senate and the House of  Bautista was charged for the violation of the Revised
Representatives shall, upon assumption of office, make a full Election Code. He was also accused to be in violation of
disclosure of their financial and business interests. They shall Section 51 of the RPC when he gave and distributed food
notify the House concerned of a potential conflict of interest free of charge, drinks and cigarettes at two public
that may arise from the filing of a proposed legislation of which meetings.
they are authors.  The respondent Judge Morfe ordered their arrest and the
two were later on arrested while the Constitutional
Section 13. No Senator or Member of the House of Convention was still in session.
Representatives may hold any other office or employment in
 Petitioners Bautista and Martinez now assail the validity of
the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality
their arrest. They contend that under Art 145 or RPC
thereof, including government-owned or controlled
corporations or their subsidiaries, during his term without “arrest or search any member thereof, except in case such
forfeiting his seat. Neither shall he be appointed to any office member has committed a crime punishable under [such]
which may have been created or the emoluments thereof Code by a penalty higher than prision mayor” and that the
increased during the term for which he was elected. charges upon which they were arrested are within the
immunity granted to them as legislators.
Section 14. No Senator or Member of the House of  Martinez filed a petition for certiorari and habeas corpus
Representatives may personally appear as counsel before any in SC while Bautista filed petition for certiorari and
court of justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi- prohibition also in SC.
judicial and other administrative bodies. Neither shall he,
directly or indirectly, be interested financially in any contract ISSUE: W/N Martinez and Bautista are immune from arrest
with, or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the NO. Article VI, Section 15 of the 1935 Constitution provides
Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality that immunity from arrest does not cover any prosecution for
thereof, including any government-owned or controlled treason, felony and breach of the peace. Section 15 has
corporation, or its subsidiary, during his term of office. He shall revoked Art 145 of RPC since this RPC provision is inconsistent
not intervene in any matter before any office of the with this section of the constitution.
Government for his pecuniary benefit or where he may be Breach of the peace covers any offense whether defined by the
called upon to act on account of his office. RPC or any special statute.
In this case, the crimes for which Martinez and Bautista were
Section 20. The records and books of accounts of the Congress arrested fall under the category of “breach of peace,”
shall be preserved and be open to the public in accordance therefore, they cannot invoke the privilege from arrest
with law, and such books shall be audited by the Commission provision of the Constitution.
on Audit which shall publish annually an itemized list of Any person who acted against public peace is susceptible to
amounts paid to and expenses incurred for each Member. prosecution. There is a full recognition of necessity to have
members of Congress, and likewise delegates to the
Constitutional Convention, entitled to the utmost freedom to that this mandate cannot be defeated by insuperable
enable them to discharge their vital responsibilities. procedural restraints arising from pending criminal cases
RULING: o Court stated that all officials of government are subject
The petition for certiorari and habeas corpus by Delegate to the majesty of the law
Manuel Martinez and the petitions for certiorari and o The higher the rank, the greater the requirement of
prohibition by Delegate Fernando Bautista, Sr are hereby obedience rather than exemption
dismissed. o There is a provision in the 1935, 1973, and 1987
People v. Jalosjos Constitution that allows for the immunity from arrest or
Freedom from Arrest|G.R. Nos. 132875-76. February 3, 2000 | detention of Senators of members of the House of
Ynares-Santiago, J. | By: Montano, J. Congress. But 1987 Constitution states that for offenses
punishable by more than six years imprisonment, there
Recitation Summary: was no immunity from arrest
9. Case of first impression wherein Jalosjos, a re-elected - Argues also that it is his responsibility according to Art. VI,
Representative of the First District of Zamboanga del Sec. 16(2) of the Constitution to attend sessions
Norte, is asking that he be allowed to attend legislative o Court stated that Jalosjos did not give enough
and committee meetings despite being confined at the reason to be exempted from Art. VI, Sec. 11
national penitentiary while his conviction for statutory which states that Congress cannot compel
rape on two counts and acts of lasciviousness on six counts absent members to attend sessions if the reason
is pending appeal. for the absence is a legitimate one
10. The issue is whether membership is Congress exempts an - Jalosos relied on Aguinaldo v. Santos which stated that:
accused from statutes and rules which apply to validly “The Court should never remove a public officer for acts
incarcerated persons done prior to his present term of office…”
11. The Court ruled that being a member of Congress does not o Court stated that: This does not apply to
allow for a difference in treatment because the court imprisonment arising from the enforcement of
cannot validate badges of inequality. The necessities criminal law. Moreover, in the same way that
imposed by public welfare (i.e. imprisonment and preventive suspension is not removal,
detention) may justify exercise of government authority to confinement pending appeal is not removal. He
regulate even if thereby certain groups may plausibly remains a congressman unless expelled by
assert that their interests are disregarded. Congress or, otherwise, disqualified.
- Argues that plea of the electorate which voted him into
Facts: office cannot be supplanted by unfounded fears that he
- This is a case of first impression wherein accused might escape eventual punishment if permitted to
appellant, Romeo Jalosjos is a member of Congress perform congressional duties outside his regular place of
(Representative of First District of Zamboanga del Norte) confinement.
and is confined at the national penitentiary while his o But he evaded arrest when his warrant was first issued
conviction for statutory rape on two counts and acts of - Argues that he has been allowed by the RTC Makati to
lasciviousness on six counts is pending appeal. temporarily leave his cell for official or medical reasons
- Upon reelection, filed this motion to be allowed to fully o Court stated that previous situations were of an
discharge his duties, including attendance at legislative emergency nature. What he is asking for now is not.
sessions and committee meetings although he is charged o Allowing Jalosjos to attend congressional sessions and
with a non-bailable offense. committee meetings for 5 days or more in a week will
virtually make him a free man with all the privileges
Issue: appurtenant to his position. Such an aberrant situation
W/N membership in Congress exempts an accused from not only elevates accused-appellant's status to that of a
statutes and rules which apply to validly incarcerated persons special class, it also would be a mockery of the purposes
in general of the correction system.
- NO. Being a member of Congress does not allow a o He is also able to discharge his functions because he has
difference in treatment. The necessities imposed by public an office in the prison, was able to file bills and
welfare may justify exercise of government authority to resolutions, has been receiving his salary.
regulate even if thereby certain groups may plausibly o He has been discharging his mandate as a member of the
assert that their interests are disregarded. Lawful arrest House of Representative consistent with the restraints
and confinement are germane to the purposes of the law upon one who is presently under detention. Being a
and apply to all those belonging to the same class. detainee, Jalosjos should not even have been allowed by
- Jalosjos argues that the mandate of the sovereign will the prison authorities at the National Penitentiary to
must allow him because he was elected by popular vote; perform these acts but he was allowed.
not allowing him to do so would constitute taxation o Imprisonment in its general sense, is the restraint of
without representation on the part of his constituents; and one's liberty.
 It is the detention of another against his will depriving
him of his power of locomotion and is something more
than mere loss of freedom. It includes the notion of
restraint w/in limits defined by wall / exterior barrier.

Ruling:
Court denied Jalosjos’ petition. Being re-elected to public
office does not give priority to any other right or interest,
including the State’s police power.
People v. Jalosjos (supplementary) concoct a story of defloration, allow an
G.R. No. 132875-76 | November 16, 2001 | Ynares-Santiago, J | examination of her private parts and
By: Muhlach & Nebres thereafter allow herself to be perverted in a
public trial if she was not motivated solely by
Recit Summary
- 12 year old Rosilyn was peddled by her own guardian, the desire to have the culprit apprehended
Simplicio, for commercial sex and punished.
- She met Congressman Romeo Jalosjos and was - If there is inconsistency between the affidavit
molested by him multiple times of a witness and her testimonies given in
- Jalosjos was found guilty of two counts of statutory open court, the latter commands greater
rape weight than the former.
Facts
- 12 year-old Maria Rosilyn Delantar claims she was 2. Maria’s failure to properly identify Romeo as the
constantly being peddled by her own guardian, rapist is fatal to her claims
Simplicio Delantar, for commercial sex - No. The fact that she was only able to
- She met through her guardian, then TV show recognize his face and his body type, but not
producer and Congressman Romeo Jalosjos his name, is not a valid defense (she is a kid
- Jalosjos constantly had Simplicio bring Maria to his after all)
hotel so he could molest her - A person’s identity does not depend solely on
- Rosilyn eventually raw away and went to the DSWD, his name, but also on his physical features.
which led to the filing of a statutory rape case against Thurs, a victim of a crime can still identify the
Jalosjos culprit even without knowing his name.
- Jalosjos said it was actually his brother Dominador
3. The trial court erred in ruling that Maria was below
who was meeting with Maria, that he was in constant
12 years old at the time of the incidents
meetings during the dates when they supposedly met,
- Can easily get the age of someone through a
and that this was all blackmail by his political
birth certificate. If there is none, then can get
opponents
it through other means such as a baptismal
- Dominador backed up his brother’s claims
certificate, school records, etc
- Romeo was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
- The prosecution successfully proved that
2 counts of statutory rape, thus sentenced to 2 counts
Rosilyn was only eleven years of age at the
of reclusion perpetua, and he is to pay Maria 50k in
time she was sexually abused
moral damages
- Although he was acquitted of some counts of
4. Rape was not actually committed
lasciviousness
- Rape is consummated by the slightest
- He filed an appeal regarding these issues:
penetration of the female organ.
- No. In cases of statutory rape, need not full
Issues:
1. The trial court erred in convicting Romeo based on penetration be committed.
the testimonies of Rosilyn, considering the - The law presumes that a woman of tender
inconsistencies of the stories age does not possess discernment and is
- No. His claim that his acquittal of some acts incapable of giving intelligent consent to the
of his lasciviousness is not proof of Maria sexual act. Thus, it was held that carnal
fabricating her stories knowledge of a child below twelve years old
- Testimonies are not always to be taken in full even if she is engaged in prostitution is still
belief of, can choose w/c has credence considered as statutory rape.
- Maria’s testimony to be given full credence,
Ruling:
and she was able to give vivid details
Romeo Jalosjos is sentenced to 2 reclusion perpetua for 2
- The DSWD were witnesses w/ testimonies as counts of statutory rape, and 6 cases of reclusion temporal for
well 6 counts of lasciviousness
- Testimonies of rape victims especially those
who are young and immature deserve full Moral damages to be paid increased to 50k
credence considering that no woman would
Trillanes, IV v. Pimentel 2. W/N Trillanes’ election is proper legal justification for
Freedom from Arrest | G.R. No. 179817 June 27, 2008 | Carpio- him to work in his capacity as senator—NO
Morales, J. |by Nicoals, J. a. The case against petitioner is not administrative in
Recitation Summary: nature. And there is no "prior term" to speak of.
11. While being tried in a criminal case involving the b. The doctrine of condonation does not apply to
Oakwood Incident, Antonio Trillanes files an Omnibus criminal cases.
Motion before the RTC to let him attend Senate c. Election, or more precisely, re-election to office,
Sessions and work within his place of detention. does not obliterate a criminal charge.
12. The RTC denied the Motion so he assailed the order d. His electoral victory only signifies pertinently that
with the SC. when the voters elected him to the Senate, "they
13. The SC denied Trillanes’ Petition saying: that his case is did so with full awareness of the limitations on his
similar so People v. Jalosjos whose privileges sought freedom of action [and] . . . with the knowledge
were similarly denied; that election to office does not that he could achieve only such legislative results
obliterate a criminal charge; and, that emergency or which he could accomplish within the confines of
temporary leaves are under the discretion of the prison."
authorities or the courts. 3. W/N liberal treatment is due to him as a detention
prisoner without bail—NO
Facts of the Case: a. Emergency or compelling temporary leaves from
 On July 27, 2003, over 300 soldiers led by AFP junior imprisonment are allowed to all prisoners, at the
officers stormed into the Oakwood Premier discretion of the authorities or upon court orders.
Apartments in Makati demanding the resignation of b. On the generality and permanence of his requests
the President and key national officials. alone, petitioner's case fails to compare with the
 Antonio F. Trillanes IV was charged with a criminal case species of allowable leaves.
for coup d’etat before RTC Makati.
 Four years later while still in detention, Trillanes SC Ruling:
became a Senator with his term to commence on June The petition is dismissed. The denial of his “Omnibus Motion for
30, 2007. Leave of Court to be Allowed to Attend Senate Sessions and
 On June 22, 2007, Trillanes filed with the RTC an Related Requests” was upheld.
“Omnibus Motion for Leave of Court to be Allowed to
Attend Senate Sessions and Related Requests.”
 On July 25, 2007, the RTC denied all the requests and,
on September 18, 2007, denied the Motion for
Reconsideration .
 Trillanes filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and
Mandamus against the Respondent Judge before the
SC.

Issue:
1. W/N the Jalosjos Case is applicable to the present
case—YES
a. Presumption of innocence does not carry with it
the full enjoyment of civil and political rights.
b. In the present case, it is uncontroverted that
petitioner's application for bail and for release on
recognizance was denied.
c. The determination that the evidence of guilt
strong, whether ascertained in a hearing of an
application for bail or imported from a trial court's
judgment of conviction, justifies the detention of
an accused as a valid curtailment of his right to
provisional liberty.
d. This accentuates the proviso that the denial of the
right to bail in such cases is "regardless of the stage
of the criminal action." Such justification for
confinement with its underlying rationale of public
self-defense applies equally to detention prisoners
like petitioner or convicted prisoners appellants
like Jalosjos.
Jimenez v. Cabangbang they may recover damages. Considering that they are
Speech and Debate Clause | G.R. No. 15905 | August 3, 1966 | officers of the AFP, they are by law, under the control
Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion | Gorgeous of the Secretary of National Defense and the AFP Chief
of Staff, then there is the possibility that petitioners
FACTS: were in fact unwitting tools who were unaware of the
On November 14, 1958, respondent Rep. Bartolome details of any such planned coup.
Cabangbang of Bohol (2nd District), also chair of the House
Committee on National Defense, published in newspapers of SUPREME COURT RULING:
general circulation an open letter addressed to President Carlos Decision of lower court AFFIRMED.
P. Garcia alleging that there were three operational plans by
some members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, that PROVISIONS:
these AFP officers had colluded with communists, and that the Article VI, 1935 Constitution
Secretary of National Defense, Jesus Vargas, was planning a SEC. 15. The Senators and Members of the House of
coup to place himself as President. Representatives shall in all cases except treason, felony, and
breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their
The letter alleged that the planners of the coup had petitioners attendance at the session of the Congress, and in going to and
Nicanor Jimenez, Carlos Albert, and Jose Lukban, among other returning from the same; and for any speech or debate therein,
AFP officers, under their guise and that said officers may or may they shall not be questioned in any other place.
not have been aware that they were being used to meet such an
end. ---compare with---

Petitioners thus filed a civil action for recovery of damages Article VI, 1987 Constitution
against respondent for libel. Respondent moved to dismiss the SEC. 11. A Senator or Member of the House of Representatives
complaint, arguing that it was not libelous and that, even if it shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than six years
were, said letter was privileged communication due to it being imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in
part of his function in the House of Representatives. The lower session. No Member shall be questioned nor be held liable in
court granted the motion, thus petitioners appealing to the any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in
Supreme Court. any committee thereof.

ISSUES AND RATIO:


1.) WON the publication in question is a privileged
communication.

NO: Article VI, Section 15 of the 1935 Constitution


mentions excusing members of Congress from arrest
for making any such “speech and debate therein” in
their function.

The Court ruled that the publication involved did not


fall under this provision’s purview. The letter, dated
November 14, 1958, was written when Congress was
not in session and that Cabangbang’s act of publishing
said letter in newspapers of general circulation was not
part of his official duty in Congress or any of its
Committees. Thus, said communication is not
absolutely privileged.

2.) WON said publication is libelous.

NO: Although the letter mentioned that petitioners


were under the control of the alleged coup’s planners,
it also noted that they may have been “unwitting tools”
and had “absolutely no knowledge” of the plan.

Thus, the very document that petitioners’ action is


based upon indicates that they may have been
absolutely unaware of the alleged operational plans
and therefore not derogatory to them to the point that
Pobre v Defensor-Santiago | A.C. No. 7399 August 25, 2009 | Roberto Flores, Daniel Figueroa, et al v. Hon. Franklin Drilon,
Velasco, Jr., J. | by Orate, AJ Executive Secretary, and Richard Gordon (G.R. No. 104732,
June 22, 1993, J. Bellosillo, Digest by: Quebec, A.)
Facts:
-Petitioner Antero J. Pobre submitted a letter of complaint RECIT SUMMARY
containing an excerpt from Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago’s
speech on the Senate floor which he deemed as a disrespect Petitioners assail the constitutionality of paragraph d, Section 13
towards Chief Justice Panganiban and the rest of the court. He of RA 7227 which states that the President shall appoint the
asserted that such words constituted contempt of court and Mayor of Olongapo City as the chairman and chief executive
subjects Sen. Defensor-Santiago to disciplinary actions and officer of the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) for the
even disbarment. first year of its operations. Said provision is claimed to
-In her comment, Sen. Defensor-Santiago asserted that the contravene Sec 7, Article IX-B of the Constitution which provides
speech she made was covered by parliamentary immunity as it that elective officials shall not be eligible for appointment or
was given in discharge of her duties and was a statement designation to any public office or position during his tenure.
against the JBC for the injustice in their approach in the
nomination and application process for the soon-to-be vacant The Court declared the provision as void as it obviously runs
Chief Justice post counter to the said constitutional provision. It also contravenes
-Article VI, Section 11 of the Constitution provides: A Senator the President’s appointing authority because the power to
or Member of the House of Representative shall, in all offenses appoint involves discretion or choice of who to appoint. Because
punishable by not more than six years imprisonment, be only one individual qualifies for the position, the Mayor of
privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session. No Olongapo City, the President is left with no choice but to appoint
member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other him.
place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any
committee thereof. Mayor Gordon however may retain per diems, salaries,
allowances, and other emoluments which he may have received
Issue: WON Sen. Defensor-Santiago speech is covered by during his tenure. His legitimate acts were also upheld as a de
parliamentary immunity. facto officer.
-the Courts have no jurisdiction over matters in the
Legislative department and as such, any and all possible actions FACTS
to be taken against member of the Legislative is up to the
discretion of the authority of the assembly and the voters Petitioners (taxpayers, employees of the US Facility at Subic,
(Senate did not take any measures to address her unbecoming Zambales, and officers and members of the Filipino Civilian
conduct) Employees Association in US Facilities in the Philippines) assail
-the statements made by Sen. Defensor-Santiago are the constitutionality of Sec. 13, par. (d) of R.A. 7227, otherwise
not criminally actionable or is subject to any disciplinary action known as the “Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992”.
under the Rules of Court, however the Courts deemed it right Under the act, Mayor Richard Gordon of Olongapo City was
to call her attention, as a member of the Bar, to practice appointed Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Subic Bay
decency and professional conduct Metropolitan Authority.
-the utterances made by Sen. Defensor-Santiago are
more personal than professional Paragraph d reads: “d) Chairman/Administrator — The
President shall appoint a professional manager as administrator
Ruling: letter-complaint dismissed pursuant to Article VI, of the Subic Authority with a compensation to be determined by
Section 11 of the Constitution the Board subject to the approval of the Secretary of Budget,
who shall be the ex officio chairman of the Board and who shall
serve as the chief executive officer of the Subic Authority:
Provided, however, That for the first year of its operations from
the effectivity of this Act, the mayor of the City of Olongapo shall
be appointed as the chairman and chief executive officer of the
Subic Authority”

Petitioners maintain that the proviso infringes on the following


constitutional and statutory provisions:

(a) Sec. 7, first paragraph, Article IX-B of the Constitution – “[N]o


elective official shall be eligible for appointment or designation
in any capacity to any public office or position during his tenure”
– as the City Mayor of Olongapo city is an elective official
(b) Sec. 16, Article VIIl, of the Consti – “The President his appointment in an executive position in government, and
shall…appoint all other officers of the Government whose thus neglect his constituents . . . ."
appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, and those
whom he may be authorized by law to appoint” – Since it was ITC, the subject proviso directs the President to appoint an
Congress through the questioned proviso and not the President elective official, i.e., the Mayor of Olongapo City, to other
who appointed the Mayor to the post government posts (as Chairman of the Board and Chief
Executive Officer of SBMA). Since this is precisely what the
(c) Sec. 261, paragraph (g) of the Omnibus Election Code - Sec. constitutional proscription seeks to prevent, it needs no
261. Prohibited Acts. — The following shall be guilty of an stretching of the imagination to conclude that the proviso
election offense: . . . . (g) Appointment of new employees, contravenes Sec. 7, first part., Art. IX-B, of the Constitution. The
creation of new position, promotion, or giving salary increases. fact that the expertise of an elective official may be most
— During the period of forty-five days before a regular election beneficial to the higher interest of the body politic is of no
and thirty days before a special election, (1) any head, official or moment.
appointing officer of a government office, agency or The view that an elective official may be appointed to another
instrumentality, whether national or local, including post if allowed by law or by the primary functions of his office,
government-owned or controlled corporations, who appoints or ignores the clear-out difference in the wording of the two (2)
hires any new employee, whether provisional, temporary or paragraphs of Sec. 7, Art. IX-B, of the Constitution. While the
casual, or creates and fills any new position, except upon prior second paragraph authorizes holding of multiple offices by an
authority of the Commission. The Commission shall not grant appointive official when allowed by law or by the primary
the authority sought unless it is satisfied that the position to be functions of his position, the first paragraph appears to be more
filled is essential to the proper functioning of the office or stringent by not providing any exception to the rule against
agency concerned, and that the position shall not be filled in a appointment or designation of an elective official to other
manner that may influence the election. As an exception to the government posts, except as are particularly recognized in the
foregoing provisions, a new employee may be appointed in case Constitution itself, e.g., the President as head of the economic
of urgent need: Provided, however, That notice of the and planning agency; the Vice-President, who may be
appointment shall be given to the Commission within three days appointed Member of the Cabinet; and, a member of Congress
from the date of the appointment. Any appointment or hiring in who may be designated ex officio member of the Judicial and
violation of this provision shall be null and void. (2) Any Bar Council.
government official who promotes, or gives any increase of
salary or remuneration or privilege to any government official or On the SMBA post being ex officio to the position of Mayor of
employee, including those in government-owned or controlled Olongapo City
corporations It is argued that the SMBA post is ex officio to the position of
- The appointment to the subject posts where made by the Mayor Olongapo City and thus an excepted circumstance, citing
Executive Secretary within the prohibited 45-day period prior to Civil Liberties Union v Executive Secretary, which stated that the
the 1992 Elections prohibition does not comprehend additional duties and
functions required by the primary functions of the officials
ISSUES concerned, who are to perform them in an ex officio capacity as
provided by law, without receiving any additional compensation
WON the proviso violates the constitutional proscription against therefor.
appointment or designation of elective officials to other
government posts – YES The Court held that Congress did not contemplate making the
subject SBMA posts as ex officio or automatically attached to
Sec 7 of Article IX-B express the policy against the concentration the Office of the Mayor of Olongapo City without need of
of several public positions in one person, so that a public officer appointment. The phrase "shall be appointed" unquestionably
or employee may serve full-time with dedication and thus be shows the intent to make the SBMA posts appointive and not
efficient in the delivery of public services. It is an affirmation that merely adjunct to the post of Mayor of Olongapo City. Had it
a public office is a full-time job. been the legislative intent to make the subject positions ex
officio, Congress would have, at least, avoided the word
Hence, a public officer or employee, like the head of an "appointed" and, instead, "ex officio" would have been used.
executive department described in Civil Liberties Union v. Philip
Ella C. Juico, as Secretary of Agrarian Reform, ". . . . should be Legislative encroachment on the appointing authority of the
allowed to attend to his duties and responsibilities without the President
distraction of other governmental duties or employment. He Section 13, par. (d), itself vests in the President the power to
should be precluded from dissipating his efforts, attention and appoint the Chairman of the Board and the Chief Executive
energy among too many positions of responsibility, which may Officer of SBMA, although he really has no choice under the law
result in haphazardness and inefficiency . . . ." Particularly as but to appoint the Mayor of Olongapo City.
regards the first paragraph of Sec. 7, "(t)he basic idea really is to
prevent a situation where a local elective official will work for
An "appointment" is "[t]he designation of a person, by the
person or persons having authority therefor, to discharge the  Par (d), Sec 123, RA 7227 is declared
duties of some office or trust," or "[t]he selection or designation UNCONSTITUTIONAL; the appointment of Richard
of a person, by the person or persons having authority therefor, Gordon is INVALID. All per diems, allowances and other
to fill an office or public function and discharge the duties of the emoluments received by Gordon, if any, as such
same." Chairman and Chief Executive Officer may be retained
by him, and all acts otherwise legitimate done by him
Senior Associate Justice Isagani A. Cruz defines appointment as in the exercise of his authority as officer de facto of
"the selection, by the authority vested with the power, of an SBMA are hereby UPHELD
individual who is to exercise the functions of a given office."
Considering that appointment calls for a selection, the
appointing power necessarily exercises a discretion.

.Once the power of appointment is conferred on the President,


such conferment necessarily carries the discretion of whom to
appoint. Even on the pretext of prescribing the qualifications of
the officer, Congress may not abuse such power as to divest the
appointing authority, directly or indirectly, of his discretion to
pick his own choice. Consequently, when the qualifications
prescribed by Congress can only be met by one individual, such
enactment effectively eliminates the discretion of the
appointing power to choose and constitutes an irregular
restriction on the power of appointment.

ITC, only one can qualify for the post in question, the President
is precluded from exercising his discretion to choose whom to
appoint.

Since the ineligibility of an elective official for appointment


remains all throughout his tenure or during his incumbency, he
may however resign first from his elective post to cast off the
constitutionally-attached disqualification before he may be
considered fit for appointment.

As incumbent elective official, respondent Gordon is ineligible


for appointment to the position of Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer of SBMA; hence, his appointment
thereto pursuant to a legislative act that contravenes the
Constitution cannot be sustained.

He however remains Mayor of Olongapo City, and his acts as


SBMA official are not necessarily null and void; he may be
considered a de facto officer, "one whose acts, though not those
of a lawful officer, the law, upon principles of policy and justice,
will hold valid so far as they involve the interest of the public and
third persons, where the duties of the office were exercised . . . .
under color of a known election or appointment, void because
the officer was not eligible, or because there was a want of
power in the electing or appointing body, or by reason of some
defect or irregularity in its exercise, such ineligibility, want of
power or defect being unknown to the public . . . . [or] under
color of an election, or appointment, by or pursuant to a public
unconstitutional law, before the same is adjudged to be such.

As per the ruling in Civil Liberties Union, any and all per diems,
allowances and other emoluments which may have been
received by respondent Gordon pursuant to his appointment
may be retained by him.
Liban v. Gordon, Januray 18, 2011 REPEALED; THUS, PNRC WILL FALL UNDER A
Disqualifications and other prohibitions | G.R. No. 175352 | CORPORATION INCOPORATED UNDER GENERAL LAW)
Leonardo-De Castro, J. | by Bea Roque and Gab Ricasio a. “The PNRC is a non-profit, donor-funded,
voluntary, humanitarian organization, whose
Recit Summary: mission is to bring timely, effective, and
 Gordon did not forfeit his seat in the Senate when he compassionate humanitarian assistance for the
accepted the chairmanship of the PNRC Board of Governors most vulnerable without consideration of
 Gordon was allowed to hold position as Chairman of PNRC nationality, race, religion, gender, social status, or
while being a Senator does not ipso facto imply that PNRC political affiliation.”
is a private corporation b. In accordance with the Geneva Red Cross
 PNRC enjoys a special status as an important ally and Convention.
auxiliary of the government in the humanitarian field in c. National Society of the International Red Cross and
accordance with its commitments under international law. Red Crescent Movement (Movement)’s Seven
It is the government’s humanitarian partner while Fundamental Principles:
remaining independent. (3) NEUTRALITY — In order to continue to
enjoy the confidence of all, the Movement
Facts: may not take sides in hostilities or engage at
 In the Decision, Gordon did not forfeit his seat in the Senate any time in controversies of a political, racial,
when he accepted the chairmanship of the Philippine religious or ideological nature.
National Red Cross (PNRC) Board of Governors. Office of the (4) INDEPENDENCE — The Movement is
PNRC Chairman is not a government office or an office in a independent. The National Societies, while
GOCC as prohibited in Article VI Section 13 of the auxiliaries in the humanitarian services of
Constitution their governments and subject to the laws of
 The Decision also declared void some sections of the PNRC their respective countries, must always
charter (RA No. 95) as it creates the PNRC as a private maintain their autonomy so that they may be
corporation and that it should register with the Securities able at all times to act in accordance with the
and Exchange Commission and incorporate under the principles of the Movement.
Corporation Code if it wants to be a private corporation d. “The government does not control the PNRC.
 In Gordon’s Motion for Clarification and/or Reconsideration, Under the PNRC Charter, as amended, only six of
he argued that the validity of RA No. 95 was a non-issue and the thirty members of the PNRC Board of
that there was no need to delve into its validity. Governors are appointed by the President of the
 PNRC’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration prays for the Philippines.”
constitutionality of its charter since “it functions as an e. The Constitution recognizes two classes of
auxiliary to the government, it is a neutral entity separate corporations. The first refers to private
and independent of government control, yet it does not corporations created under a general law. The
qualify as strictly private in character” second refers to government-owned or controlled
 Issue of constitutionality of RA No. 95 was not raised by the corporations created by special charters. Section
parties, and thus not the lis mota of the case. Therefore, the 16, Article XII of the Constitution provides:
Court should not have declared void the sections of RA No. Sec. 16. The Congress shall not, except by
95 in the Decision. general law, provide for the formation,
 National Societies such as PNRC act as auxiliaries to the organization, or regulation of private
public authorities of their own countries in the corporations. Government-owned or
humanitarian field, they are directly regulated by controlled corporations may be created or
international humanitarian law, in contrast to other established by special charters in the interest
ordinary private entities, including NGOs. It is the of the common good and subject to the test of
government’s humanitarian partner while remaining economic viability.
independent. f. (NOTE: GOCC’s assets are state-owned, and
subsidies are part of the General Appropriations
 “it is at one and the same time a private institution and a
Act. THUS, There is no private capital; Also, control
public service organization because the very nature of its
must be by the state)
work implies cooperation with the authorities, a link with
g. PNRC’s assets are private-owned, and majority
the State”
control is to private-citizens; thus, granting the
PNRC as a private corporation under general law.
Issue #1: W/N PNRC is a GOCC. -NO
1. PNRC is a Private Organization Performing Public
Issue #2-3: WON Sec. 13, Art. VI of the Philippine Constitution
Functions.
applies to the case of respondent who is Chairman of the PNRC
2. RA No. 95 – PNRC Charter signed by President Manuel A.
and at the same time a member of the Senate and WON
Roxas on march 22, 1947. (NOTE: THIS CHARTER WILL BE
respondent should be automatically removed as Senator which may have been created or the emoluments thereof
pursuant to the said law. – NO increased during the term for which he was elected.
h. Under Section 16, Article VII of the 1987
Constitution, the President appoints three groups Main Dissenting Opinion by Nachura, J.:
of officers. . . I. The case should have been recognized as that of
a prohibition rather than a quo warranto petition,
i. The President does not appoint the Chairman of since petitioner does not aim to take the Senate
the PNRC. Neither does the head of any seat of Sen. Gordon. Prohibition is a remedy that is
department, agency, commission or board appoint “preventive and restrictive – an injunction against
the PNRC Chairman. Thus, the PNRC Chairman is an alleged continuing violation of fundamental
not an official or employee of the Executive law.”
branch since his appointment does not fall under II. PNRC is a GOCC. The PNRC was incorporated
Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution. through a charter, a special law; thus, it is nothing
Certainly, the PNRC Chairman is not an official or but a GOCC.
employee of the Judiciary or Legislature. This leads a. Test if it is a GOCC: Is it created by its own
us to the obvious conclusion that the PNRC charter for the exercise of a public function, or
Chairman is not an official or employee of the by incorporation under the general
Philippine Government. Not being a government corporation law? – OWN CHARTER
official or employee, the PNRC Chairman, as such, b. “we note that Section 1 of the charter starts
does not hold a government office or with the phrase, "(T)here is hereby created in
employment. the Republic of the Philippines a body
Issue #4: Whether petitioners may legally institute this petition corporate and politic to be the voluntary
against respondent. – No organization officially designated to assist
j. For the said petition is considered an action for the Republic of the Philippines in discharging
quo warranto: the obligations set forth in the Geneva
k. Rule 66, Sec. 1 - Action by Government against Conventions . . .".
individuals. — An action for the usurpation of a III. The PNRC Charter does not violate the
public office, position or franchise may be constitutional proscription against the creation of
commenced by a verified petition brought in the private corporate laws.
name of the Republic of the Philippines against: IV. The Constitutionality of a law is presumed.
(b) A public officer who does or suffers an act a. “Two other important points militate against
which by provision of law, constitutes a the declaration of Section 1 of the PNRC
ground for the forfeiture of his office. Charter as invalid and unconstitutional,
“… The person instituting quo warranto namely: (1) respondent does not question
proceedings in his own behalf must claim and the constitutionality of the said provision;
be able to show that he is entitled to the office and (2) every law enjoys the presumption of
in dispute, otherwise the action may be constitutionality.”
dismissed at any stage. In the present case, V. !!!!!IMPORTANT!!!!! The respondent holds two
petitioners do not claim to be entitled to the incompatible offices in violation of the
Senate office of respondent. Clearly, Constitution
petitioners have no standing to file the a. While we can only hypothesize on the extent
present petition.” of the incompatibility between the two offices
— as stated in petitioners' memorandum,
SC Ruling: The Supreme Court held that the PNRC’s Charter as Senator Gordon's holding of both offices may
void due to it being a private corporation; as such, the office result in a divided focus of his legislative
occupied by Sen. Gordon in the PNRC cannot be challenged by functions, and in a conflict of interest as when
Art. VI. Sec. 13. Quo warranto petition lacks merit; thus, a possible amendment of the PNRC Charter is
dismissed. lobbied in Congress or when the PNRC and its
officials become subjects of legislative
Pertinent Provision: inquiries.
Article VI Section 13
No Senator or Member of the House of Justice Nachura: THEREFORE, I grant the petition to declare
Representatives may hold any other office or employment in the Senator Richard J. Gordon as having forfeited his seat in the
Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality Senate.
thereof, including government-owned or controlled
corporations or their subsidiaries, during his term without
forfeiting his seat. Neither shall he be appointed to any office
Liban v. Gordon WHEREFORE, we declare that the office of the Chairman of
Disqualification and other prohibition| G.R. No. 175352 January the Philippine National Red Cross is not a government
18, 2011 |Leonardo De-Castro, J. |By Arapoc, S. office or an office in a government-owned or controlled
corporation for purposes of the prohibition in Section 13,
Facts of the case: Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. We also declare that
Sections 1, 2, 3, 4(a), 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 of the
- Dante V. Liban, Reynaldo M. Bernardo and Salvador M. Charter of the Philippine National Red Cross, or Republic
Viani (Petioners), who were officers of the board of Act No. 95, as amended by Presidential Decree Nos. 1264
directors of Quezon City Red Cross Chapter, filed a and 1643, are VOID because they create the PNRC as a
petition to the Supreme Court to declare the respondent private corporation or grant it corporate powers.
Senator Richard J. Gordon as “having forfeited his seat - Respondent Gordon filed a Motion for Clarification
in the senate,” who was elected Chairman of the and/or for Reconsideration of the Decision. The PNRC
Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) Board of likewise moved to intervene and filed its own Motion for
Governors during his incumbency as a senator pursuant Partial Reconsideration. They basically questioned the
to Sec. 13, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, which second part of the Decision with regard to the
states that “ No Senator or member of the house of pronouncement on the nature of the PNRC and the
representatives may hold any other office or constitutionality of some provisions of the PNRC
employment in the government, or any subdivision , Charter.
agency or instrumentality thereof, including government
–owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries, ISSUE/RATIO
during his term without forfeiting his seat. Neither shall 1) WON the Court correctly passed upon and decided on
he be appointed to any office which has been created on the issue of the constitutionality of the PNRC charter
the emoluments thereof increased during the term for a. NO, it was not correct for the Court to have
which he was elected”. decided on the constitutional issue because it was
- Formerly, in its Decision dated July 15, 2009, the Court not the very lis mota of the case. The PNRC is sui
held that the office of the PNRC Chairman is NOT a generis in nature; it is neither strictly a GOCC nor
government office or an office in a GOCC for purposes of a private corporation.
the prohibition in Sec. 13, Article VI of the 1987 b. The issue of constitutionality of R.A. No. 95 was
Constitution. not raised by the parties, and was not among the
o The PNRC Chairman is elected by the PNRC Board issues defined in the body of the Decision; thus, it
of Governors; he is not appointed by the was not the very lis mota of the case.
President or by any subordinate government c. The Court reiterated the rule as to when the
official. Court will consider the issue of constitutionality.
o Moreover, the PNRC is NOT a GOCC because it is In Alvarez v. PICOP Resources, the Court held that
a privately owned, privately funded, and privately it will not touch the issue of unconstitutionality
run charitable organization and because it is unless it is the very lis mota.
controlled by a Board of Governors four-fifths of d. This Court should not have declared void certain
which are private sector individuals. sections of the PNRC Charter. Instead, the Court
o Therefore, respondent Gordon did not forfeit his should have exercised judicial restraint on this
legislative seat when he was elected as PNRC matter, especially since there was some other
Chairman during his incumbency as Senator. ground upon which the Court could have based
- The Court however held further that the PNRC Charter, its judgment.
R.A. 95, as amended by PD 1264 and 1643, is void e. Furthermore, the PNRC, the entity most adversely
insofar as it creates the PNRC as a private corporation affected by this declaration of unconstitutionality,
since Section 7, Article XIV of the 1935 Constitution which was not even originally a party to this case,
states that “[t]he Congress shall not, except by general was being compelled, as a consequence of the
law, provide for the formation, organization, or Decision, to suddenly reorganize and incorporate
regulation of private corporations, unless such under the Corporation Code, after more than
corporations are owned or controlled by the sixty (60) years of existence in this country.
Government or any subdivision or instrumentality f. The passage of several laws relating to the PNRC’s
thereof.” corporate existence notwithstanding the
- The Court thus directed the PNRC to incorporate under effectivity of the constitutional proscription on
the Corporation Code and register with the Securities the creation of private corporations by law is a
and Exchange Commission if it wants to be a private recognition that the PNRC is not strictly in the
corporation. The fallo of the Decision read: nature of a private corporation contemplated by
the aforesaid constitutional ban.
g. A closer look at the nature of the PNRC would
show that there is none like it, not just in terms of
structure, but also in terms of history, public international law. This Court cannot all of a
service and official status accorded to it by the sudden refuse to recognize its existence,
State and the international community. There is especially since the parties never raised the issue
merit in PNRC’s contention that its structure is sui of the constitutionality of the PNRC Charter. It
generis. It is in recognition of this sui generis bears emphasizing that the PNRC has responded
character of the PNRC that R.A. No. 95 has to almost all national disasters since 1947, and is
remained valid and effective from the time of its widely known to provide a substantial portion of
enactment in March 22, 1947 under the 1935 the country’s blood requirements. Its
Constitution and during the effectivity of the 1973 humanitarian work is unparalleled.
Constitution and the 1987 Constitution. The PNRC 
Charter and its amendatory laws have not been SC Ruling: The sections of the PNRC Charter that were
questioned or challenged on constitutional declared void must therefore stay.
grounds, not even in this case before the Court
now. [Thus, R.A. No. 95 remains valid and constitutional in
h. This Court must recognize the country’s its entirety. The Court MODIFIED the dispositive
adherence to the Geneva Convention and respect portion of the Decision by deleting the second
the unique status of the PNRC in consonance with sentence, to now read as follows:
its treaty obligations. The Geneva Convention has
the force and effect of law. Under the WHEREFORE, we declare that the office of the
Constitution, the Philippines adopts the generally Chairman of the Philippine National Red Cross is not a
accepted principles of international law as part of government office or an office in a government-owned
the law of the land. This constitutional provision or controlled corporation for purposes of the
must be reconciled and harmonized with Article prohibition in Section 13, Article VI of the 1987
XII, Section 16 of the Constitution, instead of Constitution.]
using the latter to negate the former. By requiring
the PNRC to organize under the Corporation Code
just like any other private corporation, the
Decision of July 15, 2009 lost sight of the PNRC’s
special status under international humanitarian
law and as an auxiliary of the State, designated to
assist it in discharging its obligations under the
Geneva Conventions.
i. The PNRC, as a National Society of the
International Red Cross and Red Crescent
Movement, can neither “be classified as an
instrumentality of the State, so as not to lose its
character of neutrality” as well as its
independence, nor strictly as a private
corporation since it is regulated by international
humanitarian law and is treated as an auxiliary of
the State.
j. Although [the PNRC] is neither a subdivision,
agency, or instrumentality of the government, nor
a GOCC or a subsidiary thereof so much so that
respondent, under the Decision, was correctly
allowed to hold his position as Chairman thereof
concurrently while he served as a Senator, such a
conclusion does not ipso facto imply that the
PNRC is a “private corporation” within the
contemplation of the provision of the
Constitution, that must be organized under the
Corporation Code.
k. The sui generis character of PNRC requires us to
approach controversies involving the PNRC on a
case-to-case basis. In sum, the PNRC enjoys a
special status as an important ally and auxiliary of
the government in the humanitarian field in
accordance with its commitments under
SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY V. DANGEROUS DRUG BOARD Facts of the Case:
Disqualifications and other prohibitions | G.R. No. 157870| SEC. 36. Authorized Drug Testing- Authorized drug testing shall
November 3, 2008 |VELASCO, JR, J.| By Trinidad, C. be done by any government forensic laboratories or by any of
the drug testing laboratories accredited and monitored by the
Recitation Summary: DOH to safeguard the quality of the test results… The drug
- Petitioner Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., a senator of the testing shall employ, among others, two (2) testing methods,
Republic and a candidate for reelection in the May 10, 2004 the screening test which will determine the positive result as
elections, filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under well as the type of drug used and the confirmatory test which
Rule 65. In it, he seeks (1) to nullify Sec. 36 (g) of RA 9165 and will confirm a positive screening test… The following shall be
COMELEC Resolution No. 6486 dated December 23, 2003 for subjected to undergo drug testing:
being unconstitutional in that they impose a qualification of xxx xxx xxx
being drug-free for candidates for senators in addition to those (c) Students of secondary and tertiary schools. — Students of
already provided for in the 1987 Constitution; and (2) to enjoin secondary and tertiary schools shall, pursuant to the related
the COMELEC from implementing Resolution No. 6486. rules and regulations as contained in the school's student
- He says that both the Congress and COMELEC, by handbook and with notice to the parents, undergo a random
requiring, via RA 9165 and Resolution No. 6486, a senatorial drug testing . . .;
aspirant, among other candidates, to undergo a mandatory (d) Officers and employees of public and private offices. —
drug test, create an additional qualification that all candidates Officers and employees of public and private offices, whether
for senator must first be certified as drug free. He adds that domestic or overseas, shall be subjected to undergo a random
there is no provision in the Constitution authorizing the drug test as contained in the company's work rules and
Congress or COMELEC to expand the qualification regulations, . . . for purposes of reducing the risk in the
requirements of candidates for senator. workplace. Any officer or employee found positive for use of
- Social Justice Society (SJS), a registered political party, dangerous drugs shall be dealt with administratively which
seeks to prohibit the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) and the shall be a ground for suspension or termination, subject to the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) from enforcing provisions of Article 282 of the Labor Code and pertinent
paragraphs (c), (d), (f), and (g) of Sec. 36 of RA 9165 on the provisions of the Civil Service Law;
ground that they are constitutionally infirm. xxx xxx xxx
1. the provisions constitute undue delegation of legislative (f) All persons charged before the prosecutor's office with a
power when they give unbridled discretion to schools and criminal offense having an imposable penalty of imprisonment
employers to determine the manner of drug testing. of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day shall undergo a
2. the provisions trench in the equal protection clause mandatory drug test;
inasmuch as they can be used to harass a student or an (g) All candidates for public office whether appointed or
employee deemed undesirable. elected both in the national or local government shall undergo
3. a person's constitutional right against unreasonable searches a mandatory drug test.
is also breached by said provisions Petitioner Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., a senator of the Republic
- On WON PETITIONERS HAVE LOCUS STANDI. YES. and a candidate for reelection in the May 10, 2004 elections,
There is no doubt as to the legal standing of Pimentel. filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65. In
Regarding SJS and Laserna, the Court is to relax the rule on it, he seeks (1) to nullify Sec. 36 (g) of RA 9165 and COMELEC
locus standi owing primarily to the transcendental importance Resolution No. 6486 dated December 23, 2003 for being
and the paramount public interest involved in the enforcement unconstitutional in that they impose a qualification for
of Sec. 36 of RA 9165. candidates for senators in addition to those already provided
- On constitutionality of provisions, Sec 36 (c) and (d) for in the 1987 Constitution; and (2) to enjoin the COMELEC
are CONSTITUTIONAL while (f) and (g) are from implementing Resolution No. 6486.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The drug test prescribed for secondary According to Pimentel, the Constitution only prescribes a
and tertiary level students and public and private employees, maximum of five (5) qualifications for one to be a candidate
while mandatory, is a random and suspicionless arrangement. for, elected to, and be a member of the Senate.
There is a fit between the objective of the state to prevent He says that both the Congress and COMELEC, by requiring, via
proliferation of drugs and the means of conducting random RA 9165 and Resolution No. 6486, a senatorial aspirant, among
drug testing. It being random does not infringe upon the right other candidates, to undergo a mandatory drug test, create an
to privacy and unreasonable searches because there is a valid additional qualification that all candidates for senator must
purpose for the state. For (g), the Constitution is the basic law first be certified as drug free. He adds that there is no provision
to which all laws must conform; no act shall be valid if it in the Constitution authorizing the Congress or COMELEC to
conflicts with the Constitution. In the discharge of their defined expand the qualification requirements of candidates for
functions, the three departments of government have no senator.
choice but to yield obedience to the commands of the In its Petition for Prohibition under Rule 65, petitioner Social
Constitution. For (f), it is unconstitutional because it singles out Justice Society (SJS), a registered political party, seeks to
a class of people and not necessarily randomize the drug prohibit the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) and the Philippine
testing procedures. Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) from enforcing paragraphs
(c), (d), (f), and (g) of Sec. 36 of RA 9165 on the ground that portion of the law, can be achieved via the pursuit by the state
they are constitutionally infirm. For one, the provisions of "an intensive and unrelenting campaign against the
constitute undue delegation of legislative power when they trafficking and use of dangerous drugs… through an integrated
give unbridled discretion to schools and employers to system of planning, implementation and enforcement of
determine the manner of drug testing. For another, the antidrug abuse policies, programs and projects". The primary
provisions trench in the equal protection clause inasmuch as legislative intent is not criminal prosecution, as those found
they can be used to harass a student or an employee deemed positive for illegal drug use as a result of this random testing
undesirable. And for a third, a person's constitutional right are not necessarily treated as criminals. They may even be
against unreasonable searches is also breached by said exempt from criminal liability should the illegal drug user
provisions consent to undergo rehabilitation.
Guidelines from US Cases 1) schools and their administrators
Issues: stand in loco parentis with respect to their students; (2) minor
students have contextually fewer rights than an adult, and are
1. WON PETITIONERS HAVE LOCUS STANDI subject to the custody and supervision of their parents,
YES. There is no doubt as to the legal standing of Pimentel. guardians, and schools; (3) schools, acting in loco parentis,
Regarding SJS and Laserna, the Court is to relax the rule on have a duty to safeguard the health and well-being of their
locus standi owing primarily to the students and may adopt such measures as may reasonably be
transcendental importance and the paramount public interest necessary to discharge such duty; and (4) schools have the
involved in the enforcement of Sec. 36 of RA 9165. right to impose conditions on applicants for admission that are
fair, just, and non-discriminatory.
2. WON Sec. 36 (g) of RA 9165 and COMELEC Resolution No. The Court can take judicial notice of the proliferation of
6486 impose an additional qualification for candidates for prohibited drugs in the country that threatens the well-being
senator. YES. of the people, particularly the youth and school children who
Corollary, can Congress enact a law prescribing qualifications usually end up as victims. Accordingly, and until a more
for candidates for senator in addition to those laid down by the effective method is conceptualized and put in motion, a
Constitution? random drug testing of students in secondary and tertiary
NO. schools is not only acceptable but may even be necessary if the
Sec. 36 (g) of RA 9165 should be, as it is hereby declared as, safety and interest of the student population, doubtless a
unconstitutional. It is basic that if a law or an administrative legitimate concern of the government, are to be promoted and
rule violates any norm of the Constitution, that issuance is null protected.
and void and has no effect. The Constitution is the basic law to Court finds the situation entirely different for Sec. 36 (f) in the
which all laws must conform; no act shall be valid if it conflicts case of persons charged before the public prosecutor's office
with the Constitution. In the discharge of their defined with criminal offenses punishable with six (6) years and one (1)
functions, the three departments of government have no day imprisonment. The operative concepts in the mandatory
choice but to yield obedience drug testing are "randomness" and "suspicionless". In the case
to the commands of the Constitution. Whatever limits it of persons charged with a crime before the prosecutor's office,
imposes must be observed legislative power remains limited in a mandatory drug testing can never be random or
the sense that it is subject to substantive and constitutional suspicionless. The ideas of randomness and being suspicionless
limitations which circumscribe both the exercise of the power are antithetical to heir being made defendants in a criminal
itself and the allowable subjects of legislation. The substantive complaint. They are not randomly picked; neither are they
constitutional limitations are chiefly found in the Bill of Rights beyond suspicion. When persons suspected of committing a
and other provisions, such as Sec. 3, Art. VI of the Constitution crime are charged, they are singled out and are impleaded
prescribing the qualifications of candidates for senators. against their will.
The validity of delegating legislative power is now a quiet area
3. WON paragraphs (c), (d), and (f) of Sec. 36, RA 9165 in the constitutional landscape. In the face of the increasing
unconstitutional. C & D NO. F YES. complexity of the task of the government and the increasing
Specifically, do these paragraphs violate the right to privacy, inability of the legislature to cope directly with the many
the right against unreasonable searches and seizure, and the problems demanding its attention, resort to delegation of
equal protection clause? NO. power, or entrusting to administrative agencies the power of
Or do they constitute undue delegation of legislative power? subordinate legislation, has become imperative, as here.
NO.
The drug test prescribed under Sec. 36 (c), (d) of RA 9165 for Ruling:
secondary and tertiary level students and public and private Sec. 36 (c) and (d) are CONSTITUTIONAL, Sec. 36 (f) and (g) are
employees, while mandatory, is a random and suspicionless UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
arrangement. The objective is to stamp out illegal drug and
safeguard in the process "the well-being of [the] citizenry,
particularly the youth, from the harmful effects of dangerous
drugs". This statutory purpose, per the policy declaration
Santiago vs. Guingona upon the prerogative of the Senate, not by the
Election of Officers | G.R. No. 134577, November 18, 1998 court.
Panganiban, J. | Jasper Valencia b. The Senate formulated and adopted rules for its
internal affairs (Rules of Senate). But RoS also
doesn’t specify election process on
Facts of the case: majority/minority floor leaders (SenPres,
16. In the election of the officers of the Senate during the first President Pro Tempore, Sec, and Sgt at Arms)
regular session of the 11th Congress, Sen. Marcelo Fernan 3. WON Sen. Guingona was usurping, unlawfully holding, and
and Sen. Francisco Tatad were both nominated for the exercising the position of Senate minority leader.
position of Senate President. a. Sen. Guingona was not usurping, unlawfully
17. Sen. Fernan won by a vote of 20-2 and was declared duly holding, and exercising the position of Senate
elected President of the Senate. minority leader. There is no specific norm or
18. Sen. Blas Ople was also elected as president pro tempore standard set by the Constitution, statutes, or
while Sen. Franklin Drilon as majority leader. Senate that can be viewed as a guide to
19. Sen. Tatad alleged that he and Sen. Miriam Santiago were determine who may lawfully occupy the said
members of the minority. As such, Sen. Tatad assumed the position. Without such guidelines, it cannot be
position of minority leader. His basis was that those who said that there was an irregularity or illegality in
voted for Sen. Fernan were the majority, and those who the assumption and exercise of Guingona of the
voted for him belonged to the minority. position he held. There was also no Grave abuse
20. However, Sen. Juan Flavier argued that the senators of discretion shown in his acts as minority leader.
belonging to the Lakas-NUCD-UMPD party were those that b. Usurpation - unauthorized arbitrary assumption
constituted the minority and elected Sen. Guingona as the and exercise of power without color or title
minority leader. c. Quo warranto proceeding - proper legal remedy
21. They debated on the matter on the following day. And on to determine the right or title to the contested
the third day, there was still no consensus met by the public office
Senate. d. In order for a quo warranting proceeding to be
22. Subsequently, the majority leader informed the body that successful, person suing must show that he has a
he received a letter from the Lakas-NUCD-UMPD senators right to the office being contested. Petitioner
stating that they elected Sen. Guingona as the minority failed to establish this.
leader. By this virtue, Sen. Guingona was formally 4. WON Sen. Fernan acted with grave abuse of discretion in
recognized by the Senate President as the minority leader. recognizing Sen. Guingona as the minority leader.
23. On the following day, Senators Santiago and Tatad filed a a. Sen. Fernan did not act with Grave abuse of
petition quo warranto seeking the ouster of Sen. Guingona discretion in recognizing Sen. Guingona as
and the declaration of Sen. Tatad as the rightful minority minority leader. Grave abuse of discretion
leader. pertains to a capricious or whimsical exercise of
judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.
ISSUES: Considering that the formal recognition came
1. WON the court has jurisdiction over the petition only after two Senate sessions and upon the
a. The court has jurisdiction. The jurisdiction over unanimous resolution of the members of the
the subject matter of a case is determined by the Lakas-NUCD-UMDP, it cannot be said that Sen.
allegations of the complaint or petition, Fernan committed Grave abuse of discretion.
regardless of whether the plaintiff or petitioner is
entitled to the relief asserted. It is within the
power and jurisdiction of the Court to inquire SC RULING:
whether indeed the Senate or its officials Petition is dismissed
committed a violation of the Constitution or
gravely abused their discretion in the exercise of
their functions or prerogatives.
2. WON there was an actual violation of the Constitution.
a. There was no actual violation of the Constitution.
While the Constitution expressly states the
manner for election of Senate officers in Section
16(2) of Article VI, there is no provision regarding
the election of minority floor leader. It is implied
that the Constitution vests in each house of
Congress the power to determine the rules of its
proceeding. The method of choosing officers is
Baguilat Jr. v. Alvarez, July 25, 2017 - Election of Officers 19. Motion for recognition was opposed by Rep. Lagman
GR 227757 | PERLAS-BERNABE, J. | By Luy, C. & Medina, G. essentially on the ground that various "irregularities"
attended Rep. Suarez's election as Minority Leader,
Petition for mandamus filed by petitioners: particularly (was overruled):
6. Representatives Teddy Brawner Baguilat, Jr. (a) That Rep. Suarez was a member of the Majority as
7. Edcel C. Lagman (Rep. Lagman) he voted for Speaker Alvarez, and that his
8. Raul A. Daza, Edgar R. Erice "transfer" to the Minority was irregular
9. Emmanuel A. Billones, Tomasito S. Villarin, (b) That the "abstentionists" who constituted the bulk
10. Gary C. Alejano of votes in favor of Rep. Suarez's election as
Respondents: Minority Leader are supposed to be considered
4. Speaker Pantaleon D. Alvarez (Speaker Alvarez) independent members of the House, and thus,
5. Majority Leader Rodolfo C. Fariñas (Rep. Fariñas) irregularly deemed as part of the Minority.
6. Representative Danilo E. Suarez (Rep. Suarez) 20. Petitioners filed the instant petition for mandamus,
FACTS insisting that Rep. Baguilat should be recognized as the
12. Petition alleges that prior to the opening of the 17th Minority Leader
Congress on July 25, 2016, several news articles surfaced 21. Respondent Rep. Suarez maintains that the election of
about Rep. Suarez's announcement that he sought the Minority Leader is an internal matter to the House of
adoption or anointment of President Rodrigo Roa Duterte's Representatives. Thus, absent any finding of violation of the
Administration as the "Minority Leader" to lead a Constitution or grave abuse of discretion, the Court cannot
"cooperative minority" in the House of Representatives (or interfere with such internal matters of a coequal branch of
the House) the government; OSG agrees.
13. The petition further claims that to ensure Rep. Suarez's ISSUE & RATIO
election as the Minority Leader, the supermajority coalition 1. Whether or not respondents may be compelled via a
in the House allegedly "lent" Rep. Suarez some of its writ of mandamus to recognize:
members to feign membership in the Minority, and (a) Rep. Baguilat as the Minority Leader of the House
thereafter, vote for him as the Minority Leader. of Representatives
14. July 25, 2016, prior to the election of the Speaker of the (b) Petitioners as the only legitimate members of the
House of Representatives, then-Acting Floor Leader Rep. House Minority.
Fariñas and Rep. Jose Atienza (Rep. Atienza) had an 22. The petition is without merit.
interchange before the Plenary, wherein the Rep. Fariñas 23. Mandamus
said: o a writ commanding a tribunal, corporation, board
(d) All those who vote for the winning Speaker shall or person to do the act required to be done when
belong to the Majority and those who vote for the it or he unlawfully neglects the performance of an
other candidates shall belong to the Minority act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty
(e) Those who abstain from voting shall likewise be resulting from an office, trust or station, or
considered part of the Minority; unlawfully excludes another from the use and
(f) The Minority Leader shall be elected by the enjoyment of a right or office or which such other
members of the Minority is entitled, there being no other plain, speedy, and
15. Thereafter, the Elections for the Speakership were held adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law."
o 252 Members voting for [Speaker] Alvarez o An extraordinary remedy that is issued only in
o Eight [(8)] voting for Rep. Baguilat extreme necessity, and the ordinary course of
o Seven [(7)] voting for Rep. Suarez procedure is powerless to afford an adequate and
o 21 abstaining speedy relief to one who has a clear legal right to
o one [(1)] registering a no vote the performance of the act to be compelled.
16. Petitioners hoped that as a "long-standing tradition" of the 24. After a judicious study of this case, the Court finds that
House — where the candidate who garnered the second petitioners have no clear legal right to the reliefs sought.
(2nd)-highest number of votes for Speakership (Rep. 25. Records disclose that prior to the Speakership Election Rep.
Baguilat) automatically becomes the Minority Leader. He Fariñas responded to a parliamentary inquiry from Rep.
was not recognized as such Atienza as to who would elect the Minority Leader of the
17. One of the "abstentionists," Representative Harlin Neil House of Representatives. Rep. Fariñas then articulated
Abayon, III (Rep. Abayon), manifested before the Plenary that
that on July 27, 2016, those who did not vote for Speaker (a) All those who vote for the winning Speaker shall
Alvarez (including the 21 "abstentionists") convened and belong to the Majority and those who vote for
elected Rep. Suarez as the Minority Leader. other candidates shall belong to the Minority
18. Thereafter, on August 15, 2016, Rep. (now, Majority Leader) (b) Those who abstain from voting shall likewise be
Fariñas moved for the recognition of Rep. Suarez as the considered part of the Minority
Minority Leader. (c) The Minority Leader shall be elected by the
members of the Minority.
26. After the inquiry, the election of the Speaker of the House circumstances as to how the House had conducted the
proceeded without any objection from any member of questioned proceedings and its apparent deviation from its
Congress, including herein petitioners. traditional rules, the Court is hard-pressed to 􀀶nd any
27. It was only during Rep. Lagman’s privilege speech, a full day attending grave abuse of discretion which would warrant its
after everything had already happened that he questioned intrusion in this case. By and large, this case concerns an
Rep. Fariñas' interpretation of the Rules. internal matter of a coequal, political branch of government
o This was a late query which, absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion,
o The Journal for that session does not indicate any cannot be judicially interfered with
motion made, seconded and carried to correct the Separate opinion
entry in the Journal of the previous session (July 25, 33. I concur in the result. While there was a violation of the
2016) pertinent to any recording error that may rules of the House of Representatives, a writ of mandamus
have been made, as to indicate that in fact, a does not lie to compel the Speaker and the House to
protest or objection was raised. recognize a specific member to be the Minority Leader.
28. Thus the House of Representatives had effectively adopted 34. The petitioners have ably established the presence of
Rep. Fariñas' proposal anent the new rules regarding the grave abuse of discretion. Truly, the justiciability of the
membership of the Minority, as well as the process of issue is anchored on the capricious, whimsical, and arbitrary
determining who the Minority Leader would be. This also judgment committed by respondents in neglecting and
demonstrates the House's deviation from the "legal bases" refusing to recognize Representative Baguilat as the ipso
of petitioners' claim for entitlement to the reliefs sought facto Minority Leader, in accordance with a long-
before this Court (i.e. long standing tradition and abstaining established parliamentary practice and Rules of the House
members as independent members of the House of of Representatives.
Representatives) o Clear indication that the House itself accords due
29. The deviation by the Lower House from the aforesaid rules reverence to its established practices and
is not averse to the Constitution. Section 16 (1), Article VI traditions as its collective interpretation of its rules.
of the 1987 Constitution reads: Where there can be an ambiguity, practice and
Section 16. (1) The Senate shall elect its President tradition should also be read into its Rules. Rule
and the House of Representatives, its Speaker, XXV, Section 161 of the Rules of the House of
by a majority vote of all its respective Representatives also provides that "[t]he
Members. Each house shall choose such other parliamentary practices of . . . the House of
officers as it may deem necessary. Representatives . . . shall be suppletory to these
Under this provision, the Speaker of Rules.”
the House of Representatives shall be elected o The House collectively considers the votes for the
by a majority vote of its entire membership. second placer for House Speaker as the votes of
Said provision also states that the House of the Minority for its Minority Leader. Insofar as
Representatives may decide to have officers having the second placer automatically become
other than the Speaker, and that the method the Minority Leader, this parliamentary practice
and manner as to how these officers are was not merely suppletory to the Rules of the 15th
chosen is something within its sole control. and 16th Congresses — rather, it took primacy
30. Section 16 (3), Article VI 26 of the Constitution vests in the over the Rules themselves. There is no reason to
House of Representatives the sole authority to "determine treat the 17th Congress differently. Like the 15th
the rules of its proceedings." These "legislative rules, unlike and 16th Congresses, the 17th Congress involves a
statutory laws, do not have the imprints of permanence and race among many candidates for Speaker and not
obligatoriness during their effectivity. In fact, they 'are simply one (1) unopposed candidate as in the 14th
subject to revocation, modification or waiver at the pleasure Congress.
of the body adopting them.' Being merely matters of o The Chair recognized Representative Suarez as
procedure, their observance is of no concern to the courts, Minority Floor Leader, notwithstanding the
for said rules may be waived or disregarded by the questions raised. Representative Suarez and other
legislative body at will, upon the concurrence of a majority members of the Minority were then elected into
[of the House of Representatives]." various offices and House committees.
31. Hence, as a general rule, "[t]his Court has no authority to o On the day of the election for Minority Leader,
interfere and unilaterally intrude into that exclusive realm, Representative Suarez himself belonged to the
without running afoul of [C]onstitutional principles that it is Majority and was thus disqualified from being the
bound to protect and uphold x x x. Constitutional respect Minority Leader.
and a becoming regard for the sovereign acts of a coequal o Likewise, the 20 abstaining members and the one
branch prevents the Court from prying into the internal (1) who registered a no-vote were independent
workings of the [House of Representatives]." members. Not being part of the Minority, these
32. Although the court can strike actions down on the ground independent members were disqualified from
of grave abuse of discretion it may be gleaned from the electing a Minority Leader
Rule II, Section 8 of the Rules states in full: 38. There is no "estoppel by silence" that could amount to an
Members who vote for the winning candidate for amendment of the Rules.
Speaker shall constitute the Majority in the House and they shall o Estoppel bars a person who admitted or
elect from among themselves the Majority Leader. The Majority represented something from later on denying or
Leader may be changed, at any time, by a majority vote of all the disproving that thing in any litigation arising from
Majority Members. such admission or representation.
The Minority Leader shall be elected by the Members  Certainly, petitioners have not been silent.
of the Minority and can be changed, at any time, by a majority  The sessions before the House are not
vote of all the Minority Members. litigations; the election of its Minority
The Majority and Minority shall elect such number of Leader does not approximate a
Deputy Majority and Minority Leaders as the rules provide. proceeding in court. Estoppel by silence
A Member may transfer from the Majority to the may only be invoked if the person's
Minority, or vice versa, at any time: Provided, That: failure to speak out caused prejudice or
a. The concerned Member submits a written request to injury to the other.
transfer to the Majority or Minority, through the 39. The legislative branch of the government, in its most ideal
Majority or Minority Leaders, as the case may be. The form, is one that accommodates all voices. Drowning the
Secretary General shall be furnished a copy of the voice of dissent restricts the right of the people to effective
request to transfer; and reasonable participation in public affairs. Having a
b. The Majority or Minority, as the case may be, accepts genuine Minority maintains the integrity of democracy
the concerned Member in writing; and 40. In determining the process of choosing the Minority Leader,
c. The Speaker shall be furnished by the Majority or the the reason for the Rules and the parliamentary tradition
Minority observed by the House must be taken into context and
Leaders, as the case may be, a copy of the acceptance in writing adopted.
of the concerned Member. 41. Respondents unfortunately decided to dilute the votes of
In case the Majority or the Minority declines such the actual Minority "as soon as possible to wrest from [the
request to transfer, the concerned Member shall be considered Minority] the leadership which, upon democratic principles,
an independent Member of the House. rightly belongs to" someone else.
In any case, whether or not the request to transfer is Why not mandamus?
accepted, all committee assignments and memberships given 42. An act is considered ministerial where the public officer
the concerned Member by the Majority or Minority, as the case must do it, out of a legal obligation, without having any right
may be, shall be automatically forfeited. to decide on the manner, time, or propriety of doing it. On
Members who choose not to align themselves with the the other hand, an act is considered discretionary where
Majority or the Minority shall be considered as independent the public officer has the right to exercise his or her
Members of the House. They may, however, choose to join the judgment or official discretion in doing the act.
Majority or Minority upon written request to and approval 43. Thus, it is up to the House leadership to extend recognition
thereof by the Majority or Minority, as the case may be. to the duly designated Minority Leader. Mandamus,
however, does not lie to allow this Court to choose the
35. Neither Representative Fariñas' erroneous interpretation of Minority Leader.
Rule II, Section 8 nor petitioners' alleged silence cured the Final thoughts:
violation of the Rules and parliamentary practice of the 44. With deep regret, in the absence of a showing of a clear and
House. unmistakable present right on the part of petitioners,
o The records do not show that Representative considering the possibility of shifting political alliances, I
Fariñas' own interpretation of Rule II, Section 8 cannot vote to issue the writ of mandamus, even as I find
was submitted for adoption by the requisite that there was grave abuse of discretion.
number of members or was ruled upon by the 45. Accordingly, I vote to DISMISS the petition but only because
Presiding Officer. The records show that after it was the wrong remedy.
giving his own interpretation of Rule II, Section 8,
Representative Fariñas simply moved to proceed
to the election for House Speaker without asking
for a vote on whether the Body would adopt his
opinion or not.
36. In ignoring the third category of independent membership
and in allowing the independent members to intrude into
the prerogative of the Minority to select its Minority Leader,
Representative Fariñas clearly wanted to suspend or amend
Rule II, Section 8 of the Rules.
37. Representative Fariñas' mere insistence on a different set
of governing rules is invalid.
b. If the court answered this question, it would
Osmeña v. Pendatun have assumed the role of an appellate court
Rules of Proceedings|GR. No. L-17144 (October 28, 1960) | which the Constitution did not intent because
Bengzon, J.| by Marquez, A. of the theory of separation of powers
c. “the House has exclusive power; the courts
Facts of the Case:
have no jurisdiction to interfere.”
9. Congressman Sergio Osmeña Jr. delivered a privilege
3) WON the House lost it power to punish the
speech with the following statement: “The people, Mr.
Congressman because it had taken up other business
President, have been hearing of ugly reports that under your
before approving Resolution No. 59. NO.
unpopular administration the free things they used to get
a. “Rule XVII, sec. 7 of the Rules of House
from the government are now for sale at premium prices.
provides that if other business has intervened
They say that even pardons are for sale, and that regardless
after the member had uttered obnoxious
of the gravity or seriousness of a criminal case, the culprit
words in debate, he shall not be held to
can always be bailed out forever from jail as long as he can
answer therefor nor be subject to censure by
come across with a handsome dole. I am afraid, such an
the House”
anomalous situation would reflect badly on the kind of
b. “Resolution No. 59 was unanimously
justice that your administration is dispensing. . . . .”
approved by the House, that such approval
10. Because of Osmeña’s imputation of bribery against the
amounted to a suspension of the House Rules,
President, House Resolution No. 59 was passed which
which according to standard parliamentary
created a special committee to investigate the truth of this
practice may done by unanimous consent”
charge against the President; Osmeña was summoned to
c. “Parliamentary rules are merely procedural…
substantiate his charges and if he fails to do so, show cause
and they may be waived or disregarded by the
why he should not be punished by the House
legislative body"; "mere failure to conform to
11. Osmeña submitted to the court a petition for declaratory
parliamentary usage will not invalidate the
relief, certiorari, and prohibition with preliminary
action (taken by a deliberative body) when the
injunction against the fifteen members of the special
requisited number of members have agreed
committee to annul House Resolution No. 59 as it infringed
to a particular measure."
the principle of parliamentary immunity
4) WON the House has no power to suspend one of its
Issues: members. NO.
1) WON words spoken in the House by a member of the a. The Alejandrino precedent does not apply in
HOR cannot be questioned because of the this case because at the time it was decided,
Constitution’s grant of parliamentary immunity. NO. the Legislature has limited powers and were
a. Section 15, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution only those that was granted by the Jones Law
provides that “for any speech or debate” in b. Now, Congress has full legislative powers and
Congress, the Senators or Members of the prerogatives of a sovereign nation except as
HOR “shall not be questioned in any other restricted by the Constitution; now, the
place” “Congress has inherent legislative prerogative
b. Even though a member of the legislature is of suspension”
exempt from criminal or civil liability for 5) WON the petition has become moot and academic.
words uttered in the Congress, the members YES.
of the Congress may be questioned by the a. Because no preliminary injunction was issued,
Congress itself the Committee has already performed its task
c. “For unparliamentary conduct, members of and approved the suspension of Osmeña
Parliament or of Congress have been, or could b. The House has already closed its session and
be censured, committed to prison, even the Special Committee has ceased to exist
expelled by the votes of their colleagues” c. The only thing the petitioner could do is to file
new pleadings and include all members of the
2) WON the Congressman’s speech constituted no House as respondents but would probably be
disorderly behavior that could be punished. NOT dismissed because of lack of jurisdiction
ANSWERED
a. It is for the House to answer the question as SC Ruling:
 ACCORDINGLY, the petition has to be DISMISSED, and
the Constitution has conferred jurisdiction
is hereby dismissed. So ordered
upon it
Pacete v. Secretary of Commission of Appointments - The power to disprove appointments is conferred by
(excluded) the Constitution to the Commission and not the
Internal Government of Congress, Rules of Proceedings | [G.R. individual members
No. L-25895. July 23, 1971.] | Fernando, J. | Montano, J. o The Commission exercises this power thru
the vote of the majority of the members
Recitation Summary: present at a quorum as provided by Section
1. Petitioner was appointed as municipal judge 10 of its Rules
2. He was asked to vacate his position 9 months later by o Motion to reconsider appointment must be
the Sec. of Justice because his appointment was by- approved by the majority
passed. o Otherwise it is as if an individual is more
3. A member of the Commission on Appointments filed a powerful than the Commission
motion for reconsideration of his confirmation as an - It was contended that his confirmation became final
appointee. and irrevocable upon the adjournment of the fourth
4. But as discussed in Altarejos v. Molo and as in the regular session of the Fifth Congress on May 21, 1965
Court’s interpretation of Rule 21 of the Revised Rule o There is no rule of the Commission as to a
on Commission of Appointments, mere filing of a motion for reconsideration could have the
motion for reconsideration did not have the effect of force and effect of defeating the
setting aside a confirmation. constitutional provision that an ad interim
appointment is effective “until disapproved
Facts: by the Commission on Appointments or until
- In 1964, Pacete was appointed by then President as the adjournment of the next session of the
Municipal Judge of Picgayawan, Cotabato congress.”
- His appointment was made when Congress was in - In Altarejos v. Molo:
recess so it was submitted in the next session in 1965. o Interpreted Rule 21 of the Revised Rule on
- His appointment was confirmed and he was Commission of Appointments
congratulated by Senate President Marcos who was o Mere filing of a motion for reconsideration
the Chairman of the Commission on Appointments did not have the effect of setting aside a
- 9 months later, the Secretary of Justice asked him to confirmation.
vacate his position because his appointment was by- o It must be voted upon and approved.
passed. o President can appoint during recess of
- He was informed by the Secretary of the Commission Congress, such appointments shall be
on Appointments that a day after his confirmation, effective only until disapproval by the
one of the members of the Commission on Commission on Appointments or until the
Appointments, then Senator Rodolfo Ganzon, wrote next adjournment of the Congress. This
to its Chairman stating that he was filing a motion for appointment takes effect at once
the reconsideration of the confirmation of the - Pacete garnered unanimous vote of confirmation.
appointment in view of derogatory information which
he had received Ruling:
- Respondent then informed the Secretary of Justice Petitioner is entitled to writ of mandamus and certificate of
- Petitioner now prays for prohibition against the confirmation. He is to discharge his duties as municipal judge.
enforcement of the directive of respondent Secretary His right to perform his functions as municipal judge of
of Justice for him to vacate his position and Pigcawayan, Cotabato is in accordance with law, because his
mandamus to compel respondent Secretary of the confirmation has been duly confirmed.
Commission on Appointments to issue to him the
certificate of confirmation
o On ground that the letter of then Senator
Ganzon, even on the assumption that it was a
motion to reconsider an appointment duly
confirmed, was without force and effect as it
was not approved by the body as a whole.

Issue:
W/N the filing of a motion for reconsideration with the
Commission on Appointments, without its being thereafter
acted on, suffices to set at naught a confirmation duly made of
an ad interim appointment
- NO.
Arroyo v De Venecia | Rules on Proceedings | G.R. No. 127255  However, on the same day, it was signed by the House
August 14, 1997 | by Orate & Susano Speaker and the Senate President and enrolled bill was
signed by then-President Fidel V. Ramos the next day,
Recit Summary: In this petition for certiorari, petitioners are 22 November 1996
assailing the validity of RA 8240 regarding the imposition of sin-
taxes on beer and cigarettes. Petitioner Rep. Arroyo, after the Issues:
third reading of the bill, expressed the apparent lack of quorum 1. WON RA 8240 is null and void for having been passed in
but upon objection and a roll call, a quorum was declared violation of the proceedings of the House rules.
present. After the interpellation, the conference committee Petitioner arguments:
report was moved for ratification and confirmation. Upon a. did not call for the yeas or nays, but simply asked for its
having received no objections, the Chair declared it approved. approval by motion in order to prevent petitioner
The bill was subsequently signed by the Speaker of the House of Arroyo from questioning the presence of a quorum
Representatives, the Senate President and the Secretaries of b. the session was hastily adjourned to prevent petitioner
both Houses of Congress. President Ramos signed the bill into Rep. Arroyo from formally challenging the existence of
law the day after. a quorum and asking for a reconsideration
Lightning Recit: Respondent arguments
 Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings a. Court is not the proper forum for the enforcement of
 What have been violated were internal rules and not the rules of the House
constitutional requirements for the enactment of the b. no justification for reconsidering the enrolled bill
law doctrine (an enrolled Act in the custody of the
 Said rules may be modified subject to the discretion Secretary of State, and having the official attestations
and pleasure of the body adopting them of the Speaker of the HoR, of the President of the
 Court intruding into the internal rules would constitute Senate, and of the President, carries on its face a
violation of separation of powers solemn assurance by the legislative and executive
departments that it was duly passed by Congress)

Facts: - Art. VI, Section 16(3) states that “each House may
 RA 8320, which amends certain provisions of the determine the rules of its proceedings” hence, a violation of
National Internal Revenue Code by imposing so-called House rules is tantamount to a constitutional violation
sin taxes (actually specific taxes) on the manufacture - what is alleged to have been violated in the
and sale of beer and cigarettes, started originated as enactment of R.A. No. 8240 are merely internal rules of
HB No. 7198 procedure of the House rather than constitutional
 After being approved after the third reading, it was requirements for the enactment of a law1
sent to the Senate where it approved said bill with - Rules, which are procedural in nature, are subject to
certain amendments modification, revocation and waiver at the discretion and
 A bicameral conference was then called to reconcile pleasure of the body adopting them, as such, is not for the
the disagreeing provisions between the two Court to inquire into
 During the session, petitioner Joker Arroyo moved to - The Court may only inquire as to the issues when the
adjourn for lack of quorum but he was but his motion violation of said rules have effects beyond the legislative body,
was defeated such as the private rights of citizens
 After petitioner was given the chance to interpellate, -The Court may not declare the nullity of an act of
he did not announce the question regarding the legislature on account of violation of rules of proceedings
quorum although he announced beforehand that he - As the issue is beyond that of the jurisdiction of the
would Court in respect to the separation of powers, the proper
 The petitioners then averred that there were 4 diff. remedies would be those within the Legislative department
versions of the transcript such as a move for amendment, a repeal or the enactment of a
1. Audio-sound recording after 3:40 pm new law
2. Transcript from 3-3:40 pm of 21 Nov. 1986 - under the enrolled bill doctrine, the signing by the House
certified by Chief of the Transcription Division on Speaker and Senate President are conclusive of its due
the same day enactment
3. Same transcript certified on 28 Nov. 1986
4. Transcript quoted
 They then alleged that there were differences between
the versions

1 Section 26. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public
calamity or emergency. Upon last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall be
shall be expressed in the title thereof. (2) No bill passed by the either House shall become allowed, and the vote thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter, and the yeas and
a law unless it has passed three readings on separate days, and printed copies thereof in nays entered in the Journal.
its final form have been distributed to its Members three days before its passage, except
Arroyo v. De Venecia (Resolution - additional) - The Chair followed a practice that was regularly done and
accepted.
Rules of Proceedings | G.R. No. 127255 | June 26, 1998 | - Arturo Tolentino defended this practice back in 1957: “The
Mendoza, J. | By Martinez, E. fact that nobody objects means a unanimous action of the
House. Insofar as the matter of procedure is concerned,
Facts of the Case: this has been a precedent since I came here seven years
- Petitioners seek a rehearing and reconsideration of the ago, and it has been the procedure in this House that if
Court’s August 1997 decision dismissing their petition for somebody objects, then a debate follows and after the
certiorari and prohibition regarding the validity of RA 8240 debate, then the voting comes in.”
on four grounds. - Besides, Arroyo could have asked for reconsideration right
7. Petitioners allege that when Rep. Arroyo asked the after the session was suspended for almost an hour, but
question “What is that, Mr. Speaker?,” the Chair he didn’t.
ignored him. 4. W/N petitioners were correct in questioning the
8. “What is that, Mr. Speaker?” is allegedly a privileged quorum repeatedly? NO.
question or point of order which, under the rules of - Arroyo questioned the existence of a quorum at 11:48 am,
the House, has precedence over other matters, except and it was proven that there was one.
motions to adjourn. - He then announced that he would again question the
9. Chair violated Rule XIX, 112 and Rule XVII 103 of the quorum. Apparently, this was a method to delay the voting
Rules of house which require that the Chair should on the conference report.
state a motion and ask for the individual votes of the
members instead of merely asking whether there was Ruling:
any objection to the motion. Petition denied. Rules were not disregarded and there was no
10. Petitioners disagree with the statement in the grave abuse of discretion on the part of the House of
decision that “The question of quorum cannot be Representatives.
raised repeatedly especially when the quorum is Additional point - Even though petitioner’s contentions were
obviously present for the purpose of delaying the true, the disregard of the rules would not affect the validity of
business of the House.” RA 8240 because the rules violated are merely internal rules of
procedure and not constitutional requirements.
Issue:
1. W/N Rep. Arroyo was ignored? NO. Pertinent provisions:
- Arroyo did not have the floor. He simply stood up and Rules of House of Representatives Rule XVI, 96
started talking, and the Chair simply did not hear him. Rules of the Senate Rule XXVI, 59
- Rules of House of Representatives Rule XVI, 96: Manner Rules of House Rule XX, 121
of Addressing the Chair.- When a member desires to speak,
he shall rise and respectfully address the Chair Mr.
Speaker.
- Rules of the Senate Rule XXVI, 59:
Whenever a Senator wishes to speak, he shall rise and
request the President or the Presiding Officer to allow
him to have the floor which consent shall be necessary
before he may proceed.
2. W/N Rep. Arroyo was raising a privileged question or
point of order? NO.
- Rules of House Rule XX, 121 defines the terms*:
Privileged question - those affecting the duties,
conduct, rights, privileges, dignity, integrity or
reputation of the House or of its members, collectively
or individually
Point of order - legislative devices used in requiring
the House or any of its Members to observe its own
rules and to follow regular or established
parliamentary procedure. In effect, they are either
objections to pending proceedings as violative of
some of those rules or demands for immediate return
to the aforementioned parliamentary procedure
(No further explanation in the Resolution)
3. W/N Chair should have asked for individual votes
instead of merely asking for objections? NO.
Santiago v. Sandiganbayan (excluded) while the latter is a punitive
Discipline of Members| G.R. No. 128055| April 18, 2001| Vitug, measure
J.| Valencia, Isis Kyle iii. Thus, the two are not repugnant to
Recit Summary: each other
1. Miriam Defensor-Santiago was charged with a c. The Constitutional guarantee of separation of
violation of R.A. No. 3019 powers is not absolute
2. Sandiganbayan ordered the suspension of Defensor- i. The Judiciary is vested with the right
Santiago and responsibility to investigate the
3. Defensor-Santiago contested the suspension order acts of the Executive and Legislative
based on Article VI Sec. 16(3) in cases where there is a grave
4. The SC denied the petition citing that that suspension abuse of discretion amounting to
order is only a preventive measure and does not run lack or excess of jurisdiction
counter to the Legislative discretion to discipline its d. R.A. No. 3019 did not exclude from its
members as the latter is a punitive measure coverage members of the Congress,
therefore the Sandiganbayan did not err in
Facts: ordering the suspension order
 In 1991, Miriam Defensor Santiago was accused of
violating the R.A. 3019 Anti-Graft and Corrupt Held:
Practices Act for unlawfully approving the stay of The petition for certiorari is dismissed.
multiple disqualified aliens during her tenure as the
Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation
o She was also charged with libel and violation
of P.D. No. 46 (Punishing public officials for
receiving gifts)
o Charges were filed in the Sandiganbayan
 Pursuant to this criminal information, the
Sandiganbayan issued a warrant of arrest against Se.
Defensor-Santiago
 Defensor-Santiago petitioned for provisional liberty,
as she is still recovering from a recent car accident
 In 1995, the prosecution moved to suspend Defensor-
Santiago from her public office (at the time, she was
already a Senator)
o After a failed motion for reconsideration and
SC appeal, the Sandiganbayan granted the
prosecution’s motion and granted a 90-day
suspension against Defensor-Santiago
 Hence, the current petition for certiorari

Issue/s:
1. WON the Sandiganbayan has the authority to suspend
from public office members of the Senate
a. Yes, the Sandiganbayan can suspend
members of the Senate
b. Defensor-Santiago interposes as defense Art.
VI Sec. 16(3) of the Constitution, which states
that “Each house may determine the rules of
its proceedings, punish its members for
disorderly behavior, xxx” (emphasis
supplied)
i. However, the legal basis for
Sandiganbayan’s decree to suspend
the petitioner, RA 3019 Sec. 13,
does not run against the
Constitutionally enshrined discretion
of the Senate to discipline its
members
ii. The former is merely a preliminary,
preventive measure pendente lite,
Arnault v. Nazareno, General Plenary Powers of Congress apparent irregularity of the government’s payment to one
GR L-3820 / July 18, 1950 / Ozaeta / Jules Ernest Burt, a non-resident American citizen, of the total
sum of Php1.5 million for his alleged interest in the two
Nature of the Case: Original Petition for Habeas Corpus estates that only amounted to Php20,000.00 (since the
Petitioner: Jean Arnault, agent of Ernest Burt in the subject Buenavista estate was sold by San Juan de Dios Hospital to
Estate Deals Burt for Php 5M, but Burt has only paid Php 10K and the
Respondents: Leon Nazareno, Senate Segreant-at-arms & Tambobong estate was sold by the Philippine Trust
Eustaquio Balagtas, Director of Prisons Company to Burt for Php 1.2M, but Burt has only paid Php
10K), hence both should have been forfeited by Burt long
Recitation Summary (Rules): before due to non-payment of balances.
15. In February 27, 1950, the Senate issued Resolution No. 8
8. Once an inquiry is admitted or established to be within the creating an investigatory committee sought to determine
jurisdiction of a legislative body to make, the investigating who were responsible for and who benefited from the
committee has the power to require a witness to answer transaction at the expense of the government.
any question pertinent to that inquiry, subject of course to 16. Petitioner Jean Arnault, who acted as agent of Ernest Burt
his constitutional right against self-incrimination. in the subject transactions, was one of the witnesses
9. The inquiry, to be within the jurisdiction of the legislative summoned by the Senate to its hearings. In the course of
body to make, must be material or necessary to the exercise the investigation, the petitioner repeatedly refused to
of a power in it vested by the Constitution, such as to divulge the name of the person to whom he gave the
legislate, or to expel a Member. amount of Php440,000.00, which he withdrew from the
10. Every question which the investigator is empowered to Php1.5 million proceeds pertaining to Ernest Burt.
coerce a witness to answer must be material or pertinent to 17. In, May 15, 1950, A Senate Resolution was issued.
the subject of the inquiry or investigation. A witness may Arnault was therefore cited in contempt by the Senate and
not be coerced to answer a question that obviously has no was committed through to the custody of the Senate
relation to the subject of the inquiry. Sergeant-at-Arms for imprisonment in the New Bilibid
11. The necessity or lack of necessity for legislative action and Prison, Muntinlupa, Rizal until he answers the questions. He
the form and character of the action itself are determined thereafter filed a petition for habeas corpus directly with
by the sum total of the information to be gathered as a the Supreme Court questioning the validity of his detention.
result of the investigation, and not by a fraction of such
information elicited from a single question.
12. Where the alleged immateriality of the information sought Issue # 1: Did the Senate have the power to punish the
by the legislative body from a witness is relied upon to petitioner for contempt for refusing to reveal the name of the
contest its jurisdiction, the court is in duty bound to pass person to whom he gave the Php440,000.00? YES.
upon the contention. The fact that the legislative body has
jurisdiction or the power to make the inquiry would not Although there is no provision in the [1935] Constitution
preclude judicial intervention to correct a clear abuse of expressly investing either House of Congress with power to
discretion in the exercise of that power. make investigations and exact testimony to the end that it may
13. Testimony which is obviously false or evasive is equivalent exercise its legislative functions as to be implied. In other words,
to a refusal to testify and is punishable as contempt, the power of inquiry – with process to enforce it – is an essential
assuming that a refusal to testify would be so punishable. and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function. A legislative
14. When a specific right and a specific obligation conflict with body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of
each other, and one is doubtful or uncertain while the other information respecting the conditions which the legislation is
is clear and imperative, the former must give way to the intended to effect or change; and where the legislative body
latter. does not itself possess the requisite information – which is not
15. The right to life is one of the most sacred that the citizen infrequently true – recourse must be had to others who do
may claim, and yet the state may deprive him of it if he possess it. Experience has shown that mere requests for such
violates his corresponding obligation to respect the life of information are often unavailing, and also that information
others. which is volunteered is not always accurate or complete; so
16. No person can be punished for contumacy as a witness some means of compulsion is essential to obtain what is needed.
before either House, unless his testimony is required in a
matter into which that House has jurisdiction to inquire. [W]e find that the question for the refusal to answer which the
(Kilbourn vs. Thompson, 26 L. ed., 377.). petitioner was held in contempt by the Senate is pertinent to
the matter under inquiry. In fact, this is not and cannot be
Facts: disputed. Senate Resolution No. 8, the validity of which is not
14. The Senate investigated the purchase by the government’s challenged by the petitioner, requires the Special Committee,
Rural Progess Administration of two parcels of land, known among other things, to determine the parties responsible for the
as Buenavista and Tambobong estates. An intriguing Buenavista and Tambobong estates deal, and it is obvious that
question that the Senate sought to resolve was the the name of the person to whom the witness gave the P440,000
involved in said deal is pertinent to that determination — it is in Had said resolution of commitment been adopted by the
fact the very thing sought to be determined. The contention is House of Representatives, we think it could be enforced until
not that the question is impertinent to the subject of the inquiry the final adjournment of the last session of the Second
but that it has no relation or materiality to any proposed Congress in 1953.
legislation. We have already indicated that it is not necessary for
the legislative body to show that every question propounded to Issue # 3: May the petitioner rightfully invoke his right against
a witness is material to any proposed or possible legislation; self-incrimination? NO.
what is required is that is that it be pertinent to the matter
under inquiry. Since according to the witness himself the transaction was legal,
and that he gave the [P440,000.00] to a representative of Burt
If the subject of investigation before the committee is within the in compliance with the latter’s verbal instruction, we find no
range of legitimate legislative inquiry and the proposed basis upon which to sustain his claim that to reveal the name of
testimony of the witness called relates to that subject, that person might incriminate him. There is no conflict of
obedience, to its process may be enforced by the committee by authorities on the applicable rule, to wit:
imprisonment.
Generally, the question whether testimony is privileged is for
Issue # 2: Did the Senate have the authority to commit the determination of the Court. At least, it is not enough for the
petitioner for contempt for a term beyond its period of witness to say that the answer will incriminate him as he is not
legislative session? YES. the sole judge of his liability. The danger of self-incrimination
must appear reasonable and real to the court, from all the
We find no sound reason to limit the power of the legislative circumstances, and from the whole case, as well as from his
body to punish for contempt to the end of every session and not general conception of the relations of the witness. Upon the
to the end of the last session terminating the existence of that facts thus developed, it is the province of the court to determine
body. The very reason for the exercise of the power to punish whether a direct answer to a question may criminate or
for contempt is to enable the legislative body to perform its not. . . The fact that the testimony of a witness may tend to show
constitutional function without impediment or obstruction. that he has violated the law is not sufficient to entitle him to
Legislative functions may be and in practice are performed claim the protection of the constitutional provision against self-
during recess by duly constituted committees charged with the incrimination, unless he is at the same time liable to prosecution
duty of performing investigations or conducting hearing relative and punishment for such violation. The witness cannot assert his
to any proposed legislation. To deny to such committees the privilege by reason of some fanciful excuse, for protection
power of inquiry with process to enforce it would be to defeat against an imaginary danger, or to secure immunity to a third
the very purpose for which that the power is recognized in the person.
legislative body as an essential and appropriate auxiliary to is
legislative function. It is but logical to say that the power of self- It is the province of the trial judge to determine from all the
preservation is coexistent with the life to be preserved. facts and circumstances of the case whether the witness is
justified in refusing to answer. A witness is not relieved from
But the resolution of commitment here in question was adopted answering merely on his own declaration that an answer might
by the Senate, which is a continuing body and which does not incriminate him, but rather it is for the trial judge to decide
cease exist upon the periodical dissolution of the Congress . . . that question.
There is no limit as to time to the Senate’s power to punish for
contempt in cases where that power may constitutionally be The ground upon which the witness' claim is based is too
exerted as in the present case. shaky, in firm, and slippery to afford him safety. At first he told
the Committee that the transactions were legal, that no laws
The Senate of the Philippines is a continuing body whose were violated, and that all requisites had been replied with;
members are elected for a term of six years and so divided that but at the time he begged to be excused from making answers
the seats of only one-third become vacant every two years, "which might later be used against me."
two-thirds always continuing into the next Congress save as
vacancies may occur thru death or resignation. Members of the A little later he explained that although the transactions were
House of Representatives are all elected for a term of four legal he refused to answer questions concerning them
years; so that the term of every Congress is four years. The "because it violates the right of a citizen to privacy in his
Second Congress of the Philippines was constituted on dealings with other people . . . I simply stand on my privilege to
December 30, 1949, and will expire on December 30, 1953. The dispose of the money that has been paid to me as a result of a
resolution of the Senate committing the Petitioner was legal transaction without having to account for the use of it."
adopted during the first session of the Second Congress, which But after being apparently convinced by the Committee that
began on the fourth Monday of January and ended in May 18, his position was untenable, the witness testified that, without
1950. securing any receipt, he turned over the P440,000 to a certain
person, a representative of Burt, in compliance with Burt's
verbal instruction made in 1946; that as far as he know, that
certain person had nothing to do with the negotiations for the duties, and they have the facilities of their own for obtaining
settlement of the Buenavista and Tambobong cases; that he the requisite data. The two Houses of Congress and the Chief
had seen that person several times before he gave him the Executive were meant to act separately although the
P440,000 on October 29, 1949, and that since then he had concurrence of the three is required in the passage of
seen him again two or three times, the last time being in legislation and of both Houses in the approval of resolutions.
December, 1949, in Manila; that the person was a male, 39 to
40 years of age, between 5 feet, 2 inches and 5 feet, 6 inches in 2. Abuse of power by Congress is dangerous.
height. But the witness would not reveal the name of that
person on these pretexts: " I don't remember the name; he A Judge who abuses such power may be impeached and he
was a representative of Burt." "I am not sure; I don't remember acts at all times under the sense of this accountability and
the name." responsibility. His victims may be reached by the pardoning
power. But if the Congress be allowed this unbounded
We are satisfied that those answers of the witness to the jurisdiction of discretion, there is no redress, The Congress may
important question, what is the name of that person to whom dispoil of a citizen's life, liberty or property and there is no
you gave the P440,000? were obviously false. His insistent power on earth to stop its hand. There is, there can be, no such
claim before the bar of the Senate that if he should reveal the unlimited power in any department of the government of the
name he would incriminate himself, necessarily implied that he Republic. (Loan Association vs. Topeka; Taylor vs. Porter)
knew the name. Moreover, it is unbelievable that he gave the
P440,000 to a person to him unknown. 3. Flawed US-PH comparison.

Ruling: The Court DENIED the petition for habeas corpus filed by The ponencia mentions that "in the Philippines, the legislative
Arnault. He is to be detained until he answers the questions of power is vested in the Congress of the Philippines alone, and
the Senate. therefore that the Congress of the Philippines has a wider
range of legislative field than the Congress of the United States
Dissent by Tuazon: or any state legislature (since they scope of their legislative
fields is divided among State and Federal Legislatures."
There is a limit to the legislative power to punish for contempt. A. Even if this distinction is true, inquiries should be for
The limit is set in Anderson vs. Dunn which Judge Land is specific objects, and should not embark upon fishing
approved — "the least possible power adequate to the end expeditions in search of information which by chance may
proposed." be useful to legislation.
B. Even if this distinction is true, it is apparent that the power
The estates deal aroused popular indignation since it of a legislature to punish for contempt can be no greater
represented the fight against graft and corruption. The Senate nor less than that of any other. Were it possible for the
is commendable in leading this Crusade, however, it has Philippine Senate and the United States Senate to
overstepped its allowable scope of power. The influence of undertake an investigation of exactly identical anomalies
strong public passions should not get the better of our in their respective departments of justice, could it be
judgment. Only thus can a government of laws, the foundation asserted with any support of logic that one Senate has a
stone of human liberty, be strengthened and made secure for wider authority to imprison for contempt in such
that very public. investigation simply because it has a "wider range of
legislative field?"
1. The question has no relation to the contemplated
legislation. The 3 Bills recommended by the investigating committee and
approved by the Senate as a result of the yet uncompleted
The Senate wants the witness to give names because the fiscal investigation:
or the courts will not initiate an action against parties who (1) prohibiting the Secretary of Justice or any other
should be prosecuted but the institution of a criminal or civil department head from discharging functions and exercising
suit is a matter is alien to the duties of the Congress. powers other than those attached to his own office,
The committee has finished its investigation and submitted its without ]previous congressional authorization;
final report and the Senate has approved a bill on the bases of (2) prohibiting brothers and near relatives of any President of
the facts found and the result will not be any different if the the Philippines from intervening directly or indirectly and in
name of the person who received the bill is known or not. whatever capacity in transactions in which the Government is a
(Trivia: it seems that a certain Antonio Quirino, maybe a party, more particularly where the decision lies in the hands of
brother of Elpidio Quirino, is the target of the Senate executive or administrative officers who are appointees of the
inquisition.) President; and
The House of Representatives and the President do not need (3) providing that purchases of the Rural Progress
the name to decide on the wisdom of the new legislations the Administration of big landed estates at a price of P100,000 or
Senate would like to pass. They have their own idea of what more, shall not become effective without previous
they need to guide them in the discharge of their respective congressional confirmation.
Issue #2: Whether or not there is undue delegation of
The power of our legis is plenary. Whateer is implied by that legislative power in violation of Article VI Sec 28(2) of the
broad grant of powers is ok. Constitution.

ABAKADA Guro Party List vs. Ermita – Valid Delegation (2) The Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix
GR 168056 / September 1, 2005 / Austria-Martinez / Jules within specified limits, and subject to such limitations and
restrictions as it may impose, tariff rates, import and export
Petitioners: Samson Alcantara & Ed Vincent Albano, officers of quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or
Abakada Guro Party List (formerly AASJAS) imposts within the framework of the national development
program of the Government.
Respondents: Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita,
DOF Secretary Cesar Purisima, Held. No, there is no undue delegation of legislative power but
BIR Commissioner Guillermo Parayno, Jr. only of the discretion as to the execution of a law. This is
constitutionally permissible.
Nature of Case: Petition for prohibition questioning the
constitutionality of Sections 4-6 of RA 9337 Ratio:

Facts: In testing whether a statute constitutes an undue delegation of


18. ABAKADA GURO Party List, et al., filed a petition for legislative power or not, it is usual to inquire whether the
prohibition questioning the constitutionality of Sections 4, statute was complete in all its terms and provisions when it left
5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Sections 106, 107 and the hands of the legislature so that nothing was left to the
108, respectively, of the National Internal Revenue Code judgment of any other appointee or delegate of the legislature.
(NIRC).
19. Section 4 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of goods and Congress does not abdicate its functions or unduly delegate
properties; power when it describes what job must be done, who must do
20. Section 5 imposes a 10% VAT on importation of goods; and it, and what is the scope of his authority; in our complex
21. Section 6 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of services and use or economy that is frequently the only way in which the
lease of properties; legislative process can go forward. In this case, it is not a
22. These provisions contain a provision which authorizing the delegation of legislative power but a delegation of
President, upon recommendation of the Secretary of ascertainment of facts upon which enforcement and
Finance, to raise the VAT rate to 12%, effective January 1, administration of the increased rate under the law is
2006, after any of the specified conditions have been contingent.
satisfied.
(iii) Value-added tax collection as a percentage of Issue #3: Whether or not there is a violation of the due process
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the and equal protection under Article III Sec. 1 of the Constitution.
previous year exceeds two and four-fifth
percent (2 4/5%); or Held. No.
(iv) National government deficit as a percentage Ratio: The power of the State to make reasonable and natural
of GDP of the previous year exceeds one and classifications for the purposes of taxation has long been
one-half percent (1 ½%). established. Whether it relates to the subject of taxation, the
23. Petitioners argue that the law is unconstitutional, as it kind of property, the rates to be levied, or the amounts to be
constitutes abandonment by Congress of its exclusive raised, the methods of assessment, valuation and collection,
authority to fix the rate of taxes under Article VI, Section the State’s power is entitled to presumption of validity. As a
28(2) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. rule, the judiciary will not interfere with such power absent a
clear showing of unreasonableness, discrimination, or
Issues: arbitrariness.

Issue #1: Whether or not there is a violation of Article VI, Ruling:


Section 24 of the Constitution. 1. Petition dismissed.
2. Sections 4-6 of RA 9337 are constitutional.
Held: No. 3. There was no undue delegation of Congressional
Ratio: The revenue bill exclusively originated in the House of Power.
Representatives, the Senate was acting within its constitutional
power to introduce amendments to the House bill when it
included provisions in Senate Bill No. 1950 amending corporate
income taxes, percentage, and excise and franchise taxes.
Emmanuel Pelaez vs. The Auditor General – Delegation discretion as may be vested by law in the officers of the
GR L-23825 / Dec. 24, 1965 / Concepcion / Jules executive departments, bureaus, or offices of the national
government, as well as to act in lieu of such officers. This
Nature of the Case: Special civil action to prohibit the auditor power is denied by the Constitution to the Executive,
general from disbursing funds insofar as local governments are concerned. Such control
Facts: does not include the authority to either abolish an
1. From September 4, 1964 to October 29, 1964, President executive department or bureau, or to create a new
Marcos issued executive orders (93-121, 124, 126-129) to one. Section 68 of the Revised Administrative Code does
create thirty-three municipalities all around Mindanao not merely fail to comply with the constitutional mandate
(purportedly pursuant to Section 68 of the Revised above quoted, it also gives the President more power than
Administrative Code of 1917). what was vested in him by the Constitution.
2. Section 68 states “The President may by executive order… 3. Congress may delegate to another branch of the
separate any political division other than a province, into government the power to fill in the details in the
such portions… and may change the seat of government execution, enforcement or administration of a law, it is
within any subdivision to such place therein as the public essential, to forestall a violation of the principle of
welfare may require…”. separation of powers, that said law: (a) be complete in
3. Public funds thereby stood to be disbursed in the itself — it must set forth therein the policy to be executed,
implementation of said executive orders. carried out or implemented by the delegate — and (b) fix
4. Suing as a private citizen and taxpayer, Vice President a standard — whose limits are sufficiently determinate or
Emmanuel Pelaez filed a petition for prohibition with determinable — to which the delegate must conform in
preliminary injunction against the Auditor General. It the performance of his functions. In this case, Sec. 68
seeks to restrain from the respondent or any person acting lacked any such standard.
in his behalf, from passing in audit any expenditure of 4. Further, although Sec. 68 provides the qualifying clause
public funds in implementation of the executive orders “as the public welfare may require” – which would mean
aforementioned. that the President may exercise such power as the public
5. Pelaez claims that the EOs were unconstitutional. He said welfare may require – is present, still, such will not replace
that Section 68 of the RAC had been impliedly repealed by the standard needed for a proper delegation of power. In
Section 3 of RA 2370 which provides that barrios may “not the first place, what the phrase “as the public welfare may
be created or their boundaries altered nor their names require” qualifies is the text which immediately precedes
changed” except by Act of Congress. hence, the proper interpretation is “the President may
6. Pelaez argues: “If the President, under this new law, change the seat of government within any subdivision to
cannot even create a barrio, how can he create a such place therein as the public welfare may require.”
municipality which is composed of several barrios, since Only the seat of government may be changed by the
barrios are units of municipalities?” President when public welfare so requires and NOT the
7. The Auditor General countered that there was no repeal creation of municipality.
and that only barrios were barred from being created by 5. The Court declared that the power to create municipalities
the President. Municipalities are exempt from the bar and is essentially and eminently legislative in character not
that a municipality can be created without creating administrative (not executive). As the SC of Washington
barrios. has put it (Territory ex rel. Kelly vs. Stewart), "municipal
8. The Auditor General further maintains that through Sec. corporations are purely the creatures of statutes."
68 of the RAC, Congress has delegated such power to 6. It may not be amiss to note that the executive orders in
create municipalities to the President. question were issued after the legislative bills for the
creation of the municipalities involved in this case had
Issue: failed to pass Congress.
W/N the executive orders are null and void, upon the ground 7. Section 68, as part of the Revised Administrative Code,
that the President does not have the authority to create approved or March 10, 1917, must be deemed repealed by
municipalities as this power has been vested in the legislative the subsequent adoption of the Constitution, in 1935,
department. which is utterly incompatible and inconsistent with said
Held: Yes, Congress has not given a valid delegation to the statutory enactment. (Agreed with by Bengzon in his
President to create municipalities. separate opinion)
Ratio:
1. Section 10(1) of Article VII of the fundamental law ordains: Ruling:
“The President shall have control of all the executive The Executive Orders in question are hereby declared null and
departments, bureaus or offices, exercise general void ab initio and the respondent permanently restrained from
supervision over all local governments as may be provided passing in audit any expenditure of public funds in
by law, and take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” implementation of said Executive Orders or any disbursement
2. The power of control under this provision implies the right by the municipalities referred to.
of the President to interfere in the exercise of such