CONCEPT/S: Legislative Power; Inherent Powers; Senate’s Power of

Contempt; Period of imprisonment for contempt during inquiries in aid of

legislation
CITATION: Balag v. Senate of the Philippines, G.R. No. 234608, 03 July
2018
FACTS: On September 20, 2017, Senator Paolo Benigno
Aquino IV filed SR No. 510 directing the appropriate Senate Committees to
conduct an inquiry into the death of Horacio III allegedly due to
hazing-related activities on September 17, 2017, in aid of legislation.

In the course of the proceedings, Senator Poe moved to cite the

petitioner in contempt for refusing to answer the question of whether he
was the president of AJ Fraternity or not.

Petitioner contends, among others, that the Senate illegally

enforced and executed SR No. 504 and the Contempt Order, and that they
did not exercise their power of contempt judiciously and with restraint. The
contempt order issued against the petitioner does not provide any definite
and concrete period of detention.

The Court denied the petition for being moot and academic, but
found the need to address a critical issue that the case presents.

ISSUE: What is the duration of the detention for a contempt

ordered by the Senate?

HOLDING: The period of imprisonment under the inherent

power of contempt by the Senate only lasts until the termination of the
legislative inquiry under which the said power is invoked.

Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution states that Congress,

in conducting inquiries in aid of legislation, must respect the rights of
persons appearing in or affected therein. Additionally, the legislative inquiry
of the Senate terminates upon the approval or disapproval of the
Committee Report or upon the expiration of one Congress.

In this case, the contempt order does not provide any definite
and concrete period of detention. The Senate Rules also does not specify a
precise period of detention when a person is cited in contempt. The
interests of the Senate and the witnesses appearing in its legislative inquiry
should be balanced. The indefinite detention of persons cited in contempt
impairs their constitutional right to liberty.

Thus, the period of imprisonment under the inherent power of

contempt by the Senate only lasts until the termination of the legislative
inquiry under which the said power is invoked.
DIGESTED BY: Vanessa Ruth Baylon
EDITED BY: Nathaniel La Paz and Timothy Falcon

CONCEPT/S: Political and justiciable questions

CITATION: Department of Transportation v. Philippine Petroleum Sea
Transport, G.R. No. 230107, July 24, 2018
FACTS: On June 2, 2007, R.A. 9483 was signed into law,
providing penalties for the violations of oil pollution.

The respondents argued that Section 22(a) of R.A. 9483

violated their right to equal protection of the law and their right to due
process, and that the provision provided an undue delegation of legislative
power.

The RTC granted the petition and declared Section 22(a) of RA

9483 and its implementing rule unconstitutional.

The petitioners contend that the RTC erred in declaring Section

22(a) of RA 9483 and its implementing rule unconstitutional, given that the
respondents' petition questioned the wisdom behind them and was, thus,
beyond the RTC's jurisdiction.

ISSUE: Does the petition present a justiciable question?

HOLDING: Yes, the petition presents a justiciable question.

Political questions are “those questions which, under the

Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or
in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the
Legislature or executive branch of the Government." It is concerned with
issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure.

In the case at bar, the respondents are not contesting the

creation of the OPMF, but the validity of its inclusion in RA No. 9483 and its
implementation rules incorporated by the legislature. In addition, violations
of the due process and the equal protection clauses of the 1987
Constitution alleged by the respondents are well-recognised grounds for a
judicial inquiry into a legislative measure.

Therefore, the petition presents a justiciable question.

DIGESTED BY: Timothy Falcon
EDITED BY: Vanessa Ruth Baylon and Nathaniel La Paz

CONCEPT/S: House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (balance of

power between the members from the Judicial and Legislative
departments)
CITATION: Regina Ongsiako Reyes v. House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal, G.R. No. 221103, October 16, 2018
FACTS: On November 1, 2015, the HRET published the 2015
Revised Rules of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (2015
HRET Rules).

Petitioner alleges that the 2015 HRET Rules is unconstitutional

as it grants more powers to the Justices, individually, than the legislators by
requiring the presence of at least one Justice in order to constitute a
quorum, and that even when all six legislators are present, they cannot
constitute themselves as a body and cannot act as an Executive
Committee without the presence of any of the Justices.

In the comments filed by the HRET, they maintain that it has the
power to promulgate its own rules that would govern the proceedings
before it. The HRET points out that under the 2015 HRET Rules, a quorum
requires the presence of at least one Justice-member and four members of
the Tribunal, and that the requirement of the presence of at least one
Justice was incorporated in the Rules to maintain judicial equilibrium in
deciding election contests and because the duty to decide election cases is
a judicial function.

ISSUE: Is the 2015 HRET unconstitutional?

HOLDING: No, the 2015 HRET is not unconstitutional.

Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution states that: The

Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral
Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election,
returns, and qualifications of their respective Members. Each Electoral
Tribunal shall be composed of nine Members, three of whom shall be
Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and
all the remaining six shall be Members of the Senate or the House of
Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of
proportional representation from the political parties and the parties or
organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein.
The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman.

The main objective of the framers of our Constitution in

providing for the establishment of an Electoral Tribunal for each House of
Congress, was to insure the exercise of judicial impartiality in the
disposition of election contests affecting members of the lawmaking body.

In the case at bar, the provisions of 2015 HRET does not grant
additional powers to the Justices but rather maintains the balance of power
between the members from the Judicial and Legislative departments, as
the presence of the three Justices is meant to tone down the political
nature of the cases involved and do away with the impression that party
interests play a part in the decision-making process.

Therefore, the 2015 HRET is not unconstitutional.

DIGESTED BY: Nathaniel La Paz

EDITED BY: Vanessa Ruth Baylon and Timothy Falcon