Lidasan vs Comelec (1967)

Summary Cases:

● Bara Lidasan vs. Commission On Elections (COMELEC) 21 SCRA 496

Subject:

One Subject, One Bill Rule; Partial Constitutionality

Facts:

Assailed in this petition is House Bill 1247, which became Republic Act 4790 entitled "An Act Creating
the Municipality of Dianaton in the Province of Lanao del Sur." It was found that the bill includes barrios
located in another province – Cotabato. Inn effect, by virtue of the stature, twelve barrios - in two
municipalities in the province of Cotabato - are transferred to the province of Lanao del Sur. This brought
about a change in the boundaries of the two provinces.

Prompted by the coming elections, Comelec adopted a resolution implementing the statute.

This triggered the present action for certiorari and prohibition by Bara Lidasan, a resident and taxpayer
of one of the affected municipalities (Parang, Cotabato), and a qualified voter for the 1967 elections. He
prays that Republic Act 4790 be declared unconstitutional alleging violation of the constitutional
requirement that "[n]o bill which may be enacted into law shall embrace more than one subject which
shall be expressed in the title of the bill.”

Held:

One Bill-One Subject

1. The constitutional provision contains dual limitations upon legislative power. First. Congress is to
refrain from conglomeration, under one statute, of heterogeneous subjects. Second. The title of the bill is
to be couched in a language sufficient to notify the legislators and the public and those concerned of the
import of the single subject thereof.

| Page 1 of 3
2. The Constitution does not require Congress to employ in the title of an enactment, language of such
precision as to mirror, fully index or catalogue all the contents and the minute details therein. It suffices if
the title should serve the purpose of the constitutional demand that it inform the legislators, the persons
interested in the subject of the bill, and the public, of the nature, scope and consequences of the
proposed law and its operation. And this, to lead them to inquire into the body of the bill, study and
discuss the same, take appropriate action thereon, and, thus, prevent surprise or fraud upon the
legislators

3. The test of the sufficiency of a title is whether or not it is misleading; and, while technical
accuracy is not essential, and the subject need not be stated in express terms where it is clearly
inferable from the details set forth, a title which is 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, is
bad.

4. In determining sufficiency of particular title its substance rather than its form should be considered,
and the purpose of the constitutional requirement, of giving, notice to all persons interested, should be
kept in mind by the court.

5. Republic Act 4790 is null and void. The title - "An Act Creating the Municipality of Dianaton, in the
Province of Lanao del Sur" - projects the impression that solely the province of Lanao del Sur is affected
by the creation of Dianaton. Not the slightest intimation is there that communities in the adjacent
province of Cotabato are incorporated in this new Lanao del Sur town. The phrase "in the Province of
Lanao del Sur," read without subtlety or contortion, makes the title misleading, deceptive. Such title did
not inform the members of Congress as to the full impact of the law; it did not apprise the people in the
towns of Buldon and Parang in Cotabato and in the province of Cotabato itself that part of their territory
is being taken away from their towns and province and added to the adjacent Province of Lanao del Sur.

6. The lumping together of barrios in adjacent but separate provinces under one statute is neither a
natural nor logical consequence of the creation of the new municipality of Dianaton. A change of
boundaries of the two provinces may be made without necessarily creating a new municipality and vice
versa.

Partial Unconstitutionality

7. It was argued that RA 4790 may still be salvaged with reference to the areas found within Lanao del
Sur, with the mere nullification of the portion in the other province of Cotabato. However, when the bill
was presented in Congress, the totality of the twenty-one barrios-not nine barrios-was in the mind of the
| Page 2 of 3
proponent thereof. Dianaton was created upon the basic considerations of progressive community, large
aggregate population and sufficient income. Republic Act 4790 is thus inseparable, and it is accordingly
null and void in its totality.

8. The general rule is that where part of the statute is void, as repugnant to the Organic Law, while
another part is valid, the valid portion, if separable from the invalid, may stand and be enforced. But in
order to do this, the valid portion must be so far independent of the invalid portion that it is fair to
presume that the Legislature would have enacted it by itself if they had supposed that they could not
constitutionally enact the other. Enough must remain to make a complete, intelligible, and valid statute,
which carries out the legislative intent. The language used in the invalid part of the statute can have no
legal force or efficacy for any purpose whatever, and what remains must express the legislative will
independently of the void part, since the court has no power to legislate.

| Page 3 of 3
Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance

Summary Cases:

● Arturo M. Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance, et al.

Subjects:

Revenue Bills to “originate exclusively” in the House of Representatives, Procedure for Passage of Bill
into Law; Presidential certification, Bicameral Conference Committee, Enrolled Bill Doctrine, “One Bill,
One Subject” rule, Congressional Franchise subject to amendment, Freedom of Speech and of the
Press (VAT on Print Publications), Progressive System of Taxation, Non-impairment of Contracts

Facts:

Tolentino and other petitioners questioned the constitutionality of RA 7716 otherwise known as the EVAT
Law. RA 7716 sought to widen the tax base of the existing VAT system and enhance its administration
by amending the National Internal Revenue Code.

The original draft of RA 7716 (House Bill No. 11197) originated in the House of Representatives where it
passed three readings and afterward was sent to the Senate which came up with its own version
(Senate Bill No. 1630). The house bill and senate bill were then referred to a Conference Committee
which consolidated the two bill versions to produce the “enrolled bill” which the President signed into law.

Tolentino avers that (1) RA 7716 did not "originate exclusively" in the House of Representatives as
required by Art. VI, Section 24 of the Constitution because it is the result of the consolidation of two
distinct bills; (2) Senate bill did not pass three readings on separate days as required by the Art. VI,
Section 26 of the Constitution because the second and third readings were done on the same day; and
(3) the Conference Committee version included provisions not found in either the House bill or the
Senate bill

Held:

Revenue Bills to “originate exclusively” in the House of Representatives

1. The contention that the constitutional design is to limit the Senate's power in respect of revenue bills in
order to compensate for the grant to the Senate of the treaty-ratifying power and thereby equalize the
powers of both houses overlooks the fact that the powers being compared are different. We are dealing
here with the legislative power, which under the Constitution is vested not in any particular chamber but
in the Congress of the Philippines, consisting of a 'Senate and a House of Representatives.' The
exercise of the treaty-ratifying power is not the exercise of legislative power. It is the exercise of a check
on the executive power.

2. It is not the law - but the revenue bill - which is required by the Constitution to "originate
exclusively" in the House of Representatives. A bill originating in the House may undergo such
extensive changes in the Senate that the result may be a rewriting of the whole. As a result of the
Senate action, a distinct bill may be produced.

3. To insist that a revenue statute must substantially be the same as the House bill would be to deny the
Senate's power not only to "concur with amendments" but also to " propose amendments." It would
violate the coequality of legislative power of the two houses of Congress and in fact make the House
superior to the Senate.
| Page 1 of 4
4. What the Constitution simply means is that the initiative for filing appropriation, revenue or tariff bills,
bills authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of local application, and private bills must come from the
House of Representatives on the theory that, elected as they are from the districts, the members of the
House can be expected to be more sensitive to the local needs and problems. On the other hand, the
senators, who are elected at large, are expected to approach the same problems from the national
perspective. Both views are thereby made to bear on the enactment of such laws.

5. In fact, the Constitution does not prohibit the filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in anticipation of its
receipt of the bill from the House, so long as action by the Senate as a body is withheld pending receipt
of the House bill.

Procedure for Passage of Bill into Law; Presidential certification

6. The second and third reading of the Senate bill were done on the same day because the President
had certified S. No. 1630 as urgent. The presidential certification dispensed with the requirement
not only of printing but also that of reading the bill on separate days.

7. The phrase ‘except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment, etc.’ in
Art. VI, Sec 26(2) qualified the two stated conditions before a bill can become a law: (i) the bill has
passed three readings on separate days and (ii) it has been printed in its final form and distributed three
days before it is finally approved.

Bicameral Conference Committee

8. It is within the power of a conference committee to include in its report an entirely new provision that is
not found either in the House bill or in the Senate bill. If the committee can propose an amendment
consisting of one or two provisions, there is no reason why it cannot propose several provisions,
collectively considered as an "amendment in the nature of a substitute," so long as such amendment
is germane to the subject of the bills before the committee. After all, its report was not final but needed
the approval of both houses of Congress to become valid as an act of the legislative department. The
charge that in this case the Conference Committee acted as a third legislative chamber is thus without
any basis.

9. As to the contention that the Rules of the two chambers were disregarded in the preparation of the
Conference Committee Report because the Report did not contain a 'detailed statement of changes in,
or amendments to, the subject measure', this Court is not the proper forum for the enforcement of these
internal rules. Parliamentary rules are merely procedural and with their observance the courts have no
concern. So long as the procedural requirements under the Constitution have been observed, the court
will not step in to interfere.

10. Nor is there any reason for requiring that the Committee's Report must have undergone three
readings in each of the two houses. The nature of the bill requires that it be acted upon by each house
on a 'take it or leave it' basis, with the only alternative that if it is not approved by both houses, another
conference committee must be appointed. Art. VI, Sec 26(2) must be construed as referring only to bills
introduced for the first time in either house of Congress, not to the conference committee report.

Enrolled Bill Doctrine

11. An enrolled copy of a bill is conclusive not only of its provisions but also of its due enactment.

12. On the mere allegation that the Conference Committee ‘surreptitiously’ inserted provisions into a bill
| Page 2 of 4
which it had prepared, the court should decline to go behind the enrolled copy of the bill. To disregard
the "enrolled bill" rule in such case would be to disregard the respect due to a co-equal branch of our
government.

“One Bill, One Subject” rule

13. Art. IV, Sec 26(1) provides that "Every bill passed by Congress shall embrace only one subject which
shall be expressed in the title thereof."

14. The amendment of Sec. 103 of the NIRC (which removed the VAT exemption of PAL) is fairly
embraced in the title of RA 7716. The title states that the purpose of the statute is to expand the VAT
system, and one way of doing this is to widen its base by withdrawing some of the exemptions granted
before.

15. It is sufficient if the title expresses the general subject of the statute and all its provisions are
germane to the general subject thus expressed

Congressional Franchise subject to amendment

16. Sec 103 (Vat Exemptions) of the NIRC was amended by RA 7716. The effect of the amendment is to
remove the exemption granted to PAL, as far as the VAT is concerned.

17. This is within the power of Congress to do under Art. XII, Sec 11 of the Constitution, which provides
that the grant of a franchise for the operation of a public utility is subject to amendment, alteration or
repeal by Congress when the common good so requires.

Freedom of Speech and of the Press (VAT on Print Publications)

18. Republic Act No. 7716 amended Sec 103 by deleting par. (f) with the result that print media became
subject to the VAT with respect to all aspects of their operations.

19. If the press is now required to pay a value-added tax on its transactions, it is not because it is being
singled out, much less targeted, for special treatment but only because of the removal of the exemption
previously granted to it by law. Other transactions, likewise previously granted exemption, have been
delisted as part of the scheme to expand the base and the scope of the VAT system. The law would
perhaps be open to the charge of discriminatory treatment if the only privilege withdrawn had been that
granted to the press. But that is not the case.

20. The press is not exempt from the taxing power of the State. By granting exemptions, the State does
not forever waive the exercise of its sovereign prerogative.

21. Likewise, the removal of the exemption of printing, publication or importation of books and religious
articles, as well as their printing and publication, does not violate freedom of thought and of conscience.
For as the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v. Board of Equalization,
the Free Exercise of Religion Clause does not prohibit imposing a generally applicable sales and use tax
on the sale of religious material by a religious organization.

22. The registration fee is not equivalent to a prior restraint. The registration requirement is a central
feature of the VAT system. The fee is not imposed for the exercise of a privilege but only for the purpose
of defraying part of the cost of registration. The registration fee is thus a mere administrative fee.

| Page 3 of 4
Progressive System of Taxation

23. Congress shall “evolve a progressive system of taxation” has been interpreted to mean that “direct
taxes are to be preferred and as much as possible and indirect taxes should be minimized.”

24. What Congress is required by the Constitution to do is to "evolve a progressive system of taxation."
These provisions are put in the Constitution as moral incentives to legislation, not as judicially
enforceable rights.

Non-impairment of Contracts

25. As to the contention that the imposition of the VAT on the sales and leases of real estate by virtue of
contracts entered into prior to the effectivity of the law would violate the constitutional provision that "No
law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed," it is enough to say that the parties to a contract
cannot fetter the exercise of the taxing power of the State. For not only are existing laws read into
contracts in order to fix obligations as between parties, but the reservation of essential attributes of
sovereign power is also read into contracts as a basic postulate of the legal order.

26. The Contract Clause has never been thought as a limitation on the exercise of the State's power of
taxation save only where a tax exemption has been granted for a valid consideration.

| Page 4 of 4
Philippine Judges Association v. Prado

Summary Cases:

● Philippine Judges Association (PJA) vs. Prado

Subject: Title of a Bill, Bicameral Conference Committee, Enrolled Bill Doctrine, Equal Protection,
Philipipne Postal Corporation

Facts:

RA 7354 was passed which contained a section withdrawing the franking privileges of the Supreme
Court, the Court of Appeals, the Regional Trial Courts, the Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial
Courts, and the Land Registration Commission and its Registers of Deeds, along with certain other
government offices. Thus, the constitutionality of this provision was questioned by the petitioners, all
members of the lower courts, based on three grounds, namely:

1.The title of the law embraces more than one subject, without indicating its purpose;

2.The law was passed without undergoing the required number of readings in both houses of Congress
and copies of the bill were not distributed to its members; and

3.It encroaches upon judicial functions and discriminates against the judiciary.

Held:

Title of a Bill

1. The title of the bill is not required to be an index to the body of the act, or to be as comprehensive as
to cover every single detail of the measure.

2. The withdrawal of the franking privilege from some agencies is germane to the accomplishment of the
principal objective of R.A. No. 7354, which is the creation of a more efficient and effective postal service
system. By virtue of its nature as a repealing clause, Section 35 did not have to be expressly included in
the title of the said law.

Bicameral Conference Committee

3. While it is true that a conference committee is the mechanism for compromising differences between
the Senate and the House, it is not limited in its jurisdiction to settling differences between amendments
made by the House of Representatives and the Senate.

| Page 1 of 3
Enrolled Bill Doctrine

4. Under the doctrine of separation powers, the Court may not inquire beyond the certification of the
approval of a bill from the presiding officers of Congress.

5. The Court should decline to look into the charges that an amendment was made upon the last reading
of the bill that eventually became the law and that copies thereof in its final form were not distributed
among the members of each House. Both the enrolled bill and the legislative journals certify that the
measure was duly enacted i.e., in accordance with Article VI, Sec. 26(2) of the Constitution.

6. The Court is bound by the assurances provided by the enrolled bill and the legislative journals from a
coordinate department of the government, to which we owe, at the very least, a becoming courtesy.

Equal Protection of the Laws

7. The equal protection of the laws is embraced in the concept of due process, as every unfair
discrimination offends the requirements of justice and fair play. It has nonetheless been embodied in a
separate clause in Article III Sec. 1., of the Constitution to provide for a more, specific guaranty against
any form of undue favoritism or hostility from the government.

8. Arbitrariness in general may be challenged on the basis of the due process clause. But if the particular
act assailed partakes of an unwarranted partiality or prejudice, the sharper weapon to cut it down is the
equal protection clause.

9. The equal protection clause does not require the universal application of the laws on all persons or
things without distinction.

10. However, the unequal application of the law should be based on substantial distinctions which make
fore real differences, which is not present between the Judiciary and the other agencies of government
which were also denied franking privileges. In lumping the Judiciary with the other offices from which the
franking privilege has been withdrawn, Section 35 has placed the courts of justice in a category to which
it does not belong.

Philippine Postal Corporation

11. The Philippine Postal Corporation, as a government-controlled corporation, was created and is
expected to operate for the purpose of promoting the public service.

12. While it may have been established primarily for private gain, it cannot excuse itself from performing
certain functions for the benefit of the public in exchange for the franchise extended to it by the
| Page 2 of 3
government and the many advantages it enjoys under its charter.

| Page 3 of 3
Abakada Guro Party List v. Purisima (2008)

Summary Cases:

● ABAKADA Guro Party List vs. Purisima (Secretary of Finance) 562 SCRA 251

Subject:

Accountability of Public Officers, Equal Protection, Undue Delegation, Congressional Oversight,

Legislative Veto

Facts:

Petitioners seek to prevent respondents from implementing and enforcing Republic Act (RA) 9335 or the
Attrition Act of 2005.

RA 9335 provides for a system of rewards and sanctions to encourage the officials and employees of the
Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and the Bureau of Customs (BOC) to exceed their revenue targets.
Covered officials and employees are those with at least six (6) months of service in the BIR and the BOC,
regardless of employment status.

RA 9335 created the Rewards and Incentives Fund (Fund), which is sourced from the collection of the
BIR and the BOC in excess of their revenue targets for the year, as determined by the Development
Budget and Coordinating Committee (DBCC).

The DOF, DBM, NEDA, BIR, BOC and the Civil Service Commission (CSC) were tasked to promulgate
and issue the implementing rules and regulations of RA 9335 to be approved by a Joint Congressional
Oversight Committee created for such purpose.

Petitioners assail the constitutionality of RA 9335 on the following grounds: (1) The law transforms the
officials and employees of the BIR and the BOC into mercenaries and bounty hunters as they will do
their best only in consideration of the reward (2) It violated the constitutional guarantee of equal
protection due to limiting the scope of the rewards and incentives to the BIR and BOC employees (3)
The law unduly delegates the power to fix revenue targets to the President as it lacks a sufficient
standard on that matter. (4) The creation of a congressional oversight committee violates the doctrine of
separation of powers.

Held:

Judicial review

1. Aside from the general claim that the dispute has ripened into a judicial controversy by the mere
enactment of the law even without any further overt act, petitioners fail either to assert any specific and
concrete legal claim or to demonstrate any direct adverse effect of the law on them. They are unable to
show a personal stake in the outcome of this case or an injury to themselves. On this account, their
petition is procedurally infirm.

2. This notwithstanding, public interest requires the resolution of the constitutional issues raised by
petitioners. The grave nature of their allegations tends to cast a cloud on the presumption of
constitutionality in favor of the law.

Presumption of Constitutionality
| Page 1 of 4
3. The law enacted by Congress enjoys the strong presumption of Constitutionality. To justify its
nullification, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not a doubtful and
equivocal one.

Accountability of Public Officers

4. Public officers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties. This presumption
necessarily obtains in favour of BIR and BOC officials and employees. The presumption is disputable but
proof to the contrary is required to rebut it. It cannot be overturned by mere conjecture or denied in
advance specially in this case where it is an underlying principle to advance a declared public policy.

5. Public officers may by law be rewarded for exemplary and exceptional performance. A system of
incentives for exceeding the set expectations of public office is not anathema to the concept of public
accountability.

6. Notably, RA 9335 establishes safeguards to ensure that the reward will not be claimed if it will be
either the fruit of "bounty hunting or mercenary activity" or the product of the irregular performance of
official duties

Equal protection

7. Equality guaranteed under the equal protection clause is equality under the same conditions and
among equals, not similarity of treatment of persons who are classified based on substantial differences
in relation to the object to be accomplished. The Constitution does not require that things which are
different in fact be treated in law as though they were the same. The equal protection clause does not
forbid discrimination as to things that are different. It does not prohibit legislation which is limited either in
the object to which it is directed or by the territory within which it is to operate.

8. The equal protection clause recognizes a valid classification, that is, a classification that has
reasonable foundation or rational basis and not arbitrary.

9. The requirements for valid classification are:

(i) It should be reasonable
(ii) It must be germane to the purpose of the law
(iii) It must be limited to the existing conditions only
(iv) It must apply equally to each member of the class.
10. There is valid classification in this case. Since the subject of the law is revenue –generation
capability and collection of the BIR and the BOC, the incentives and/or sanctions provided in the law
should logically pertain to said agencies. Moreover, the law concerns only the BIR and the BOC because
they have the common distinct primary function of generating revenues for the national government
through the collection of taxes, customs duties, fees and charges.

Undue Delegation

11. Two tests determine the validity of delegation of legislative power:

(a) The completeness test - A law is complete when it sets forth therein the policy to be executed,
carried out or implemented by the delegate.

(b) Sufficient standard test - A law lays down a sufficient standard when it provides adequate
guidelines or limitations in the law to map out the boundaries of the delegate’s authority and
prevent the delegation from running riot. To be sufficient, the standard must specify the limits of
| Page 2 of 4
 the delegate’s authority, announce the legislative policy and identify the conditions under which it
is to be implemented
12. RA 9335 adequately states the policy and standards to guide the President in fixing revenue targets
and the implementing agencies in carrying out the provisions of the law. Revenue targets are based on
the original estimated revenue collection expected respectively of the BIR and the BOC for a given fiscal
year as approved by the DBCC and stated in the Budget of Expenditure and Sources of Financing
(BESF) submitted by the President to Congress. Thus, the determination of revenue targets does not
rest solely on the President as it also undergoes the scrutiny of the DBCC.

13. RA 9335 in no way violates the security of tenure of officials and employees of the BIR and the BOC.
The guarantee of security of tenure only means that an employee cannot be dismissed from the service
for causes other than those provided by law and only after due process is accorded the employee. In the
case of RA 9335, it lays down a reasonable yardstick for removal (when the revenue collection falls short
of the target by at least 7.5%) with due consideration of all relevant factors affecting the level of
collection. This standard is analogous to inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official
duties, a ground for disciplinary action under civil service laws.

14. At any rate, this Court has recognized the following as sufficient standards: "public interest,"
"justice and equity," "public convenience and welfare" and "simplicity, economy and welfare." In this case,
the declared policy of optimization of the revenue-generation capability and collection of the BIR and the
BOC is infused with public interest.

Congressional Oversight

15. The acts done by Congress purportedly in the exercise of its oversight powers may be divided into
three categories, namely: (a) scrutiny, (b) congressional investigation and (c) legislative supervision.

16. As discussed in the case of Macalintal vs. Commission on Elections: “the power of (congressional)
oversight embraces all activities undertaken by Congress to enhance its understanding of and influence
over the implementation of legislation it has enacted.

17. Congressional oversight is not unconstitutional per se, meaning, it neither necessarily constitutes an
encroachment on the executive power to implement laws nor undermines the constitutional separation of
powers. Rather, it is integral to the checks and balances inherent in a democratic system of government.

18. Clearly, oversight concerns post-enactment measures undertaken by Congress. However, to

forestall the danger of congressional encroachment “beyond the legislative sphere,” any post-enactment
congressional measure should be limited to scrutiny and investigation, specifically:
(a) Scrutiny based primarily on Congress' power of appropriation and the budget hearings
conducted in connection with it, its power to ask heads of departments to appear before and be
heard by either of its Houses on any matter pertaining to their departments and its power of
confirmation;

(b) Investigation and monitoring of the implementation of laws pursuant to the power of Congress
to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation.
19. Any action or step beyond that will undermine the separation of powers guaranteed by the
Constitution. Legislative vetoes fall in this class. Congress exercises supervision over the executive
agencies through its veto power.

Legislative Veto

| Page 3 of 4
20. Legislative veto is a statutory provision requiring the President or an administrative agency to
present the proposed implementing rules and regulations of a law to Congress which, by itself or through
a committee formed by it, retains a "right" or "power" to approve or disapprove such regulations before
they take effect.

21. Legislative veto disrupts the system of separation of powers because it effectively entrusts to
Congress a direct role in enforcing, applying or implementing its own laws.

22. From the moment the law becomes effective, any provision of the law that empowers Congress or
any of its members to play any role in the implementation or enforcement of the law violates the principle
of separation of powers. Under this principle, a provision that requires Congress or its members to
approve the implementing rules of a law after it has already taken effect shall be unconstitutional, as is a
provision that allows Congress or its members to overturn any directive or ruling made by the members
of the executive branch charged with the implementation of the law.

23. Section 12 of RA 9335 should be struck down as unconstitutional. In exercising discretion to approve
or disapprove the Implementing Rules and Regulations based on a determination whether or not they
conformed to the provisions of RA 9335, Congress arrogated judicial power unto itself, a power
exclusively vested in the Court by the Constitution.

24. Having been duly published, the IRR are presumed valid and effective even without the approval of
the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee

Separability of Unconstitutional Provisions of the Law

25. The separability clause of RA 9335 reveals the intention of the legislature to isolate and detach any
invalid provision from the other provisions so that the latter may continue in force and effect. The valid
portions can stand independently of the invalid section. Without Section 12, the remaining provisions still
constitute a complete, intelligible and valid law

| Page 4 of 4
Mabanag vs Lopez Vito (1947)

Summary Cases:

● Mabanag vs Lopez Vito 78 Phil 1

Subject:

Enrolled Bill

Facts:

Petitioners filed a petition for prohibition to prevent the enforcement of a congressional resolution
designated "Resolution of both houses proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the Philippines to
be appended as an ordinance thereto."

Petitioners are 3 senators and 8 house representatives who had been proclaimed as elected winners by
in the 1946 elections, but who were not allowed to sit and participate in the legislative proceedings by
their respective Houses on account of alleged irregularities in their election.

Consequently, they did not take part in the passage of the questioned resolution, nor was their
membership reckoned within the computation of the necessary three-fourths vote which is required in
proposing an amendment to the Constitution. If they had been counted, the affirmative votes in favor of
the proposed amendment would have been short of the necessary three-fourths vote in either branch of
Congress.

Respondents, on the other hand, claims that the court is without jurisdiction on the matter, and relies on
the conclusiveness on the courts of an enrolled bill or resolution.

Held:

Political Question

1. Political questions are not within the province of the judiciary, except to the extent that power to deal
| Page 1 of 3
with such questions has been conferred upon the courts by express constitutional or statutory provision.
This doctrine is predicated on the principle of the separation of powers.

2. In Coleman vs. Miller, the United States Supreme Court concluded that the efficacy of ratification by
state legislature of a proposed amendment to the Federal Constitution is a political question and hence
not justiciable.

3. If ratification of an amendment is a political question, a proposal which leads to ratification has to be a

political question. The two steps complement each other in a scheme intended to achieve a single
objective. It is to be noted that the amendatory process as provided in section I of Article XV of the
Philippine Constitution "consists of (only) two distinct parts: proposal and ratification." There is no logic in
attaching political character to one and withholding that character from the other. Proposal to amend the
Constitution is a highly political function performed by the Congress in its sovereign legislative capacity
and committed to its charge by the Constitution itself. The exercise of this power is even independent of
any intervention by the Chief Executive.

4. The Constitution grants Congress exclusive power to control submission of constitutional amendments.
Final determination by Congress that ratification by three-fourths of the States has taken place 'is
conclusive upon the courts.' In the exercise of that power, Congress, of course, is governed by the
Constitution. However, whether submission, intervening procedure or Congressional determination of
ratification conforms to the commands of the Constitution [are] questions of a type which this Court has
frequently designated 'political.' (citing the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Black in Miller vs Coleman)

Enrolled Bill doctrine

5. The enrolled bill doctrine pertains to the rule that, in the case of Acts of the Philippine Legislature,
when there is an existence of a copy signed by the presiding officers and secretaries of said bodies, it
shall be conclusive proof of the provisions of such Acts and of the due enactment thereof. (based on
Section 313 of the old Code of Civil Procedure)

(Note: this means that courts are not to look behind the enrolled copy of the legislative bill and examine
the pertinent journals of the legislative proceedings to determine if the bill was indeed passed in
compliance with the Constitution and legislative rules)

6. It has been declared that the rule against going behind the enrolled bill is required by the respect due
to a coequal and independent department of the government. (citing American Jurisprudence)

| Page 2 of 3
7. The rule is also one of convenience, because , otherwise, courts could not rely on the published
session laws, but would be required to look beyond these to the journals of the legislature and often to
any printed bills and amendments which might be found after the adjournment of the legislature. (citing
American Jurisprudence)

8. Section 313 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act No. 2210, provides two methods of
proving legislative proceedings: (1) by the journals, or by published statutes or resolutions, or by copies
certified by the clerk or secretary or printed by their order; and (2) in case of acts of the legislature, by a
copy signed by the presiding Officers and secretaries thereof, which shall be conclusive proof of the
provisions of such Acts and of the due enactment thereof.

9. The Court looked into the journals in United States vs. Pons because, in all probability, those were the
documents offered in evidence. It does not appear that a duly authenticated copy of the Act was in
existence or was placed before the Court. Even if both the journals and an authenticated copy of the Act
had been presented, the disposal of the issue by the Court on the basis of the journals does not imply
rejection of the enrollment theory, for, as already stated, the due enactment of a law may be proved in
either of the two ways specified in section 313 of Act No. 190 as amended. More importantly, the court
did not say that if a discrepancy existed, it would give greater weight to the journals.

| Page 3 of 3
Arroyo v. De Venecia

Summary Cases:

● Joker P. Arroyo, et al. Vs. Jose De Venecia, et al.

Subject: Separation of Powers, Power of Judicial Review, Yeas and Nays, Enrolled Bill Doctrine,
Legislative Journals

Facts:

Members of the House of Representatives filed a petition for certiorari and/or prohibition challenging the
validity of Republic Act No. 8240, which amended the provisions of the tax code on sin taxes imposed on
the manufacture and sale of beer and cigarettes. They alleged that the law was passed in violation of the
House rules, which are mandated by the Constitution, and thus, violation thereof is a violation of the
Constitution itself.

The law originated from the House, and approved on third reading. It was transmitted to the Senate, and
again approved on third reading, but with amendments. A bicameral conference committee was formed
to reconcile conflicting provisions in both versions passed by the two houses. The report of the
committee was then submitted to the house. When a representative was delivering his privilege speech,
the presence of a quorum was questioned, and Rep. Arroyo’s motion to adjourn for lack of quorum was
not granted. The conference committee report, however, was approved by the house, despite the
objections posed by Rep. Arroyo regarding the lack of quorum. Thus, he posits that the law was passed
in violation of the House Rules of Procedure.

Held:

Separation of Powers

1. Each of the three departments of our government has its separate sphere which the others may not
invade without upsetting the delicate balance on which our constitutional order rests.

2. Due regard for the working of our system of government, more than mere comity, compels reluctance
on our part to enter upon an inquiry into an alleged violation of the rules of the House.

3. It would be an unwarranted invasion of the prerogative of a coequal department for the Court either to
set aside a legislative action as void because the Court thinks the House has disregarded its own rules
of procedure, or to allow those defeated in the political arena to seek a rematch in the judicial forum
when petitioners can find their remedy in that department itself.

4. The Court has not been invested with a roving commission to inquire into complaints, real or imagined,
of legislative skullduggery. It would be acting in excess of its power and would itself be guilty of grave
abuse of its discretion were it to do so.
| Page 1 of 3
Power of Judicial Review

5. No rights of private individuals are involved but only those of a member who, instead of seeking
redress in the House, chose to transfer the dispute to this Court.

6. The Court has no more power to look into the internal proceedings of a House than members of that
House have to look over its shoulders, as long as no violation of constitutional provisions is shown.

7. The jurisdiction of the Court is subject to the case and controversy requirement of Art. VIII, §5 of the
Constitution and, therefore, to the requirement of a justiciable controversy before courts can adjudicate
constitutional questions such as those which arise in the field of foreign relations.

8. For while Art. VIII, §1 has broadened the scope of judicial inquiry into areas normally left to the
political departments to decide, such as those relating to national security, it has not altogether done
away with political questions such as those which arise in the field of foreign relations.

9. If, then, the established rule is that courts cannot declare an act of the legislature void on account
merely of noncompliance with rules of procedure made by itself, it follows that such a case does not
present a situation in which a branch of the government has “gone beyond the constitutional limits of its
jurisdiction” so as to call for the exercise of our Art. VIII, §1 power.

Yeas and Nays

10. The Constitution require that the yeas and the nays of the Members be taken every time a House
has to vote, except only in the following instances: upon the last and third readings of a bill, at the
request of one-fifth of the Members present, and in repassing a bill over the veto of the President.

11. Considering the fact that in the approval of the original bill the votes of the Members by yeas and
nays had already been taken, it would have been sheer tedium to repeat the process.

Enrolled Bill Doctrine

12. Under the enrolled bill doctrine, the signing of H. No. 7198 by the Speaker of the House and the
President of the Senate and the certification by the secretaries of both Houses of Congress that it was
passed on November 21, 1996 are conclusive of its due enactment.

13. To be sure, there is no claim either here or in the decision in the EVAT cases [Tolentino v. Secretary
of Finance] that the enrolled bill embodies a conclusive presumption.

| Page 2 of 3
Legislative Journals

14. The Journal is regarded as conclusive with respect to matters that are required by the Constitution to
be recorded therein.

15. With respect to other matters, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Journals have also
been accorded conclusive effect.

16. The bill which became R.A. No. 8240 is shown in the Journal. Hence its due enactment has been
duly proven.

| Page 3 of 3
Astorga v. Villegas

Summary Cases:

● Astorga vs. Villegas, et al. 56 SCRA 714

Subject: EnrolledBill Doctrine, Certification of Bills, Legislative Journals

Facts:

RA 4065 was passed which amended the Revised Charter ofthe of the City of Manila and provided for
the power, duties and rights of thevice-mayor of the city. It turns out that the bill which was signed into
lawcontained amendments different form those approved by the Senate. The Presidentof the Philippines,
after learning of such, had already withdrawn his signaturetherefrom. This being the case, the Mayor of
Manila issued circulars to thevarious departments of the local government unit to disregard the
provisions ofthe said law. thus, the petitioner, then vice-mayor of Manila filed a petitionfor Mandamus,
Injunction and/or Prohibition with Preliminary Mandatory andProhibitory Injunction to compel the
necessary parties to comply with the law.Respondents alleged, however, that the bill never became a
law as it was notthe bill approved by Senate, and in such a case, the entries in the journal,and not the
enrolled bill itself should be the basis for the decision of theCourt.

Held:

Enrolled Bill Doctrine

1. The enrolledbill theory is based mainly on "the respect due to coequal and independentdepartments,"
which requires the judicial department to accept, as havingpassed Congress, all bills authenticated in the
manner stated.

2. If theattestation is absent and the same is not required for the validity of astatute, the courts may
resort to the journals and other records of Congressfor proof of its due enactment.
| Page 1 of 3
3. That theattestation of the presiding officers of Congress is conclusive proof of dueenactment of the
law cannot apply in this case because the Senate Presidenthimself had already declared his signature
on the bill to be invalid. Thus, theenrolled bill doctrine cannot apply.

Certificationof Bills

4.As far as Congress itself is concerned, there is nothing sacrosanct in thecertification made by the
presiding officers. It is merely a mode ofauthentication.

5.The lawmaking process in Congress ends when the bill is approved by bothHouses, and the
certification does not add to the validity of the bill or cureany defect already present upon its passage. In
other words it is the approvalby Congress and not the signatures of the presiding officers that is essential.

LegislativeJournals

6. The journal ofthe proceedings of each House of Congress is no ordinary record. TheConstitution
requires it.

7. While it is truethat the journal is not authenticated and is subject to the risks ofmisprinting and other
errors, the point is irrelevant in this case.

8. The Court ismerely asked to inquire whether the text of House Bill No. 9266 signed by theChief
Executive was the same text passed by both Houses of Congress. Under thespecific facts and
circumstances of this case, this Court can do this andresort to the Senate journal for the purpose.

| Page 2 of 3
9. The journaldiscloses that substantial and lengthy amendments were introduced on the floorand
approved by the Senate but were not incorporated in the printed text sentto the President and signed by
him.

| Page 3 of 3