Sec 14.

ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL

1. PROCLAIMED WINNER
2. AFTTER THE OATH
3. AFTER THE ASSUMPTION OF OFFICE
4. Disqualification against its members

PRESIDENTIAL TRIBUNAL it’s jurisdiction relating with the ELECTION PROTEST

AND RETURN only in relations of the President and Vice President

Senate obtains jurisdiction relating to disqualification against its members

Sec 18 (membership) (Daza VS Tingson) Sec 16. Constitutional Commission

Sec 18. Commission on Appointment =

24 members.
12 from the Senate
12 from the House of Representative
1 Ex Officio Chairman/ President of the Senate

24 members.

Ex-Officio/ Senate President/ Does not have extra remuneration/ is not a different seat.
Nomenclatures only.

Commission Appointment: is a Perfect example of check and balances to do

Legislative Check of the appointing power of the President.

Political question are questions that cannot be answered by the constitution. It can
only be answered by the knowledge of the Legislation.

Senate hearing is not a court hearing but an administrative hearing.

Right against self-incrimination can only be used in Criminal and Administrative case
but not in Civil
Case/Hearing
Criminal Case
Administrative Case

Sec 22. HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS, may volunteer their appearance with the
CONSENT OF THE PRESIDENT because of the alter ego PRINCIPLE.
They may NOT mandate the presence of the heads of dept without the
consent of the Pres or else there will be a Constitutional Crisis.

Sec 23. The Congress have the power to DECLARE THE EXISTENCE OF WAR
WITH the concurrence of 2/3rd of all its members, voting separately.

Congress can delegate its power to the Pres in times of WAR AND NATIONAL
EMERGENCY FO

Plenary Power of the Congress is a DERIVATIVE POWER

A power that has been delegated Cannot further be delegated unless the constitution
does provide (Paragraph 2 of Section 23)

Sec 26. A general bill become a law =

3 readings from the First House to the other House,

3 readings as well. Then the vote will be recorded,
then Bicameral conference committee (not a constitutional committee) only if there are
conflicting provision (but not all the time)
Final Step; Goes to the President

Sec 27. How does a bill become a law:

1. If the President signs it.
 2. If the President does not sign it In action

3. If the Pres VETOES

4. If it gets returned to the House it was ORIGINATED, it will enter into a vote of
2/3rd
5.
6.
Case: Araullo VS Aquino
Sec 25. No law shall be passed AUTHORIZING ANY TRANSFER of APPROPRIATION
except:
ONLY WITHIN THE OFFICE OF THESE OFFICIALS/SHALL BE
CONSUMED WITHIN THEIR OFFICE
1. President/ Inside of his office
2. Senate President/House of Senate
3. Speaker of House/ House of Representative
4. Heads of Constitutional Commission/ Within their Commission

Example of the Constitutional Commission:

1. Civil Service Commission

2. Commission on Elections

A power that has already been delegated can no longer be delegated

"It is a general principle of law, expressed in the maxim "delegatus non potest
delegare," that a delegated power may not be further delegated by the
person to whom such power is delegated, and that in all cases of
delegated authority, where personal trust or confidence is reposed in
the agent and especially where the exercise and application of the
power is made subject to his judgment or discretion, the authority is
purely personal and cannot be delegated to another unless there is a
special power of substitution either express or necessarily implied."
(2 Am. Jur. 2d. p. 52.)

Art 8 Judicial Department

Sec 1. The Judicial Power shall be vested IN ONE Supreme Court and in such LOWER
COURTS as may be ESTABLISHED BY LAW.

Expanded Judicial review = to determine wether or not there’s a (grave abuse of

discretion)
The requisites for the exercise of the power of judicial review are the following:
1) There must be an actual case or justiciable controversy before the court;
2) The question before the court must be ripe for adjudication;
3) The person challenging the act must be a proper party; and
4) The issue of constitutionality

Judicial review

Q. What is the power of judicial review?

A. It is the Supreme Court's power to declare a law, treaty, international or executive
agreement, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or
regulation unconstitutional. This power is explicitly granted by Section 5(2), (a) and (b).
Q. Does this make the Court superior to Congress and the Pre sident? A. No. It shows
the superiority of the Constitution over all.

Q. What are the essential requisites for the exercise of the power of judicial review?
A. It is now firmly established that the powerof judicial review is merely an aspect of
judicial power. Hence, the first requisite for the exercise of judicial review is that there
must be before the court an actual case calling for the exercise of judicial power. The
question before it must be ripe for adjudication, that is, the governmental act being
challenged must have had an adverse effect on the person challenging it. PACU v.
Secretary of Education, 97 Phil. 806, 810 (1955); Tan v. Macapagal, 43
SCRA 678 (1972). Second, the person challenging the act must have "standing" to
challenge, that is, he must have "a personal and substantial interest in the case such that
he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement." People v.
Vera, 65
Phil. 58, 89 (1937).

The above are the essential requisites for judicial review. In addition to these essential
requisites, jurisprudence has also

evolved other auxiliary rules. Thus, it was pointed out in People v. Vera,
65 Phil. 56 (1937) that "as a general rule, the question of
constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity, so that if not raised by the
pleadings, ordinarily it may not be raised at the trial,
and if not raised in the trial court, it will not be considered on appeal. . . But we must
state that the general rule admits of exceptions. Courts, in the exercise of sound
discretion, may determine the time when a question affecting constitutionality of a
statute should be presented." Id. at 88. Another rule is that the court will not touch the
issue of unconstitutionality unless it really is unavoidable or is the very lis mota. Sotto v.
Commission on Elections, 76 Phil. 516, 522 (1946).