5a. Who exercises legislative powers in the Philippines?
Art. VI, Sec 1. The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which
shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the
people by the provision on initiative and referendum.
b. What is legislative power?
Legislative power is essentially the authority under the Constitution to make laws and
subsequently, when the need arises, to alter and repeal them.
It is the peculiar task of the legislature to prescribe general rules for the government of the
society. The legislative function involves the determination of the legislative policy and the
promulgation as a defined and binding rule of conduct through the enactment of law.
c. What is bicameralism?
A bicameral legislature divides the legislators into two separate assemblies, chambers, or
houses.
ADVANTAGES: serve as a check to hasty and ill-considered legislation; training ground for
future leaders; provides representation for both regional and national interests; less
susceptible to bribery and control of big interests; and it is the traditional form of legislatibe
body dating from ancient times, thus already proven and tested.
DISADVANTAGES: has not worked out as an effective “fiscalizing” or counter-check
machinery; affords double consideration of bills, no assurance of better delivered or better
deliberated legislation; duplication of efforts; expensive to maintain; only wealthy individuals
make it to the Senate.
d. What is the composition of the Senate?
Art. VI, Sec 2. The Senate shall be composed of 24 Senators who shall be elected at large by
the qualified voters of the Philippines, as ay be provided by law.
e. What are the qualifications of a Senator?
Art. VI, Sec 3. No person shall be a Senator unless he is a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines, and on the day of the election, is at least 35 years of age, able to read and write,
a registered voter, and a resident of the Philippines for not less than 2 years immediately
preceding the day of the election.
f. What is the term of office of a Senator?
Art. VI, Sec 4. The term of office of the Senators shall be 6 years and shall commence, unless
otherwise provided by law, at noon on the 30th day of June next following their election.
No Senator shall serve for more than two consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the
office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption of the continuity of his
service for the full term for which he was elected.
g. What is the composition of the House of Representatives?
The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than 250, unless otherwise
fixed by law. They are elected from legislative or congressional districts and through a party-
list system. The party-list or sectoral representatives are filled by selection or election from
the labor, peasant, etc. and other sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious
sector.
h. Discuss Bagabuyo v. Commission on Elections.
1.)
FACTS:
Cagayan de Oro used to have only one legislative district. But in 2006, CdO Congressman
Constantino Jaraula sponsored a bill to have two legislative districts in CdO instead. The law
was passed (RA 9371) hence two legislative districts were created. Rogelio Bagabuyo assailed
the validity of the said law and he went immediately to the Supreme Court to enjoin the
COMELEC from enforcing the law in the upcoming elections. Bagabuyo was contending that
the 2nd district was created without a plebiscite which he averred was required by the
Constitution.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a plebiscite was required in the case at bar.
HELD:
No, a plebiscite is not required in the case at bar. RA 9371 merely increased the
representation of Cagayan de Oro City in the House of Representatives and Sangguniang
Panglungsod pursuant to Section 5, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution; the criteria
established under Section 10, Article X of the 1987 Constitution only apply when there is a
creation, division, merger, abolition or substantial alteration of boundaries of a province, city,
municipality, or barangay; in this case, no such creation, division, merger, abolition or
alteration of boundaries of a local government unit took place; and R.A. No. 9371 did not
bring about any change in Cagayan de Oro’s territory, population and income classification;
hence, no plebiscite is required. What happened here was a reapportionment of a single
legislative district into two legislative districts. Reapportionment is the realignment or change
in legislative districts brought about by changes in population and mandated by the
constitutional requirement of equality of representation.
Before, Cagayan de Oro had only one congressman and 12 city council members citywide for
its population of approximately 500,000. By having two legislative districts, each of them
with one congressman, Cagayan de Oro now effectively has two congressmen, each one
representing 250,000 of the city’s population. This easily means better access to their
congressman since each one now services only 250,000 constituents as against the 500,000.
2.)
Bagabuyo vs. COMELEC
FACTS:
A representative of the city of Cagayan de Oro file and sponsored a bill (HB No.5859) which
later became a law (RA No. 9371). The said law increased the city’s legislative district from
one to two. COMELEC promulgated a resolution implementing the said law for election
purposes.
Herein petitioner, filed a petition against COMELEC arguing that it cannot implement the law
without the commencement of a plebiscite of which is indispensable for the division and
conversion of a local government unit. In relation to this, petitioner prayed for a TRO or writ
of preliminary injunction. Both were not granted, and the National and Local elections
proceeded.
ISSUE(S):
Whether or not the law, of which pertains to the legislative apportionment of a city, involve
the division and conversion of a local government unit
HELD:
Petition DISMISSED for lack of merit.
RATIO/DOCTRINE:
Creation, division, merger, abolition, and alteration of boundaries under Art. X Sec.
10 requires the commencement of a plebiscite, while legislative apportionment or
reapportionment under Art. VI, Sec.5 need not. They are related but are different from each
other.
Both provisions mentioned above are within the vested authority of the legislature.
The Legislature undertakes the apportionment and reapportionment of legislative districts,
and likewise acts on local government units by setting standards for their creation, division,
merger, abolition and alteration of boundaries and by actually creating, dividing, merging,
abolishing local government units and altering their boundaries through legislation. Other
than this, not much commonality exists between the two provisions since they are
inherently different although they interface and relate with one another.
In the case at bar, no division of CDO city takes place or is mandated. CDO city
politically remains a single unit and its administration is not divided along territorial line. Its
territory remains completely whole and intact; there is only the addition of another
legislative district and the delineation of the city into two districts for purposes of
representation in the House of Representatives. Thus, Art. X, Sec.10 of the Constitution does
not come into play and no plebiscite is necessary to validly apportion Cagayan de Oro into
two districts.
Legislative Apportionment
- the determination of the number of representatives which a State, country or
other subdivision may send to a legislative body
- The allocation of seats in a legislative body in proportion to population; the
drawing of voting district lines so as to equalize population and voting power among the
districts
Reapportionment
- The realignment or change in legislative districts brought about by changes in
population and mandated by the constitutional requirement of equality of represenation
i. What are the qualifications of a representative?
1. A natural-born citizen of the Philippines;
2. at least 25 years of age on the day of election;
3. able to read and write;
4. except for a party-list representative, a registered voter in the district in which he shall be
elected; and
5. a resident thereof for a period not less than 1 year preceding the day of the election.
j. Discuss Romualdez-Marcos v. Commission on Elections.
IMELDA ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS, plaintiff vs. COMMISSION OF ELECTIONS, defendant
248 SCRA 300
Facts:
March 23,1995, Cirilo Roy Montejo, filed a petition for cancellation and disqualification with
the COMELEC alleging that Imelda-Romualdez Marcos did not meet the constitutional
requirement for residency. March 29, 1995, Marcos filed a corrected certificate of candidacy
changing the entry “seven” months to “since childhood”. The COMELEC en banc denied
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration declaring her not qualified to run for the position of
the member of the House of Representatives for the First District of Leyte. In a supplemental
petition, Marcos averred that she was the overwhelming winner of the election.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner was a resident, for election purposes, of the First District of Leyte
for a period of one year at the time of the May 9, 1995 elections.
Held:
Residence is synonymous with domicile which reveals a tendency or mistake the concept of
domicile for actual residence, a conception not intended for the purpose of determining a
candidate’s qualifications for the election to the House of Representatives as required by the
1987 Constitution. An individual does not lose his domicile even if he has lived and
maintained residences in different places. In the case at bench, the evidence adduced by
Motejo lacks the degree of persuasiveness as required to convince the court that an
abandonment of domicile of origin in favor of a domicile of choice indeed incurred. It cannot
be correctly argued that Marcos lost her domicile of origin by operation of law as a result of
her marriage to the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos. Having determined that Marcos
posses the necessary residence qualifications to run for a seat in the House of
Representatives in the First District of Leyte, the COMELEC’s questioned resolutions dated
April 24, May 7, May11, and May 25 are set aside. Provincial Board of Canvassers is directed
to proclaim Marcos as the duly elected Representative of the First District of Leyte.
Romualdez-Marcos vs. COMELEC
248 SCRA 300
Facts:
Imelda Romualdez-Marcos, filed her certificate of candidacy for the position of
Representative of Leyte First District. On March 23, 1995, private respondent Cirilio Montejo,
also a candidate for the same position, filed a petition for disqualification of the petitioner
with COMELEC on the ground that petitioner did not meet the constitutional requirement for
residency. On March 29, 1995, petitioner filed an amended certificate of candidacy, changing
the entry of seven months to “since childhood” in item no. 8 in said certificate. However, the
amended certificate was not received since it was already past deadline. She claimed that
she always maintained Tacloban City as her domicile and residence. The Second Division of
the COMELEC with a vote of 2 to 1 came up with a resolution finding private respondent’s
petition for disqualification meritorious.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner lost her domicile of origin by operation of law as a result of her
marriage to the late President Marcos.
Held:
For election purposes, residence is used synonymously with domicile. The Court upheld the
qualification of petitioner, despite her own declaration in her certificate of candidacy that
she had resided in the district for only 7 months, because of the following: (a) a minor follows
the domicile of her parents; Tacloban became petitioner’s domicile of origin by operation of
law when her father brought the family to Leyte; (b) domicile of origin is lost only when there
is actual removal or change of domicile, a bona fide intention of abandoning the former
residence and establishing a new one, and acts which correspond with the purpose; in the
absence of clear and positive proof of the concurrence of all these, the domicile of origin
should be deemed to continue; (c) the wife does not automatically gain the husband’s
domicile because the term “residence” in Civil Law does not mean the same thing in Political
Law; when petitioner married President Marcos in 1954, she kept her domicile of origin and
merely gained a new home, not a domicilium necessarium; (d) even assuming that she
gained a new domicile after her marriage and acquired the right to choose a new one only
after her husband died, her acts following her return to the country clearly indicate that she
chose Tacloban, her domicile of origin, as her domicile of choice.
k. What is the term of office of a Representative?
The Members of the House of Representatives shall be elected for a term of 3 years which
shall begin, unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on the 30th day of June next following
their election.
l. Distinguish between sectoral representative and party-list representative.
PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE – represents various social, economic, cultural, geographical
and other groups or sectors of our society to have their voices heard in Congress at least in
the House of Representatives an institution normally composed of politicians from the elite
social classes.
SECTORAL REPRESENTATIVE – represents various groups, particularly, the marginalized
sectors that have for so long remained unrepresented and voiceless.
m. How does a bill become a law? Discuss the override of a presidential veto.
1. First Reading - Proposal of bill from either of the House, signed by him, for First Reading
and reference to proper committee. It is filed with the Office of the Secretary where it is
given a corresponding number and calendared for first reading. The bill is read by its number
and title and the name/ names of the author or authors.
2. Referral to the Appropriate Committee – After the first reading, the bill is referred to the
proper committee or committees for study and consideration. It may conduct hearings and
meetings. It then approves the bill with or without amendments or recommends substitution
or consolidation with similar bills filed. If the bill is disapproved in the committee, the bill dies
a natural death unless the House decides otherwise following the submission of the report;
3. Second Reading – If the committee reports the bill favorably, it is forwarded to the
Committee on Rules so that it can be calendared for deliberation on Second Reading. At this
stage the bill is read for the second time in its entirety together with the amendments, if any,
proposed by the committee unless the reading is dispensed with by a majority vote of the
House;
4. Debates – A general debate is opened after the Second Reading and sponsorship speech of
the author of the bill. Amendments may be proposed by any member of the Congress. The
House may either kill or pass the bill. A bill approved on Second Reading shall be included in
the calendar of bills for the Third Reading;
5. Printing and Distribution – after approval of the bill on Second Reading, the bill is then
ordered printed in its final form or version and copies of it are distributed among the
members of the House three (3) days before its passage except in cases of bills certified by
the President;
6. Third Reading – At this stage only the title of the bill is read on the floor: Nominal voting is
held. Upon the last reading of the bill, no amendment thereto is allowed and the vote
thereon is taken immediately thereafter, and yeas and nays entered in this journal. A
member may abstain, as a rule, a majority of the members constituting a quorum is sufficient
to pass a bill;
7. Referral to the other House – If approved, the bill is then referred to the other House
where substantially the same procedure takes place. If the other House approved the bill
without changes or amendments, the final version is signed by the Senate President and the
Speaker of the House of Representatives;
8. Submission to joint bicameral committee – Differences, if any, in the House’s bill and the
Senate’s amended version, and vice versa are submitted to conference committee of
members of both Houses for compromise or to reconcile conflicting provisions. If either
House accepts the changes made by the other, no compromise is necessary; and
9. Submission to the President – A bill approved on the Third Reading of both Houses shall be
printed and forthwith transmitted to the President for his action – approval or disapproval
that is, he either signs it into law or vetoes and sends it back with his veto message. If the
President does not communicate his veto of any bill to the House where it originated within
30 days from receipt thereof, it shall become a law as if he signed it. Bills re-passed by
Congress over the veto of the President automatically becomes a law.
n. What bills must originate from House of Representatives? Discuss each.
1. Appropriation bill – one of the primary and specific aim of which is to make appropriations
of money from the public treasury. A bill of general legislation which carries the
appropriation as an incident thereto to carry out its primary and specific purpose is not an
appropriations bill.
2. Revenue bill – specific purpose is to raise revenue.
3. Tariff bill – As used in the Constitution, it has reference to one imposing customs duties for
revenue purposes.
4. Bills authorizing increase of the public debt – one which creates public indebtedness such
as bill providing for the issuance of bonds and other forms of obligations. Such bonds are to
be paid with the proceeds to be derived from taxation and other sources of government
revenue.
5. Bills of local application – one affecting purely local or municipal concerns like one creating
a city or municipality or changing its name.
6. Private bill – one affecting purely private interest, such as one granting a franchise to a
person or corporation, or compensation to a person for damages suffered by him for which
the government considers itself liable.
o. Discuss Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, G.R. No. 115455, 25 Aug 1994.
FACTS:
Arturo Tolentino et al are questioning the constitutionality of RA 7716 otherwise known as
the Expanded Value Added Tax (EVAT) Law. Tolentino averred that this revenue bill did not
exclusively originate from the House of Representatives as required by Section 24, Article 6
of the Constitution. Even though RA 7716 originated as HB 11197 and that it passed the 3
readings in the HoR, the same did not complete the 3 readings in Senate for after the 1st
reading it was referred to the Senate Ways & Means Committee thereafter Senate passed its
own version known as Senate Bill 1630. Tolentino averred that what Senate could have done
is amend HB 11197 by striking out its text and substituting it with the text of SB 1630 in that
way “the bill remains a House Bill and the Senate version just becomes the text (only the
text) of the HB”. (It’s ironic however to note that Tolentino and co-petitioner Raul Roco even
signed the said Senate Bill.)
ISSUE:
Whether or not the EVAT law is procedurally infirm.
HELD:
No. By a 9-6 vote, the Supreme Court rejected the challenge, holding that such consolidation
was consistent with the power of the Senate to propose or concur with amendments to the
version originated in the HoR. What the Constitution simply means, according to the 9
justices, is that the initiative must come from the HoR. Note also that there were several
instances before where Senate passed its own version rather than having the HoR version as
far as revenue and other such bills are concerned. This practice of amendment by
substitution has always been accepted. The proposition of Tolentino concerns a mere matter
of form. There is no showing that it would make a significant difference if Senate were to
adopt his over what has been done.
----
Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance - 249 SCRA 635
FACTS:
Petitioners (Tolentino, Kilosbayan, Inc., Philippine Airlines, Roco, and Chamber of Real Estate
and Builders Association) seek reconsideration of the Court’s previous ruling dismissing the
petitions filed for the declaration of unconstitutionality of R.A. No. 7716, the Expanded
Value-Added Tax Law. Petitioners contend that the R.A. did not “originate exclusively” in the
HoR as required by Article 6, Section 24 of the Constitution. The Senate allegedly did not pass
it on second and third readings, instead passing its own version. Petitioners contend that it
should have amended the House bill by striking out the text of the bill and substituting it with
the text of its own bill, so as to conform with the Constitution.
ISSUE: taxation. It is enough that the statute applies equally to all persons, forms and corporations
placed in s similar situation.
W/N the R.A. is unconstitutional for having “originated” from the Senate, and not the HoR.

HELD:

Petition is unmeritorious. The enactment of the Senate bill has not been the first instance
where the Senate, in the exercise of its power to propose amendments to bills (required to
originate in the House), passed its own version. An amendment by substitution (striking out
the text and substituting it), as urged by petitioners, concerns a mere matter of form, and
considering the petitioner has not shown what substantial difference it would make if Senate
applied such substitution in the case, it cannot be applied to the case at bar. While the
aforementioned Constitutional provision states that bills must “originate exclusively in the
HoR,” it also adds, “but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments.” The Senate
may then propose an entirely new bill as a substitute measure. Petitioners erred in assuming
the Senate version to be an independent and distinct bill. Without the House bill, Senate
could not have enacted the Senate bill, as the latter was a mere amendment of the former.
As such, it did not have to pass the Senate on second and third readings.

Petitioners question the signing of the President on both bills, to support their contention
that such are separate and distinct. The President certified the bills separately only because
the certification had to be made of the version of the same revenue bill which AT THE
MOMENT was being considered.

Petitioners question the power of the Conference Committee to insert new provisions. The
jurisdiction of the conference committee is not limited to resolving differences between the
Senate and the House. It may propose an entirely new provision, given that such are
germane to the subject of the conference, and that the respective houses of Congress
subsequently approve its report.

Petitioner PAL contends that the amendment of its franchise by the withdrawal of its
exemption from VAT is not expressed in the title of the law, thereby violating the
Constitution. The Court believes that the title of the R.A. satisfies the Constitutional
Requirement.

Petitioners claim that the R.A. violates their press freedom and religious liberty, having
removed them from the exemption to pay VAT. Suffice it to say that since the law granted
the press a privilege, the law could take back the privilege anytime without offense to the
Constitution. By granting exemptions, the State does not forever waive the exercise of its
sovereign prerogative.

Lastly, petitioners contend that the R.A. violates due process, equal protection and contract
clauses and the rule on taxation. Petitioners fail to take into consideration the fact that the
VAT was already provided for in E.O. No. 273 long before the R.A. was enacted. The latter
merely EXPANDS the base of the tax. Equality and uniformity in taxation means that all
taxable articles or kinds of property of the same class be taxed at the same rate, the taxing
power having authority to make reasonable and natural classifications for purposes of