PEOPLE V.

VERA FACTS: The People of the Philippine and the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC), are respectively the plaintiff and the offended party, and Mariano Cu Unjieng is one of the defendants, in the criminal case entitled "The People of the Philippine Islands vs. Mariano Cu Unjieng, et al." (Criminal case 42649) of the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila and GR 41200 of the Suprme Court. Hon. Jose O. Vera, is the Judge ad interim of the seventh branch of the Court of First Instance of Manila, who heard the application of Cu Unjieng for probation in the aforesaid criminal case. The information in the said criminal case was filed with the CFI on 15 October 1931, HSBC intervening in the case as private prosecutor. After a protracted trial unparalleled in the annals of Philippine jurisprudence both in the length of time spent by the court as well as in the volume in the testimony and the bulk of the exhibits presented, the CFI, on 8 January 1934, rendered a judgment of conviction sentencing Cu Unjieng to indeterminate penalty ranging from 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional to 8 years of prision mayor, to pay the costs and with reservation of civil action to the offended party, HSBC. Upon appeal, the court, on 26 March 1935, modified the sentence to an indeterminate penalty of from 5 years and 6 months of prision correccional to 7 years, 6 months and 27 days of prision mayor, but affirmed the judgment in all other respects. Cu Unjieng filed a motion for reconsideration and four successive motions for new trial which were denied on 17 December 1935, and final judgment was accordingly entered on 18 December 1935. Cu Unjieng thereupon sought to have the case elevated on certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States but the latter denied the petition for certiorari in November, 1936. The Supreme Court, on 24 November 1936, denied the petition subsequently filed by Cu Unjieng for leave to file a second alternative motion for reconsideration or new trial and thereafter remanded the case to the court of origin for execution of the judgment. Cu Unjieng filed an application for probation on 27 November 1936, before the trial court, under the provisions of Act 4221 of the defunct Philippine Legislature. Cu Unjieng states in his petition, inter alia, that he is innocent of the crime of which he was convicted, that he has no criminal record and that he would observe good conduct in the future. The CFI of Manila, Judge Pedro Tuason presiding, referred the application for probation of the Insular Probation Office which recommended denial of the same 18 June 1937.

Thereafter, the CFI of Manila, seventh branch, Judge Jose O. Vera presiding, set the petition for hearing on 5 April 1937. On 2 April 1937, the Fiscal of the City of Manila filed an opposition to the granting of probation to Cu Unjieng. The private prosecution also filed an opposition on 5 April 1937, alleging, among other things, that Act 4221, assuming that it has not been repealed by section 2 of Article XV of the Constitution, is nevertheless violative of section 1, subsection (1), Article III of the Constitution guaranteeing equal protection of the laws for the reason that its applicability is not uniform throughout the Islands and because section 11 of the said Act endows the provincial boards with the power to make said law effective or otherwise in their respective or otherwise in their respective provinces. The private prosecution also filed a supplementary opposition on April 19, 1937, elaborating on the alleged unconstitutionality on Act 4221, as an undue delegation of legislative power to the provincial boards of several provinces (sec. 1, Art. VI, Constitution). The City Fiscal concurred in the opposition of the private prosecution except with respect to the questions raised concerning the constitutionality of Act 4221. On 28 June 1937, Judge Jose O. Vera promulgated a resolution, concluding that Cu Unjieng "es inocente por duda racional" of the crime of which he stands convicted by the Supreme court in GR 41200, but denying the latter's petition for probation. On 3 July 1937, counsel for Cu Unjieng filed an exception to the resolution denying probation and a notice of intention to file a motion for reconsideration. An alternative motion for reconsideration or new trial was filed by counsel on 13 July 1937. This was supplemented by an additional motion for reconsideration submitted on 14 July 1937. The aforesaid motions were set for hearing on 31 July 1937, but said hearing was postponed at the petition of counsel for Cu Unjieng because a motion for leave to intervene in the case as amici curiae signed by 33 (34) attorneys had just been filed with the trial court. On 6 August 1937, the Fiscal of the City of Manila filed a motion with the trial court for the issuance of an order of execution of the judgment of this court in said case and forthwith to commit Cu Unjieng to jail in obedience to said judgment. On 10 August 1937, Judge Vera issued an order requiring all parties including the movants for intervention as amici curiae to appear before the court on 14 August 1937. On the last-mentioned date, the Fiscal of the City of Manila moved for the hearing of his motion for execution of judgment in preference to the motion for leave to intervene as amici curiae but, upon objection of counsel for Cu Unjieng, he moved for the postponement of the hearing of both motions. The

judge thereupon set the hearing of the motion for execution on 21 August 1937, but proceeded to consider the motion for leave to intervene as amici curiae as in order. Evidence as to the circumstances under which said motion for leave to intervene as amici curiae was signed and submitted to court was to have been heard on 19 August 1937. But at this juncture, HSBC and the People came to the Supreme Court on extraordinary legal process to put an end to what they alleged was an interminable proceeding in the CFI of Manila which fostered "the campaign of the defendant Mariano Cu Unjieng for delay in the execution of the sentence imposed by this Honorable Court on him, exposing the courts to criticism and ridicule because of the apparent inability of the judicial machinery to make effective a final judgment of this court imposed on the defendant Mariano Cu Unjieng." The scheduled hearing before the trial court was accordingly suspended upon the issuance of a temporary restraining order by the Supreme Court on 21 August 1937. ISSUE: Whether the People of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General and Fiscal of the City of Manila, is a proper party in present case. HELD: YES. The People of the Philippines, represented by the Solicitor-General and the Fiscal of the City of Manila, is a proper party in the present proceedings. The unchallenged rule is that the person who impugns the validity of a statute must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustained, direct injury as a result of its enforcement. It goes without saying that if Act 4221 really violates the constitution, the People of the Philippines, in whose name the present action is brought, has a substantial interest in having it set aside. Of greater import than the damage caused by the illegal expenditure of public funds is the mortal wound inflicted upon the fundamental law by the enforcement of an invalid statute. Hence, the well-settled rule that the state can challenge the validity of its own laws. --------------------------------------------------------------TUAZON V. ABALOS FACTS: Prior to Republic Act No., 7675 also known as An Act Converting the Municipality of Mandaluyong into a Highly Urbanized City to be known as the City of Mandaluyong , Mandaluyong and San Juan belonged to only one legislative district. A plebiscite was held for the people of Mandaluyong whether or not they approved of the said conversion. The plebiscite was

only 14.41% of the said conversion. Nevertheless, 18,621 voted yes whereas 7, 911 voted no . ISSUE: Whether or not the ratification of RA7675 was unconstitutional citing Article VI, Sections 5(1), 4 and 26(1) HELD/RULING: For the purposes of discussion, let s breakdown all of the claimed violations to the 1987 Constitution. Section 26(1). Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof. The creation of a separate congressional district for Mandaluyong is not a subject separate and distinct from the subject of its conversion. Moreover, a liberal construction of the one-title-one-subject rule has been liberally adopted by the court as to not impede legislation (Lidasan v. Comelec). Sec. 5(1). The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party list system of registered national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations. The Constitution clearly provides that the House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than 250 members, unless otherwise provided by law. The emphasis on the latter clause indicates that the number of the House of Representatives may be increased, if mandated via a legislative enactment. Therefore, the increase in congressional representation is not unconstitutional. Sec. 5(4). Within three years following the return of every census, the Congress shall make a reapportionment of legislative districts based on the standard provided in this section. The argument on the violation of the above provision is absurd since it was the Congress itself which drafted, deliberated upon and enacted the assailed law. The petition is thereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.

together with his allies initiated all dilatory and delaying tactics to forestall Tañada from delivering his piece. among others. they shall not be questioned in any other place. whether the same is in session or not. the very document upon which plaintiffs' action is based explicitly indicates that they might be absolutely unaware of the alleged operational plans. likewise. HELD: Article VI. having been handpicked by Vargas. either as a member of Congress or as officer of any Committee thereof. The SC is satisfied that the letter in question is not sufficient to support Jimenez action for damages. Section 15 of the Constitution provides The Senators and Members of the House of Representatives shall in all cases except treason. Avelino was forced to open session. with the aid of some civilian political strategists. On the next session however. and other acts performed by Congressmen. in the official discharge of their duties as members of Congress and of Congressional Committees duly authorized to perform its functions as such at the time of the performance of the acts in question. Upon insistent demand by Tañada. The SC does not think that this statement is derogatory to Jimenez to the point of entitling them to recover damages. He request to do so on the next session (21 Feb 1949). such as speeches delivered. was planning a coup d état to place him as the president. In other words. Congress was not in session when the letter was published and at the same time he. under their guise and that Jimenez et al may or may not be aware that they are being used as a tool to meet such an end. and that." The publication of the said letter is not covered by said expression which refers to utterances made by Congressmen in the performance of their official functions. Sanidad however countered and they requested the said adjournment to be placed in voting. and that the letter in question seems to suggest that the group therein described as "planners" include these two (2) high ranking officers. in thus causing the communication to be so published. Whether or not the said letter is libelous. under the control of the Secretary of National Defense and the Chief of Staff. considering that they are officers of our Armed Forces. He however. he was not performing his official duty. Although the letter says that plaintiffs are under the control of the persons unnamed therein alluded to as "planners". that as such they are by law. Hence. as being out of order. CABANGBANG FACTS: Cabangbang was a member of the House of Representatives and Chairman of its Committee on National Defense. or votes cast in the halls of Congress. statements made. On 14 Nov 1958. Avelino delayed the opening of the session for about two hours. Motions being raised by Tañada et al were being blocked by Avelino and his allies and they even ruled Tañada and Sanidad. . among others. Cabangbang caused the publication of an open letter addressed to the Philippines. Jesus Vargas. The planners allegedly have Nicanor Jimenez. Cuenco and Sanidad and others. Senator Tañada invoked his right to speak on the senate floor to formulate charges against the then Senate President Avelino. and breach of the peace. and in going to and returning from the same. The letter was said to have been published in newspapers of general circulation. and that they may be merely unwitting tools of the planners. felony. either in Congress or outside the premises housing its offices. Avelino s camp then moved to adjourn the session due to the disorder. himself. --------------------------------------------------------------AVELINO V. It is obvious that. Said letter alleged that there have been allegedly three operational plans under serious study by some ambitious AFP officers. it should be noted that defendant.Petition is dismissed.--------------------------------------------------------------JIMENEZ V. added that "it is of course possible" that plaintiffs "are unwitting tools of the plan of which they may have absolutely no knowledge". while the same is in session as well as bills introduced in Congress. contrary to the finding made by the lower court the said communication is not absolutely privileged. That such strategists have had collusions with communists and that the Secretary of Defense. ISSUE: Whether or not the open letter is covered by privilege communication endowed to members of Congress. Cabangbang petitioned for the case to be dismissed because he said that as a member of the HOR he is immune from suit and that he is covered by the privileged communication rule and that the said letter is not even libelous. caused the publication of the said letter. CUENCO Election of Members/Quorum/Adjournment/Minutes FACTS: On 18 Feb 1949. Be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the sessions of the Congress. Jimenez then filed a case against Cabangbang to collect a sum of damages against Cabangbang alleging that Cabangbang s statement is libelous. and for any speech or debate therein.

and asked that it be made of record it was so made that the deliberate abandonment of the Chair by the Avelino. as the petition must imply to be acceptable. There were 23 senators considered to be in session that time (including Soto. if. what will be the resolution? There is unanimity in the view that the session under Senator Arranz was a continuation of the morning session and that a minority of ten senators (Avelino et al) may not. Arranz yielded to Sanidad s Resolution (No. constitutes constitutional majority of the Senate for the purpose of a quorum. The Chief Justice agrees with the result of the majority's pronouncement on the quorum upon the ground that. Senator Cabili then stood up. one being confined and the other abroad but this does not change the number of senators nor does it change the majority which if mathematically construed is ½ + 1. under the peculiar circumstances of the case. they could have ordered the arrest of one. Avelino then filed a quo warranto proceeding before the SC to declare him as the rightful Senate President. **Two senators were not present that time. made it incumbent upon Senate President Pro-tempore Arranz and the remaining members of the Senate to continue the session in order not to paralyze the functions of the Senate. the political nature of the controversy and the constitutional grant to the Senate of the power to elect its own president. the SC held that they cannot take cognizance of the case. even if the twelve did not constitute a quorum. and that the . there would be no doubt Quorum then. Soto was in a hospital while Sen. by leaving the Hall. The answer might be different had the resolution been approved only by ten or less. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (filed by Avelino on March 14. Two are absentee senators. "the House" does not mean "all" the members. Supposed the SC can take cognizance of the case. The Supreme Court. Anyway. ISSUE: Whether or not the SC can take cognizance of the case. 68) that Cuenco be elected as the Senate President. change or reinstate them. the majority of the Senators want petitioner to preside. and Senator Cuenco would have been elected just the same inasmuch as there would be eleven for Cuenco. Therefore an absolute majority (12) of all the members of the Senate less one (23). The SC should abstain in this case because the selection of the presiding officer affects only the Senators themselves who are at liberty at any time to choose their officers. Even a majority of all the members constitute "the House". HELD: By a vote of 6 to 4. 1949) Avelino and his group (11 senators in all) insist that the SC take cognizance of the case and that they are willing to bind themselves to the decision of the SC whether it be right or wrong. twelve senators constitute a majority of the Senate of twenty three senators. Tanada was subsequently recognized to deliver his speech. Hence. Confesor was in the USA. Cuenco took his oath of office thereafter. the latter requiring less number than the first. prevent the other (Cuenco et al) twelve senators from passing a resolution that met with their unanimous endorsement. Is the rump session (presided by Cuenco) a continuation of the morning session (presided by Avelino)? Are there two sessions in one day? Was there a quorum constituting such session? The second session is a continuation of the morning session as evidenced by the minutes entered into the journal. Furthermore. the constitutional requirement in that regard has become a mere formalism. in this case 12 (half of 24) plus 1 or 13 NOT 12. excluding Confesor). nor taken over. Sen. Later. by the judiciary.Avelino just banged his gavel and he hurriedly left his chair and he was immediately followed by his followers. his remedy lies in the Senate Session Hall not in the Supreme Court. at least. When the Constitution declares that a majority of "each House" shall constitute a quorum. by a vote of seven resolved to assume jurisdiction over the case in the light of subsequent events which justify its intervention. Avelino contends that there is no constitutional quorum when Cuenco was elected president. if one had been so arrested. which power should not be interfered with. There is a difference between a majority of "all the members of the House" and a majority of "the House". There being only 12 senators when Cuenco was elected unanimously there was no quorum. There are 24 senators in all. of the absent members. This is in view of the separation of powers. it appearing from the evidence that any new session with a quorum would result in Cuenco s election as Senate President. This was unanimously approved and was even recognized by the President of the Philippines the following day. one against and one abstained.

1992 elections.5 members for LAKASNUCD. two NPC and one LAKAS-NUCD. nominated 8 senators from their party because he rounded off 7. 2. To suffice the requirement that each house must have 12 representatives in the CoA. petitioners claim that the Municipality of Santiago has not met the minimum average annual income required under Section 450 of the Local Government Code of 1991 in order to be converted into a component city. In so doing one other party s fractional membership was correspondingly reduced leaving the latter s representation in the Commission on Appointments to less than their proportional representation in the Senate. The problem is what to do with the fraction of .5 members for NPC.5 to 8 and that Ta ada from LP-PDP-LABAN should represent the same party to the CoA.5 to 7. Therefore Cuenco has been legally elected as Senate President and the petition is dismissed. Where there are more than 2 parties in Senate. a party which has only one member senator cannot constitutionally claim a seat. mainly because the Act allegedly did not originate exclusively in the House of Representatives as mandated by Section 24.5 or 1/2 to which each of the parties is entitled. Also. the SC believes that the Cuenco group has done enough to satisfy the requirements of the Constitution and that the majority's ruling is in conformity with substantial justice and with the requirements of public interest. ISSUE: Whether or not rounding off is allowed in determining a party s representation in the CoA. 8817 into Republic Act No. Isabela into an Independent Component City to be known as the City of Santiago. HELD: It is a fact accepted by all such parties that each of them is entitled to a fractional membership on the basis of the rule on proportional representation of each of the political parties.5 member for LP-PDP-LABAN. This is clearly a violation of Section 18 because it is no longer in compliance with its mandate that membership in the Commission be based on the proportional representation of the political parties. The LDP majority in the Senate converted a fractional half membership into a whole membership of one senator by adding one half or . taking cue from the dissenting opinions. 7720. 5 NPC senators. but to no avail. JR. J. and 1 LP-PDP-LABAN senator. An Act Converting the Municipality of Santiago. Undisputed is the following chronicle of the metamorphosis of House Bill No. A party should have at least 1 seat for every 2 duly elected senators-members in the CoA. 1. He alleged that the compromise is against proportional representation. Guingona.: Of main concern to the petitioners is whether Republic Act No.5 to be able to elect Romulo. because of the Avelino s persistent efforts to block all avenues to constitutional processes. 7720. 7720: . just recently passed by Congress and signed by the President into law. GUINGONA DECISION HERMOSISIMA.Cuenco group.. has been trying to satisfy such formalism by issuing compulsory processes against senators of the Avelino group. one LP-PDP-LABAN. Indeed. The election of Senator Romulo gave more representation to the LDP and reduced the representation of one political party either the LAKAS NUCD or the NPC.5 members for LDP. --------------------------------------------------------------ALVAREZ V. The results of such a formula would produce 7. the parties may coalesce with each other in order to come up with proportional representation especially since one party may have affiliations with the other party. of Senators elected. In order to resolve such. entitled. in this Petition for Prohibition with prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction. Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. the parties agreed to use the traditional formula: (No. --------------------------------------------------------------GUINGONA V. 3 LAKAS-NUCD senators. Romulo. A literal interpretation of Section 18 of Article VI of the Constitution leads to no other manner of application. is constitutionally infirm. For this reason. the senate was composed of 15 LDP senators. GONZALES FACTS: After the May 11. petitioners assail the validity of Republic Act No. opposed the said compromise. This is also pursuant to the proposition compromise by Sen Tolentino who proposed that the elected members of the CoA should consist of eight LDP. a member of LAKASNUCD. and 0. as the majority floor leader. of Senators of a political party) x 12 seats) ÷ Total No.

560. submitted to the President on April 12. the said committee submitted Committee Report No. HB No. Thus. 378 on HB No. 1994. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Local Government and the House Committee on Appropriations on May 5. on May 19. 1993.B. 1993. one of the herein petitioners. entitled. 1993. 8817. 1994. June 1. the average annual income arrived at would only be P13. Senate Bill No. I The annual income of a local government unit includes the IRAs Petitioners claim that Santiago could not qualify into a component city because its average annual income for the last two (2) consecutive years based on 1991 constant prices falls below the required annual income of Twenty Million Pesos (P20. The enrolled bill.057. public hearings on HB No. 7720.00 Total income for 1991 and 1992 P26. Other sponsors included Representatives Ciriaco Alfelor. was filed in the Senate. 1993. 1993. 8817. Rodolfo Albano. was signed by the Chief Executive on May 5. 1993.960. On January 28. after deducting the IRAs. 8817. 1994. petitioners having computed Santiagos average annual income in the following manner: Total income (at 1991 constant prices) for 1991 P20. Santiago Respicio and Faustino Dy.570. 1994. 1993. and (II) Whether or not. indicated his approval thereto by signing said report as member of the Committee on Local Government. as principal sponsor.94 Minus: IRAs for 1991 and 1992 P15. On February 23.87 Total income for 1991 and 1992 P41. the Senate Committee on Local Government conducted public hearings on SB No.On April 18.109.043. 8817 was on all fours with SB No. On December 13. HB No. On May 19. 8817. the House of Representatives. entitled An Act Converting the Municipality of Santiago into an Independent Component City to be known as the City of Santiago.94 Average Annual Income P13.000. 8817 was transmitted to the Senate. was filed in the House of Representatives with Representative Antonio Abaya as principal author. with the recommendation that it be approved without amendment. 8817 was passed by the House of Representatives on Second Reading and was approved on Third Reading on December 17.07 Total income (at 1991 constant prices) for 1992 P21. 378 was passed by the Senate on Second Reading and was approved on Third Reading on March 14. An Act Converting the Municipality of Santiago into an Independent Component City to be Known as the City of Santiago. considering that the Senate passed SB No. petitioners claim that Santiago s income is far .000. Republic Act No.106. or a little less than a month after HB No. taking into consideration the reality that H. 8817 was transmitted to the Senate.47 By dividing the total income of Santiago for calendar years 1991 and 1992. 7720 can be said to have originated in the House of Representatives.109. 1993. November 28. Committee Report No. The question as to the validity of Republic Act No. 8817 were conducted by the House Committee on Local Government. Senator Heherson T. a counterpart of HB No. upon being apprised of the action of the Senate. 1243. When a plebiscite on the Act was held on July 13. 1243. 1994. a great majority of the registered voters of Santiago voted in favor of the conversion of Santiago into a city.379. approved the amendments proposed by the Senate. 1994. Meanwhile.120. 7720 hinges on the following twin issues: (I) Whether or not the Internal Revenue Allotments (IRAs) are to be included in the computation of the average annual income of a municipality for purposes of its conversion into an independent component city.219. 1993. its own version of HB No. On March 1. On March 3. and December 1. No.730. This was just after the House of Representatives had conducted its first public hearing on HB No. Alvarez. It was introduced by Senator Vicente Sotto III. 1993. 1243.00) for its conversion into a city. on December 9. 1994 as Republic Act No. 1994. 8817.949. On March 22. 1243.163.47 based on the 1991 constant prices. 1994. HB No. The committee submitted to the House a favorable report. with amendments.

since income is defined in the Local Government Code to be all revenues and receipts collected or received forming the gross accretions of funds of the local government unit. enabling especially the peripheral local government units to develop not only at their own pace and discretion but also with their own resources and assets. the vesting of duty. however. authority. increase or decrease. transfers. This. among others. Section 450 (c) of the Local Government Code provides that the average annual income shall include the income accruing to the general fund. entail more expenses. The funds generated from local taxes. and non-recurring . but not intended. is thereby deconcentrated. For purposes of converting the Municipality of Santiago into a city. land and equal sharing. the local government unit is autonomous in the sense that it is given more powers. if any. exclusive of special funds. It is true that for a municipality to be converted into a component city. For instance. Petitioners asseverate that the IRAs are not actually income but transfers and/or budgetary aid from the national government and that they fluctuate. The certification issued by the Bureau of Local Government Finance of the Department of Finance. The IRAs are items of income because they form part of the gross accretion of the funds of the local government unit. Availment of such resources is effectuated through the vesting in every local government unit of (1) the right to create and broaden its own source of revenue. for purposes of budget preparation. The IRAs regularly and automatically accrue to the local treasury without need of any further action on the part of the local government unit. have an average annual income of at least Twenty Million Pesos for the last two (2) consecutive years based on 1991 constant prices. Remaining to be an intra sovereign subdivision of one sovereign nation. which budget should reflect the estimates of the income of the local government unit. among others. and (3) the right to be given its equitable share in the proceeds of the utilization and development of the national wealth. Resolution of the controversy regarding compliance by the Municipality of Santiago with the aforecited income requirement hinges on a correlative and contextual explication of the meaning of internal revenue allotments (IRAs) vis-a-vis the notion of income of a local government unit and the principles of local autonomy and decentralization underlying the institutionalization and intensified empowerment of the local government system. among others. is allegedly not accurate as the Internal Revenue Allotments were not excluded from the computation.581. A Local Government Unit is a political subdivision of the State which is constituted by law and possessed of substantial control over its own affairs. As such. not less than twenty percent (20%) of the IRAs must be set aside for local development projects. (2) the right to be allocated a just share in national taxes. such share being in the form of internal revenue allotments (IRAs). a local government unit must now operate on a much wider scale. IRAs and national wealth utilization proceeds accrue to the general fund of the local government and are used to finance its operations subject to specified modes of spending the same as provided for in the Local Government Code and its implementing rules and regulations. responsibility and accountability in every local government unit is accompanied with a provision for reasonably adequate resources to discharge its powers and effectively carry out its functions. the Department of Finance did after including the IRAs in its computation of said average annual income.974. Understandably. Such income must be duly certified by the Department of Finance. With its broadened powers and increased responsibilities. it must. Power which used to be highly centralized in Manila. This is as it should be. that the municipality had an average annual income of at least Twenty Million Pesos for the last two (2) consecutive years based on 1991 constant prices. responsibilities and resources. The practical side to development through a decentralized local government system certainly concerns the matter of financial resources.97. They thus constitute income which the local government can invariably rely upon as the source of much needed funds. to be an imperium in imperio. within its territorial boundaries.below the aforesaid Twenty Million Pesos average annual income requirement. the Department of Finance certified. depending on factors like population. More extensive operations. which indicates Santiago s average annual income to be P20. Furthermore. in turn. we hold that petitioners asseverations are untenable because Internal Revenue Allotments form part of the income of Local Government Units. In this regard. the IRAs and the share in the national wealth utilization proceeds are considered items of income.

Thus. to classify the same as a special fund or transfer. a little less than a month thereafter. No. by constitutional prescription. 7720. 11197] into Although a bill of local application like HB No. No. 1993 while SB No. No. but exclusive of non-recurring receipts. To insist that a revenue statuteand not only the bill which initiated the legislative process culminating in the enactment of the law-must substantially be the same as the House bill would be to deny the Senates power not only to concur with amendments but also to propose amendments. we explained: x x x To begin with. 8817. is untenable because it cannot be denied that HB No. originate exclusively in the House of Representatives. or on February 23. from the House of Representatives. the Senate Committee on Local Government conducted public hearings on SB No. that S. Such order. 1994. a distinct bill may be produced. It is important to emphasize this. its instrumentalities and governmentowned-or-controlled corporations. 11197 but of another Senate bill (S. 1993. nil is there a basis. 7720.income. the claim of petitioners that Republic Act No. unless such construction is clearly shown to be in sharp conflict with the Constitution. the Senate held in abeyance any action on SB No. IRAs are a regular. The filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in anticipation of its receipt of the bill from the House. Article VI of the 1987 Constitution Constitution is perceptible under the circumstances attending the instant controversy. II In the enactment of RA No. is entitled to full respect and should be accorded great weight by the courts. the governing statute. There. 1243. No violation of Section 24. since IRAs have a technical definition and meaning all its own as used in the Local Government Code that unequivocally makes it distinct from special funds or transfers referred to when the Code speaks of funding support from the national government. Secretary of Finance. of the 1987 . as a revenue bill. however. constituting executive or contemporaneous construction of a statute by an administrative agency charged with the task of interpreting and applying the same. x x x as a result of the Senate action. 1243 was filed on May 19. 8817 was filed in the House of Representatives first before SB No. xxx xxx xxx It is insisted. Article VI. 8817 was approved on the Third Reading on December 17. 8817 was thus precursive not only of the said Act in question but also of SB No. does not contravene the constitutional requirement that a bill of local application should originate in the House of Representatives. 1129) earlier filed and that what the Senate did was merely to take [H. on the matter of the Expanded Value Added Tax (EVAT) Law. such as other national aids. Petitioners themselves cannot disavow their own admission that HB No. 1243 was filed in the Senate. To reiterate. too. which. No. 8817 was filed on April 18. 8817. We have already addressed this issue in the case of Tolentino vs. recurring item of income. 1994. HB No. Department of Finance Order No. financial assistance. petitioners themselves acknowledge that HB No. is nonetheless constitutionally required to originate exclusively in the House of Representatives. Furthermore. 1993 and transmitted to the Senate on January 28. grants. already approved on the Third Reading. because a bill originating in the House may undergo such extensive changes in the Senate that the result may be a rewriting of the whole. 8817. for as long as the Senate does not act thereupon until it receives the House bill. 1243 until it received HB No. 359313 correctly encapsulizes the full import of the above disquisition when it defined ANNUAL INCOME to be revenues and receipts realized by provinces. Clearly. 1243. or other laws. 8817 was already approved on Third Reading and duly transmitted to the Senate when the Senate Committee on Local Government conducted its public hearing on HB No. sales of fixed assets. there was compliance with Section 24. It would be to violate the coequality of legislative power of the two houses of Congress and in fact make the House superior to the Senate. 7720 did not originate exclusively in the House of Representatives because a bill of the same import. Thus. The filing of HB No. SB No. was passed in the Senate. it is not the law-but the revenue bill-which is required by the Constitution to originate exclusively in the House of Representatives. cities and municipalities from regular sources of the Local General Fund including the internal revenue allotment and other shares provided for in Sections 284. and similar others (Italics ours). 290 and 291 of the Code. 1243. loan proceeds. 8817 should. 1630 was passed not in substitution of H. was the bill that initiated the legislative process that culminated in the enactment of Republic Act No. HB No.

7720. Bellosillo. The postmaster's conclusion is that because of thisconsiderable volume of mail from the Judiciary. PJA averred that the law is discriminatory as itdisallowed the franking privilege of the Judiciary but has not disallowed thefranking privilege of others such as the executive. the total volume of frank mails amounted to P90. Both views are thereby made to bear on the enactment of such laws. such as theintervenor. frank mails from the Judiciary and otheragencies whose functions include the service of judicial processes. Acting from this. concur. HELD: The SC ruled that there is a violation of the equalprotection clause. Narvasa. On the other hand. the remedy is to withdraw it altogether from all agenciesof the government.. the franking privilege must bewithdrawn from it. FACTS: A report came in showing that available data from the Postal Service Office showthat from January 1988 to June 1992. No. Frank mails coming from the Judiciary amounted to P73. their petition must fail.J. Evident to that need is the high expense allotted tothe judiciary s franking needs. . including RA No. The judiciary needs the franking privilege so badly as it isvital to its operation. the members of the House can be expected to be more sensitive to the local needs and problems. The Postmaster cannot be sustained incontending that the removal of the franking privilege from the judiciary is inorder to cut expenditure. There is really no difference between the Senate preserving H. PJA assailed the said law complaining that the law wouldadversely impair the communication within the judiciary as it may impair thesending of judicial notices. inevitable. PRADO EqualProtection Franking Privilege of the Judiciary It is a well-entrenched jurisprudential rule that on the side of every law lies the presumption of constitutionality. it would seem petitioners admit is an amendment by substitution).. on the other hand. Nor does the Constitution prohibit the filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in anticipation of its receipt of the bill from the House. Consequently. elected as they are from the districts. so long as action by the Senate as a body is withheld pending receipt of the House bill. 9228 as theIRR for the said law. Jr.00. Prado implemented Circ.consideration in enacting S. the grounds for nullity must be clear and beyond reasonable doubt. Melo. Vitug. x xx III Every law. and. In either case the result are two bills on the same subject. This is untenable for if the Postmaster would intendto cut expenditure by removing the franking privilege of the judiciary. No. 7720 to be nullified. otherwise. the instant petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit with costs against petitioners.431. in other words. Francisco. what the Constitution simply means is that the initiative for filing revenue.481. C. Puno.and those coming from the petitioners reached the total amount ofP60. private bills and bills of local application must come from the House of Representatives on the theory that. 1630. ISSUE: Whether or not there has been a violation of equal protectionbefore the law. for RA No. Those who petition this court to declare a law to be unconstitutional must clearly and fully establish the basis that will justify such a declaration. are expected to approach the same problems from the national perspective. Davide. If the problem of the respondents is the loss of revenues from thefranking privilege.175. bills authorizing an increase of the public debt.574. Mendoza. Padilla. former executives and theirwidows among others. 7720. the senators. No. Regalado.424.864. therefore.00. Taking into consideration the justification of our stand on the immediately preceding ground raised by petitioners to challenge the constitutionality of RA No. thenthey should have removed the franking privilege all at once from all the otherdepartments. Romero. --------------------------------------------------------------PJA V. not merely a doubtful and equivocal one. The dismissal of this petition is. the Court stands on the holding that petitioners have failed to overcome the presumption. and Panganiban. the Department of Justice and the Office of the Ombudsman. separately presenting a bill of its own on the same subject matter. 11197 up to the enacting clause and then writing its own version following the enacting clause (which.991.00.759. Indeed. WHEREFORE.. JJ. tariff. it must be shown that there is a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution. or tax bills. Kapunan.has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality SO ORDERED. amountedto P86. of this amount. who are elected at large.

a law prohibiting mature books to all persons. In lumping the Judiciary with the other offices from whichthe franking privilege has been withdrawn. VETO VOID. and for other Purposes was approved by the President and vetoed some of the provisions. 25. would benefit the morals of the youth but violate theliberty of adults. Art 7 of the Constitution.) the conditions imposed by the President in the implementation of certain appropriations for the CAFGU s. for example. ENRIQUEZ FACTS: RA 7663 (former House bill No. 3. Petitioners contest the constitutionality of: 1. especiallywhere there is no substantial distinction between those favored. DPWH. Other SCU s enjoying the privilege do so by existing law.Congress specified 30% ratio fo works for maintenance of . Senators Tanada and Romulo sought the issuance of the writs of prohibition and mandamus against the samerespondents.regardless of age. This might in fact sometimes result in unequal protection.) Art 16 on the Countrywide Development Fund and b. VETO VALID. and Nat l Highway Authority.1994. Provision for Western Visayas State Univ.as where. which definitely needs it. What the clause requires is equality among equals asdetermined according to a valid classification.PhilConsA prayed for a writ of prohibition to declare unconstitutional and void a. the General Appropriations Bill of 1994) entitled An Act Appropriating Funds for the Operation of the Government of the Philippines from January 1 to December 1. 10900. ISSUE: Whether or not the veto of the president on four special provisions is constitutional and valid? HELD: 1. & Leyte State Colleges vetoed by Pres. Secretary. Petitioners assail the special provision allowing a member of Congress to realign his allocation for operational expenses to any other expense category claiming that it violates Sec. The equal protection clause doesnot require the universal application of the laws on all persons or thingswithout distinction. 2. Special Provision on Debt Ceiling Congress provided for a debt-ceiling. w/o vetoing the entire appropriation for debt service. By classification is meant thegrouping of persons or things similar to each other in certain particulars anddifferent from all others in these same particulars. prohibition and mandamus against the Exec. Special Provision on Road Maintenance .) The veto of the President of the Special provision of Art XLVIII of the GAA of 1994.) the constitutionality of the veto of the special provision in the appropriation for debt services. Issues of constitutionality were raised before the Supreme Court. Pres. Sec 35 has placed the courts ofjustice in a category to which it does not belong.) veto on four special provisions added to items in the GAA of 1994 for the AFP and DPWH. --------------------------------------------------------------PHILCONSA V.including those who do not need it. and the Judiciary. They are appropriate provisions & cannot be vetoed w/o vetoing the entire item/appropriation. The problem is notsolved by retaining it for some and withdrawing it from others. 16 members of the Senate sought the issuance of writs of certiorari.) Constitutionality of the conditions imposed by the President in the items of the GAA of 1994 and 2. The said provisions are germane to & have direct relation w/ debt service. Vetoed by the Pres. there is no reason why it should not recognize a similar and in factgreater need on the part of the Judiciary for such privilege. which may ormay not need it at all. and 2. If it recognizes the need ofthe President of the Philippines and the members of Congress for the frankingprivilege. merely acted in pursuance to existing law. Special Provision on Revolving Funds for SCU s said provision allows for the use of income & creation of revolving fund for SCU s. the Sec of Dept of Budget and Management and the National Treasurer and questions: 1. Theproblem is not solved by violating the Constitution.

Denied. otherwise known as the General Approriations Act. Villegas April 30. w/o vetoing the entire appropriation. prior approval of Congress required before release of modernization funds. of road maintenance & cannot be veoted w/o vetoing the entire appropriation. 1974 Original action in the Supreme Court. Special Provision on Purchase of Military Equip. Thus. VETO VALID. of a separate law. VETO VOID. A provision in an appropriation act cannot be used to repeal/amend existing laws. only the Pres. by PD No.00. AFP modernization.4 Billion in automatic appropriation (with P86. It was sent to the Senate for concurrence and it was referred to the appropriate Senate . Article XIV of the Constitution which mandates to assign the highest budgetary priority to education.roads be contracted according to guidelines set forth by DPWH.017. may exercise such power pursuant to a specific law. requires his prior approval. if in the process Congress appropriated an amount for debt service bigger than the share allocated to education. VET O VALID. 6. According to the Constitution. 18. and by PD No. action in implementing a law or requiring legislative approval must be subj.8 Billion for debt service) and P155. Vetoed by the Pres. the Court finds and so holds that said appropriation cannot be thereby assailed as unconstitutional --------------------------------------------------------------ARROYO V. Article XIV of the Constitution Congress is mandated to assign the highest budgetary priority to education. blocking an admin. The said automatic appropriation for debt service is authorized by PD No. that can reasonably service our enormous debt It is not only a matter of honor and to protect the credit standing of the country. 6758).5 Billion. Pres. Congress is certainly not without any power. 1597 & RA No. It is not an inappropriate provision. it being higher than the budget for education. Special Provision on Conditions for de-activation of CAFGU s use of special fund for the compensation of the said CAFGU s. ISSUE: Whether or not the automatic appropriation for debt service is unconstitutional. Mandamus.3 Billion appropriated under RA 6831. as Amended (Re: Foreign Borrowing Act).1967. entitled Revising the Budget Process in Order to Institutionalize the Budgetary Innovations of the New Society. More especially. It is also an amendment to existing law (PD No. 9266 which was filed in the House of Representatives passed on 3rd reading without amendments. 5. entitled An Act Strengthening the Guarantee and Payment Positions of the Republic of the Philippines on its Contingent Liabilities Arising out of Relent and Guaranteed Loans by Appropriating Funds For The Purpose. Properly vetoed. 4. ) --------------------------------------------------------------Stat Con Astorga v. While it is true that under Section 5(5). or a total of P233. the very survival of our economy is at stake. DE VENECIA (Please refer to Stat Con book by Suarez p 77. CARAGUE FACTS: The 1990 budget consists of P98. Special Provision on Use of Savings for AFP Pensions allows Chief of Staff to augment pension funds through the use of savings. it is not alien to the subj. The petitioners were questioning the constitutionality of the automatic appropriation for debt service. it does not thereby follow that the hands of Congress are so hamstrung as to deprive it the power to respond to the imperatives of the national interest and for the attainment of other state policies or objectives. It is the so-called legislative veto. Facts: House Bill No. Any prov.000. injunction and/or prohibition with preliminary mandatory prohibitory injunction. VETO VALID -------------------------------------------------------------GUINGONA V. to provide an appropriation. 1177. therefore it is against Section 5(5). entitled Amending Certain Provisions of Republic Act Numbered Four Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty. guided only by its good judgment. it being higher than the budget for education. Vetoed. HELD: No.813. while the appropriations for the DECS amount to P27.

Secretary of the Senate sent a letter to the House of Representatives that the House Bill had been passed by the Senate by the Senate with amendments. Bill was not duly enacted and therefore did not become law. Respondents contend that RA 4065 never became law since it was not the bill actually passed by the Senate. Petitioner agrees that the attestation in the bill is not mandatory but he argues that the disclaimer thereof by the Senate President. Certification that was made by the presiding officer is merely a mode of authentication. He also issued an order recalling 5 members of the city police who had been assigned to the Vice-Mayor presumably under the authority of RA 4065. Attached was a certification of the amendment. (Field vs. No. thus attested. substantial amendments to Section 1 was introduced by Senator Tolentino.Committee. (instead of the City Engineer it be the President Protempore of the Municipal Board who should succeed the ViceMayor in case of the latter s incapacity to act as Mayor). The argument of the petitioner would limit the court s inquiry to the presence or absence of the attestation and to the effect of its absence upon the validity of the statute. which was the one recommended by Senator Roxas. The printed copies were then certified and attested to by the Secretaries of Senate and House of representatives and the Senate President. in open session. through their presiding officers. Senate President declared that his signature on the bill to be invalid and issued a subsequent clarification that the invalidation of his signature meant that the bill he had signed had never been approved by the Senate. all bills authenticate in the manner stated. to the president. Vice Mayor Astorga filed this petition with the court. the entry in the journal should be consulted. in due form. which amendments were approved in toto by the Senate. WON RA 4065 can be considered as valid in the absence of the attestation required Held: 1. which recommended approval with a minor amendment recommended by Senator Roxas. 2. granting that it to have been validly made. It was later made public by Senator Tolentino that the enrolled copy of HB 9266 signed into law by the President was a wrong version of the bill actually passed by the Senate and approved on the Senate Floor. would only mean that there was no attestation at all but would not affect the validity of the statute. Clark) Enrolled bill theory based mainly on the respect due to coequal and independent departments which requires the judicial department to accept as having passed Congress. and not the Tolentino amendments which were the ones actually approved by the Senate. Bill . No. The essential thing is the approval of congress and not the signature of the presiding officers. Rationale of the enrolled bill theory the signing by the speaker of the House of Representatives and by the president of the Senate. not yet approved A first draft and proposed law or statute which has been formally tabled before a legislative assembly for consideration. As a result. This declaration should be accorded greater respect than the attestation that it invalidated. that a bill. Issues: 1. Absent such attestation as a result of the disclaimer. has received. of an enrolled bill. what evidence is there to determine within the bill had been duly enacted? In such case. 2. the sanction of the legislative branch of the government. House of Representatives signified their approval. and it is delivered to him in obedience to the constitutional requirement that all bills which pass Congress shall be presented to him. the president sent a message to the presiding officer of both houses that he was officially withdrawing his signature from HB 9266. . and consequently there being no enrolled bill to speak of. WON the attestation of the presiding officers of Congress is conclusive proof of a bill s due enactment. Senate President admitted the mistake in a letter to the President. Mayor of Manila issued circulars ordering the disregard of the provisions of RA 4605. Constitution does not even provide that the presiding officer should sign the bill before it is submitted to the president. The bill with the Roxas amendments were signed by the president of the Philippines and it was subsequently named RA 4065. and that the entries in the journal of that body and not the enrolled bill itself should be decisive in the resolution of the issue. The journal discloses that substantial and lengthy amendments were introduced on the floor and approved by the Senate but were not incorporated in the printed text sent to the president and signed by him.a proposed statute. When the bill was discussed on the Senate Floor. is an official attestation by the two houses. Function of attestation is not approval because a bill is considered approved after it has passed both houses.

unles the bill (now a "statute") specifies a date at which it comes into force. A concurrent resolution does not have the legal impact of a joint resolution. and simple resolutions. etc. 384) and the Persian Gulf Resolution of 1991 (105 Stat. For example. March 15. Of the ninety-nine joint resolutions that became law in the 103d Congress. For example. it is used as a temporary measure to provide continuing appropriations for government programs when annual appropriations bills have not yet been enacted. a bill requires the approval of both branches of the US Congress (the House of Representatives and the Senate) and the signature of the President to become law. such as Taiwan. This type of joint resolution is called a continuing resolution. simple resolutions are not presented to the President. Although no rules stipulate whether a proposed law must be drafted as a bill or a joint resolution.A bill becomes legislation or a statute when the appropriate parliamentary or legislative assembly has approved it by holding a vote and in the result. at which time it is passed and awaits coming into force (as a statute or law) upon a date of the government`s choosing. This type of resolution is used to act or speak on behalf of only one chamber of congress. POEA Facts: y Vitaliano Saco was Chief Officer of the M/V Eastern Polaris when he was killed in an accident in Tokyo. Japan.An action of Congress passed in the form of an enactment of one house. 797 and Memorandum Circular No. concurrent resolutions. Like a bill. joint resolutions are commonly used to establish commemorative days. Each time a bill is put to a vote. or to protect U. certain traditions are generally followed. eighty-three were items of commemorative legislation. It is more commonly employed as a method of expressing an opinion on some question. Constitution. Two of these resolutions the Tonkin Gulf Resolution of 1964 (78 Stat. Resolutions proposing constitutional amendments must be approved by two-thirds of both houses. interests in specific regions. it is called a "reading".S. but instead become law when they are ratified by three-fourths of the states. in identical form. Simple resolution In the United States. by both the House and the Senate. with the other house in agreement. They do not require the president's signature. 3) were used. Decisions of the POEA should be appealed to the NLRC but the questions at bar are essentially questions of law which are cognizable by SC. giving it the requisite number of approval votes.S. As they have been passed by only one house. The resolution is used for matters such as establishing the rules under which each body will operate. Joint resolution. A joint resolution is distinguished from a bill by the circumstances in which it is generally used. in part. In the United States. such as "third reading". until its final reading. participation in a full-scale war. for example. and signed by the president. Concurrent resolution. between 1955 and January 1991. on six occasions Congress passed joint resolutions authorizing or approving presidential requests to use armed forces to defend specific foreign countries. such as the Middle East. which has the force of official legislative action.S. in addition to treaties in the Senate. Joint resolutions are also often used to address a single important issue. the case was elevated to SC Argument of petitioner y y . it has the force of law if approved. Finally. Another use of joint resolutions is to propose amendments to the U. A joint resolution is often used when Congress needs to pass legislation to solve a limited or temporary problem. Commendations to victorious sports teams and statespersons and petitions from state legislatures to Congress or the president are examples of concurrent resolutions. which expresses the ideas of Congress on a particular subject. a joint resolution must be approved. as in First Reading. 1985 His widow sued for damages under Executive Order No.A type of measure that Congress may consider and act upon. Eastern Shipping Lines vs.. 2 of the POEA. to justify U. a simple resolution is a legislative measure passed by only either the Senate or the House. Like a bill. hence. and do not have the force of law. the other types being bills.

The power of the POEA (and before it the National Seamen Board) in requiring the model contract is not unlimited as there is a sufficient standard guiding the delegate in the exercise of the said authority. overseas employment is defined as "employment of a worker outside the Philippines. the M/V Eastern Polaris. b. 2 is valid and if it violates the principle of non-delegation of legislative power. It is true that legislative discretion as to the substantive contents of the law cannot be delegated What can be delegated is the discretion to determine how the law may be enforced. Memorandum Circular No. under the principle. Issue: y o y y y o a. argued that the complaint was cognizable not by the POEA because Saco was not an overseas worker but a domestic employee and should have been filed with the Social Security System. as owner of the vessel. including employment on board vessels plying international waters. Held: a. POEA has jurisdiction over. This is effected by their promulgation of what are known as supplementary regulations. not what the law shall be. such as the implementing rules issued by the Department of Labor on the new Labor Code. mandated it to protect the rights of overseas Filipino workers to "fair and equitable employment practices.the law must be complete in all its terms and conditions when it leaves the legislature such that when it reaches the delegate the only thing he will have to do is enforce it Sufficient standard test . The model contract prescribed thereby has been applied in a significant number of the cases without challenge by the employer. 2 is valid and does not violate the principle of non-delegation of legislative power o y y The authority to issue the said regulation is clearly provided in Section 4(a) of Executive Order No.there must be adequate guidelines or stations in the law to map out the boundaries of the delegate's authority and prevent the delegation from running riot Administrative bodies may implement the broad policies laid down in a statute by "filling in' the details which the Congress may not have the opportunity or competence to provide.o o The petitioner. covered by a valid contract. 797. That standard is discoverable in the executive order itself which." These definitions clearly apply to Vitaliano Saco for it is not disputed that he died while under a contract of employment with the petitioner and alongside the petitioner's vessel." Mariano v COMELEC FACTS: . b. 2 itself as violative of the principle of nondelegation of legislative power. Whether or not POEA has jurisdiction over the case at bar. the regulation represents an exercise of legislative discretion which. while berthed in a foreign country. and even with such authorization. y Under the 1985 Rules and Regulations on Overseas Employment. is not subject to delegation. The POEA nevertheless assumed jurisdiction and after considering the position papers of the parties ruled in favor of the complainant. These regulations have the force and effect of law. foreign employer. A contract worker is described as "any person working or who has worked overseas under a valid employment contract and shall include seamen" or "any person working overseas or who has been employed by another which may be a local employer. Two accepted tests to determine whether or not there is a valid delegation of legislative power: Completeness test . in creating the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. It contends that no authority had been given the POEA to promulgate the said regulation. principal or partner under a valid employment contract and shall include seamen. reading as follows: The governing Board of the Administration (POEA) shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations to govern the exercise of the adjudicatory functions of the Administration (POEA). Whether or not Memorandum Circular No. The petitioner questions the validity of Memorandum Circular No. 2 is one such administrative regulation. Memorandum Circular No.

000) shall have at least one representative. Even granting that the population of Makati as of the 1990 census stood at four hundred fifty thousand (450. Article VI of the Constitution. No. y Section 5 (3).A. the charges of (Congressman Sergio Osmeña. y In the same case of Tobias v. The Constitution clearly provides that Congress shall be composed of not more than two hundred fifty (250) members. inter alia. Arguments of Petitioners Section 52 of R.A. unless otherwise fixed by law. section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the Constitution provides that a city whose population has increased to more than two hundred fifty thousand (250. No. we reiterated the policy of the Court favoring a liberal construction of the "one title-one subject" rule so as not to impede legislation. 7854 ( An Act Converting the Municipality of Makati into a Highly Urbanized City to be known as the City of Makati ). the Constitution did not preclude Congress from increasing its membership by passing a law.000). As thus worded.000. we ruled that "it should be sufficient compliance if the title expresses the general subject and all the provisions are germane to such general subject. we ruled that reapportionment of legislative districts may be made through a special law.y y Juanito Mariano. In fact. other than a general reapportionment of the law. fully index. Article VI of the Constitution provides. The addition of another legislative district in Makati is in accord with Section 5 (3). Article VI of the Constitution Held: a. 7854 and providing for an increase in Makati's legislative district. op cit. Congressman Sergio Osmeña. To be sure. 59 which contains: WHEREAS. Article VI of the Constitution for as of the latest survey (1990 census). Hence. Osmena v Pendatun Facts: y On July 14. Osmena as a senator. y In Tobias v. would constitute a serious assault upon the dignity and prestige of the Office of the President Argument/Contention of Petitioner: o His words constituted no actionable conduct o . certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction" against Congressman Salipada K. Whether or not the increase in legislative district should be expressed in the title of the bill c. The increase in legislative district was not expressed in the title of the bill. No. a resident of Makati. 1960. Abalos. b.000).. Jr). the Constitution does not command that the title of a law should exactly mirror. Abalos." c. Issues: a.. This is its exactly what was done by Congress in enacting R. or completely catalogue all its details.000) shall be entitled to at least one congressional representative. 51 and 52 of R. that a city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand (250. and The addition of another legislative district in Makati is not in accord with Section 5 (3). The addition of another legislative district in Makati through special law is constitutional. assail Sections 2. such as in the charter of a new city. Whether or not the addition of another legislative district in Makati is unconstitutional as the reapportionment cannot be made by a special law b. the population of Makati stands at only 450. Another petition which contends the unconstitutionality of R. submitted to this Court a verified petition for "declaratory relief. 7854 is unconstitutional for: o o o It increased the legislative district of Makati only by special law (the Charter in violation of the constitutional provision requiring a general reapportionment law to be passed by Congress within three (3) years following the return of every census. if made maliciously or recklessly and without basis in truth and in fact. Whether or not the addition of another legislative district in Makati is in accord with Section 5 (3). No.A. taxpayer and concerned citizen. Pendatun and fourteen other congressmen in their capacity as members of the Special Committee created by House Resolution No. along with residents of Taguig suing as taxpayers. 7854 was also filed by John H. The increase in legislative district is not necessarily expressed in the title of the bill. its legislative district may still be increased since it has met the minimum population requirement of two hundred fifty thousand (250. Jr.A.

"mere failure to conform to parliamentary usage will not invalidate the action (taken by a deliberative body) when the required number of members have agreed to a particular measure. Congressman Osmeña s words constituted actionable conduct. Whether or not the petitioner s words constituted actionable conduct b. and the latter approved the suspension order. and with their observance. They may be waived or disregarded by the legislative body. Article VI of our Constitution provides that "for any speech or debate" in Congress. sec. Article VI of the Constitution. y Section 11. without issuing any preliminary injunction. sec. clause 1 of Art. and required respondents to answer. Because no preliminary injunction had been issued." ***************************************************************** Robles v House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal Facts: . the Senators or Members of the House of Representative "shall not be questioned in any other place. the provision has always been understood to mean that although exempt from prosecution or civil actions for their words uttered in Congress. and Rule XVII." This section was taken or is a copy of sec. with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its Members. Whether or not the Resolution violated petitioner s constitutional absolute parliamentary immunity (Section 11. in a privilege speech delivered before the House. made the serious imputations of bribery against the President and that he refused to produce before the House Committee created for the purpose. The House had closed it session. but also because the matter depends mainly on factual circumstances of which the House knows best but which cannot be depicted in black and white for presentation to. be questioned in Congress itself. sec. the members of Congress may. and the Committee has ceased to exist as such. Although some members of the court expressed doubts of petitioner's cause of action and the Court's jurisdiction. under Section 16(3). Whether or not the House has power. 59 should be annulled on the ground of infringement of his parliamentary immunity as embedded in Section 11. to suspend one of its members. b. In that country. if so. Observe that "they shall not be questioned in any other place" than Congress. he shall not be held to answer therefor nor be subject to censure by the House. the majority decided to hear the matter further. under the Constitution. the House took up other business. the courts have no concern. 7 will apply Held: a. to suspend one of its members. c. 1 of the Constitution of the United States. nevertheless. y Under Section 16(3). y Consequently. and. whether or not Rule XVII. The Committee found Osmeña guilty of serious disorderly behavior and suspended him from office for fifteen months.o o y y y House Resolution No. Article VI of the Constitution. The Resolution did not violated petitioner s constitutional absolute parliamentary immunity. and adjudication by the Courts. punish its Members for disorderly behavior. Issue: a. suspend or expel a Member. After his allegedly objectionable speech and words. 6. The House has power." y Parliamentary rules are merely procedural. reported to the House. y The House is the judge of what constitutes disorderly behaviour. 7 of the Rules of House provides that if other business has intervened after the member had uttered obnoxious words in debate. y The Rules of the House which petitioner himself has invoked (Rule XVII. the Committee performed its task. Article VI of the Constitution. and. c. evidence to substantiate such imputations. not only because the Constitution has conferred jurisdiction upon it. Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings. 7) recognize the House's power to hold a member responsible "for words spoken in debate. Article VI of the Constitution) for speeches delivered in the House. y There is no question that Congressman Osmeña.

filed an Urgent Motion to Suspend Revision No action taken . was terminated. 1987 January 5. representing the initial 25% of all the contested precincts. 1988 September 14. 1988 . 1988 September 8.opposed Santos' motion to Recall and Disregard Withdrawal of Protest in an Urgent Motion to Cancel Continuation of Revision with -issued a resolution which granted Santos' urgent Motion to Recall and Disregard Withdrawal of -revision of ballots was stopped September 7. 1988 -issued an order setting the commencement of the revision of contested ballots on September 1. . 1988 Motion to Recall and Disregard Withdrawal of Protest . . August 15.filed an Urgent Granted on Sept 19. 1988 and directed protestant Santos to identify 25% of the total contested precincts which he desires to be revised first .Date December 23.filed his answer and alleged 1988 the lack of residence of protestant and the late filing of his protest. 1988 Petitioner (Robles) -was proclaimed winner as the Respondent (Santos) HR Electoral Tribunal Action -filed an election protest with HRET for allegations characterized by the commission of electoral frauds and irregularities in various forms January 14. 1988 September 19.filed a Motion to No action taken Withdraw Protest on the unrevised precincts and Motion to Set Case for Hearing . 1988 September 12.the revision of the ballots for 75 precincts.

-denied Robles' Motion for Reconsideration January 26. 1988 -filed an Urgent Motion and Manifestation praying that his Urgent Motion to Cancel Revision with Opposition to Motion to Recall dated September 19. 1988 be treated as a Motion for Reconsideration of the HRET resolution of September 19. 1988 Protest.Opposition to Motion to Recall Withdrawal September 20. 1988 directed Santos to comment on Robles' "Urgent Motion to Cancel Continuation of Revision with Opposition to Motion to Recall Withdrawal" and ordered the suspension of the resumption of revision scheduled for September 26.1989 . 1988. September 22.

filed with the Sandiganbayan civil case against Benjamin "Kokoy" Romualdez. does not by itself divest the tribunal of its jurisdiction over the case. y The use of the word "sole" emphasizes the exclusive character of the jurisdiction conferred.  obtained control of some big business enterprises such as MERALCO. in requiring their attendance and testimony. Whether or not HRET acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion Held: a. and taking undue advantage of their relationship. influence and connection with the latter defendant spouses.". Juan Ponce Enrile delivered a speech before the Senate on the alleged take-over of SolOil Incorporated by Ricardo Lopa and called upon the senate to look into possible violation of the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act or RA 3019. for reconveyance. reaching a total of more than P2 billion  collaborated with lawyers (petitioners therein) of the Bengzon Law Offices in concealing funds and properties.. represented PCGG. y Section 17. b. engaged in devices. when respondent HRET subsequently ordered the revision of the unrevised protested ballots. The SBRC started its investigation through a hearing but Lopa and Bengzon declined to testify. and in cleverly hiding behind the veil of corporate entity y Sen. and PCI Bank  manipulated the formation of Erectors Holding Inc. schemes and stratagems (listed below) to unjustly enrich themselves at the expense of the Filipino people. y Jurisdiction. the Republic of the Philippines. restitution and damages. b. is not lost upon the instance of the parties but continues until the case is terminated. Article VI of the 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. 1988. assisted by the Solicitor General. alleged cronies of former Marcos couple. once acquired. The Court has jurisdiction over the case. Issue: a. acted in excess of its jurisdiction and legislative purpose. Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction over this case. accounting. Issue: a. in maneuvering the purported sale of interests in certain corporations. to appear viable and borrow more capital. hence.e. Whether or not HRET lost its jurisdiction over the case b. Whether or not the SBRC s inquiry has a valid legislative purpose. Basis of complaint: o Benjamin (Kokoy) Romualdez and Juliette Gomez Romualdez. in misusing the Meralco Pension Fund worth P25 million. Pilipinas Shell. et al. i. There was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal in issuing the assailed resolutions since the tribunal did not lose its jurisdiction at any point of the proceedings. without any action on the part of respondent tribunal. it is not done in aid of legislation Held: a. . Argument of Petitioner: o Petitioner claims that the SBRC. and qualifications of their respective Members. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Facts: y On 30 July 1987. y y Bengzon v. notwithstanding the withdrawal of the protest.Petitioner s Argument o HRET lost its jurisdiction over the case when private respondent Santos filed the Motion to Withdraw Protest on Unrevised Precincts and Motion to Set Case for Hearing dated September 12. returns. reversion. HRET did not lose its jurisdiction when private respondent Santos filed the Motion to Withdraw Protest on Unrevised Precincts and Motion to Set Case for Hearing y The mere filing of the motion to withdraw protest on the remaining uncontested precincts. it acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. The SBRC rejected petitioner Bengzon s plea and voted to pursue its investigation.

unconstitutional and inoperative. It obtains not through express provision but by actual division in our Constitution. and to pay all the emoluments and allowances due to him from the time of his reversion to inactive status." Petitioner s Argument (Garcia) b. and any such provision or enactment shall be limited in its operation to such appropriation. it does not assert any superiority over the other departments. but only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by the Constitution to determine conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution and to establish for the parties in an actual controversy the rights which that instrument secures and guarantees to them. The Constitution has provided for an elaborate system of checks and balances to secure coordination in the workings of the various departments of the government When the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries. Thus. Garcia v. the Court held that The separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our system of government. par. and is therefore proscribed by Art. The investigation is conducted solely for the personal aggrandizement of the investigators or to "punish" those investigated which are indefensible. would be an encroachment into the exclusive domain of judicial jurisdiction that had much earlier set in. VI. Respondent s Contention (Mata) o y The respondents contend that the said provision has no relevance or pertinence whatsoever to the budget in question or to any appropriation item contained therein. (Art. o The petitioner consequently argues that his reversion to inactive status on November 15. 25(2). Section 21. The speech of Senator Enrile contained no suggestion of contemplated legislation. But it does not follow from the fact that the three powers are to be kept separate and distinct that the Constitution intended them to be absolutely unrestrained and independent of each other. 19. which reads: y  No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the general appropriation bill unless it relates specifically to some particular appropriation therein. 2 4 of the 1935 Constitution of the Philippines. 1987 Constitution) Issue: . paragraph 11 which prohibits the reversion to inactive status of reserve officers on active duty with at least ten years of accumulated active commissioned service. It does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the legislature. 1960 was in violation of Republic Act 1600. The investigation must be related to and in furtherance of a legitimate task of Congress. The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected. Electoral Commission. Article VI thereof provides: The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committee may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. Sec. and is supreme within its own sphere. Trial court dismissed the petition on the ground that paragraph 11 of Republic Act 1600 is "invalid. VI Sec. for the respondent Committee to probe and inquire into the same justiciable controversy already before the Sandiganbayan. The SBRC s inquiry does not have a valid legislative purpose. had violated the law.y In Angara vs. y The 1987 Constitution expressly recognizes the power of both houses of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation. Each department of the government has exclusive cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction. Mata Facts: y y y y Petitioner was a reserve officer on active duty with the Armed Forces of the Philippines until his reversion to inactive status on 15 November 1960 The petitioner brought an action for in the court to compel the respondents Secretary of National Defense and Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines to reinstate him in the active commissioned service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. y In fine. The purpose of the inquiry to be conducted by respondent Blue Ribbon committee was just to find out whether or not Mr. to readjust his rank. Ricardo Lopa.

Sec 26(2) of the Constitution. "Tt was indeed a non-appropriation item inserted in an appropriation measure in violation of the constitutional inhibition against "riders" to the general appropriation act. VI. the members of the House can be expected to be more sensitive to the local needs and problems. 24 of the Constitution. par. VI. etc. 7716 seeks to widen the tax base of the existing VAT system and enhance its administration by amending the National Internal Revenue Code. VI. 1630. 2 of present Constitution) which provided that "No bill which may be enacted into law shall embrace more than one subject which shall be expressed in the title of the bill.A. RA 7716 did not violate Art. H. VI. Whether or not RA 7716 violated Art. private bills and bills of local application must come from the House of Representatives on the theory that. VI." This constitutional requirement nullified and rendered inoperative any provision contained in the body of an act that was not fairly included in the subject expressed in the title or was not germane to or properly connected with that subject. 26(2) qualifies 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. bills authorizing an increase of the public debt. 1600 appropriated money for the operation of the Government. 1630 as urgent. 24 of the Constitution. 25 par. y y y b." It would be to a violation of the coequality of legislative power of the two houses of Congress and in fact make the House superior to the Senate. 1 of the 1935 Constitution (Art. Tolentino v.Whether or not paragraph 11 of Republic Act 1600 is invalid. Petitioner s Argument o RA 7716 did not originate exclusively in the House of Representatives as required by Art." It was indeed a new and completely unrelated provision attached to the Appropriation Act. RA 7716 did not violate Art. VI. o . 21. Sec. The paragraph in question also violated Art. What the Constitution simply means is that the initiative for filing revenue. Sec. y It is not the law but the revenue bill which is required by the Constitution to "originate exclusively" in the House of Representatives because a bill originating in the House may undergo such extensive changes in the Senate that the result may be a rewriting of the whole. elected as they are from the districts. The phrase "except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment. barter or exchange of goods and properties as well as on the sale or exchange of services. March 24. tariff.) S. 1994. 1630 did not pass 3 readings as required by Art. VI. No. 24 of the Constitution b. Sec." in Art. Secretary of Finance Facts: y The value-added tax (VAT) is levied on the sale. because it is in fact the result of the consolidation of 2 distinct bills. 11197 and S. No. Whether or not RA 7716 violated Art. No. Sec 26(2) of the Constitution Held: a. Sec. or tax bills. VI. Republic Act No. unconstitutional and inoperative y The said paragraph 11 refers to the fundamental government policy matters of the calling to active duty and the reversion to inactive status of reserve officers in the AFP while R. 26(2) of the Constitution because the second and third readings were done on the same day. y The second and third readings were done on the same day because the President had certified S. VI. To insist that a revenue statute and not only the bill which initiated the legislative process culminating in the enactment of the law 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. c. Sec. Sec. Issue: a. unconstitutional and inoperative Held: Paragraph 11 of the "Special Provisions for the Armed Forces of the Philippines" in Republic Act 1600 is invalid. No.

. Kapatiran ng mga Naglilingkod sa Pamahalaan ng Pil. discriminatory or unjust. y The petitioners failed to adequately show that the VAT is oppressive. regressive. cause to assemble. The taxing power has the authority to make reasonable and natural classifications for purposes of taxation. 28(1) of the 1987 Constitution. was convened on 27 July 1987. to take effect on 1 January 1988. The disputed sales tax is also equitable because it is imposed only on sales of goods or services by persons engage in business. 6 of the Constitution. The word "convene" which has been interpreted to mean "to call together. b. VI.e. unjust and regressive and did not violate the provisions of Art. The sales tax adopted in EO 273 is applied similarly on all goods and services sold to the public. The incumbent President shall continue to exercise legislative powers until the first Congress is convened. It would also negate the very premise of the "except" clause: the necessity of securing the immediate enactment of a bill which is certified in order to meet a public calamity or emergency. Hence. Under Sec. Sec. 273 issued by the President of the Philippines on 25 July 1987. 28 (1) The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. two (2) days before Congress convened on 27 July 1987. all that is needed is that the statute or ordinance in question "applies equally to all persons. The President had the authority to issue EO 273. was within the President's constitutional power and authority to legislate. "A tax is considered uniform when it operates with the same force and effect in every place where the subject may be found. y y The petition seeks to nullify Executive Order No. b." To satisfy this requirement then. or convoke. Sec. Issues: y y y a.. According to Justice Laurel. v. . and which amended certain sections of the National Internal Revenue Code and adopted the value-added tax for being unconstitutional in that its enactment is not allegedly within the powers of the President. in violation of the provisions of Art. sec. discriminatory. 28(1) of the 1987 Constitution. Petitioners merely rely upon newspaper articles which are actually hearsay and have evidentiary value. discriminatory. Whether or not EO 273 is oppressive. The Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation. firms and corporations placed in similar situation. EO 273 is not oppressive. Held: a. that the VAT is oppressive. printing and distribution three days before final approval) would not only violate the rules of grammar. unjust and regressive. discriminatory." "Equality and uniformity in taxation means that all taxable articles or kinds of property of the same class shall be taxed at the same rate.y To construe the "except" clause as simply dispensing with the second requirement in the "unless" clause (i. the enactment of EO 273 on 25 July 1987. The first Congress. Whether or not the President had the authority to issue EO 273. y Under Article XVIII." is clearly different from assumption of office by the y y y . Tan Facts: individual members of Congress or their taking the oath of office. VI. created and elected under the 1987 Constitution. and violates the due process and equal protection clauses and other provisions of the 1987 Constitution. .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful