Declaration of Principles and Policies governmental affairs.
Thus, the Philippines employs a
Preamble
“We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of
Almighty God, in order to build a just and humane society, and
establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and
aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop
our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity, the
blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law
and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality and peace,
do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.”
The preamble is not a source of substantive rights. It does not,
in any way, create legally binding rights and obligations. It is
only for introduction of the Constitution.
It is couched in the first person (“We”) to emphasize that it is
not the framers, or the public officials, or any other person, who
wrote the Constitution. Ultimately, the Constitution is
authored by the people themselves.
Principles and Policies
Principles – fundamental truth or law upon which
others are based.
Policies – plan to be pursued for purposes of carrying
out a principle.
Distinction between the two, however, are not so significant
because as a general rule, both principles and policies are
interpreted to be not self-executing. Meaning, generally, they
are not a source of enforceable rights without an enabling law.
They generally serve as a mere guides for carrying out
governmental plans, formulating and interpreting legislation,
and in interpreting self-executing provisions of the
Constitution.
Principles
The following are the Principles contained in the 1987
Constitution:
1. Philippines as a Democratic and Republic State
2. Renunciation of War; Doctrine of Incorporation;
International Amity
3. Civilian Supremacy
4. Government as Protector of People and the People as
a Protector of the State
5. Essential Things for the Enjoyment of Democracy
6. Separation of Church and State
Democratic and Republican State
“Section 1. The Philippines is a democratic and republican
State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government
authority emanates from them.”
Pure democracy is deemed to be inefficient, because each and
every person in the society makes every decision in
representative system of government, a republic. Its key
features are separation of powers, checks and balances, and the
ultimate sovereignty resides in the body of the people.
However, because the abuses of during the Martial Law regime,
where the representatives ceased to serve their purpose, the
people directly asserted through “people power”. The inclusion
of the term “democratic” was warranted, as there were some
aspects in the governmental set-up which involves direct
democracy, like initiative and referendum.
Renunciation of War
“Section 2. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument
of national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of
international law, as part of the law of the land, and adheres to
the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and
amity with all nations.”
Renunciation of War and International Amity
The coverage of this provision extends only to aggressive
wars. That is, the Philippines as a nation cannot wage
aggressive wars to conquer other territories, to acquire a
political objective, or to aid another State in an aggressive war.
Through this the Philippines seeks to achieve international
amity.
It does not, however, cover defensive wars, which cannot be
waived, as it is an important component of sovereignty and safe
protection.
Domestic Law International Law
?
(State-Citizen) (State-State)
(Citizen-Citizen) State-International
(State-State Organs) Organizations)
(State-State Agents) (State-International Community)
International Law to Domestic Law
Rules and laws forming part of international law can cross and
be recognized as law in the domestic sphere. However, the
mode by which they cross toward the domestic sphere varies
depending on their sources.
Domestic Law International Law
Ratification Treaties
 Domestic Law International Law Domestic Law International Law

Incorporation Generally Accepted Principles Transformation Generally Accepted Principles of

or of International Law International Law
Transformation
Or

Other International Rules and

What are the generally accepted principles of international law? Principles not Considered as GAPIL
In Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC (GR No. 221697, 8 March
2016), the Supreme Court clarified that the generally accepted
principles of international law include customary Transformation
international law and general principles of law recognized
by civilized nations. In addition to incorporation, international rules (regardless of
whether GAPIL or not) can be part of domestic sphere through
A rule is considered as Customary International Law (CIL) if transformation.
the following are present:
Transformation is done by the legislature making the
international rules a law. Meaning, the international rules are
“transformed” into a domestic law. Example, Executive Order
1. Established, Widespread, and Consistent Practice of
No. 51 in 1986, or the “Milk Code of the Philippines” as a
States (“State Practice”); and
transformation of the “International Code on Marketing of
2. The Opinion of the States in practicing the rule as a
Breastmilk Substitutes”.
binding law (“Opinio Juris Sive Necessitates”).
Note:
General Principle Law as recognized by Civilized Nations are
principles which are basic to legal systems in general, such as Incorporation -GAPIL only
general principles of equity (“clean hands doctrine”,
“estoppel”), general principles of fairness, and general -Judicial in nature
principles against discrimination (“non-discrimination against
foundlings”, for example).
Transformation -GAPIL or not
Note:
-Legislative in nature
The determination of whether a rule is considered as a generally
accepted principle of international law is within the exclusive Section 6, Article 2
power and prerogative of judicial power. This requires
judicial scholarship and must be established by available The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.
literature and pieces of evidence. What does “separation” between Church and State mean?
Incorporation Separation means:
If an international rule is established to be generally accepted 1. Non-establishment of Religion
principle of international law, it becomes part of the law of the 2. Free Exercise of Religion
land by virtue of the Doctrine of Incorporation.
These are found under Section 5, Article III (Bill of Rights) of
The doctrine regards an international rule, if generally accepted, the 1987 Constitution.
automatically as part of the domestic laws. Consequently, the
courts are permitted to resolve disputes involving domestic “Church” does not mean exclusively the Catholic Church or
parties using international rules. Islam, or any major religion. It covers all religious groups and
sects.
Example:
Separation between Church and State does not mean that the
Republic v. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 104768, 21 July 2003, members of religious groups and sects are not allowed to
where the Supreme Court held that, even when the 1973 participate in political affairs. They are still citizens with
Constitution was abrogated by President Aquino’s political rights.
revolutionary government, and no Bill of Rights subsisted
during the material time period of the case, individuals still
enjoy basic rights under generally accepted principles of
international law.
 Non-establishment
Known as the “non-establishment” clause, the Republic of the
Philippines cannot set up or “establish” a State Religion. So, the
Republic cannot, through law or some governmental issuance,
proclaim Catholicism, or Islam, or the religion of Quiboloy, as
a State Religion.
Free Exercise
As part of the separation of Church and State, the State cannot
also prohibit the free exercise and enjoyment of religious
profession and worship. The State cannot discriminate or prefer
any religion over the others. As a consequence, no religious
tests shall be required for the exercise of civil and political
rights.
Policies
The following are Principles contained in the 1987
Constitution:
1. Independent Foreign Policy
2. Freedom from Nuclear Weapons
3. Social Justice and Human Rights
4. Equality of Men and Women
5. Priority of Education, Science, Technology, Arts,
Culture and Sports
6. Urban Land Reform and Housing
7. Reform in Agriculture and Other Natural Resources
8. Protection to Labor
9. (9-15 more)
Rights
Although Article II is supposed to be a declaration of principles
of policies, and therefore not a source of rights, the Supreme
Court has recognized some provisions as exceptions to this
characterization. Because these provisions, being self-
executory, are not merely principles. They confer rights and are
judicially demandable even without an enabling law.
Section 15 on the right to health is self-executing provision, as
it confers right on the people that is an essential component to
the right to life. (Imbong v. Ochoa, GR No. 204819, 8 April
2014).
Section 16 is also self-executory, as it is a right-conferring
provision. The right to balanced and healthful ecology exists
even without a provision in the Constitution. It exist from the
very inception of mankind and need not even be written in
Constitution. This has the correlative duty of the State to refrain
from impairing the environment. (Oposa v. Factoran, GR No.
101083, 30 July 1993)
In the case of Province of North Cotabato v. GRP (GR No.
183591, 14 October 2008), the Court said that Section 28 of
Article II is intended to be a “splendid symmetry” to the right
to information under the Bill of Rights. While the right to
information is self-executory, it is absurd to treat Section 28 as
non-self-executory as it recognizes the duty of officialdom to
give information even if nobody demands.
The effectivity of Section 28 need not await the passing of a
statute.
Principle of Separation of Powers
“The Separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our
system of government. It obtains not through express provision
but by actual division in our Constitution. Each department of
the government has exclusive cognizance of matters within its
jurisdiction, and is supreme within its own sphere.”
“But it does not follow from the fact that the three powers are
to be kept separate and distinct that the Constitution intended
them to be absolutely unrestrained and independent of each
other. The Constitution has provided for an elaborate system of
checks and balances to secure coordination in the workings of
the various departments of the government.”
(Angara v. Electoral Commission, GR No. 45081, 15 July
1936)
Problem
The House of Representatives, through Republic Act No.
200692, regulated the e-Sports gaming industry to foster the
national policy of encouraging and improving e-Sports
competitiveness of the Philippines at the grassroots.
Additionally, it authorized the Secretary of Education to
promulgate rules and regulations relating to the Implementation
of e-Sports classes and course in elementary and high school.
a. How can the Congress validly authorize the Secretary
of Education to promulgate such rules and regulations
without violating the principle of separation of
powers?
b. How is the delegation of power by Congress to
promulgate rules and regulations to the Secretary of
Education justifiable?
Answer:
a. 1. The delegation of powers must be through a law.
2. The law delegating such powers must be complete
in itself (Completeness Test) and must be provided
with sufficient standards (Sufficient Standard Test).
b. 1. As a general rule, the Legislature cannot delegate
legislative powers with another branch or agency of
the government.
2. However, because of growing complexities of
human society, the Legislature is forced to rely on the
expertise of agencies in order to cope with the myriad
of problems demanding its attention.
3. Because of this, the courts have recognized as
exceptions to the rule, delegation of legislative powers
to certain agencies, including administrative agencies.
 Principle of Separation of Powers: Purpose
The theory of the separation of powers is designated by its
originators to secure action and at the same time to forestall
over action which necessarily results from undue concentration
of powers, and thereby obtain efficiency and prevent despotism.
Thereby, the “rule of law” was established which narrows the
range of governmental actions and makes it subject to control
by certain legal devices. (Pangasinan Trans. Co., Inc. v Public
Service Commission, GR No. 47605)
Prohibition on Delegation of Powers
Corollary to principle to separation of powers is the prohibition
on delegation of powers. Because the powers are meant to be
separate, there should be no delegation which blurs the
separation of powers.
This is based on the ethical principle that such delegated power
constitutes not only a right but a duty to be performed by the
delegate through the instrumentality of his own judgment and
not through the intervening mind of another. (Gerochi v.
Department of Energy, GR. No. 159796, 17 July 2007)
However, due to growing complexities of human society, which
force the Legislature to rely on the expertise of certain agencies
to cope with the myriad of problems that require its attention,
delegation of powers by the Legislature have been recognized
as valid in certain limited instances.
Exceptions
Thus, delegation of powers by the Legislature is allowed in the
following instances:
1. Delegation of tariff powers to the President under
Section 28 (2) of Article VI of the Constitution;
2. Delegation of emergency powers to the President
under Section 23(2) of Article VI of the Constitution;
3. Delegation to the people at large;
4. Delegation to local governments; and
5. Delegation to administrative bodies.
Delegation to Administrative Bodies: Requirements
In order for the delegation of powers to administrative bodies
to be valid, the following tests must be followed:
1. Completeness Test – the law must be complete in all
its terms and conditions when it leaves the legislature
such that when it reaches the delegate, the only thing
he will have to do is to enforce it.
2. Sufficient Standard Test – adequate guidelines or
limitations in the law to determine the boundaries of
the delegate’s authority and prevent the delegation
form running riot.
Note: In case of delegation to administrative agencies, there
must always be a law. Without a law, there can be no valid
delegation. Consequently, an entity which does not have a law-
creating power cannot delegate its power under a specific law.
Thus, PAGCOR cannot delegate its authority to conduct
gambling activities to other entities. (Jaworski v. PAGCOR, GR
No. 144463, 14 January 2004)
Case Study
Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice, GR. No. 132601, 12 October
1998
“The reason for delegation of authority to administrative
agencies is the increasing complexity of the task of government
requiring expertise as well as the growing inability of the
legislature to cope directly with the myriad problems
demanding its attention. The growth of society has ramified its
activities and created peculiar and sophisticated problems that
the legislature cannot be expected to attend to by itself.
Specialization even in legislation has become necessary. On
many problems involving day-to-day undertakings, the
legislature may not have the needed competence to provide the
required direct and efficacious, not to say, specific solutions.
These solutions may, however, be expected from its delegates,
who are supposed to be experts in the particular fields assigned
to them.”
Is there valid delegation of powers in this case?
Yes, there is valid delegation of powers from Congress to the
Secretary of Justice in defining the procedure to carry out the
death penalty. The law specifically describes what the job must
be done, who is to do it, and what is the scope of the authority.
The law also provides for sufficient standards such as
“mitigating the sufferings”, “cause instantaneous death,” and
“training of personnel administering the lethal injection”. There
is compliance with the Completeness Test and Sufficient
Standard Test.
Having been delegated with powers by the Congress, can the
Secretary of Justice delegate further this power to the Director
of the Bureau of Corrections?
Insofar as the Bureau of Corrections is within the governmental
framework of Department of Justice, the Secretary of Justice
can delegate it further. However, such delegation is valid only
if and only when the same has been approved by the Secretary
of Justice. There can be no abdication of this delegated power.
Otherwise, the further delegation is invalid.
Note:
Because delegation of powers is brought about by practical
considerations, not by the whims and caprices of Congress,
courts bend as far back as possible to sustain the
constitutionality of laws which are assailed as unduly
delegating legislative powers. (Tatad v. Secretary of the
Department of Energy, GR. No. 124360, et. seq., 5 November
1997).
In other words, the court adopt a liberal stance in favor of
constitutionality when a law is assailed as unconstitutional
based on undue delegation of powers.
Note:
“Legislative Powers” are considered delegated insofar as the
delegate is empowered to fill in the details in the law through
implementing rules and regulations (IRR), but this delegation is
pursuant to the “Execution of Laws” only.
This is what is considered as “Quasi-Legislative Powers”. This
is also known as the power of “Subordinate Legislation”.
Fore easy recall, remember this:
Legislative Powers = to determine WHAT the law shoud be.
Quasi-Legislative Powers = to determine HOW the law should
be executed.
The Legislative Department: Structure and Composition
(Article VI, 1987 Constitution)
Section 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.
Congress: Bicameral Structure
“BI” + Camera+ “-al”
English prefix meaning “two” + Latin word meaning
“chamber” + English suffix denoting an adj.
The Upper House / Chamber: The Senate
The Lower House / Chamber: The House of Representatives
The Senate
Section 2. The Senate shall be composed of twenty-four
Senators who shall be elected at large by the qualified voters
of the Philippines, as may be provided by law.
The Senators: Qualifications
1. Natural-Born citizen
2. At least 35 years old on the day of election
3. Able to read and write
4. Resident of the Philippines for not less than two years
immediately preceding the day of election
(Section 3, Article VI, 1987 Constitution)
Important:
These are exclusive constitutional qualifications which cannot
be modified, deleted, or added to by law, such as an imposition
of a requirement of a prior drug test. (Social Justice Society v.
Dangerous Drug Board, GR No. 157870, 3 November 2008).
Note:
These qualifications, aside from being exclusive, are also
continuing in character. This means that the persons holding
office must possess all these qualifications during their entire
tenure. (Limkaichong v. COMELEC, GR. No. 179120, 1 April
2009).
The Senators: Term
The senators’ term is for SIX YEARS commencing at noon on
the 30th day of June next following their election.
Term Limit: No Senator shall serve for more than TWO
CONSECUTIVE TERMS. Voluntary renunciation shall not be
considered interruption. (Section 4, Article VI of 1987
Constitution)
Note:
As a rule, in determining whether an elective official has
reached his or her term limit, what should be counted are the
uninterrupted terms. However, the Constitution qualifies that
voluntary renunciation (resignation) does not legally constitute
an interruption. Thus, even if the tenure is cut short by
resignation, the full term is still considered for purposes of
determining term limit.
The House of Representatives
Section 5. (1) The House of Representatives shall be composed
of not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless
otherwise fixed by law […]
Note: It is not absolute.
Because the number is allowed to be qualified by law, the
number of seats in the House of Representatives will vary
depending on laws passed by Congress. (Tobias v. Abalos, GR.
No. 114783, 8 December 1994).
Section 5. (1) [..] who shall be elected from legislative districts
apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan
Manila area […] and those who, as provided by law, shall be
elected through a party list system of registered national,
regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.
Legislative District Representatives: Qualifications
No personal shall be a Member of the House of Representatives
unless:
1. Natural-born citizen on the day of the election
2. At least 25 years old
3. Able to Read and Write
4. A registered voter in the district in which he shall be
elected.
5. A resident thereof for a period of one year immediately
preceding the day of election. (Section 6, Article VI,
1987 Constitution).
Note:
These qualifications, aside from being exclusive, are also
continuing in character. This means that the persons holding
office must possess all these qualifications during their entire
tenure. (Limkaichong v. COMELEC, GR. No. 179120, 1 April
2009).
 Legislative District Representatives: Term
Section 7. The Members of the House of Representatives shall
be elected for a term of THREE YEARS which shall begin,
unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on the thirtieth day
of June next following their election.
No Member of the House of Representative shall serve more
than THREE CONSECUTIVE TERMS. Voluntary
renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be
considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for
the full term for which he was elected.
Legislative Districts
Legislative Districts arise from ANY of the following:
1. A group of municipalities and cities through
apportionment;
2. A city with a population of at least 250,000; or
3. A province
Legislative Districts: Group of Municipalities and Cities
(picture of Philippine Map with Color Coding per Area)
Group of Municipalities and Cities Requirement
Section 5(3). Each legislative shall compromise, as far as
practicable, contiguous, compact, and adjacent territory […]
Gerrymandering
It is a term employed to describe an apportionment of
representative districts so contrived as to give an unfair
advantage to the party in power. Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, a
member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, defined
“gerrymandering” as the formation of one legislative district
out of separate territories for the purpose of favoring a candidate
or a party.
The Constitution proscribes gerrymandering, as it mandates
each legislative district to comprise, as far as practicable, a
contiguous, compact and adjacent territory. (Navarro v. Ermita,
GR NO. 180050, 10 February 2010).
*insert picture of the activity*
The requirement of contiguous, compact, and adjacent land
territories prevents the controlling party of lawmakers from
gerrymandering to favor their party in the future.
Apportionment through Law
Municipalities and cities can be grouped together to form a
legislative district only through apportionment laws. In fact,
Congress is mandated to make reapportionment of legislative
districts within three years following the return of every census.
[Section 5(4), Article VI, 1987 Constitution}.
Legislative Districts: City with a Population of 250,000
Sec. 5 Article 6
City Created through a Law
A city can only be created through a law. It is a municipal
corporation, with a separate and distinct personality, and it is
created through legislative action upon compliance with the
requirements in the Constitution and the Local Government
Code.
Does the provision mean that a city is entitled to 1
representative for every 250,000 inhabitants?
No. The 250,000 inhabitants requirements is to construed only
as a minimum requirement for the city to be entitled to one
legislative district. However, it is not a requirement for
additional legislative district therein, which will be under the
sole discretion of Congress to determine. What the Constitution
envisions is a minimum number of constituents to be entitled
representation in Congress, not a mathematical exactitude or
rigid equality.
(Aquino III v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 189793, 15 March 2010)
Section 5 (3). […] Each city with a population of at least two
hundred fifty thousand […] shall have at least one
representative.
Note:
A city whose population has increased to 250,000 is entitled to
have an initial legislative district only in the “immediately
following election” after attainment of the 250,000 population
without need of a reapportionment law.
Example:
Talisay City has 240,000+ inhabitants in 2015 census. If in
2019 it reaches 250,000, Talisay City will have its own
legislative district in the 2022 elections, without need of a law.
Additional Note:
By “population”, the law means the number of inhabitants, not
the number of registered voters therein.
(Herrera v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 131499, November 17, 1999)
Legislative District: Province
Sec. 5(3). […] Each city with a population of at least two
hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least one
representative.
The provision draws a plain and clear distinction between the
entitlement of a city to a district on one hand, and the
entitlement of a province to a district on the other. For while a
province is entitled to at least a representative, with nothing
mentioned about population, a city must first meet a population
minimum of 250,000 in order to be similarly entitled.
The use by the subject provision of a comma to separate the 3. W.A.L.A.N.G. 12%
phrase “each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty
4. K.A.Y.O. 8%
thousand” from the phrase “or each province” point to no other
conclusion than that the 250,000 minimum population is only 5. Sana O.I.L. 1%
required for a city, but not for a province. 6. E.D.I. WOW .5%
Plainly read, Section 5 (3) of the Constitution requires a 7. Kita-Kita .5%
250,000 minimum population only for a city to be entitled to a
representative, but not so for a province.

(Aquino III v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 189793, 15 March 2010) How would you distribute the 12 seats reserved for the party-
list system?
Note:
Distribution
Legislative District can only be created by an Act of Congress.
Thus, because as a matter of law, the creation of a province and Party-lists 1st 2nd 3rd Total
a city with 250,000 population automatically creates legislative round round round
districts, Congress cannot delegate to ARMM the power to
create provinces and cities. 1. Ako-Ikaw 50.5% 1 1 1 3

The provision in the ARMM Organic Law granting ARMM 2. I-promise 27.5% 1 1 2
Regional Assembly to create provinces, cities, and
municipalities and barangays was partially declared as 3. W.A.L.A.N.G. 12% 1 1 2
unconstitutional, insofar as it concerns provinces and cities.
4. K.A.Y.O. 8% 1 1 2
(Sema v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 177597, 16 July 2008) 5. Sana O.I.L. 1% 1 1
House of Representative: Party Lists 6. E.D.I. WOW .5% 1 1
7. Kita-Kita .5% 1 1
Party-List Representatives Seats allocated: 4 7 1 12

Sec. 5(1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of

not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise Four Parameters in Party-List System Seat Allocation
fixed by law, who […], as provided by law, shall be elected
1. 20% Allocation
through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and
2. 2% Threshold
sectoral parties or organizations.
3. Proportional Representation
(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per 4. Three-seat Limit
centum of the total number of representatives including those
20% Allocation
under the party-list. […]
Article VI, 1987 Constitution
Law for Party-List System
Section 5.(1) The House of Representatives shall be composed
The Constitution leaves to Congress, through a law, to spell out
of not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless
the details of the party-list system. On 3 March 1995, Congress
otherwise fixed by law, who […] as provided by law, shall be
passed a law providing for said details, Republic Act No. 7941.
elected through a party-list system of registered national,
Two Concerns for Party-List System regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.

There are two concerns: (1) Seat Allocation and (2) Party-List (2) The party-list representatives shall constitute
and Nominee Qualification. twenty per centum of the total number of representatives
including those under the party-list.
Problem:
Republic Act No. 7941
Suppose that the current available seats in Congress are as
follows: district representatives – 48; party-list representatives, Section 11. Number of Party-List Representatives. The party-
12. list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum (20%) of
the total number of the members of the House of
In the 2019 elections, suppose only the following party-lists Representatives including those under the party-list.
participated with their corresponding votes:
[…]
1. Ako-Ikaw 50.5%
In Veterans Party v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 136781, 6 October
2. I-promise 27.5%
2000), the 20% allocation is considered as a mere calling.
Meaning, all seats allocated for party-list representation need
not be filled.
However, in Banat v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 179271, 21 April
2009), the Supreme Court abandoned its ruling in Veterans
case. It ruled that the 20% allocation under the Constitution is
mandatory and, therefore, all 20% ceiling must be filled up.
Formula for SEATS:
[Number of District Representatives]
___________________________ x .20 = [SEATS]
.80
Example (in our Problem)
48 [District Representatives]
___________________________ x .20 = 12
.80
2% Threshold
Republic Act 7941
In determining the allocation of seats for the second vote, the
following procedure shall be observed:
(a) The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be
ranked from the highest to the lowest based on the
number of votes they garnered during the elections.
(b) The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at
least two percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the
party-list system shall be entitled to one seat each:
Provided, That those garnering more than two percent
(2%) of the votes shall be entitled to additional seats
in proportion to their total number of votes : Provided,
finally, That each party, organization, or coalition
shall be entitled to not more than three (3) seats.
In Veterans case, the Supreme Court ruled that the 2%
threshold is the qualification of a party-list to get a seat in the
House. Thus, if a party-list fails to get 2% of all vote cast for
party-list in the election, it cannot get a seat. Remember, under
Veterans, the 20% threshold is a mere ceiling. So, no need to
distribute all seats.
However, in Banat case, 20% was declared as mandatory. As
such the 2% threshold as qualification was abandoned. Instead,
the Court ruled that reaching 2% entitles the party-list a
guaranteed seat in and the remaining seats must, therefore, be
apportioned next to those who did not get at least 2% votes.
As a result, the Supreme Court also declared the
disqualification of “failure to qualify for a seat in the two
preceding election”. (Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 190529, 29 April 2010)
Proportional Representation
Proportional Representation means the number of seats a party-
list can have in relation to the votes it garnered.
The Supreme Court adopted a complicated formula in Veterans
v. COMELEC, supra, and CIBAC v. COMELEC (G.R.No.
172103, 13 April 2007). However, in Banat case, the Court
simplified the formula. Because the 20% threshold is now
mandatory, all seats must be distributed as additional seats.
Summary
1. Rank the participating Party-Lists from highest to
lowest.
2. Assign ONE GUARANTEED SEAT to those who
garnered at least 2%.
3. From party-list garnering the highest votes, assign
ADDITIONAL SEATS down until all the remaining
seats shall have been distributed.
4. In no case should one party-list be entitled to more
than 3 seats.
Important!
Sectoral parties or organizations may either be “marginalized
and underrepresented” or lacking in “well-defined political
constituencies”. It is enough that their principal advocacy
pertains to the special interest and concerns of their sector. The
sectors that are “marginalized and underrepresented” include
labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, handicapped, veterans and overseas workers. The
sectors that lack “well-defined political constituencies” include
professionals, the elderly, women, and the youth.
Majority of the members of the sectoral party must belong to
the sector they are representing.
(Atong Paglaum, Inc. vs COMELEC, G.R. No. 203766, 2 April
2013)
The enumeration of sectors that are considered as marginalized
and underrepresented or lacking well-defined political
constituencies is not exclusive.
(Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. COMELEC, G.R. 190582, 8 April
2010)
National and regional political parties can participate in party-
list elections provided they register under the part-list system
and do not field candidates in legislative district elections. A
political party, whether major or not, that fields candidates in
legislative district elections can participate in party-list
elections only through its sectoral wing that can separately
register under the party-list system. The sectoral wing is by
itself an independent sectoral party, and is linked to a political
party through a coalition. (Atong Paglaum, Inc. vs COMELEC,
G.R. No. 203766, 2 April 2013)
Illustration:
National Party
(PDP-Laban)
In itself, and even without a sectoral wing, it can participate in
the party-list system provided:
1. It registers as a party-list; and
2. It does not field any candidate in the district
representative elections.
However, if it fields candidates in the district representative
elections, it is disqualified to participate in itself. In order to
qualify, it must form a sectoral wing which may be affiliated
with the party but represents either the “marginalized and
underrepresented or those lacking in well-defined political
constituencies.
National Party Sectoral Wing
(PDP-Laban) (Duterte Youth)
Who may be a Nominee in the Party-List group?
Section 9. Qualifications of Party-List Nominees. No person
shall be nominated as party-list representative unless he is a
natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, a
resident of the Philippines for a period of not less than one
(1)year immediately preceding the day of the election, able to
read and write, a bona fide member of the party or
organization which he seeks to represent for at least ninety
(90) days preceding the day of the election, and is at least
twenty-five (25) years of age on the day of the election.
What does “bona fide member” mean?
Initially, the Court explained that the persons nominated by the
party-list candidate-organization must be “Filipino citizens
belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors,
organizations and parties.”(Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW V.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 147613, 26 June 2001).
Later on, the Court clarified that “bona fide member” means
that the nominees of the sectoral party must either belong to
the sector, or must have a track record of advocacy for the
sector represented. The Court explained that for a person to be
a member of the marginalized and underrepresented, one need
not “wallow in poverty, destitution or infirmity. (Atong
Paglaum, Inc. vs COMELEC, G.R. No. 203766, 2 April 2013)
Section 9. [..]
In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he must at least be
twenty-five (25) but not more than thirty (30) years of age
on the day of the election. Any youth sectoral representative
who attains the age of thirty (30) during his term shall be
allowed to continue in office until the expiration of his term.
Important:
The names of the nominees must be disclosed to the public. The
ideal of a representative government by blind voting, as
veritably advocated in the assailed resolution of the
COMELEC. The Court frowns upon any interpretation of the
law or rules that would hinder in any way the free and intelligent
casting of the votes in an election.
So it must be here for still other reasons articulated earlier.
Respondent COMELEC has a constitutional duty to disclose
and release the names of the nominees of the party-list groups
named in the herein petitions. (Cinco v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
177271, 177314, 04 May 2007)
Important:
National, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations shall
not be disqualified if some of their nominees are disqualified,
provided that they have at least one nominee who remains
qualified. (Atong Paglaum, Inc. vs COMELEC, G.R. No.
203766, 2 April 2013)
Residency Requirements
Semantically, there is a difference between residence and
domicile. Residence denotes place of abode, temporarily or
permanently. Domicile on the other hand, denotes fixed
permanent residence to which, when absent, one has the
intention of returning.
One may have several “residence”, or place of abode, but one
can only have one “domicile”.
Under Political Law, specifically election laws, residence and
domicile are synonymous when viewed as a requirement of
holding office. (Macalintal v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 157013, 10
July 2003).
Why require residency?
The mischief which this provision – reproduced verbatim from
the 1973 Constitution – seeks to prevent is the possibility of a
“stranger or newcomer unacquainted with the conditions and
needs of a community and not identified with the latter, from an
elective office to serve that community.” (Romualdez-Marcos
v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 119976, September 18, 1995)
Two Kinds of Residency/Domicile
There are two kinds of residency/domicile:
1. Residence/Domicile of Origin
2. New Residence/Domicile
 Residence/Domicile of Origin age of eight years old, when her father brought his family back
to Leyte contrary to private respondent’s averments.
Residence/Domicile of Origin is the place where the person
originally has been maintaining and remain to be staying, or Second, when Petitioner was married to then Congressman
even when temporarily out of said place, has intention of Marcos, in 1954, petitioner was obliged – virtue of Article 110
returning. It requires the following requisites: of the Civil Code – to follow her husband’s actual place of
residence fixed by him. The problem here is that at that time,
1. Animus Manendi (Intention to Stay) Mr. Marcos had several places of residence, among which were
2. Animus Revertindi (Intention to Return) San Juan, Rizal and Batac, Ilocos Norte. There is no showing
which of these places Mr. Macos did fix as his family’s
Animus / Intention residence. But assuming that Mr. Marcos had fixed any of these
places as the conjugal residence, what petitioner gained upon
A person’s intention, being a state of mind, can only be deduced marriage was actual residence. She did not lose her domicile of
from actions. Thus, when a person goes out of his or her origin.
residence/domicile for study, or work, or business, if he or she
still intends to remain and return thereto, then the person retains Third, even if she lost her domicile of origin, she regained the
his or her residence/domicile. right to choose her domicile after the death of former President
Marcos. By her acts, she chose – implied and expressly – to
Abandonment regain her domicile of origin. She even obtained a certificate of
residency in Tacloban in 1992, while waiting for her house
A person’s domicile of origin may be lost through there to be repaired.
abandonment. However, domicile of origin is not easily lost.
Abandonment exists only when there is concurrence of the Therefore, she is allowed to run as the as Congresswoman for
following requisites: the First Legislative District of Leyte, covering Tolosa, Leyte
and Tacloban City
1. An actual change of domicile
2. Animus Manendi (Intention to remain in the new Election: Regular
domicile)
3. Animus Non-Revertendi (Intention not to return to Senators - At large (Section 2, Art. VI)
domicile of origin) District Reps - By District (Section 5[1]. Art VI)
Party-List - At large, but one party-list per voter
Imelda Romualdez-Marcos (Section 10, RA 7941)

Born: Manila, PH Held on the second Monday of May, unless otherwise provided
Grew up: Tacloban City,PH by law.
Married: San Juan, PH
Rizal, PH Election: Special
Batac, Ilocos Norte, PH
Fled: Hawaii, USA Section 9. In case of vacancy in the Senate or in the House of
Returned: Tolosa, Leyte Representatives, a special election may be called to fill such
Actual: Tolosa, Leyte vacancy in the manner prescribed by law, but the Senator or
Member of the House of Representatives thus elected shall
Run as for a Seat in the House of Representatives for the First serve only for the unexpired term.
Legislative District of Leyte, which covers Tolosa, Leyte and
Tacloban City. Section 4 of Republic Act No. 7166 subsequently amend
Section 2 of R.A. No. 6645
Does Imelda qualifies for the required residency?
Postponement, Failure of Election and Special Elections. –
Yes. Imelda has the required residency to be able to run as xxx In case a permanent vacancy shall occur in the Senate or
Congresswoman for the First Legislative District of Leyte, House of Representatives at least one (1) year before the
covering Tolosa, Leyte and Tacloban City, for three reasons: expiration of the term, the Commission shall call and hold a
special election to fill the vacancy not earlier than sixty (60)
First, a minor follows the domicile of his parents. As domicile, days nor longer than ninety (90) days after the occurrence of the
once acquired is retained until a new one is gained, it follows vacancy. However, in case of such vacancy in the Senate, the
that in spite of the fact of petitioner’s being born in Manila, special election shall be held simultaneously with the next
Tacloban, Leyte was her domicile of origin by operation of law. succeeding regular election.
This domicile was not established only when she reached the
 Organization and Session
Section 16. (1) The Senate shall elect its President and House
of Representatives its Speaker, by a majority vote of all its
respective Members. Each House shall choose such other
officers as it may deem necessary.
Organization: Internal Rules
Section 16. […]
(3) Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings […]
Nature of Internal Rules
The prevailing view is that internal rules are subject to
revocation, modification or waiver at the pleasure of the body
adopting them as they are primarily procedural. Courts
ordinarily have no concern with their observance.
They may be waived or disregarded by the legislative body.
Consequently, mere failure to conform to them does not have
the effect of nullifying the act taken if the requisite number of
members have agreed to a particular measure. (Arroyo v. de
Venecia, G.R. No. 127255, 14 August 1997)
The only limitation to the power of Congress to promulgate its
own rules is the observance of quorum, voting, and publication
when required. As long as these requirements are complied
with, the Court will not interfere with the right of Congress to
amend its own rules. (Pimentel, Jr. v. Senate Committee on the
Whole, G.R. No. 187714, 8 March 2011)
The above principle is subject, however, to this qualification.
Where the construction to be given to a rule affects persons
other than members of the legislative body the question
presented is necessarily judicial in character. Even its validity
is open to question in a case where private rights are involved.
(Arroyo v. de Venecia, G.R. No. 127255, 14 August 1997)
Internal Rules: Publication
However, rules concerning conduct of inquires in aid of
legislation must be duly published for validity, as a categorical
directive provided for by Section 21, Article VI of the
Constitution. (Gutierrez v. House of Representatives
Committee on Justice, G.R. No. 193459, 15 February 2011.)
Organization: Discipline of Members
Section 16. […]
(3) Each House may […] punish its Members for disorderly
behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its
Members, suspend, or expel a Member. A penalty of
suspension, when imposed, shall not exceed sixty days.
The question whether delivery of speeches attacking the Chief
Executive constitutes disorderly for which Osmena may be
disciplined, many arguments pro and con have been advanced.
We believed, however, that the House is the judge of what
constitutes disorderly behavior, not only because the
Constitution has conferred jurisdiction upon it, but also because
the matter depends mainly on factual circumstances of which
the House knows best but which cannot be depicted in black
and white for presentation to, and adjudication by the Courts.
(Osmena, Jr. v. Pendatum, G.R. No. L-17144, 28 October 1960)
In line with the principle of separation of powers, we cannot
overstep our boundaries in order to inquire into the conduct of
the respondents as members of Congress. Section 16(3), Article
VI of the 1987 Constitution vests in Congress the exclusive
authority to discipline its members for disorderly behavior.
(Lastimosa-Dalawampu v. Cuenco, A.C. (Notice), 18 April
2017)
Sessions
Quorum = 50% + 1
In order for the two chambers of Congress to be able to validly
conduct business in sessions, there must be a quorum.
Section 16. […]
(2) A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do
business […]
What does quorum means?
“Quorum” means a majority of each House, not a majority of
all members of Congress. As long as majority of the members
of the House of Representatives or Senate are present, these
bodies have the quorum needed to conduct business and hold
session. Within a quorum, a vote of majority is generally
sufficient to enact laws or approve acts. (Abas Kida v. Senate
of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 196271, et. seq., 18 October 2011)
For purpose of determining the existence of quorum in the
Senate, the basis shall be the total number of Senators who are
in the country and within the coercive jurisdiction of the Senate.
(Avelino v. Cuenco, G.R. No. L-2821, 4 March 1949)
Kinds of Sessions
1. Regular Sessions – Once a year, every 4th Monday of
July, unless a different date is fixed by law, and shall
continue for such number of days as it may determine
until thirty days before the opening of its next regular
session. (Section 15, Article VI, 1987 Constitution)
2. Special Session – At any time, as may be called by the
President (Section 15, Article VI, 1987 Constitution).
 Special Sessions
Special sessions, without need for any call, shall be held by
Congress in the following instances:
a. At 10AM on 3rd day of Vacancy in the Position of
President and Vice-President to call for special
election (Section 10, Article VII)
b. In case of Temporary Disability of the President
(Section 11, par 3, Article VII)
c. Suspension of Privilege of Writ of Habeas Corpus and
Proclamation of Martial Law (Section 18, Article VII)
3. Separate Session – by default, each chamber of
Congress conducts its own sessions separately from
the other.
4. Joint Session – by way of exception, joint are held in
some instances.
Joint sessions, BUT voting separately:
a. Choosing the President when two or more candidates
obtain equal and highest votes (Section 4, par. 5, Art
VII, 1987 Constitution)
b. Determine President’s disability (Section 11, Art. VII)
c. Confirming nomination of the Vice-President (Section
9, Article VII)
d. Declaring the existence of State of War (Section 23,
Article VI)
Joint Sessions, AND voting jointly:
a. To revoke or extend proclamation suspending the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or placing the
Philippines under martial law. (Section 18, Art. VII).
Incompatible and Forbidden Office
Section 13. No Senator or Member of the House of
Representative may hold any other office or employment in the
Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality
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
which may have been created or the emoluments thereof
increased during the term for he was elected.
First Clause: Incompatible Office
Section 13. No Senator or Member of the House of
Representative may hold any other office or employment in the
Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality
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
which may have been created or the emoluments thereof
increased during the term for he was elected.
Prohibition Against Personal Appearance
Section 14. No Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives may personally appear or counsel before any
courts of justice or before the Electoral Tribunals or quasi-
judicial and other administrative bodies. […]
Topic 3: Power of the Legislative Department
Summary of Powers
1. General Plenary Powers
2. Impeachment Powers
3. Investigation and Scrutiny Powers
4. Appropriation Powers
5. Taxation Powers
6. Other Powers
General Plenary Powers
“Legislative power is peculiarly within the province of the
Legislature. Section 1, Article VI categorically states that “the
legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the
Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of
Representatives.” To be sure, neither Martial Law nor a state of
rebellion nor state of emergency can justify President Arroyo’s
exercise of legislative power by issuing decrees.” (David v.
Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. Nos. 171396, et seq., 3 May 2006).
[In the exercise of its general legislative powers, Congress] has
the authority to choose the subject of legislation, outline the
effective measures to achieve its declared policies and even
impose penalties in case of non-compliance. It has the sole
discretion to decide which policies to pursue and devise means
to achieve them, and courts often do not interfere in this
exercise for as long as it does not transcend constitutional
limitations. In performing this duty, the legislature has no guide
but its judgment and discretion and the wisdom of experience.
(Southern Luzon Drug Corporation v. DSWD)
General Plenary Powers: Limitations
However, no matter how wide this general plenary power
wielded by Congress is, it is subject to constitutional
limitations, both as to substance and as to process.
General Plenary Powers: Substantive Constitutional
Limitations
Substantive Constitutional Limitations may be express or
implied.
Express limitations are those found, among others, in the Bill
of Rights (Art. III), IN Prohibition of Appellate Jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court (Sec. 30, Art. VI), in prohibition of royalty
and nobility laws (Section 31, Art VI).
Implied substantive limitations involve the general prohibition
on delegation of powers, with recognized exceptions, and
passage of irrepealable laws.
It is a basic precept that among the implied substantive
limitations on the legislative powers is the prohibition against
the passage of irrepealable laws. Irrepealable laws deprive
succeeding legislature of the fundamental best senses carte
blanche in crafting laws appropriate to the operative milieu.
Their allowance promotes an unhealthy status in the legislative
front and dissuades dynamic democratic impetus that may be
responsive to the times. As Senior Associate Justice Reynato S.
Puno once observed, “[t]o be sure, there are no irrepealable laws
just as there are no irrepealable Constitution. Change is the
predicate of progress and we should not fear change. (City of
Davao v. RTC, Br XII, Davao City)
General Plenary Powers: Procedural Constitutional
Limitations
1. One-Title, One-Subject Rule
2. Three-Reading Requirement
One-Title, One-Subject Rule
Section 26. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace
only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.
[…]
The rule does not require the title to be a complete index of the
contents of the bill. It is sufficient compliance of the title
expresses the general subject, and all the provisions of the
statute are germane to that subject. (Philconsa v. Gimenez, G.R.
No. L-23326, 18 December 1965)
Three-Reading Requirement
Section 26. […]
(2) No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it
has passed three readings on separate days, and printed copies
thereof in its final form have been distributed to its Members
three days before its passage, except when the President
certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a
public calamity or emergency. […]
Supreme Court’s Interpretation:
Presidential certification does not result into dispensing with
reading requirements. Bills must still be read three times as a
matter of due process.
What it dispenses with is the reading on separate days and the
printing requirements.
“The “unless” clause must be read in relation to the “except”
clause, because the two are really coordinate clauses of the
same sentence. To construe the “except” clause as simply
dispensing with the second requirement in the “unless” clause
(i.e., printing and distribution three days before final approval)
would not only violate the rules of grammar. It would also
negate the very premise of the “except” clause: the necessity of
securing the immediate enactment of a bill which is certified in
order to meet a public calamity or emergency.” (Tolentino v.
Secretary of Finance, 115455, 25 August 1994).
From which House must a bill originate?
As a general rule, bills can originate in either or both Houses.
However, the following bills must, in all cases, originate from
the House of Representatives:
1. Appropriation Bills
2. Revenue or Tariff Bills
3. Bills Authorizing Increase of Public Debt
4. Bills of Local Application
5. Private Bills
Rule on Presentment: Veto Powers
Section 27. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before
it becomes a law, be presented to the President. If he approves
the same, he shall sign it; otherwise, he shall veto it and return
the same with his objections to the House where it originated,
which shall enter the objections at large in its Journal and
proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-
thirds of all the Members of such House shall agree to pass the
bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other
House by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if
approved by two-thirds of all the Members of that House, it
shall become a law. In all such cases, the votes of each House
shall be determined by yeas or nays, and the names of the
Members voting for or against shall be entered in its Journal.
The President shall communicate his veto of any bill to the
House where it originated within thirty days after the date of
receipt thereof; otherwise, it shall become a law as if he had
signed it.
Veto as a whole; Exception
The plain text of Section 27(1), Art. VI shows that the veto must
be on the whole bill. Even if the President’s issue is only one
line thereof, he must veto the whole bill. However, the President
may partially veto particular items in case of:
1. Tariff Bill
2. Appropriation Bill
3. Revenue Bill
Effect of No Action
Section 27. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before
it becomes a law, be presented to the President.[…] The
President shall communicate his veto of any bill to the House
where it originated within thirty days after the date of receipt
thereof; otherwise, it shall become a law as if he had signed it.
 Veto Override
Section 27. (1) […] If, after such reconsideration, two thirds of
all the Members of such House shall agree to pass the bill, it
shall be sent, together with objections, to the other House by
which it shall be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of
all the Members of that House, it shall become a law.
Taxation Powers
Taxation is the power to coercively take property or money
from the people for the purpose of continuous sustenance and
operation of the governmental and public functions of the State.
It is exercised through a law. It is, therefore, subject to the
substantive and procedural limitations applicable to laws.
In addition to the limitations concerning laws in general, the
Legislature’s power to tax is subject to the following additional
limitations:
1. Uniformity and Equitability ( Sec. 28[1])
2. Exemption from Taxation of Charitable Institution,
and all lands, building, and improvements, actually,
directly, and exclusively used for religion, charitable
or education purposes. (Sec. 28[3])
3. Exemption from revenue and assets of non-stock, non-
profit education institutions used actually, directly and
exclusively for educational purpose (Sec 4[3] Art.
XIV)
4. Laws granting tax exemption shall be passed only with
the concurrence of the majority of all the members of
Congress. (Sec. 29 [4], Art. VI)
Note:
Tariff and revenue bills must originate exclusively in the House
of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with
amendments. (Sec 24, Art VI)
Appropriation Powers
Appropriation powers is the power to spend public money by
which Congress designates a particular fund or sets apart a
specified portion of the public revenue or of the money in the
public treasury, to be applied to some general object of
governmental expenditure or to some individual purchase or
expense. (Araullo v. Aquino III, G.R. No. 209287, et seq., 1
July 2014). It is also known as the “Power of the Purse”.
Sec. 29. (1) of the 1987 Constitution provides “No money shall
be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an
appropriation made by law. […]
An appropriation law is required in order for the government to
spend from the Public Treasury. It can be a general or special
appropriation law. The General Appropriations Act (GAA) is a
general appropriation.
As a law, it is also subject to the general substantive and
procedural limitations. It is, however, subject to additional
limitations applicable to appropriate laws.
Appropriation Powers: Implied Limitations
An appropriate law must be for public purpose. As the funds in
the Treasury are held in trust for the public and for the public’s
welfare, disbursements therefrom can only be for the benefit of
the public, not for any private person.
The sum to be released must also be determinate, or at least
determinable by valid and concrete standards. (Guingona v.
Carague, G.R. No. 94571, 22 April 1991).
Appropriation Powers: Express Limitations
As a matter of constitutional procedure, general appropriation
laws are based on the budget recommended by the President for
the operation of the Government. Congress may not increase
the recommendation therein but can very well decrease it. (Sec.
25[1], Art VI)
For example:
President’s recommendation: Php 7B for Health Care
Congress cannot raise to: Php 8B for Health Care
Congress can, however, lower to: Php 6B for Health Care
In general appropriations, no provisions or enactment shall be
embraced; unless it relates specifically to some particular
appropriation therein. Any such provision or enactment shall be
limited in its operation to the appropriation to which it relates.
( Sec.24[3], Art VI)
A separate provisions, specifically for appropriations, that seek
to prohibit riders.
Moreover, Congress cannot make the appropriation process
harder for other branches and easier for it. The Constitution
provides that the procedure in approving appropriations for the
Congress shall strictly follow the procedure for approving
appropriation for other departments and agencies. (Sec.25[3],
Art. VI)
Congress also cannot appropriate money from the public.
Treasury for the benefit of any sect, church, denomination,
sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any priest,
preacher, minister, or other religious teacher, except when such
priest, preacher, minister or dignitary is assigned to the armed
forces, or to any penal institution, or government orphanage or
leprosarium. (Sec 29[2]), Art VI)
In case of special appropriation, the public purpose thereof must
be specified and it shall be supported by funds that are actually
available as certified by the National Treasurer, or to be raised
by a corresponding revenue proposal therein. (Sec. 24[4], Art.
VI)

Appropriation Powers: Automatic Appropriation
Section 24. […]
(7) If, by the end of any fiscal year, the Congress shall have
failed to pass the general appropriation bill for the ensuing
fiscal year, the general appropriations law for the preceding
fiscal year shall be deemed reenacted and shall remain in force
and effect until the general appropriations bill is passed by the
Congress.
Appropriation Powers: The Disbursement Acceleration
Program
DAP:
The President spends money directly from its “savings” in order
to fast-track projects and public spending to stimulate the
economy within the Executive Department without an
appropriation law.
Section 29. (1) No money shall be paid out of the Treasury,
except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.
Does DAP violates the constitution?
No. There is no need for an appropriation law. The DAP was a
government policy or strategy designed to stimulate the
economy through accelerated spending. In the context of the
DAP’s adoption and implementation being a function
pertaining to the Executive as the main actor during the Budget
Execution Stage under its constitutional mandate faithfully
execute the laws, including the GAAs, Congress did not need
to legislate to adapot or to implement the DAP. Congress could
appropriate but would have nothing more to do during the
Budget Execution Stage. (Aquino III v. Araullo, G.R. No.
209287, et seq., 1 July 2014)
The President, in keeping with his duty to faithfully execute the
laws, had sufficient discretion during the execution of the
budget to adapt the budget to changes in the country’s economic
situation. He could adopt a plan like the DAP for the purpose.
He could pool the savings and identify the PAPs to be funded
under the DAP. The pooling of savings pursuant to the DAP,
and the identification of PAPs to be funded under the DAP did
not involve appropriation in the strict sense because the money
had been already set apart from the public treasury by Congress
through the GAAs. In such actions, the Executive did not usurp
the power vested in Congress under Section 29(1), Article VI
of the Constitution. (Aquino III v. Araullo, G.R. No. 209287, et
seq., 1 July 2014)
Section 25. […]
(5) No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of
appropriations; however, the President, the President of the
Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court, and heads of the Constitutional
Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment any item
in the general appropriations law for their respective offices
from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.
DAP:
1. Savings are declared even before the fiscal year ends
by refusing to release appropriations for some
projects.
Is the DAP violative of this provision?
This time, the DAP violates this constitutional provision.
Transfer of funds must conform to the Constitution in order to
be valid. It must be made upon a concurrence of the following
requisites, namely:
1. There is a law authorizing to transfer funds within their
respective offices;
The funds to be transferred are savings generated from the
appropriations for their respective offices; and
2. The purpose of the transfer is to augment an item in
the general appropriations law for their respective
office. (Aquino III v. Araullo, G.R. No. 209287, et
seq., 1 July 2014)
Here, while there is a law authorizing transfer and the purpose
is augmentation, the amounts involved were not “savings”,
which can only be realized when: (1) there is amount available
after the completion, final discontinuance, or abandonment of
projects in the appropriation; (2) appropriation balances from
unpaid compensation; (3) balances realized through programs
and services that cost lesser than the amount appropriated.
All these are realized only after the fiscal year. Declaration of
amounts, therefore, before the fiscal year - before savings can
be properly declared – is violative of Section 25(5), Art. VI. 1.
(Aquino III v. Araullo, G.R. No. 209287, et seq., 1 July 2014)
DAP:
The savings are re-aligned to other branches of the government
that identify priority in public spending.
Savings  Spent
Spent
Executive
Savings
Spent
Spent
Executive
Moreover, the cross-border re-alignment is concerned pursuant
to the DAP is also violative of Sec. 25(5), Art. VI, as the
Constitution clearly states that the realignment shall be done
only within the officials’ “respective offices”, not to other
offices, or departments. . (Aquino III v. Araullo, G.R. No.
209287, et seq., 1 July 2014)
Thus, insofar as these two features are concerned:
1. Declaration of savings before the end of the fiscal year
2. Cross-border Augmentation
….. the DAP is declared as unconstitutional.
(Aquino III v. Araullo, G.R. No. 209287, et seq., 1 July 2014)
Note:
The power to re-align or augment from savings is applicable
only to funds appropriated by a general appropriation law. If the
fund is a special fund from taxes levied for special purposes,
whatever savings or balance, once the project is completed or
abandoned, shall not be subject of realignment. Rather, it is
transferred to the general funds of the Government. (Section
29[3], Art. VI).
PDAF or Congressional Pork Barrel:
There is a lump sum amount provided for projects that are
identified by individual Members of Congress. The release of
the funds depend on the individual Members of Congress.
Is it constitutional?
No, it is not constitutional. As a measure that grants post-
enactment measure - of project identification, prior
consultations, program menu, fund release, and fund re
alignment - to the individual legislators, the PDAF is
unconstitutional for the following reasons:
1. The post-enactment measures unduly delegate the
legislative powers of appropriation to individual
Members of Congress. The power of appropriation is
vested in Congress, as a bicameral branch of the
government, not in the individual legislators.
This kind of delegation is not recognized by the
Constitution, by law, or even by jurisprudence.
2. The appropriation of a lump sum to be later on broken
down into different funds for projects identified by
individual legislators deprives the President of the
power to veto items in appropriation bills, as the
PDAF item has no specific appropriation of money for
specific projects later on identified by individual
legislators. In order for the appropriations to be
specific, both the actual amount to be expended and
the actual purpose must specified. The lump sum
appropriation does not do this.
3. Lastly, by granting the individual legislators post-
enactment measures of project identification, fund
release and transfer, the PDAF system violates the
principle of separation of powers. Congress has power
to make appropriation laws and only that. Congress
and its Members should not have any power over the
budget execution stage, which pertains to the
Executive.
Any post-enactment congressional measure must be
limited only to scrutiny and investigation, such as
conduct of inquiries in aid of legislation and question
hour.
Investigation and Scrutiny Powers
There are two recognized investigation and scrutiny
powers:
1. Inquiries in aid of legislation
2. Question Hour
Aids to Legislation
Although initially implicit in character, as inspired by American
Jurisprudence, the power to conduct inquiries or hearings in aid
of legislation was made express under the 1973 and 1987
Philippine Constitution.
It is an adjunct of legislative powers.
Section 21. The Senate or the House of the Representatives or
any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid
of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of
procedure. The rights of persons appearing in or affected by
such inquiries shall be respected.
Important Elements:
1. The inquiry must be “in aid of legislation”.
2. The inquiry must respect the rights of persons
appearing therein.
3. The inquiry must be pursuant to duly published Rules.
The Inquiry must be “in Aid of Legislation”
The inquiry must be for the purpose of Congress to elicit
information from key witness with the goal of crafting
legislation on a specific matter.
This element, however, is not difficult to satisfy as it is virtually
unlimited.
Aids to Legislation
Grey Area
In the case of Bengzon, Jr. v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee
(G.R. No. 89914, November 20, 1991), however, the Supreme
Court ruled that the investigation was not in aid of legislation
because the sponsorship speech was indicated that the intention
was to determine violation of the law.

The ruling in Bengzon was heavily criticized not only by
lawyers but also by the dissenting Justices, because it
essentially overreached and “second-guessed” the intention of
Congress, co-equal branch, based on the speech of one Member
thereof.
The power to punish contempt is inherent, indispensable, and
useful for Congress, either of its Houses, of any committee
thereof, for the proper exercise of their inquiry powers (Miguel
v. Gordon, G.R. No. 174340, 17 October 2006).
Aids to Legislation v. Question Hour

It is suggested, however, that the result would still be achieved
even though the Court based its ruling on another element: that
the rights of persons affected and appearing theirin must be
respected.
Aids to Legislation:
Rights of Persons
Rights of Persons appearing therein or affected thereby must be
respected. Note, however, that the Supreme Court already ruled
that, in view of the inherent public nature of a legislative
inquiry, proceedings and hearings necessarily involve
disclosure to the public. No violation of the right to privacy
here. (Standard Charter v. Senate, G.R. No. 167173, 27
December 2007).
As a matter of exception, the rules relating to the conduct of
legislative inquiry in aid of legislation must be published
pursuant to the express provision of the Constitution.
Aids to Legislation:
Power of Contempt
Section 22. The heads of departments may upon their own
initiative, with the consent of the President, or upon the request
of their House, as the rules of each House shall provide, appear
before and be heard by such House on any mater pertaining to
their departments. Written questions shall be submitted to the
President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of
Representatives at least three days before their scheduled
appearance. Interpellations shall not be limited to written
questions, but may cover matters related thereto. When the
security of the State or the public interest so requires and the
President so states in writing, the appearance shall be conducted
in execution session.
Sections 21 and 22, therefore, while closely related and
complementary to each other, should not be considered as
pertaining to the same power of Congress. One specifically
relates to the power to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation,
the aim of which is to elicit information that may be used for
legislation, while the other pertains to the power to conduct a
question hour, the objective of which is to obtain information
in pursuit of Congress’ oversight function. (Senate v. Ermita,
G.R. No. 169777, 20 April 2006)

Both House of Congress, or any of its committee, in relation to The power to conduct legislative inquiry in aid of legislation
their power to conduct hearings and inquiries, have the power must, however, be distinguished from the power to conduct
to cite a witness in contempt and may order the detention for Question Hour. They may be distinguished as follows:
contemptuous witness. Previously, it was held that the Senate
can detain a person indefinitely as it is a continuing body. As to purpose
In aid of For the purpose of eliciting
However, in the case of Balag v. Senate (G.R. No. 234608, 3 legislation information relevant and
July 2018), the Court ruled that the period of imprisonment useful in crafting legislations.
under the inherent power of contempt by the Senate during Question Hour For the purpose of exercising
inquiries in aid of legislation should only last until the Congress’ oversight functions
termination of the legislative inquiry under which the said in the implementation of the
power is invoked. laws

(Before the assumption, HOR can detain someone for 3 years As to persons involved
In aid of Any person deemed as a
[during its term]. For Senate, it is indefinite.)
legislation resource person, or witness.
Question Hour The heads of the executive
In the same case, the Court said that termination of inquiry departments
results from two things: (1) Upon the Approval or Disapproval
of the Committee Report and (2) Upon the Expiration of one
As to nature and need for consent
Congress, that is every three years, because all pending matters
In aid of No need for consent of the
and proceedings, such as unpassed bills and even legislative legislation President. Appearance is
investigations, of the Senate are considered terminated upon the generally mandatory.
expiration of that Congress and it is merely optional on the
Question Hour There is need for consent.
Senate of the succeeding Congress to take up such unfinished Appearance is, therefore, not
matters, not in the same status, but as if presented for the first mandatory.
time.
Thus, insofar as consent requirement in E.O. 464 is concerned,
it is valid only in relation to Question Hour. But it is not valid
insofar as inquiries in of legislation is concerned, because
presence there is mandatory.
The only instance when a person – the President and the
Executive Secretary by order of the President .. is exempt from
inquiries in aid of legislation is when there is valid claim of
executive privilege. (Senate v. Ermita)
Impeachment Powers
Impeachment is the power of Congress to remove a public
official for serious crimes or misconduct as provided in the
Constitution. A mechanism designed to check abuse of power,
impeachment has its roots in Athens and was adopted in the
United States through the influence of English common law on
the Framers of the United States Constitution.
In turn, the Philippine constitutions adopted the provisions on
impeachment from the U.S. Constitutions. (Chief Justice
Renato Corono v. Senate, G.R. No. 200242, 17 July 2012)
Who may be impeached?
Section 2, Art. XI, 1987 Constitution:
The President, the Vice President, the Members of the Supreme
Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the
Ombudsman may be removed from office, on impeachment for,
and conviction of culpable violation of the Constitution,
treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or
betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and employees
may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by
impeachment.
Impeachable Officers
1. The President and the Vice President
2. Members of the Supreme Court
3. Members of the Constitutional Commissions
4. Ombudsman
Note:
The list is exclusive. Note, however, that impeachable officers
are not immune from other cases that assail their qualifications
to hold office, like a quo warranto case on the ground of lack of
required citizenship, or lack of required qualifications, such as
being a lawyer or account.
The President, the Vice President, the Members of the Supreme
Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the
Ombudsman may be removed from office, on impeachment for,
and conviction of culpable violation of the Constitution,
treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or
betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and employees
may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by
impeachment.
Modes of Filing
1. Verified Complaint by any Member or Citizen
2. Verified Complaint of at least 1/3 of the Members of
the House
Verified Complaint by any Member or Citizen
Section 3. […]
(2) A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by any
Member of the House of Representatives or by any citizen upon
a resolution of endorsement by any Member thereof, which
shall be included in the Order of Business within ten session
days, and referred to the proper Committee within three session
days thereafter. […]
Where to file?
Section 3.(1) The House of Representatives shall have the
exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment.
Effect of Initiation
Section 3. […]
(5) No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the
same official more than once within a period of one year.
An impeachment case is deemed initiated when the verified
complaint (either filed by any Member of any citizen with
endorsement by any Member) is filed with the House of
Representatives and referred to the appropriate Committee.
(Francisco v. House of Representatives)
Referral after Initiation
Section 3. […]
[…] The Committee, after hearing, and by a majority vote all
its Members, shall submit its report to the House within sixty
session days from such referral, together with the corresponding
resolution. The resolution shall be calendared for consideration
by the House within ten session days from received thereof.
Result of Referral
The Committees (as a matter of practice, the House Committee
on Justice) will decide whether the verified complaint is
sufficient in form and in substance. The decision shall be
contained in a resolution.
 Affirmation
Section 3. […]
(4) A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of the House
shall be necessary either to affirm a favorable resolution with
the Articles of Impeachment of the Committee, or override its
contrary resolution. The vote of each member shall be recorded.
Override Contrary Resolution
Section 3. […]
(4) A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of the House
shall be necessary either to affirm a favorable resolution with
the Articles of Impeachment of the Committee, or override its
contrary resolution. The vote of each member shall be recorded.
Verified Complaint by at least 1/3 of all Members of the
House
Section 3. […]
(4) In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment
is filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House,
the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial
by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.
Note:
Once an Article of Impeachment is passed, regardless of the
mode, the public official is already IMPEACHED. But he or
she is not yet removed from office, because there must first be
conviction before removal is effected.
Trial in Senate
Section 3 […]
(6) The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all
cases of impeachment. When sitting for that purpose, the
Senators shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of
the Philippines is on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court shall preside but not vote. No person shall be convicted
without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the
Senate.
Effect of Conviction
Section 3.[…]
(7) Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extended
further than removal from office and disqualification to hold
any office under the Republic of the Philippines, but the party
convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to
prosecution, trial, and punishment according to law.
Other Powers
Section 23. (1) The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of both
Houses in joint session assembled, voting separately, shall have
the sole power to declare the existence of a state of war.
Delegate Emergency Powers
Section 23. […]
(2) In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress
may, by law, authorize the President, for a limited period and
subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise
powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national
policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress,
such powers shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof.
Board of Canvassers for President and Vice-President
Section 4, Article VII:
The returns of every election for President and Vice-President,
duly certified by the board of canvassers of each province or
city, shall be transmitted to the Congress, directed to the
President of the Senate. Upon receipt of the certificates of
canvass, the President of the Senate shall, not later than thirty
days after the day of the election, open all the certificates in the
presence of the Senate and the House of Representatives in joint
public session, and the Congress, upon determination of the
authenticity and due execution thereof in the manner provided
by law, canvass the votes.
Power to Elect President and or Vice-President in case of
Tie
Section 4, Article VII:
The person having the highest number of votes shall be
proclaimed elected, but in case two or more shall have an equal
and highest number of votes, one of them shall forthwith be
chosen by the vote of a majority of all the Members of both
Houses of the Congress, voting separately.
Power to Approve Presidential Amnesties
Section 19, Article VII:
Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in
this Constitution, the President may grant reprieves,
commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures,
after conviction by final judgment.
He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the
concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress.
 Power to Revoke /Extend Proclamation of Martial Law
Section 18, Article VII:
[…] The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a
majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may
revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall
not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the
President, […]
Senate Power to Concur in Treaties
Section 21, Article VII:
No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective
unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of
the Senate.
Note:
The President, personally or through his internationally
recognized representatives, ratifies the treaty. Signing the treaty
or international agreement is ratification under international
law. The Senate concurs in the ratified treaty.
(Ratification is an act of signing a treaty. That’s why it is
concurrence.)
Judge President’s Fitness
Section 11. […]
If the Congress, within ten days after receipt of the last written
declaration, or, if not in session, within twelve days after it is
required to assemble, determines by a two-thirds vote of both
Houses, voting separately, that the President is unable to
discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice-
President shall act as President; otherwise, the President shall
continue exercising the powers and duties of his office.
Power to Amend the Constitution
Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be
proposed by:
1. The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its
Members; or
2. A Constitutional Convention, upon the vote
Section 1 and 3, Art. XVII, 1987 Constitution
1. Expiration of period
2. Resolution of the Congress
3. Adjournment of the Congress
Topic 4: The Executive Department: The President
Section 1. The Executive power shall be vested in the President
of the Philippines.
Qualifications
Section 2. No person may be elected President unless he is a
natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, able
to read and write, at least forty years of age on the day of the
election, and a resident of the Philippines for at least ten years
immediately preceding such election.
“Spare Tie”
Section 3. There shall be a Vice-President who shall have the
same qualifications and term of office and be elected with, and
in the same manner, as the President. He may be removed from
office in the same manner as the President.
[…]
Vice-President as Cabinet Member
Section 3. […]
The Vice-President may be appointed as a Member of the
Cabinet. Such appointment requires no confirmation.
Election, Term, and Oath: President
Section 4. The President and the Vice-President shall be elected
by direct vote of the people for a term of six years which shall
begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following the day
of the election and shall end at noon of the same date, six years
thereafter. The President shall not be eligible for any re-
election. No person who has succeeded as President and has
served as such for more than four years shall be qualified for
election to the same office at any time.
“The President shall not be eligible for any re-election”
Can a President who has not able to finish its term run again
for presidency?
- Estrada
“Private respondent was not elected President the second time
he ran. Since the issue on the proper interpretation of the phrase
"any reelection" will be premised on a person’s second
(whether immediate or not) election as President, there is no
case or controversy to be resolved in this case. No live conflict
of legal rights exists. There is in this case no definite, concrete,
real or substantial controversy that touches on the legal relations
of parties having adverse legal interests. No specific relief may
conclusively be decreed upon by this Court in this case that will
benefit any of the parties herein. As such, one of the essential
requisites for the exercise of the power of judicial review, the
existence of an actual case or controversy, is sorely lacking in
this case.”
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
Gloria succeeded the Presidency in 2001, less than 3 years
remaining in term of President Estrada. Thus, she was eligible
to run for President in the 2004 National Elections.
Section 4. […]
No Vice-President shall serve for more than two successive
terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of
time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity
of the service for the full term for which he was elected.
Note:
The regular election for President and Vice-President is held on
the second Monday of May, unless otherwise provided by law.
Congress as Canvassers
In the elections for President and Vice-President, the Congress
shall act as the Board of Canvassers and it shall have the power
to proclaim the candidate having the highest votes as President
and Vice-President.
It shall also have the power to choose the President and Vice-
President in case two or more candidates thereof obtained equal
and highest votes.
The Presidential Electoral Tribunal
Section 4. […]
The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of
all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications
of the President or Vice-President, and may promulgate its rules
for the purpose.
The Constitution states “The Supreme Court”, not the
“Presidential Electoral Tribunal”, is the establishment of a
Presidential Electoral Tribunal legal?
“By the same token, the PET is not a separate and distinct entity
from the Supreme Court, albeit it has functions peculiar only to
the Tribunal. It is obvious that the PET was constituted in
implementation of Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution,
and it faithfully complies – not unlawfully defies – the
constitutional directive. The adoption of a separate seal, as well
as the change in the nomenclature of the Chief Justice and the
Associate Justices into Chairman and Members of the Tribunal,
respectively, was designed simply to highlight the singularity
and exclusivity of the Tribunal’s functions as a special electoral
court.” (Romulo Macalintal v. PET)
Judicial Power, not Quasi-Judicial
It is also beyond cavil that when the Supreme Court, as PET,
resolves a presidential or vice-presidential election contest, it
performs what is essentially a judicial power. […] The Supreme
Court’s method of deciding presidential and vice-presidential
election contests, through the PET, is actually a derivative of
the exercise of the prerogative conferred by the aforequoted
constitutional provision. Thus, the subsequent directive in the
provision for the Supreme Court to "promulgate its rules for the
purpose." (Romulo Macalintal v. PET)
The President, Vice-President, or the Acting President shall
take the oath or affirmation before they enter on the execution
of their office.
Rules on Succession
Vacancy
- Occurs when the person entitled to hold office suffers
from inability, or otherwise incapacity to qualify, or
when there is no person chosen for the position
notwithstanding the conduct of an election.
Rules in case of Vacancy at the Beginning of the Term of
the President
Though elected, a person does not automatically assume the
office of the Presidency. His assumption into office starts when
his/her term starts. Between the date of proclamation and the
start of the term, person is considered as a President-elect.
Rules in case of Permanent Vacancy in the Office of the
President
In case of permanent vacancy, the Vice-President shall become
the President. If the President-elect dies or suffers from
permanent disability (brain dead, for example), the Vice-
President-elect shall become the President. Meaning, while he
or she has been proclaimed as Vice-President, he or she will
assume the presidency by noon of 30th of June.
Rules in case of Temporary Vacancy in the Office of the
President
In contrast, in case of temporary vacancy, such as when the
President-elect fails to qualify (not yet taken his or her oath, for
example) or when the President shall not have been chosen
(failure of election, incomplete canvassing, etc.), the Vice-
President-elect shall only act as President – until the President
qualifies or a President shall have been chosen.
What if there is vacancy, whether permanent or temporary,
in both positions of the President and Vice-President at the
same time?
If both the President and the Vice-President has not been chosen
or qualified, or have died, or become permanently disabled, the
Senate President, or in his disability, the Speaker of the House
shall act as President, until a President and Vice-President shall
have been chosen and qualified.
In the event of the inability of the said officials, Congress shall,
by law, provide for the manner in which one who is to act as
President shall be selected, until a President or a Vice-President
shall have qualified.

Note:

The person designated to act as President shall continue to act

as such, until a President or a Vice-President shall have been
chosen and qualified.

When the Vice-President is chosen and qualified, without the

President, the person designated by law will cease to act as
President, because it is now the Vice-President who shall act as
President, until the President is chosen and qualified, because it
is as if temporary vacancy in the office of the President.

Note:

There is no rule of succession, if a temporary vacancy occurs

(fails to qualify or no Vice-President is chose) at the beginning
of the term. The State can afford to have no Vice-President at
the beginning of the term of the office.

But, if the vacancy occurs during the term, the President shall
nominate a Vice President from among the members of the
Senate and the House of Representatives who shall assume
office upon confirmation by a majority vote of all Members of
both House of Congress, voting separately.