CHAPTER 1 1 LEGISLATION Legislative power is vested in the Cor In Government of the Philippine Islands v. Spri defined legislative power as the authority, make laws, and to alter and repeal them, | continued to explain the extent of legislative ngress of the Phil ee ipPines.! the Supreme Court under the Constitution, to In the same case, the Court Powers: The Legislature cannot lawfull which are in their nature esse: judicial. The Legislature cannot take part in its execution or construction. So the Philippine Legislature is not a Partaker in either executive or judicial power, except as the Philippine Senate participates in the executive power through having the right to confirm or reject nominations made by the Governor-General, and except as the Legislature participates in the judicial power through being made the sole judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its elective members and through having the right to try its own members for disorderly behavior. The Philippine Legislature may nevertheless exercise such auxiliary powers as are necessary and appropriate to its independence and to make its express powers effective. IY exercise powers, ntially executive or make a law and then The grant of legislative power to Congress is broad, general “comprehensive, The legislative body possesses plenary Bowel: all purposes of civil government. Any power, deemed to be legislative » a8¢ and tradition, is necessarily possessed by Congress, unless = Constitution has lodged this power elsewhere. In other words, except a a ‘Const, Art Vig. RNo, 26979, Aprit 1, 1927,286 | LEGAL METHOD ESSENTIALS 3.0 tution, either expressly or impliedly, lege : lative limited by the Consti ‘ . i xtends to mai tee ters of general Concer power embraces all subj or common interest? Legislative power is distinct from executive power, Compe makes laws but it is the President who executes the laws. The ee power is vested in the President; it is the power to enforce ang administer the laws or the power of carrying the laws into practical operation and enforcing their due observance. LEGISLATIVE POWERS Legislative power is vested in a bicameral Congress of the Philippines. The Senate is composed of twenty-four senators elected at large by qualified registered voters of the country, while the House of Representatives is composed of not more than two hundred fifty members elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area.® The Philippines has party-list_ representatives elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations. President Marcos exercised legislative power under Amendment No. 6 of the 1973 Constitution.* After the collapse of the Marcos dictatorship in February 1986, President Corazon Aquino established a revolutionary government. On March 24, 1986, she issued Proclamation No. 3, promulgating the Provisional Constitution, or more popularly referred to as the Freedom Constitution. Under Article Il, Section 1 of the Freedom Constitution, the President continued te exercise legislative power until a legislature was elected and convened BSS HSE HECEE ’ Ople ‘o1 i : eee c R. No. 127685, July 23, 1998, Se also League of Cities of the PITFP™S “ Flections, G.R. No. 176951, February 15, 2011. ‘The onstitution provides that Congress shall be composed of not more than 0? punted fifty members . com increasing fe otherwise fixed by law. The Constitution did not preclude cone See Mariano v. eae iP by passing a law, other than a general reapportionment ‘ sae tie National Powe ion on Elections, G.R. No. 118577, March 7, 1995. abe © Corpo | ta rporation v. Province of Lanao del Sur, G.R. No. 96700, NeLecistanion | 287 a new constitution. ae Congress was convened on July 2 wm president Aquino lost this legislative power under the Freed . tiation” When the first Congress under the 1987 Constitution _ President Aquino could no longer exercise legislative po: = woah laws she had previously enacted remained effective.* | Courts are wary of treading on legislative functions. The duty of the Court is merely to apply the law in such a way that it shall not seurp legislative powers by judicial legislation and that in the course of such application or construction, it should not make or supervise legislation, or under the guise of interpretation, modify, revise, amend, distort, remodel, or rewrite the law, or give the law a construction which is repugnant to its terms. The Court should not pre-empt Congress and usurp its inherent powers of making and enacting laws. While it may be the most expeditious approach, a short cut by judicial fiat is a dangerous proposition, lest the Court dare trespass on prohibited judicial legislation. PROCEDURE FOR MAKING LAWS The House of Representatives’ website features an outline" of the way laws are enacted in the Philippines. It fills in the details that are absent from a reading of the Constitution. The outline also presents a detailed picture of how a bill travels through the legislative and the executive branches of government. ssiopaity of San Juan v, Court of Appeals, GR, No. 125183, September 29, 1977 The Constitution restored legislative power to the Congress in the Philippines Article XVI »ry Provisions) of the 1987 Constitution states: Sec. 6 The incumbent President shall continue to exercise legislative Power until the first Congress is conve! lB laan Tribal Association, Inc. v. Ramos, ER, No. 127882, January 27, 2004. orpue v. People, GR. No, 180016, April 29, 2014. Judicial legislation happens when the “adds to what the law provides and does so in the guise of interpretation. Judi on happens when the Court reads into the law an interpretation? trate iow 4 BW cannot bear, See Re: Vicente S.E. Veloso, A.M. No. 12-847-CA, June 6 ee 22 Bil Becomes a Law, http Hew congress.gov-priiegisinfolindes PAP’ ET * Senate website has a similar outline which may be visited at hetp/ew"™ 8288 | LeGat METHOD ESSENTIALS 3.0 However, legislation is far more complicated in practice th ts. Legislation is not always the initiative of eleacs lawmakers. It may be drafted by other stakeholders, such as when ei society actively engages government. These groups find Sinead within Congress who are willing to champion their bills. The outline ico does not feature the informal channels for lobbying that exist in reality. Conference committees, for example, open a completely new opportunity to rewrite the law that has been subjected to hearings and debate in both chambers of Congress. Interest groups have access to this ty because hearings in this point are not really conducted in opportuni small closed-door meetings. The outline also does not account for the impact of the media on the final form of the law. The following is a virtually verbatim reproduction of the the outline presen House's outline: 1. Preparation of the bill The member or the bill drafting division of the reference and research bureau prepares and drafts the bill upon the member's request. 2. First reading 1. The bill is filed with the bills and index service and the same is numbered and reproduced. 2. Three days after its filing, the same is included in the order of business for first reading. 3. On first reading, the Secretary General reads the title and number of the bill. The Speaker of the House refers the bill to the appropriate committee/s. 3. Committee consideration/action 1. The committee where the bill was referred to evaluates it 0 determine the necessity of conducting public hearings. If the committee finds it necessary to conduct public hearing® ui schedules such hearings, issues public notices and invites Tesource persons from the public and private sectors th academe and experts on the proposed legislation. When the committee finds that public hearings are not needed it schedules the bill for committee discussions.Leaistation | 289 pased on the result of the public hearings or committee discussions, the committee may introduce amendments, consolidate bills on the same subject matter, or propose a substitute bill. Thereafter it prepares the corresponding committee report. The committee approves the committee report and formally transmits the same to the plenary affairs bureau. 4,Second reading, 1. The committee report is registered and numbered by the bills and index service. It is included in the order of business and referred to the committee on rules. The committee on rules schedules the bill for consideration on second reading. On second reading, the secretary general reads the number, title and text of the bill and the following takes place: a. Period of sponsorship and debate b. Period of amendments c Voting which may be by: i. Viva voce ii, Count by tellers iii, Division of the house; or iv. Nominal voting Third reading 1 The amendments, if there are any, are engrossed and printed copies of the bill are reproduced for third reading. The engrossed bill is included in the calendar of bills for third reading and copies of the same are distributed to all the members three days before its third reading. On third reading, the Secretary General reads only the number and title of the bill.290 | Legal METHOD Essenriacs 3.0 A roll call or nominal voting is called and a member, if he 4. desires, is given three minutes to explain her vote No amendment on the bill is allowed at this stage. a. The bill is approved by an affirmative vote of 5 majority of the members present. b. If the bill is disapproved, the same is transmitted to the archives. 6, Transmittal of the approved bill to the Senate The approved bill is transmitted to the Senate for its concurrence. 7, Senate action on approved bill of the house The bill undergoes the same legislative process in the Senate. 8. Conference committee 1. A conference committee is constituted and is composed of members from each house of congress to settle, reconcile or thresh out differences or disagreements on any provision of the bill. 2. The conferees are not limited to reconciling the differences in the bill but may introduce new provisions germane to the subject matter or may report out an entirely new bill on the subject."! 3. The conference committee prepares a report to be signed by all the conferees and the chairman. 4. The conference committee report is submitted for consideration/approval of both Houses. No amendment is allowed at this point, ee " See Tol 2 olentino v. Secretary of Finance, G.R. No. 115455, August 25, 1994.aa Leostanon 291 to the President | of the bill ansmittal copies of the bill, signed by the Senate President and the “f the House of Representatives and certified by both the yeaket © the Senate and the Secretary General of the House, sary 0 : oeited to the President. tarsi dent’s action on the bill Ir are 40, Presi |. Ifthe bill is approved the president, it is assigned an RA (Republic Act) number and transmitted to the chamber where it originated. 2, If the bill is vetoed, it is transmitted together with a message citing the reason for the veto, to the house where the bill originated. 11. Action on approved bill The bill is reproduced and copies are sent to the Official cuvette office for publication and distribution to the implementing ayencies. It ig then included in the annual compilation of acts and resolutions. 12. Action on vetoed bill ‘The message is included in the order of business. If Congress decides to override the veto, the House and the Senate shall proceed separately to reconsider the bill or the vetoed items of the bill. If the bill orits vetoed items is passed by a vote of two-thirds of the members of cach house, such bill or items shall become a law. *\'oal Gazette is the official journal of the Republic of the Philippines. It has been in '%2 and is edited at the Office of the President by virtue of Commonwealth Act “amended by the Administrative Code of 1987. It publishes Executive Issuances iris “cs Judicial papers, and other government documents every week During the Ppine Republic (1946-1972) it also published the President's statements and log “es In 2010, the Official Gazette went online, adopting the URL www gov ph It nis see tegularly with speeches, reports, statements, press releases, and 10m the Office of the President and other departments. It has also revived the *A8ing the President's official activities. See http://www gov ph/about:this292 | LcGAt METHOD ESSENTIALS 3.0 Congress can produce statutes which are several pages or Some laws, however, merely amend others and can often be les uate n page long. The following is an example of a measure designed a to eliminate discrimination against illegitimate children.” Republic of the Philippines Congress of the Philippines Metro Manila Twelfth Congress Third Regular Session Begun and held in Metro Manila, on Monday, the twenty-second day of July, two thousand three. Republic Act No. 9255 February 24 2004 AN ACT ALLOWING ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN TO USE THE SURNAME OF THEIR FATHER, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ARTICLE 176 OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 209, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE “FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES” Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled: SECTION 1. Article 176 of Executive Order No. 209, otherwise known as the Family Code of the Philippines, is hereby amended to read as follows: eee amen cca This law is expected to pave the wa fe i : vr inheritance Tights for illegitimate 'y for support and increased successional 0! Laws relatir children. See Flerida Ruth P. Romero, Concerns and Emerging Tren ng fo Family and Children, 86 Pra. L.J.5, 33 (2012)Leststation 29g “Article 176. legitimate children shall use the surname and shall be under the parental authority of their mother, and shall be entitled to support in conformity with this Code. However, illegitimate children may use the surname of their father if their filiation has been expressly recognized by the father through the record of birth appearing in the civil register, or when an admission in a public document or Private handwritten instrument is made by the father. Provided, the father has the right to institute an action before the regular courts to prove non-filiation during his lifetime. The legitime of each illegitimate child shall consist of one-half of the legitime of a legitimate child.” SECTION 2. Repealing Clause. ~ All laws, presidential decrees, executive orders, proclamations, rules and regulations, which are inconsistent with the Provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. SECTION 3, Effectivity Clause. ~ This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days from its publication in the Official Gazette or in two (2) newspapers of general circulation. Approved, Sed.) FRANKLIN (Sgd.) JOSE DE DRILON VENECIA JR. President of the Senate Speaker of the House of Representatives294 | Leca METHOD EssenTiats 3.0 a consolidation of House Bill No. JI No. 2510 was finally passed by tives and the Senate on This Act which is 4437 and Senate Bil the House of Represent February 4, 2004, respectively. January 21, 2004 and (Sgd.) OSCAR G. YABES (Sgd.) ROBERTO P. Secretary of Senate NAZARENO Secretary General House of Represenatives Approved: February 24, 2004 (Sgd.) GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO President of the Philippines Another example is a law that decriminalized vagrany: Senator Francis Escudero explained that vagrancy “has become @ common excuse for law enforcers to detain, arrest or bring to the police station any person they don’t have sufficient reasons to arrest oF Uno with no specific crime to charge with.”* So Congress enacted the following law: ieee Information Agency, Senate Approves on Second Reading a Bill Decriminalizi"s sgrancy, PIA Paes RELEASe (March 9, 2011), _http//archives.pia6°?P™ m1 é&t=1&id=21149y=2011 &mo=02.Lesistanion |295 Republic of the Philippines Congress of the Philippines Metro Manila Fifteenth Congress Second Regular Session Begun and held in Metro Manila, on Monday, the twenty-fifth day of July, two thousand eleven, REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10158 AN ACT DECRIMINALIZING VAGRANCY, AMENDING FOR THIS PURPOSE ARTICLE 202 OF ACT NO. 3815, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE REVISED PENAL CODE Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled: SECTION 1. Article 202 of the Revised Penal Code is hereby, amended to read as follows: “Article 202. Prostitutes; Penalty. - For the purposes of this article, women who, for money or profit, habitually indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be prostitutes. “Any person found guilty of any of the offenses covered by this article shall be punished by arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, and in case ofyo Lea Hern Ene ial 30 sto mayor in its mediurn period to recidivism, by arre period or a fine nal in its minimum prision correctio 200 to 2,000 pesos, or both, in the ranging, from discretion of the court.” IN 2. Effect on Pending Cases. ~ All pending SECTIOI s of Article 202 of the cases under the provision d Penal Code on Vagrancy prior to its Revise all be dismissed upon amendment by this Act shi effectivity of this Act. SECTION 3. Immediate Release of Convicted Persons. - All persons serving sentence for violation of the provisions of Article 202 of the Revised Penal Code on Vagrancy prior to its amendment by this Act shall be immediately released upon effectivity of this Act: Provided, That they are not serving sentence or detained for any other offense or felony. SECTION 4. Repealing Clause. - All laws, presidential decrees, executive orders, rules and regulations and other issuances, or any part thereof, inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed, modified or amended accordingly. SECTION 5. Effectivity Clause. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in the Official Gazette or in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation. Approved, (Sgd.) FELICIANO Sed.) JUAN PONCE BELMONTE JR. ENRILE Speaker of the House of President of the Senate RepresentativesLectstation 297 This Act which is a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 2726 and House Bill No. 4936 was finally passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives on March 14,2011 and January 30, 2012, respectively. (Ggd.) MARILYN B. a0 (Sgd.) EMMA LIRIO- BARUA- REYES secretary General House of Secretary of the Senate Representatives Approved: MARCH 27, 2012 (Sgd.) BENIGNO S. AQUINO III President of the Philippines JUDICIAL CHECK ON CONGRESS SUPERMAJORITY VOTES The power of the legislature to make laws includes the power ‘amend and repeal these laws. Congress cannot, by its own act, limit ils power to amend or repeal laws. When Congress requires a higher number of votes to amend a law, the Supreme Court has the duty to Strike down such act for interfering with the plenary powers of Congress, Each House of Congress has the power to approve bills by @298 | Lean. MeTHOo ESSENTIALS 3.0 provided there is quorum. The act of one legislatur e mere majority vote, ‘and cannot tie the hands of, future legislatures, is not binding upon, In Duarte v. Dade,"* the Court explained that: A state legislature has a plenary law-making power over all subjects, whether pertaining to persons or within its territorial jurisdiction, either to things, new laws or repeal the old, unless introduce prohibited expressly or by implication by the federal constitution or limited or restrained by its own. It cannot bind itself or its successors by enacting irrepealable laws except when so restrained. Every legislative body may modify or abolish the acts passed by itself or its predecessors. This power of repeal may be exercised at the same session at which the original act was passed; and even while a bill is in its progress and before it becomes a law. This legislature cannot bind a future legislature to a particular mode of repeal. It cannot declare in advance the intent of subsequent legislatures or the effect of subsequent legislation upon existing statutes. IRREPEALABLE LAWS Among the implied substantive limitations on the legislative powers is the prohibition against the passage of irrepealable laws. Irrepealable laws deprive succeeding legislatures of the power to craft laws appropriate to the operative milieu. Irrepealable laws promote “an unhealthy stasis in the legislative front and dissuades dynamic democratic impetus that may be responsive to the times.”” Congress can repeal all laws even those promulgated by President Corazo" "GR. No, 196271, February 28, 2012 "32 Phil. 36, 49 (1915), © The City of Davao v. se : son CY of Pavan v. The Regional Trial Court Branch XI, G:R. No. 127388, August 18LesIstation | 299 in the exercise of her extraordinary legislative power under the in il ae tom Constitution.'* ir For example, the designation of the Office of the Government vate Council (OGCC) as the legal counsel for Government Owned lled Corporations was written into law, initially by Republic Act No. 3838, and later by the Administrative Code of 1987. However, ites no impediment to Congress to imposing a different role for the ccc with respect to particular GOCCs that it may charter. Congress deignated the OGCC as the “legal adviser and consultant” (rather than js counsel) £0 the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS). Congress is not bound to retain the OGCC as the primary or exclusive jal counsel of GSIS even if it performed such a role for other GOCCs. To bind Congress to perform in that manner would be akin to elevating the OGCC's statutory role to irrepealable status, and it is basic that Congress is barred from passing irrepealable laws.” Corpo and Contro! Congress, in the legitimate exercise of its lawmaking powers, can enact a law withdrawing a tax exemption just as easily as it may grant it under Section 28 (4) of Article VI of the Constitution. Thus, in Republic v. Caguioa,” the Court ruled that Congress can amend Section 131 of the National Internal Revenue Code in a manner it sees fit, as it did when it passed Republic Act No. 9334. UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS The power of Congress to enact laws does not include the right ‘0 pass unconstitutional laws.?! The Supreme Court will not hesitate to declare a law or act invalid when it is necessary, as when the acts of the ecutive and legislative branches, or of any official, “betray the People’s will as expressed in the Constitution.”2 Courts may nullify laws if they are unconstitutional or if their effect is unconstitutional. As ee “Atitiw a ¥ Zamor, GR. No, 143374, September 30, 2005. ayy Met Service Insurance System v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 183905, April 16, Aguioa, G.R. No. 168584, October 15, 2007. “Wekamgy go the Department of Energy, G.R. No. 124369, December 3, 1997. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 86889, December 4, 1990.4300 | LeGat MeTHOD ESSENTIALS 3.0 the Supreme Court explained, “[a] statute may be declarey unconstitutional because it is not within the legislative power to enact: lishes methods or forms that infringe constitutional or it creates or estab ffect violates the Constitution or its basic principles; or its purpose oF ¢ principles.” The Constitution is within Constitution vests the power to executive agreement, presidential or regulation unconstitutional in # determination of whether a law contravenes the the jurisdiction of regular courts. The declare a law, treaty, international or decree, order, instruction, ordinance he courts, including in the regional trial courts.* ‘The general rule is that where part of a statute is void because it is repugnant to the Constitution, while another part is valid, the valid portion, if susceptible to being separated from the invalid, may stand and be enforced. But as the Supreme Court explained, When the parts of a statute, however, are so mutually dependent and connected, as-_—_ conditions, considerations, or compensations for each other, as to warrant a belief that the legislature intended them as a whole, the nullity of one part will vitiate the rest. In which case, if some parts are unconstitutional, all the other provisions, which are thus dependent, conditional, or connected must consequently fall with them.” Courts proceed cautiously when striking down other branches of government. Every law is presumed constitutional, and to justify its nullification, “there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not a doubtful and Tawang Multi-Purpose Cooperative v. La Trinidad Water District, G.R. No: 16547! March 22, 2011 * Betoy v. Board i : a en tie of Directors, National Power Corporation, G.R. No. ee * Pambansang Koalis : yon ng mga Samahang Magsasaka at Manggagawa S: spas Secretary, G.R. No. 147036-37, April 10, 22, 2 NiyuganLesistation |301 mentative one.” This presumption of constitutionality can b only by the clearest showing that there was indeed e the Constitution, and only when such a conclusion iy reached bY the required majority may the Court pronounce, in the aischarge of the duty it cannot escape, that the challenged act must be a struck down infraction The Supreme Court, for example, demonstrated restraint when ine “Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003" was challenged as @ violation of the Constitution? In that case, the Petitioner argued that the law offended Article IV of the Constitution: Petitioner contends that Rep. Act No. 9225 cheapens Philippine citizenship. He avers that Sections 2 and 3 of Rep. Act No. 9225, together, allow dual allegiance and not dual citizenship. Petitioner maintains that Section 2 allows all Filipinos, either natural-bo or naturalized, who become foreign citizens, to retain their Philippine citizenship without losing their foreign citizenship. Section 3 permits dual allegiance because said law allows natural-born citizens of the Philippines to regain their Philippine citizenship by simply taking an oath of allegiance without forfeiting their foreign allegiance. The Constitution, however, is categorical that dual allegiance is inimical to the national interest.” ‘The Supreme Court dismissed the petition saying: To begin with, Section 5, Article IV of the Constitution is a declaration of a policy and it is not a self- executing provision. The legislature still has to enact the law on dual allegiance. In Sections 2 and 3 of Rep. Act No. 9225, the framers were not concerned with Jt. Executive Secretary, G.R. No, 195770, July 17, 2012 . inst Monopoly and Poverty v, Secretary of Budget and Management, GR: No- 24, 2012. Cali ’, vy cillte v: Datumanon, G.R. No. 160869, May 1, 20074902 | Lect MeTHoD ESSENTIALS 3.0 dual citizenship per se, but with the status of naturalized citizens who maintain their allegiance to their countries of origin even after their naturalization. Congress was given a mandate to draft a law that would set specific parameters of what really constitutes dual allegiance. Until this is done, it would be premature for the judicial department, including this Court, to tule on issues pertaining to dual allegiance.” The Court added that in determining whether the acts of the legislature are consistent with the Constitution, it proceeds “with judicial restraint and act with caution and forbearance.” Following the doctrine of separation of powers, the Court “cannot arrogate the duty of setting the parameters of what constitutes dual allegiance when the Constitution itself has clearly delegated the duty of determining what acts constitute dual allegiance for study and legislation by Congress.” FISCAL AUTONOMY OF THE SUPREME COURT The 1987 Constitution molded a stronger and more independent judiciary. It took away the power of Congress to repeal, alter, or supplement rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure, and held that the power to promulgate these rules was no longer shared by the Court with Congress or the Executive Branch. Thus, in one ruling, the Court explained that: The separation of powers among the three co-equal branches of our government has erected an impregnable wall that keeps the power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure within the sole province of this Court. The other branches trespass upon this prerogative if they enact laws or issue orders that effectively repeal, alter or modify Mid. md > Id,LEGISLATION 1999 any of the procedural rules me Cout. Viewed from this perspective, the eae” te ape ane of exemption from the Payment of legal fees under Section 39 of Republic Act No. 829] necessarily fails.™ Promulgated 5, Congress cannot exempt entities from the : oe Payment of legal gees because itis proscribed by the Court’s Judicial autonomy, Fiscal autonomy recognizes the of the Court to levy, assess and legal fees. Moreover, Power and authority collect fees, includin legal fees under Rule 141 have two basic components, the Judiciary Development Fund DF) and the Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund (SAJF). The laws, which established the JDF and SAJF expressly declare the identical purpose of these funds to guarantee the independence of the Judiciary as mandated by the Constitution and public policy. Legal fees therefore do not only constitute a vital Source of the Court's financial resources but also com| prise an essential element of the Court’s fiscal independence, Any exemption from the payment of legal fees granted by Congress to government-owned or controlled corporations and local government units will necessarily reduce the JDF andthe SAJE. Undoubtedly, such situation is constitutionally infirm for it impairs the Court’s guaranteed fiscal autonomy and erodes its independence. Thus, the exemption of cooperatives from Payment of court ind sheriff's fees no lon ger stands. Cooperatives can no longer invoke : the Matter of Clarifi “Set Cooper I ication of Exemption from Payment of all Court and Sherit’s nas the Pane UY Registered in Accordance with Republic Act No, 9520, otherwise ; Philippine Cooperative Code of 2008, A.M. No. 12-2-03-0, March 13, 2012.senrias 3.0 304 | Leant METHOD Es ended by Republic Act No. 9520, as basis ct No. 6938 as. am nt of legal fees. Republic A payme! for exemption from the OTHER RESTRICTIONS ON LEGISLATION RIDERS There are other restrictions on the power to enact laws, ited from inserting “riders.” A rider is a provision purpose of the bill in which it is » the Supreme Court explained that tution that prohibit riders. The first is which provides: Congress is prohib that is alien to the subject or incorporated. In Atitin v. Zamora there are two sections Section 25 (2) of Articl (2) No provision or the general appropri: specifically to some pa ‘Any such provision or en its operation to the appropri 1) of Article VI of the Constitution, of the Consti! le VI of the Constitution, enactment shall be embraced in ations bill unless it relates ticular appropriation therein. actment shall be limited in ation to which it relates. The other is Section 26 ( which provides: (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject, which shall be expressed in the title thereof. The rationale against inserting a rider in both provisions is similar: “The unity of the subject matter of a bill is mandatory in order e prevent hodge-podge or log-rolling legislation, to avoid surprise oF aud upon the legislature, and to fairly apprise the people of the subjects of legislation that are being considered.”** “Id, "GRIN oe 143374, September 30, 2005,Leaistanion | 305 ONE SUBJECT-ONE BILL RULE The one subject-one title rule expresses the principle that the title of a law must not be “so uncertain that the average person reading, it would not be informed of the purpose of the enactment or put on inquiry as to its contents, or which is misleading, either in referring to or indicating one subject where another or different one is really embraced in the act, or in omitting any expression or indication of the real subject or scope of the act.” Considering the close intimacy between “reproductive health” and “responsible parenthood” which bears to the attainment of the goal of achieving “sustainable human development as stated under its terms, the Court found no reason to believe that Congress intentionally sought to deceive the public as to the contents of the assailed legislation.” The one subject requirement under the Constitution is satisfied if all the parts of the statute are related and are germane to the subject matter expressed in the title, or as long as they are not inconsistent with or foreign to the general subject and title.” In Giron v. Comission on Elections, the petitioner argued that Sections 12 and 14 of the Fair Election Act® violated Article VI, Section 26 (1) of the 1987 Constitution. The Constitution provides that “Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.” Giron argued that these provisions are unrelated to the main subject of the Act, which was the lifting of the political ad ban. The questioned provisions read: SECTION 12. Substitution of Candidates. — In case of valid substitutions after the official ballots have been printed, the votes cast for the substituted candidates shall be considered as stray votes but shall not invalidate the whole ballot. For this purpose, the official ballots shall provide spaces where the voters ——S “Imbong v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014. 5 “ Remman Enterprises, Inc v. Professional Regulatory Board of Real Estate Service, GR No 197676, February 04, 2014. “GR. No. 188179, January 22, 2013. “Republic Act No. 9006 (2001).4306 | Le@at METHOD EssenrIALs 3.0 e name of the substitute candidates if g for the latter: Provided, however, That if f the same family name, may write th they are votin, the substitute candidate is o! this provision shall not apply. SECTION 14. Repealing Clause. — Sections 67 and 85 of the Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 81) and Sections 10 and 11 of Republic Act No. 6646 are hereby repealed. As a consequence, the first he third paragraph of Section 11 of No. 8436 is rendered ineffective. All 1 decrees, executive orders, rules and + thereof inconsistent with the by repealed or modified proviso in # Republic Act laws, presidential regulations, or any par provisions of this Act are here or amended accordingly. ‘The Court was not persuaded and i re germane to the subject expressed in the title of Republic ‘> Enhance the Holding of Free, Orderly, Honest, Peaceful and Credible Elections through Fair Election Practices. In the Court’s view, the title was worded broadly enough to include the measures embodied in the assailed sections. t found that Section 12 and Section 14 wel ‘Act No. 9006: An Act t da liberal approach in the application of 0 cripple or impede than technical satisfied “if the of the statute e, the Court The Court has adopte: the one title-one subject rule “3 Jt should be given a practical rather t the constitutional requirement is bject and all the provisions 44 In yet another cass “so as not t legislation. construction and tha title expresses the general sul are germane to that general subject. explained that: rule does not require the he enactment fully index oF e minute details plied with if the The “one title-one subject” Congress to employ in the title of # language of such precision as to mirror, catalogue all the contents and th therein. The rule is sufficiently com aaees v. Abalos, G.R. No. 114783, December 8, 1994. lero v. Cabatuando, G.R. No. L-14542, October 31, 1962.