You are on page 1of 22


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.

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

Soto was in a hospital while Sen. Confesor was in the USA. the political nature of the controversy and the constitutional grant to the Senate of the power to elect its own president. Supposed the SC can take cognizance of the case. and that the . There is a difference between a majority of "all the members of the House" and a majority of "the House". Avelino then filed a quo warranto proceeding before the SC to declare him as the rightful Senate President. constitutes constitutional majority of the Senate for the purpose of a quorum. it appearing from the evidence that any new session with a quorum would result in Cuenco s election as Senate President. Therefore an absolute majority (12) of all the members of the Senate less one (23). Later. 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. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (filed by Avelino on March 14. This was unanimously approved and was even recognized by the President of the Philippines the following day. Senator Cabili then stood up. There were 23 senators considered to be in session that time (including Soto. Sen. his remedy lies in the Senate Session Hall not in the Supreme Court. if. prevent the other (Cuenco et al) twelve senators from passing a resolution that met with their unanimous endorsement. Avelino contends that there is no constitutional quorum when Cuenco was elected president. This is in view of the separation of powers. change or reinstate them. of the absent members. excluding Confesor). twelve senators constitute a majority of the Senate of twenty three senators. as the petition must imply to be acceptable. The answer might be different had the resolution been approved only by ten or less. in this case 12 (half of 24) plus 1 or 13 NOT 12. Furthermore. Anyway. Two are absentee senators. even if the twelve did not 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. Hence. There are 24 senators in all. 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. under the peculiar circumstances of the case. The Chief Justice agrees with the result of the majority's pronouncement on the quorum upon the ground that. at least. 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. "the House" does not mean "all" the members. and asked that it be made of record it was so made that the deliberate abandonment of the Chair by the Avelino. there would be no doubt Quorum then. they could have ordered the arrest of one. one against and one abstained. nor taken over. Even a majority of all the members constitute "the House". Arranz yielded to Sanidad s Resolution (No. the majority of the Senators want petitioner to preside. ISSUE: Whether or not the SC can take cognizance of the case. 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. When the Constitution declares that a majority of "each House" shall constitute a quorum. Cuenco took his oath of office thereafter. 68) that Cuenco be elected as the Senate President. by leaving the Hall. the constitutional requirement in that regard has become a mere formalism. the SC held that they cannot take cognizance of the case. The Supreme Court. Tanada was subsequently recognized to deliver his speech. 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. HELD: By a vote of 6 to 4.Avelino just banged his gavel and he hurriedly left his chair and he was immediately followed by his followers. which power should not be interfered with. There being only 12 senators when Cuenco was elected unanimously there was no quorum. 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. if one had been so arrested. and Senator Cuenco would have been elected just the same inasmuch as there would be eleven for Cuenco. the latter requiring less number than the first. by the judiciary. **Two senators were not present that time.

Romulo. Also. two NPC and one LAKAS-NUCD. 7720. and 0.. Therefore Cuenco has been legally elected as Senate President and the petition is dismissed. 7720. A literal interpretation of Section 18 of Article VI of the Constitution leads to no other manner of application. He alleged that the compromise is against proportional representation. Indeed. 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. J. 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. of Senators of a political party) x 12 seats) ÷ Total No. taking cue from the dissenting opinions. nominated 8 senators from their party because he rounded off 7. 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. 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.: Of main concern to the petitioners is whether Republic Act No. because of the Avelino s persistent efforts to block all avenues to constitutional processes. For this reason. The problem is what to do with the fraction of . a member of LAKASNUCD. Undisputed is the following chronicle of the metamorphosis of House Bill No. 3 LAKAS-NUCD senators. Isabela into an Independent Component City to be known as the City of Santiago.5 to 8 and that Ta ada from LP-PDP-LABAN should represent the same party to the CoA.5 or 1/2 to which each of the parties is entitled. 5 NPC senators. 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. in this Petition for Prohibition with prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction. To suffice the requirement that each house must have 12 representatives in the CoA. ISSUE: Whether or not rounding off is allowed in determining a party s representation in the CoA. The results of such a formula would produce 7. opposed the said compromise.5 members for NPC. and 1 LP-PDP-LABAN senator. as the majority floor leader.Cuenco group. GUINGONA DECISION HERMOSISIMA. An Act Converting the Municipality of Santiago. a party which has only one member senator cannot constitutionally claim a seat. 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. just recently passed by Congress and signed by the President into law. 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. has been trying to satisfy such formalism by issuing compulsory processes against senators of the Avelino group. --------------------------------------------------------------GUINGONA V. petitioners assail the validity of Republic Act No. 2. but to no avail. the parties agreed to use the traditional formula: (No. 1992 elections. 8817 into Republic Act No. Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. --------------------------------------------------------------ALVAREZ V. Where there are more than 2 parties in Senate.5 members for LDP. entitled. 1. GONZALES FACTS: After the May 11. In order to resolve such. of Senators elected. the senate was composed of 15 LDP senators. mainly because the Act allegedly did not originate exclusively in the House of Representatives as mandated by Section 24. is constitutionally infirm. JR. 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. one LP-PDP-LABAN.5 to be able to elect Romulo. The LDP majority in the Senate converted a fractional half membership into a whole membership of one senator by adding one half or .5 to 7. A party should have at least 1 seat for every 2 duly elected senators-members in the CoA. 7720: .5 member for LP-PDP-LABAN.5 members for LAKASNUCD. Guingona.

On March 22.949. It was introduced by Senator Vicente Sotto III. 378 was passed by the Senate on Second Reading and was approved on Third Reading on March 14. was filed in the House of Representatives with Representative Antonio Abaya as principal author. a counterpart of HB No. 1243. entitled. HB No.07 Total income (at 1991 constant prices) for 1992 P21. June 1. Senator Heherson T. entitled An Act Converting the Municipality of Santiago into an Independent Component City to be known as the City of Santiago.B. 1243. 1993.109. 1993. 1993. indicated his approval thereto by signing said report as member of the Committee on Local Government. 1993. with amendments. 1993. the Senate Committee on Local Government conducted public hearings on SB No.043. Alvarez. its own version of HB No. the average annual income arrived at would only be P13. petitioners having computed Santiagos average annual income in the following manner: Total income (at 1991 constant prices) for 1991 P20. with the recommendation that it be approved without amendment. 8817.219. Rodolfo Albano.109. 1994. 1993. or a little less than a month after HB No.000. 1994. Republic Act No. On December 13. 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. 1994. The question as to the validity of Republic Act No. 8817 were conducted by the House Committee on Local Government. The enrolled bill.87 Total income for 1991 and 1992 P41.730. 1994.94 Minus: IRAs for 1991 and 1992 P15.960. 8817 was transmitted to the Senate. 1994. upon being apprised of the action of the Senate. on December 9. On May 19. 1993. was signed by the Chief Executive on May 5. petitioners claim that Santiago s income is far . 8817. 1994 as Republic Act No. This was just after the House of Representatives had conducted its first public hearing on HB No. 8817 was transmitted to the Senate. one of the herein petitioners. The committee submitted to the House a favorable report. HB No. taking into consideration the reality that H. 7720. 7720 can be said to have originated in the House of Representatives.163.057. the said committee submitted Committee Report No. and (II) Whether or not. 1993. submitted to the President on April 12.94 Average Annual Income P13.379. 1994. An Act Converting the Municipality of Santiago into an Independent Component City to be Known as the City of Santiago. 8817 was on all fours with SB No. and December 1. 1993. 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 bill was referred to the House Committee on Local Government and the House Committee on Appropriations on May 5. 8817. after deducting the IRAs. a great majority of the registered voters of Santiago voted in favor of the conversion of Santiago into a city. on May 19. Santiago Respicio and Faustino Dy. 8817.00 Total income for 1991 and 1992 P26.On April 18. Senate Bill No.47 By dividing the total income of Santiago for calendar years 1991 and 1992. approved the amendments proposed by the Senate. When a plebiscite on the Act was held on July 13. Other sponsors included Representatives Ciriaco Alfelor. 1994. November 28. On January 28.120. HB No.000. On February 23. 8817 was passed by the House of Representatives on Second Reading and was approved on Third Reading on December 17. 1993. considering that the Senate passed SB No.106. 8817. 1243.00) for its conversion into a city. Meanwhile. 1994. as principal sponsor.570. Thus. public hearings on HB No. No. 1243. Committee Report No. the House of Representatives. 378 on HB No. On March 1.560. was filed in the Senate. On March 3.47 based on the 1991 constant prices.

(2) the right to be allocated a just share in national taxes. As such. authority. is thereby deconcentrated. entail more expenses. The IRAs regularly and automatically accrue to the local treasury without need of any further action on the part of the local government unit. Remaining to be an intra sovereign subdivision of one sovereign nation. The funds generated from local taxes. among others. 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. Understandably. For instance. For purposes of converting the Municipality of Santiago into a city. and non-recurring . such share being in the form of internal revenue allotments (IRAs). increase or decrease. which indicates Santiago s average annual income to be P20. however. within its territorial boundaries. land and equal sharing. The certification issued by the Bureau of Local Government Finance of the Department of Finance. the vesting of duty. In this regard. but not intended. the IRAs and the share in the national wealth utilization proceeds are considered items of income. among others. the Department of Finance certified.97. exclusive of special funds. Such income must be duly certified by the Department of Finance. It is true that for a municipality to be converted into a component city. depending on factors like population. is allegedly not accurate as the Internal Revenue Allotments were not excluded from the computation.974. the local government unit is autonomous in the sense that it is given more powers. 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. With its broadened powers and increased responsibilities. Petitioners asseverate that the IRAs are not actually income but transfers and/or budgetary aid from the national government and that they fluctuate. a local government unit must now operate on a much wider scale. More extensive operations. This is as it should be. Section 450 (c) of the Local Government Code provides that the average annual income shall include the income accruing to the general fund. 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. 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 IRAs are items of income because they form part of the gross accretion of the funds of the local government unit. for purposes of budget preparation. The practical side to development through a decentralized local government system certainly concerns the matter of financial resources. which budget should reflect the estimates of the income of the local government unit. not less than twenty percent (20%) of the IRAs must be set aside for local development projects. Power which used to be highly centralized in Manila. to be an imperium in imperio. Furthermore. in turn. This. 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. responsibilities and resources. and (3) the right to be given its equitable share in the proceeds of the utilization and development of the national wealth.581. it must. have an average annual income of at least Twenty Million Pesos for the last two (2) consecutive years based on 1991 constant prices.below the aforesaid Twenty Million Pesos average annual income requirement. 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. 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. They thus constitute income which the local government can invariably rely upon as the source of much needed funds. among others. if any. the Department of Finance did after including the IRAs in its computation of said average annual income. 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. transfers. we hold that petitioners asseverations are untenable because Internal Revenue Allotments form part of the income of Local Government Units.

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

759. Indeed. No. the members of the House can be expected to be more sensitive to the local needs and problems. the Court stands on the holding that petitioners have failed to overcome the presumption. This is untenable for if the Postmaster would intendto cut expenditure by removing the franking privilege of the judiciary. The postmaster's conclusion is that because of thisconsiderable volume of mail from the Judiciary. or tax bills. not merely a doubtful and equivocal one. Prado implemented Circ. the franking privilege must bewithdrawn from it. Regalado.and those coming from the petitioners reached the total amount ofP60. what the Constitution simply means is that the initiative for filing revenue. in other words. so long as action by the Senate as a body is withheld pending receipt of the House bill. the remedy is to withdraw it altogether from all agenciesof the government.J. of this amount.175. 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. 11197 up to the enacting clause and then writing its own version following the enacting clause (which. such as theintervenor. Narvasa. --------------------------------------------------------------PJA V. the instant petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit with costs against petitioners. Both views are thereby made to bear on the enactment of such laws.574. Francisco. HELD: The SC ruled that there is a violation of the equalprotection clause. amountedto P86. including RA No. Melo.has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality SO ORDERED.. Padilla. Vitug. No. . 7720. bills authorizing an increase of the public debt. elected as they are from the districts. Mendoza.864.00. Jr. their petition must fail. former executives and theirwidows among others. private bills and bills of local application must come from the House of Representatives on the theory that.424. frank mails from the Judiciary and otheragencies whose functions include the service of judicial processes. No. for RA No. thenthey should have removed the franking privilege all at once from all the otherdepartments. 9228 as theIRR for the said law. the Department of Justice and the Office of the Ombudsman. 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. tariff. Bellosillo. who are elected at large. x xx III Every law. PJA assailed the said law complaining that the law wouldadversely impair the communication within the judiciary as it may impair thesending of judicial notices.00.481. Consequently. C. The judiciary needs the franking privilege so badly as it isvital to its operation.. WHEREFORE.. concur. On the other hand. 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. separately presenting a bill of its own on the same subject matter. it would seem petitioners admit is an amendment by substitution). 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. therefore. Kapunan. 1630. Puno. Frank mails coming from the Judiciary amounted to P73. otherwise. There is really no difference between the Senate preserving H. are expected to approach the same problems from the national perspective. The dismissal of this petition is. Evident to that need is the high expense allotted tothe judiciary s franking needs. the grounds for nullity must be clear and beyond reasonable doubt. Romero. on the other hand.00. Davide. Acting from this. Taking into consideration the justification of our stand on the immediately preceding ground raised by petitioners to challenge the constitutionality of RA No. the senators. ISSUE: Whether or not there has been a violation of equal protectionbefore the law. 7720 to be nullified. If the problem of the respondents is the loss of revenues from thefranking privilege. the total volume of frank mails amounted to P90. In either case the result are two bills on the same subject.431. JJ. 7720. and Panganiban. FACTS: A report came in showing that available data from the Postal Service Office showthat from January 1988 to June 1992. The Postmaster cannot be sustained incontending that the removal of the franking privilege from the judiciary is inorder to cut expenditure. it must be shown that there is a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution. and.consideration in enacting S.991. inevitable.

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

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 being higher than the budget for education. by PD No. It was sent to the Senate for concurrence and it was referred to the appropriate Senate . VETO VALID. or a total of P233. Special Provision on Conditions for de-activation of CAFGU s use of special fund for the compensation of the said CAFGU s. that can reasonably service our enormous debt It is not only a matter of honor and to protect the credit standing of the country. 1974 Original action in the Supreme Court. entitled Amending Certain Provisions of Republic Act Numbered Four Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty.5 Billion. Pres. ISSUE: Whether or not the automatic appropriation for debt service is unconstitutional. the very survival of our economy is at stake. 9266 which was filed in the House of Representatives passed on 3rd reading without amendments. Thus. ) --------------------------------------------------------------Stat Con Astorga v. It is also an amendment to existing law (PD No.8 Billion for debt service) and P155. Vetoed. Any prov. VET O VALID. action in implementing a law or requiring legislative approval must be subj. CARAGUE FACTS: The 1990 budget consists of P98. it is not alien to the subj. requires his prior approval. Facts: House Bill No. According to the Constitution. VETO VALID -------------------------------------------------------------GUINGONA V. More especially. Villegas April 30. entitled Revising the Budget Process in Order to Institutionalize the Budgetary Innovations of the New Society. while the appropriations for the DECS amount to P27. of a separate law. the Court finds and so holds that said appropriation cannot be thereby assailed as unconstitutional --------------------------------------------------------------ARROYO V. injunction and/or prohibition with preliminary mandatory prohibitory injunction. only the Pres. prior approval of Congress required before release of modernization funds. Special Provision on Use of Savings for AFP Pensions allows Chief of Staff to augment pension funds through the use of savings. 6758).813. 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. VETO VOID. of road maintenance & cannot be veoted w/o vetoing the entire appropriation. blocking an admin. it being higher than the budget for education. 6.1967. HELD: No. may exercise such power pursuant to a specific law.3 Billion appropriated under RA 6831. 4. therefore it is against Section 5(5). 1597 & RA No. Congress is certainly not without any power. w/o vetoing the entire appropriation. The petitioners were questioning the constitutionality of the automatic appropriation for debt service. as Amended (Re: Foreign Borrowing Act). 18.000. Vetoed by the Pres.017. Article XIV of the Constitution Congress is mandated to assign the highest budgetary priority to education. AFP modernization. guided only by its good judgment. otherwise known as the General Approriations Act. While it is true that under Section 5(5). to provide an appropriation. It is the so-called legislative veto. It is not an inappropriate provision. Denied. Article XIV of the Constitution which mandates to assign the highest budgetary priority to education. 1177.00. Special Provision on Purchase of Military Equip. DE VENECIA (Please refer to Stat Con book by Suarez p 77. and by PD No. A provision in an appropriation act cannot be used to repeal/amend existing laws. Properly vetoed.4 Billion in automatic appropriation (with P86. Mandamus. The said automatic appropriation for debt service is authorized by PD No. if in the process Congress appropriated an amount for debt service bigger than the share allocated to education.roads be contracted according to guidelines set forth by DPWH. 5.

Issues: 1. Certification that was made by the presiding officer is merely a mode of authentication. 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. Mayor of Manila issued circulars ordering the disregard of the provisions of RA 4605. 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. in due form. Function of attestation is not approval because a bill is considered approved after it has passed both houses. 2. what evidence is there to determine within the bill had been duly enacted? In such case. WON the attestation of the presiding officers of Congress is conclusive proof of a bill s due enactment. Constitution does not even provide that the presiding officer should sign the bill before it is submitted to the president. 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. 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. the president sent a message to the presiding officer of both houses that he was officially withdrawing his signature from HB 9266. thus attested. granting that it to have been validly made. When the bill was discussed on the Senate Floor. Vice Mayor Astorga filed this petition with the court. would only mean that there was no attestation at all but would not affect the validity of the statute. (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). . is an official attestation by the two houses. which amendments were approved in toto by the Senate. Attached was a certification of the amendment. Petitioner agrees that the attestation in the bill is not mandatory but he argues that the disclaimer thereof by the Senate President. has received. the entry in the journal should be consulted. 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. Bill was not duly enacted and therefore did not become law. No. (Field vs. The essential thing is the approval of congress and not the signature of the presiding officers. which was the one recommended by Senator Roxas.Committee. Rationale of the enrolled bill theory the signing by the speaker of the House of Representatives and by the president of the Senate. As a result. substantial amendments to Section 1 was introduced by Senator Tolentino. Absent such attestation as a result of the disclaimer. Senate President admitted the mistake in a letter to the President. and it is delivered to him in obedience to the constitutional requirement that all bills which pass Congress shall be presented to him. the sanction of the legislative branch of the government.a proposed statute. House of Representatives signified their approval. No. Bill . that a bill. and consequently there being no enrolled bill to speak of. The bill with the Roxas amendments were signed by the president of the Philippines and it was subsequently named RA 4065. all bills authenticate in the manner stated. 2. 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. 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. which recommended approval with a minor amendment 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. and not the Tolentino amendments which were the ones actually approved by the Senate. through their presiding officers. Respondents contend that RA 4065 never became law since it was not the bill actually passed by the Senate. of an enrolled bill. to the president. in open session. not yet approved A first draft and proposed law or statute which has been formally tabled before a legislative assembly for consideration. 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. This declaration should be accorded greater respect than the attestation that it invalidated. WON RA 4065 can be considered as valid in the absence of the attestation required Held: 1.

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

the M/V Eastern Polaris. The model contract prescribed thereby has been applied in a significant number of the cases without challenge by the employer. Held: a. 2 is valid and if it violates the principle of non-delegation of legislative power. such as the implementing rules issued by the Department of Labor on the new Labor Code.o o The petitioner. as owner of the vessel. 797. while berthed in a foreign country. y Under the 1985 Rules and Regulations on Overseas Employment. 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.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. foreign employer. This is effected by their promulgation of what are known as supplementary regulations." 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. not what the law shall be. These regulations have the force and effect of law. including employment on board vessels plying international waters. overseas employment is defined as "employment of a worker outside the Philippines. in creating the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. It contends that no authority had been given the POEA to promulgate the said regulation. under the principle. 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). b. The petitioner questions the validity of Memorandum Circular No. covered by a valid contract. the regulation represents an exercise of legislative discretion which." Mariano v COMELEC FACTS: . is not subject to delegation. Whether or not Memorandum Circular No. Issue: y o y y y o a. Memorandum Circular No. and even with such authorization. Memorandum Circular No. Whether or not POEA has jurisdiction over the case at bar.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 . mandated it to protect the rights of overseas Filipino workers to "fair and equitable employment practices. 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. Two accepted tests to determine whether or not there is a valid delegation of legislative power: Completeness test . The POEA nevertheless assumed jurisdiction and after considering the position papers of the parties ruled in favor of the complainant. 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. That standard is discoverable in the executive order itself which. 2 itself as violative of the principle of nondelegation of legislative power. 2 is one such administrative regulation. 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. principal or partner under a valid employment contract and shall include seamen. b. 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. POEA has jurisdiction over.

Abalos. 1960. The addition of another legislative district in Makati through special law is constitutional. Osmena as a senator. 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 Constitution did not preclude Congress from increasing its membership by passing a law. such as in the charter of a new city. fully index. y In the same case of Tobias v. The increase in legislative district is not necessarily expressed in the title of the bill.. other than a general reapportionment of the law. inter alia. Osmena v Pendatun Facts: y On July 14. As thus worded. that a city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand (250. Article VI of the Constitution. y In Tobias v. the charges of (Congressman Sergio Osmeña. The addition of another legislative district in Makati is in accord with Section 5 (3). The Constitution clearly provides that Congress shall be composed of not more than two hundred fifty (250) members." c. its legislative district may still be increased since it has met the minimum population requirement of two hundred fifty thousand (250. Issues: a. The increase in legislative district was not expressed in the title of the bill. In fact.A.. Abalos. Congressman Sergio Osmeña.000) shall be entitled to at least one congressional representative. 51 and 52 of R.000). Even granting that the population of Makati as of the 1990 census stood at four hundred fifty thousand (450.000) shall have at least one representative. 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.A. along with residents of Taguig suing as taxpayers. Jr). No. 7854 ( An Act Converting the Municipality of Makati into a Highly Urbanized City to be known as the City of Makati ). a resident of Makati.A. the population of Makati stands at only 450. Pendatun and fourteen other congressmen in their capacity as members of the Special Committee created by House Resolution No. and The addition of another legislative district in Makati is not in accord with Section 5 (3). we reiterated the policy of the Court favoring a liberal construction of the "one title-one subject" rule so as not to impede legislation. the Constitution does not command that the title of a law should exactly mirror. taxpayer and concerned citizen. we ruled that reapportionment of legislative districts may be made through a special law.000. Whether or not the increase in legislative district should be expressed in the title of the bill c. assail Sections 2.y y Juanito Mariano. Article VI of the Constitution provides. 59 which contains: WHEREAS. Another petition which contends the unconstitutionality of R.A.000). unless otherwise fixed by law. if made maliciously or recklessly and without basis in truth and in fact. Article VI of the Constitution Held: a. 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. op cit. 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 . 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. No. Arguments of Petitioners Section 52 of R. Whether or not the addition of another legislative district in Makati is in accord with Section 5 (3). Jr. 7854 and providing for an increase in Makati's legislative district. y Section 5 (3). Article VI of the Constitution for as of the latest survey (1990 census). 7854 was also filed by John H. certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction" against Congressman Salipada K. or completely catalogue all its details. Hence. No. submitted to this Court a verified petition for "declaratory relief. b. To be sure. This is its exactly what was done by Congress in enacting R.

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

Date December 23. 1987 January 5. 1988 September 14. was terminated. . August 15. 1988 Motion to Recall and Disregard Withdrawal of Protest . 1988 September 8.filed an Urgent Motion to Suspend Revision No action taken .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 .the revision of the ballots for 75 precincts. 1988 -issued an order setting the commencement of the revision of contested ballots on September 1. 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.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 September 19.filed a Motion to No action taken Withdraw Protest on the unrevised precincts and Motion to Set Case for Hearing .filed his answer and alleged 1988 the lack of residence of protestant and the late filing of his protest. 1988 September 12. 1988 . representing the initial 25% of all the contested precincts. .

-denied Robles' Motion for Reconsideration January 26.Opposition to Motion to Recall Withdrawal September 20.1989 . 1988. 1988 be treated as a Motion for Reconsideration of the HRET resolution of September 19. 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 Protest. 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. September 22.

in maneuvering the purported sale of interests in certain corporations. y The use of the word "sole" emphasizes the exclusive character of the jurisdiction conferred. b. y Section 17. restitution and damages. The SBRC started its investigation through a hearing but Lopa and Bengzon declined to testify. and taking undue advantage of their relationship. 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. Issue: a. 1988. alleged cronies of former Marcos couple. Whether or not HRET lost its jurisdiction over the case b. returns. 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. Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction over this case. represented PCGG. et al. acted in excess of its jurisdiction and legislative purpose. Pilipinas Shell.e. in misusing the Meralco Pension Fund worth P25 million. engaged in devices. without any action on the part of respondent tribunal. once acquired. does not by itself divest the tribunal of its jurisdiction over the case. when respondent HRET subsequently ordered the revision of the unrevised protested ballots.. y Jurisdiction. The SBRC rejected petitioner Bengzon s plea and voted to pursue its investigation. in requiring their attendance and testimony. Issue: a. hence. notwithstanding the withdrawal of the protest. i. and qualifications of their respective Members. reaching a total of more than P2 billion  collaborated with lawyers (petitioners therein) of the Bengzon Law Offices in concealing funds and properties. is not lost upon the instance of the parties but continues until the case is terminated. assisted by the Solicitor General. the Republic of the Philippines. The Court has jurisdiction over the case. b. 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. accounting. 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.". Whether or not the SBRC s inquiry has a valid legislative purpose. Basis of complaint: o Benjamin (Kokoy) Romualdez and Juliette Gomez Romualdez. Whether or not HRET acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion Held: a. Argument of Petitioner: o Petitioner claims that the SBRC.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. and PCI Bank  manipulated the formation of Erectors Holding Inc. influence and connection with the latter defendant spouses. filed with the Sandiganbayan civil case against Benjamin "Kokoy" Romualdez. reversion. schemes and stratagems (listed below) to unjustly enrich themselves at the expense of the Filipino people. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Facts: y On 30 July 1987. and in cleverly hiding behind the veil of corporate entity y Sen. for reconveyance. it is not done in aid of legislation Held: a. y y Bengzon v.  obtained control of some big business enterprises such as MERALCO. to appear viable and borrow more capital.

for the respondent Committee to probe and inquire into the same justiciable controversy already before the Sandiganbayan. VI Sec." Petitioner s Argument (Garcia) b. o The petitioner consequently argues that his reversion to inactive status on November 15. 1987 Constitution) Issue: . and to pay all the emoluments and allowances due to him from the time of his reversion to inactive status. (Art. The purpose of the inquiry to be conducted by respondent Blue Ribbon committee was just to find out whether or not Mr. It obtains not through express provision but by actual division in our Constitution. 19. The investigation must be related to and in furtherance of a legitimate task of Congress. to readjust his rank. and any such provision or enactment shall be limited in its operation to such appropriation. The investigation is conducted solely for the personal aggrandizement of the investigators or to "punish" those investigated which are indefensible. Section 21. unconstitutional and inoperative. 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. Trial court dismissed the petition on the ground that paragraph 11 of Republic Act 1600 is "invalid. 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. Ricardo Lopa. 2 4 of the 1935 Constitution of the Philippines. 25(2).y In Angara vs. 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. Sec. 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. it does not assert any superiority over the other departments. 1960 was in violation of Republic Act 1600. 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. and is supreme within its own sphere. had violated the law. Garcia v. It does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the legislature. 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. and is therefore proscribed by Art. y The 1987 Constitution expressly recognizes the power of both houses of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation. Thus. par. VI. y In fine. The speech of Senator Enrile contained no suggestion of contemplated legislation. Each department of the government has exclusive cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction. the Court held that The separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our system of government. would be an encroachment into the exclusive domain of judicial jurisdiction that had much earlier set in. The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected. which reads: y  No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the general appropriation bill unless it relates specifically to some particular appropriation therein. 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. Electoral Commission. The SBRC s inquiry does not have a valid legislative purpose.

"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. 26(2) of the Constitution because the second and third readings were done on the same day. 1630 did not pass 3 readings as required by Art. No. y y y b. No. Issue: a. 1630. RA 7716 did not violate Art." in Art. 21. Sec." 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. etc. 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. 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. elected as they are from the districts. 1630 as urgent. 25 par. No. 24 of the Constitution. Petitioner s Argument o RA 7716 did not originate exclusively in the House of Representatives as required by Art. March 24. VI. Sec 26(2) of the Constitution Held: a. Sec." It was indeed a new and completely unrelated provision attached to the Appropriation Act. VI. y The second and third readings were done on the same day because the President had certified S. Sec.Whether or not paragraph 11 of Republic Act 1600 is invalid. VI. VI. 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. Whether or not RA 7716 violated Art. The paragraph in question also violated Art. RA 7716 did not violate Art. 11197 and S. Sec 26(2) of the Constitution. Whether or not RA 7716 violated Art.A. barter or exchange of goods and properties as well as on the sale or exchange of services. 1 of the 1935 Constitution (Art. What the Constitution simply means is that the initiative for filing revenue. VI. VI. 24 of the Constitution b. The phrase "except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment." 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. or tax bills. Tolentino v. VI. the members of the House can be expected to be more sensitive to the local needs and problems. Sec. 24 of the Constitution. Sec. 7716 seeks to widen the tax base of the existing VAT system and enhance its administration by amending the National Internal Revenue Code. 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. c. 1994.) S. 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. VI. bills authorizing an increase of the public debt. 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. par. VI. o . H. Sec. No. tariff. unconstitutional and inoperative Held: Paragraph 11 of the "Special Provisions for the Armed Forces of the Philippines" in Republic Act 1600 is invalid. private bills and bills of local application must come from the House of Representatives on the theory that. 1600 appropriated money for the operation of the Government. Republic Act No.

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