Constitutional Law 1 Part I Introduction

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
Constitutional Law 1
Part I - Introduction interpreted in accordance with the intent of its framers.
 Ut magis valeat quam pereat. The Constitution

Q: What is the Constitution? is to be interpreted as a whole.4
A: That written instrument enacted by direct action of Q: What is the Framework for Constitutional
the people by which the fundamental powers of the Litigation?
government are established, limited and defined, and by
which those powers are distributed among the several A: The court’s power of judicial review, like almost all
departments for their safe and useful exercise for the powers conferred by the Constitution, is subject to
benefit of the body politic.1 several limitations, namely:
 an actual case or controversy calling for the
Q: Is the Philippines a Democratic and exercise of judicial power;
Republican state?  the person challenging the act must have “standing”
to challenge; he must have a personal and
A: The Philippines is a democratic and substantial interest in the case such that he has
republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of
all government authority emanates from them.2 its enforcement;
 the question of constitutionality must be raised at
Q: What is the Constitution as a Social the earliest possible opportunity; and
Contract?  the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis
mota of the case.5
A: In Marcos v Manglapus,3 the Supreme Court
speaking through Justice Cortes categorically opined Part II – Amendment of the Constitution
that “the Constitution, aside from being an allocation of
power is also a social contract whereby the people have
Q: What is the involved in the amendment or
surrendered their sovereign powers to the State for the
revision of the Constitution?
common good.”
A: First is the proposal and the second is
Social Contract asserts that the early states must have ratification.6
been formed by deliberate and voluntary compact
among people to form a government of their own. Q: What are the three methods by which the
Constitution of the Philippines can be
Q: How do we read the Constitution?
proposed?
A: The Court, in determining the merits of the issues
A: There are three modes:
raised in a petition before it, must necessarily turn to the
Constitution itself which employs the well-settled
 By Congress as a Constituent Assembly (Con- Ass)
principles of constitutional construction. In case of
o A Constituent assembly is composed of all
doubt, the Court resorts to the following:
members of the bicameral Philippine
Congress (Senate and the House of
 Verba legis, that is, wherever possible, the words
Representatives). It is convened by Congress
used in the Constitution must be given their to propose amendments to the 1987
ordinary meaning except where technical terms are constitution. Under Article XVII of the
employed. Constitution of the Philippines, amendments
pass upon a vote of three- fourths of all
 Where there is ambiguity, ratio legis est anima. members of Congress, but it is not clear if the
The words of the Constitution should be Congress should vote as
1
Malcolm, Philippine Constitutional Law, p.6
2
1987 Constitution of the Philippines, Article 2, Section 1
4
G.R. No. 160261. November 10, 2003, Francisco v House of
3
G.R. No. 88211, September 15, 1989 Representatives
5
Supra.
6
Cruz, Isagani (2002). “Philippine Political Law: Central
Lawbook Publishing Co., Inc. pp. 376. ISBN 971-16-0491-4.
From the Syllabus of Atty. Jamon by Alvin Angelo C. Rufino (2013)

a single body or as separate Houses. The Article IX-C of the Constitution is therefore
convention of Congress into a Constituent misplaced.10
Assembly is not explicitly provided for in the
o See also R.A. No. 6735, August 4, 1989.
Constitution.7
Note:
 By Constitutional Convention (Con- Con) All three required ratification by a majority vote in a
o Article XV of the Constitution provides: The national referendum.
Congress in joint session assembled, by a vote
of three-fourths of all the Members of the Q: What is the difference of Amendment and
Senate and of the House of Representatives Revision?
voting separately, may propose amendments to
this Constitution or call a contention for that A: Lambino v COMELEC11, enumerates the
purpose. Such amendments shall be valid as distinctions between revision and amendment, as
part of this Constitution when approved by a follows: Revision broadly implies a change that alters a
majority of the votes cast at an election at basic principle in the Constitution, like altering the
which the amendments are submitted to the principle of separation of powers or the system of
people for their ratification.
checks and balances. There is also revision if the change
alters the substantial entirety of the Constitution. On the
From our viewpoint, the provisions of Article other hand, amendment broadly refers to a change that
XV of the Constitution are satisfied so long as adds, reduces, deletes, without altering the basic
the electorate knows that R. B. principle involved. Revision generally affects several
H. No. 3 permits Congressmen to retain their provisions of the Constitution; while amendment
seats as legislators, even if they should run for generally affects only the specific provision being
and assume the functions of delegates to the amended.
Convention.8
 In determining whether the Lambino proposal
 By the People through initiative
involves an amendment or a revision, the Court
o In Santiago v COMELEC9, R.A. No. 6735 considered the two-part test. First the quantitative
intended to include the System of Initiative on test asks whether the proposed change is so
Amendments to the Constitution, but is,
extensive in its provision as to change directly the
inadequate and incomplete to cover that
“substance entirety” of the Constitution by the
system because it does not contain any
deletion or alteration of numerous provisions. The
implementation process for Amendments to
court examines only the number of provisions
the Constitution and merely mentions it. This
affected and does not consider the degree of the
law cannot use the rules and regulations of
change. Second, the qualitative test, which inquires
COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 to
into the qualitative effects of the proposed change
compensate for this.
in the Constitution. The main inquiry is whether the
o Moreover, COMELEC Resolution No. 2300,
change will “accomplish such far- reaching changes
insofar as it prescribes rules and regulations on
in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to
the conduct of initiative on amendments to the
amount to a revision.”
Constitution, is void. COMELEC cannot
validly promulgate rules and regulations to
implement the exercise of the right of the  The Lambino proposal constituted a revision, not
people to directly propose amendments to the simply an amendment, of the Constitution, because
Constitution through the system of initiative. It it involved a change in the form of government,
does not have that power under R.A. No. from presidential to parliamentary, and a shift from
6735. Reliance on the COMELEC‘s power the present bicameral to a unicameral legislature. 12
under Section 2(1) of
Q: What is the procedure that constitutes the
elements of amendments directly proposed by
7
Cruz, Isagani (1995). "The Nature of the Constitution". the people through initiative?
Constitutional Law. Philippines: Central
Lawbook Publishing Co., Inc. pp. 18–20. ISBN 971-16-0333- 0.
8
G.R. No. L-28196, November 9, 1967, Gonzales v
COMELEC. 10
G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997.
9
G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997
11
G.R. No. 174153, October 25, 2006
12
G.R. No. 174153, October 25, 2006.
A: The essence of amendments directly proposed by the A: The proposed amendment shall become part of the
people through initiative upon a petition is that the entire Constitution when ratified by a majority of the votes
proposal on its face is a petition of the people. Thus, two cast in a plebiscite held not earlier than 60 nor later than
essential elements must be present: 90 days after the approval of the proposal by the
Congress or the Constitutional Convention, or after the
1. The people must author and sign the entire certification by the Commission on Elections of the
proposal; no agent or representative can sign in sufficiency of the petition for initiative under Sec. 2,
their behalf; Art. XVII.15
2. As an initiative upon a petition, the proposal must
be embodied in the petition. Part III – Judicial Review
The rationale for this requisite is that the signature Q: Separation of Powers
requirement would be meaningless if the person
supplying the signature has not first seen what it is that A: In Re Laureta and Maravilla16,
he is signing, and more importantly, a loose
interpretation of the subscription requirement would A: Interpretation of Sec 16(5) Art VIII – The
pose a significant potential for fraud. constitution allows the enactment of a law authorizing
the transfer of funds for the purpose of augmenting an
In Lambino, the great majority of the 6.3 million people item from savings in another item in the appropriation
who signed the signature sheets didn’t see the full text of the gov‘t branch. Par 1 Sec 44 of PD 1177 unduly
of the proposed changes before signing; they were not extents the privilege granted under the Sec 16(5). It
apprised of the nature and effect of the proposed empowers the Pres to indiscriminately transfer funds
amendments. Failure to comply with these requirements without regard whether the funds are actually savings or
was fatal to the validity of the initiative petition.13 not.17
Q: Doctrine of Proper Submission Q: What is the purpose of Separation of

Powers?
A: In Tolentino v COMELEC14, the Constitutional
Convention of 1971 scheduled an advance plebiscite on A: To prevent concentration of authority in one person
the proposal to lower the voting age from 21 to 18, or group of persons that might lead to an irreversible
before the rest of the draft of the Constitution then under error or abuse in its exercise to the detriment of
revision had been approved. The petition to prohibit this republican institutions. “To secure action, to forestall
plebiscite was granted by the Supreme Court, which over action, to prevent despotism and to obtain
strictly interpreted the requirement of Article XV of the efficiency.”18
1935 Constitution that the proposed amendments shall
Q: May the Judiciary interfere with the due
be “approved by a majority of the votes cast at an
exercise by co-equal branches of the
election at which the amendments are submitted to the
government of their official functions?
people for ratification.” The use of the word “election”
in the singular, according to the Supreme Court, meant
A: No. In La Bugal-B’Laan Tribal Association v
that the entire Constitution must be submitted for
Ramos, G.R. No. 127882, December 1, 2004, the Court
ratification at one plebiscite only. Furthermore, the
restrained itself from intruding into policy matters to
people have to be given a “proper frame of reference” in
allow the President and Congress maximum discretion
arriving at their decision. Thus, submission for
in using the mineral resources of our country and in
ratification of piece- meal amendments by the
securing the assistance of foreign groups to eradicate the
Constitutional Convention (which is tasked to revise the
grinding poverty of our people and answer their cry for
Constitution) was disallowed since the people had, at
viable employment opportunities in the country. “The
that time, no idea yet of what the rest of the revised
Judiciary is loath to interfere with the due exercise by
Constitution would be.
co-equal branches of the government of their official
functions”. Let the development of the mining industry
Q: Explain Ratification base on Sec. 4, Art. XVII.
be the responsibility of the political branches of
government. The questioned
13
Lambino v COMELEC, supra.
14
41 SCRA 702, 1971 15
Sec. 4, Art. XVII.
16
148 SCRA 382, March 12, 1987.
17
148 SCRA 208 (1987), Demetria v Alba.
18
40 O.G. 8th Supp. 57, Pangasinan Transportation Co. v Public
Service Commission.

provisions of R.A. 7942 (Philippine Mining Act of departments and among the integral or constituent units
1995) are not unconstitutional. thereof.23
Q: What is the principle of blending of powers? Q: What is moderating power?
A: Instances when powers are not confined exclusively A: “Determines the proper allocation of powers” of the
within one department but are assigned to or shared by different branches of the government and “to direct the
several departments, e.g. enactment of general course of government along constitutional channels”. It
appropriations law.19 is inherent in all courts as a necessary consequence of
the judicial power itself, which is “the power of the
Q: What is the principle of Checks and
court to settle actual controversies involving rights
Balances?
which are legally demandable and enforceable.”24
A: This allows one department to resist encroachments
Q: What is the first and safest criterion to
upon its prerogatives or to rectify mistakes or excesses
determine whether a given power has been
committed by the other departments, e.g. veto power of
validly exercised by a particular department?
the President as check on improvement legislation. 20
A: It is asking whether or not the power has been
Q: What is the role of the Judiciary?
constitutionally conferred upon the department claiming
its exercise --- since the conferment is usually done
A: The Judicial power, as defined in Sec. 1, Art. VIII,
expressly. However, even in the absence of express
“includes the duty of the court to settle actual
conferment, the exercise of the power may be justified
controversies involving rights which are legally
under the doctrine of necessary implication, i.e. that the
demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether
grant of an express power carries with it all other powers
or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
that may be reasonably inferred from it. Note also that
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of
there are powers which although not expressly conferred
any branch or instrumentality of the Government.”21
nor implied therefrom, are inherently or incidental, e.g.,
the President’s power to deport undesirable aliens which
Q: What is the theory and justification of
may be exercised independently of constitutional or
Judicial Review?
statutory authority, because it is an “act of State”. 25
A: Note that when the Court mediates to allocate
Q: What is a Justiciable Question?
constitutional boundaries or invalidates the acts of a
coordinate body, what is upholds is not its own
A: Miranda v Aguirre26
superiority but the supremacy of the Constitution. 22
A: La Bugal-B’Laan v Ramos27
In Angara v Electoral Commission, for example, certain
rules of procedure promulgated by the respondent were
A: “A purely justiciable question implies a given right,
challenged on the ground that they had not been
legally demandable and enforceable, an act or omission
expressly authorized by the 1935 Constitution. The
violative of such right, and a remedy granted and
Supreme Court nevertheless upheld them, declaring that
sanctioned by law for said breach of right.”28
they were necessary to the proper exercise of the express
power granted to the body to hear and decide election
contests involving members of the legislature. Q: What is a Political Question?
A: Political questions are “those questions which, under

In the aforementioned case, the Supreme Court held that
the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their
it is only the judicial department which can be called
sovereign capacity, or in regard to
upon to determine the proper allocation of powers
between the several 23
Supra.
24
19
Nachura, Antonio Eduardo B. (2009). Outline/ Reviewer in Representatives.
Political Law, p.74.
25
Nachura, Antonio Eduardo B. (2009). Outline/ Reviewer in
20
Supra. Political Law, p.74.
21
Supra.
26
G.R. No. 133064, September 16, 1999
22
63 Phil. 139, 1936, Angara v Electoral Commission.
27
G.R. No. 127882, December 1, 2004
28
92 SCRA 642, Casibang v Aquino
which full discretionary authority has been delegated to 2. The question of constitutionality must be
the Legislature or executive branch of the Government.” raised by the proper party;
It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, 3. The constitutional question must be raised at
not legality, of a particular measure.29 the earliest possible opportunity; and
4. The decision of the constitutional question
“The term ‘political question’ connotes what it means in must be necessary to the determination of the
ordinary parlance, namely a question of policy. It refers case itself.34
to those questions which, under the Constitution, are to
be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or Q: When is there an actual Case or Controversy
in regard to which full discretionary authority has been or when is it Premature?
delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the
government. It is concerned with issues dependent upon A: In PACU v Secretary of Education 35, the
the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure.”30 petitioners challenged a regulation of the respondent
requiring all private colleges and universities to first
The determination of a truly political question from a obtain a permit from the Department of Education
non-justiciable political question lies in the answer to before they could open and operate. It appeared,
the question of whether there are constitutionally however, that all the petitioners had previously obtained
imposed limits on powers or functions conferred upon the required permit and that they were questioning the
political bodies. If there are, then our courts are duty- regulation only because of the possibility that such
bound to examine whether the branch or instrumentality permit might be denied them in the future. The Supreme
of the government properly acted within such limits. Court declared that the case was premature as there was
This Court thus now applies this standard to the present no showing at the time of any conflict of legal rights that
controversy.31 would justify assumption of jurisdiction by the judiciary.
The Court said that “mere apprehension that the
It is not clear, however, what discretionary acts are Secretary of Education might, under the law, withdraw
subject to judicial review, outside of those specifically the permit of one of the petitioners does not constitute a
mentioned in the Constitution, and what acts remain justiciable controversy.”
prerogatives of the political departments that, even with
said enlargement of judicial power, cannot be examined A request for an advisory opinion is not an actual case
by the courts of justice.32 or controversy. But an action for declaratory relief is
proper for judicial determination.
Q: What is Judicial Review?
In Mariano v COMELEC, 242 SCRA 211, the
A: The power of the courts to test the validity of petition to declare R.A. No. 7854 (Converting the
executive and legislative acts in light of their conformity municipality of Makati into a Highly Urbanized City) as
with the Constitution.33 unconstitutional was dismissed, because it was premised
on many contingent events the happening of which was
Q: What are the requisites of Judicial Review?
uncertain; the petitioner, thus, posed a hypothetical issue
which had not yet ripened into an actual or controversy.
A: No constitutional question will be hear and decided
by the Court unless there is compliance with what are
In Montesclaros v COMELEC, G.R. No. 152295,
known as the requisites of judicial inquiry, which are the
July 9, 2002, it was held that a proposed bill is not
following:
subject to judicial review, because it creates no rights
and imposes no duties enforceable by the courts.
1. There must be actual case or controversy;
Q: When does a case becomes Moot?
29
Representatives.
A: A case becomes moot when there are facts, injuries
30
100 Phil. 1101, Tañada v Cuenco. and heated arguments but for some reason the legal
31
G.R. No. 160261. November 10, 2003, Francisco v House of problem has become stale.36
Representatives.
32
Lawbook Publishing Co., Inc. pp. 89–90. ISBN 971-16-0491- 4. 34
95 SCRA 392, Dumlao v COMELEC.
33
63 Phil. 139, 1936, Angara v Electoral Commission 35
97 Phil. 806 (1955).
36
Guingona v CA, G.R. No. 125532, July 10, 1998

A: In Lacson v Perez, G.R. No. 147780, May 10,

2001, where cases were filed questioning the In Salonga v Pano38, where it was held that the Court
declaration by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo of a had the duty to formulate guiding and controlling
“state of rebellion” in Metro Manila (under General constitutional principles, precepts, doctrines or rules,
Order No. 1), the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions and the symbolic function to educate the bench and the
because on May 6, 2001, the President ordered the bar on the extent of protection given by the
lifting of the “state of rebellion”, and, thus, the issue constitutional guarantees.
raised in the petitions had become moot and academic.
However, the moot and academic principle is not a
Atlas Fertilizer v Secretary, Department of Agrarian magical formula that can automatically dissuade the
Reform, G.R. No. 93100, June 19, 1997, because courts from resolving a case. In David v Macapagal
Congress had already passed amendatory laws Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006, it was held
excluding fishponds and prawn farms from the coverage that courts will still decide cases otherwise moot and
of CARL, the issue on the constitutionality of the academic if:
assailed provisions had become moot and academic, and
therefore, not ripe for judicial review. 1. There is a grave violation of the Constitution;39
2. There is an exceptional character of the
Q: What are the exceptions to Mootness? situation and paramount public interest is
involved;40
A: In Sanlakas vs. Executive Secretary37, the Court 3. The constitutional issues raised require
agrees with the Solicitor General that the issuance of formulation of controlling principles to guide
Proclamation 435, declaring that the state of rebellion the bench, the bar and the public;41 and
has ceased to exist, has rendered the case moot. 4. The case is capable of repetition yet evasive of
review.42
As a rule, courts do not adjudicate moot cases, judicial
power being limited to the determination of “actual A: In Pimentel v Ermita43, the Solicitor General
controversies.” Nevertheless, courts will decide a argues that the petition is moot because President
question, otherwise moot, if it is “capable of Arroyo had extended to respondents ad interim
repetition yet evading review.”
appointments on Sept. 23 2004 immediately after the
recess of Congress. As a rule, the writ of prohibition
The present case is one such case. Once before, the will not lie to enjoin acts already done. However, as an
President on 1 May 2001 declared a state of rebellion exception to the rule on mootness, courts will decide a
and called upon the AFP and the PNP to suppress the question otherwise moot if it is capable of repetition yet
rebellion through Proclamation 38 and General Order 1. evading review. In the present case, the mootness of the
On that occasion, “‘an angry and violent mob armed petition does not bar its resolution. The question of the
with explosives, firearms, bladed weapons, clubs, stones constitutionality of the President’s appointment of
and other deadly weapons’ assaulted and attempted to department secretaries in an acting capacity while
break into Malacañang.” Petitions were filed before the Congress is in session will arise in every such
Supreme Court assailing the validity of the President’s appointment.
declaration. Five days after such declaration, however,
the President lifted the same.
Q: Who is a proper party and not?
The mootness of the petitions in Lacson v. Perez and A: A proper party is who has sustained or is in
accompanying cases precluded the Court from imminent danger of sustaining an injury as a result of
addressing the constitutionality of the declaration. To the act complained of.44 To be proper party, one must
prevent similar questions from reemerging, the Supreme have a “legal standing”, or locus standi.
Court seized the opportunity to finally lay to rest the
validity of the declaration of a state of rebellion when 38
134 SCRA 438.
she merely exercised a wedding of her Chief Executive 39
G.R. No. 152774, May 27, 2004, Province of Batangas v Romulo.
and Commander-in-Chief powers, notwithstanding the 40
G.R. No. 147780, May 10, 2001, Lacson v Perez.
mootness of the petitions. 41
134 SCRA 438, Salonga v Pano.
42
G.R. No. 159085, Feb. 02, 2004, Sanlakas v Exec. Secretary.
43
G.R. 164978, October 13, 2005
37
G.R. 159085, February 03, 2004.
44
Ex parte Levitt, 303 U.S. 633.
Q: Citizen Standing
A: In Joya v PCGG45, the petitioners having failed to
show that they were the owners of the masters’ paintings A: In Tanada v Tuvera49,
and antique silverware, were not deemed proper parties
to enjoin the PCGG from selling at public auction the A: In Chavez v Public Estates Authority and Amari,
aforesaid items seized from Malacañang and the G.R. No. 133250, July 9, 2002, the Supreme Court
Metropolitan Museum as allegedly part of the ill-gotten said that the petitioner has legal standing to bring this
wealth of the Marcoses. taxpayer’s suit because the petitioner seeks to compel
PEA to comply with its constitutional duties. In this
A: In Agan, Jr. v Philippine International Air case, there were two constitutional issues involved: first,
Terminals Co., Inc. (PIATCO) 46, the petitioners, the right of the citizen to information on matters of
NAIA concessionaries and service contractors, were public concern; and second, the application of a
declared proper parties because they stood to lose their constitutional provision intended to insure equitable
source of livelihood by reason of the implementation of distribution of alienable lands of the public domain
the PIATCO contracts. The financial prejudice brought among Filipino citizens.
about by the said PIATCO contracts on them are
legitimate interests sufficient to confer on them the Q: Associational Standing
requisite standing to file the instant petitions.
A: In KMU Labor Center v Garcia, 239 SCRA 386,
A: In Commission on Human Rights Employees the Court held that KMU members who avail of the use
Association v Commission on Human Rights 47, the of buses, trains and jeepneys everyday are directly
petitioner, an association consisting of rank-and-file affected by the burdensome cost of arbitrary increases in
employees in the Commission of Human Rights, passenger fares. They are, therefore, proper parties to
protests that the upgrading and collapsing of positions in contest the validity of DOTC memoranda, etc.,
the Commission, resulting in the demoralization of rank- authorizing provincial bus and jeepney operators to
and-file employees. This, according to the Supreme increase or decrease transportation fares.
Court, meets the injury tests.
In the same vein, an association of registered
A: In Automotive Industry Workers Alliance v recruitment agencies had legal standing to question the
Romulo48, the petitioners, composed of ten labor constitutionality of the Migrant Workers and Overseas
unions, seeking the declaration of unconstitutionality of Filipino Act, in order to assert the concern of its
E.O. No. 185, dated March 10, 2003, which transfer constituents.
administrative supervision over the NLRC from the
NLRC Chairman to the Secretary of Labor, could not A: In Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) v
show that their members sustained or were in danger of Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000, the
sustaining injury from E.O. No. 185. This was because petition seeking to nullify the order of President Estrada
the authority conferred upon the Secretary of Labor did for the deployment of the Philippine Marines to join the
not extend to the power to review, revise, reverse or PNP in visibility patrols around the Metro Manila area,
modify the decisions of the NLRC in the exercise of its was dismissed on the ground that the IBP had no legal
quasi-judicial functions. standing to question the presidential act.
Q: What does the term “interest” means? The mere invocation of the IBP of its duty to preserve
the rule of law and nothing more, while undoubtedly
A: In IBP v Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, August 15, true, is not sufficient to clothe it with standing in this
2000, it was clarified that the term “interest” means case—too general interest—not a specific and
material interest, an interest in issue affected by the substantial interest in the resolution of the case. Not
challenged official act, as distinguished from mere only is the presumed injury not personal in character it
interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental is likewise too vague, highly speculative and uncertain
interest. to satisfy the requirement of standing.
A: In Executive Secretary v CA50, The modern view

45
G.R. No. 96541, August 24, 1993/ 225 SCRA 568. is that an association has standing to complain of
46
G.R. No. 155001, May 5 2003. injuries to its members. This view fuses the legal
47
G.R. No. 155336, November 25, 2004.
48
G.R. No. 157509, January 18, 2005. 49
136 SCRA 27 (1985)
50
429 SCRA 781, May 25, 2004

identity of an association with that of its members. measure by a large class of voters, if not all the voters,
An association has standing to file suit for its workers who voted in that election, the Court, however, accorded
despite its lack of direct interest if its members are to petitioners legal standing in their capacity as voters
affected by the action. An organization has standing to since they raise important issues involving their right of
assert the concerns of its constituents. suffrage, considering that the issue raised in this petition
is likely to arise again.
A: In Kilosbayan v Guingona51, one of the issues was
the locus standi of the petitioner, an association of Q: Legislative Standing
citizens and taxpayers, to challenge a contract entered
into by the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office with A: In Ople v Torres, 292 SCRA 141, the Supreme
a foreign corporation for the operation of a nationwide Court held that Senator Blas Ople was a proper party to
lottery. The majority opinion penned by Justice Hilario question the constitutionality of A.O. No. 308 in his
G. Davide, Jr. declare: capacity as Senator, as taxpayer and member of the
GSIS. As Senator, he had the requisite to bring suit
“We find the instant petition to be of transcendental assailing the issuance of the
importance to the public. The issues it raised are of A.O. as a usurpation of legislative power; as taxpayer
paramount public interest and of category even higher and GSIS member, he could impugn the legality of
than those involved in many of the aforecited cases. The misalignment of public funds and the misuse of the
ramifications of such issues immeasurably affect the GSIS to implement the A.O. No. 308.
social, economic and moral well-being of the people
even in the remotest barangays of the country and the Q: Governmental Standing
counter- productive and retrogressive effects of the
envisioned on-line lottery system are as staggering as A: In People v Vera, 65 Phil. 56, the Supreme Court
the billions of pesos it is expected to raise. The legal declared that the Government of the Philippines is a
standing then of the petitioners deserves recognition proper party to question the validity of its own laws,
and, in the exercise of its sound discretion, this Court because more than any one, it should be concerned with
hereby brushes aside the procedural barrier which the the constitutionality of its acts. In that case, it was held
respondents tried to take advantage of.” that the government has substantial interest in having
the Probation Law declared as unconstitutional, because
Q: Taxpayer’s Standing more than the damage caused by the illegal expenditure
of public funds is the mortal wound inflicted upon the
A: In Information Technology Foundation v fundamental law by enforcement of an invalid statute.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 159139, January 13, 2004,
reiterated the principle that taxpayers are allowed to sue In this instant, the Court also adopted of the direct
when there is a claim of “illegal disbursement of public injury test, which states that a person who impugns the
funds”, or if public money is being “deflected to any validity of a statute must have a personal and substantial
improper purpose”, or when petitioners seek to restrain interest in the case such that he has sustained or will
respondent from “wasting public funds through the sustain a direct injury as a result.
enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law”. In
this case, the individual petitioners, suing as taxpayers, Q: Facial challenge
assert a material interest in seeing to it that public funds
are properly and lawfully used, claiming that the A: In Estrada v Sandiganbayan 53, the Court defined the
bidding was defective, the winning bidder not a “face challenge”; A facial challenge is allowed to be
qualified entity, and the award of the contract contrary made to a vague statute and to one which is overbroad
to law and regulations. because of possible "chilling effect" upon protected
speech.
Q: Voter’s Standing
The theory is that "when statutes regulate or proscribe
A: In Tolentino v COMELEC52, petitioners assert harm speech and no readily apparent construction suggests
classified as a “generalized grievance.” Although, the itself as a vehicle for rehabilitating the statutes in a
latter is shared in substantially equal single prosecution, the transcendent value to all society
of constitutionally protected expression is deemed to
51
232 SCRA 110, (1994) 53
Estrada v Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, November 19,
52
420 SCRA 438, January 21, 2004 2001
justify allowing attacks on overly broad statutes with no

requirement that the person making the attack
demonstrate that his own conduct could not be regulated Legislative Department
by a statute drawn with narrow specificity." The
possible harm to society in permitting some unprotected Q: Who exercises legislative power?
speech to go unpunished is outweighed by the
possibility that the protected speech of others may be A: Section 1, Article VII of the Constitution provides
deterred and perceived grievances left to fester because that legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of
of possible inhibitory effects of overly broad statutes. the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a
This rationale does not apply to penal statutes. Criminal House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved
statutes have general in terms of effect resulting from to the people by the provision on initiative and
their very existence, and, if facial challenge is allowed referendum.
for this reason alone, the State may well be prevented
from enacting laws against socially harmful conduct. In Q: What is the composition of the Senate and
the area of criminal law, the law cannot take chances as the qualifications and term of its members?
in the area of free speech. For this reason, it has been
held that "a facial challenge to a legislative act is the A: Section 254 states that “the Senate shall be
most difficult challenge to mount successfully, since the composed of twenty-four (24) Senators who shall be
challenger must establish that no set of circumstances elected at large by the qualified voters of the
exists under which the Act would be valid." Philippines, as may be provided by law.”
As for the vagueness doctrine, it is said that a litigant A: Section 355 provides that “No person shall be a
may challenge a statute on its face only if it is vague in Senator unless he is a natural-born citizen of the
all its possible applications. "A plaintiff who engages in Philippines, and, on the day of the election, is at least
some conduct that is clearly proscribed cannot complain thirty- five (35) years of age, able to read and write, a
of the vagueness of the law as applied to the conduct of registered voter, and a resident of the Philippines for not
others." less than two years immediately preceding the day of the
election.”
Q: Earliest Opportunity
A: Under Sec. 4, par. 1, Art. VI 56, “The term of office
A: In Umali v Guingona, G.R. No. 131124, March of the Senators shall be six years and shall commence,
21, 1999, the question of the constitutionality of the unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on the
Presidential Commission on Anti-Graft and Corruption thirtieth day of June next following their election.”
(PCAGC) was not entertained because the issue was
raised by the petitioner only in his motion for Also, in Sec. 2, Art. XVIII57, “The Senators, Members
reconsideration before the RTC of Makati. It was too of the House of Representatives, and the local officials
late to raise the issue for the first time at that stage of the first elected under this Constitution shall serve until
proceedings. noon of June 30, 1992. “Of the senators elected in the
election in 1992, the first twelve (12) obtaining the
Q: Necessity of Deciding Constitutional highest number of votes shall serve for six years and the
Questions remaining twelve for three (3) years.”
A: In Arceta v Mangrobang, G.R. No. 152895, However, it should be noted that in Sec. 4, par. 2, Art.
June 15, 2004, in a new challenge to the VI58, it was mentioned that “No Senator shall serve for
constitutionality of B.P. 22, the Supreme Court did not more than two consecutive terms. Voluntary
find the constitutional question to be the very lis mota renunciation of the office for any length of time shall
presented in the controversy. Every law has in its favour not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of
the presumption of constitutionality, and to justify its his service for the full term for which he was elected.”
nullification, there must be a clear and unequivocal
breach of the Constitution and not one that is doubtful,
speculative or argumentative.
54
1987 Philippine Constitution
PartIV–TheThreeBranchesof Government 55
Ibid.
56
Id.
57
Id.
58
Id.

Q: What is the composition of the House of

Representatives and the qualifications and A: Section 761. The Members of the House of
term of its members? Representatives shall be elected for a term of three years
which shall begin, unless otherwise provided by law, at
A: Section 559. (1) The House of Representatives shall noon on the thirtieth day of June next following their
be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty election. No Member of the House of Representatives
members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be shall serve for more than three consecutive terms.
elected from legislative districts apportioned among the Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of
provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in time shall not be considered as an interruption in the
accordance with the number of their respective continuity of his service for the full term for which he
inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and was elected.
progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law,
shall be elected through a party-list system of registered Q: What is the purpose of residence
national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations. requirement?
(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty A: To ensure familiarity with the conditions and
per centum of the total number of representatives problems of the constituency sought to be represented
including those under the party list. For three and consequent efficiency and concern in the discharge
consecutive terms after the ratification of this of legislative duties on its behalf.62
Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to party-list
representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by Q: What is Gerrymandering?
selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor,
indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and A: It is the arrangement of districts in such a way as to
such other sectors as may be provided by law, except the favor the election of preferred candidates (usually re-
religious sector. electionists) through the inclusion therein only of those
areas where they expect to win, regardless of the
(3) Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as resultant shape of such districts.63
practicable, contiguous, compact, and adjacent territory.
Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty Q: Where does apportionment of representative
thousand, or each province, shall have at least one districts should be based?
representative.
A: Macias v COMELEC64 is the authority for the view
(4) Within three years following the return of every that the validity of a legislative apportionment measure
census, the Congress shall make a reapportionment of is a justifiable question, involving as it does certain
legislative districts based on the standards provided in requirements the interpretation of which does not call
this section for the exercise of legislative discretion. The Supreme
Court in fact annulled the challenged law in that case
A: Section 660. No person shall be a Member of the when it was shown that the apportionment was not
House of Representatives unless he is a natural- born based on the number of inhabitants in the various
citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, representatsive districts. The Supreme Court noted that
is at least twenty-five years of age, able to read and some big provinces were given less representatives than
write, and, except the party-list representatives, a certain relatively smaller ones, e.g. Cebu got seven
registered voter in the district in which he shall be while Rizal with a bigger population then got only four.
elected, and a resident thereof for a period of not less
than one year immediately preceding the day of the Q: Discuss the following cases:
election.
A: In Tan v COMELEC65, the apportionment of the
In addition, the party-list representative must be a bona Members of the House of Representatives is not
fide member of the party he seeks to represent at least
ninety days before Election Day.
The youth representative must not be more than thirty 61

Id.
(30) years old but may continue beyond that age until
62
Lawbook Publishing Co., Inc. pp. 120. ISBN 971-16-0491-4.
the end of his term. 63
Ibid., p.116
64
3 SCRA 1, 1961
59
Id. 65
142 SCRA 727 (1986)
60
Id.
valid because it is not based on the number of 2. Major political parties must comply with
inhabitants a province has. this statutory policy;
3. Ang Bagong Buhay Hayaang Yumabong

A: In Veterans Federation Party v COMELEC66,
(as a party) must be subject to the express
the Supreme Court reversed the COMELEC ruling that
constitutional prohibition against religious
the 38 respondent parties, coalitions and organizations
sects;
were each entitled to a party-list seat despite their failure
to obtain at least 2% each of the national vote in the
4. The party must not be disqualified
1998 party-list election. The Court said that the
under RA 7941;
Constitution and RA 7941 mandate at least four
inviolable parameters:
5. The party must not be an adjunct of an
entity or project funded by the government;
1. The 20% allocation: the combined number
of all party- list congressmen shall not exceed 6. The party and its nominees must
20% of the total membership of the House of comply with the requirements of law;
Representatives;
7. The nominee must also represent the
2. The 2% threshold: only those parties marginalized or under- represented sector; and
garnering a minimum of 2% of the total valid
votes cast for the party- list system are 8. The nominee must be able to contribute to
qualified to have a seat in the House; the formulation and enactment of appropriate
legislation that will benefit the nation.
3. The three- seat limit: each qualified party,
regardless of the number of votes it actually A: In Banat v COMELEC, the Court reversed its ruling
obtained, is entitled to a maximum of three in Veteran’s case and declared that 20% allocation of
seats, i.e. one qualifying and two additional; party-list representatives is merely a ceiling; party-list
and representatives cannot be more than 20% of the
members of the House of Representatives. The
4. Proportional representation: the continued operation of the 2% threshold in the
additional seats which a qualified party is distribution of the additional seats frustrates the
entitled to shall be computed “in proportion to attainment of the permissive ceiling that 20% of the
their total number of votes. members of the House of Representatives shall consist
of party-list representatives.
Below is the formula used in this case and in Ang
Bagong Bayani case for computing the additional seats: A: In Aquino v COMELEC68, it was held that Agapito
Votes cast for Qualified Party
Aquino failed to prove that he had established not just
Additional seat = x Alloted seats for residence but domicile of choice in Makati. In his
Votes cast for First Party First Party certificate of candidacy of San Jose Concepcion, Tarlac,
for 52 years; he was a registered voter of the same
district; his birth certificate places Concepcion, Tarlac,
A: In Ang Bagong Bayani- OFW Labor Party v
as birthplace. Thus, his domicile of origin was
COMELEC67, the Supreme Court said that even if
Concepcion, Tarlac; and his bare assertion of transfer of
major political parties are allowed by the Constitution to
domicile from Tarlac to Makati is hardly supported by
participate in the party- list system, they must show,
the facts of the case.
however, that they represent the interests of the
marginalized and under- represented. The following
A: In Marcos v COMELEC69, the Court upheld the
guidelines should be followed in order that a political
qualification of Mrs. Imelda Romualdez Marcos, despite
party registered in the party- list system may be entitled
her own declaration in her certificate of candidacy that
to a seat in the House of Representatives:
she had resided in the district for only seven months,
because of the following:
1. Must represent marginalized and under-
represented sectors;
66
G.R. 136781, October 06, 2000 68
248 SCRA 400 (1995)
67
G.R. No. 147589, June 26, 2001 69
248 SCRA 300 (1995)

1. A minor follows the domicile of his Q: Organizations and Sessions of Legislatives

parents; Tacloban became Imelda’s domicile
of origin by operation of law when her father Q: Election of Officers.
brought the family to Leyte;
A: In Santiago v Guingona73, the agenda for the day
2. Domicile of origin is lost only when there was the election of officers. Nominated by Senator Ople
is actual removal or change of domicile, a to the position of Senate President was Senator Fernan.
bonafide intention of abandoning the former Senator Tatad was also nominated to the same position
residence and establishing a new one, and acts by Sen. Miriam Defenser Santiago. By a vote of 20 to 2,
which correspond with the purpose; in the Senator Fernan was declared the duly elected President
absence of clear and positive proof of the of the Senate.
concurrence of all these, the domicile of origin
should be deemed to continue; The following were likewise elected: Senator Ople as
president pro tempore, and Sen. Franklin M. Drilon as
3. The wife does not automatically gained the majority leader.
husband’s domicile because the term
“residence” in Civil Law does not mean the Senator Tatad thereafter manifested that, with the
same thing in Political Law; when Imelda agreement of Senator Santiago, allegedly the only other
married Marcos in 1954, she kept her domicile member of the minority, he was assuming the position
of origin and merely gained a new home, not of minority leader. He explained that those who had
a domicilium necessarium; voted for Senator Fernan comprised the "majority,"
while only those who had voted for him, the losing
4. Even assuming that she gained a new nominee, belonged to the "minority."
domicile after her marriage and acquired the
right to choose a new one only after her Seven senators belonging to the Lakas-NUCD- UMDP
husband died, her acts following her return to Party, also a minority, had chosen Senator Guingona as
the country clearly indicate that she chose the minority leader. No consensus on the matter was
Tacloban, her domicile of origin, as her arrived at until on the third session day. However
domicile of choice. Senator Guingona, as the minority leader of the Senate,
was subsequently recognized by the Senate President.
A: In Torayno v COMELEC70, Emano having been the Thereafter, Senators Santiago and Tatad filed a case
governor of Misamis Oriental for three terms and before the Court alleging that Senator Guingona had
wanting to run as Mayor of CDO, could not be said to been usurping, unlawfully holding and exercising the
be a stranger or newcomer to the city in the last year of position of Senate minority leader, a position that,
his third term when he decided to adopt it as his according to them, rightfully belonged to Senator Tatad.
permanent place of residence.
Accordingly, the Court finds no constitutional or legal
Q: When does Regular Election should be infirmity or grave abuse of discretion attended the
held? recognition of and the assumption into office by
Respondent Guingona as the Senate minority leader.
A: Section 871. Unless otherwise provided by law, the
regular election of the Senators and the Members of the A: Section 16, (1)74. The Senate shall elect its
House of Representatives shall be held on the second President and the House of Representatives, its Speaker,
Monday of May. by a majority vote of all its respective Members. Each
House shall choose such other officers as it may deem
Q: When does Special Election takes place? necessary.
A: Section 972. In case of vacancy in the Senate or in
Q: What does Quorum means?
the House of Representatives, a special election may be
called to fill such vacancy in the manner prescribed by
A: Any number sufficient to transact business 75, which
law, but the Senator or Member of the House of may be less than the majority of the
Representatives thus elected shall serve only for the
unexpired term.
70
G.R. 137329, August 09, 2000 73
G.R. 134577, November 18, 1998
71
1987 Philippine Constitution 74
1987 Constitution of the Philippines, Art. VI.
72
Ibid. 75
Javellana v Tayo, 6 SCRA 1048
membership. In our Constitution, it is required that the under Section 22, then the motion for reconsideration
quorum be a majority of the each House.76 not having been acted upon is not approved and
therefore, has no effect whatsoever.
A: In Avelino v Cuenco77, the petitioner, who was then
Senate President, motu proprio adjourned a session of In the case at bar, Pacete alleged that he was appointed
the Senate and walked out with his followers, leaving by the then President of the Philippines on August 31,
twelve other members who continued meeting and 1964 as Municipal Judge of Pigcawayan, Cotabato. He
replaced him with the respondent as Acting President. assumed office on September 11, 1964 and discharged
Avelino thereupon filed quo warranto proceedings his duties as such. As his appointment was made during
against Cuenco, contending that the latter had not been recess of Congress, it was submitted to the Commission
validly elected because twelve members did not on Appointments at its next session in 1965.
constitute a majority and, hence, a quorum of the 24- Appointment was unanimously confirmed on May 20,
member-Senate. The Supreme Court at first dismissed 1965 (with Senate President and Chairman of
the petition on the ground that it involved a political Commission on Appointments Ferdinand Marcos even
question. On the motion for reconsideration, however, it sending him a congratulatory telegram). Nine months
assumed jurisdiction and ruled inter alia that the twelve after his confirmation, on February 7, 1966, the then
members were sufficient to constitute a quorum, being a Secretary of Justice advised petitioner to vacate his
majority of twenty-three not twenty-four. The reason position as municipal judge. Petitioner was informed
was that one senator was then in the United States and that on May 21, 1965, Senator Rodolfo Ganzon (a
therefore outside the coercive jurisdiction of the smaller member of the Commission on Appointments) wrote to
number of members who could “adjourn from day to its Chairman stating that he was filing a motion for
day and compel the attendance of absent member in reconsideration of the appointment in view of
such manner and under such penalties” as the Senate derogatory information which he had received.
might provide.
A: In Arroyo v De Venecia80, the Supreme Court noted
A: Section 16. (2)78. A majority of each House shall that the challenge to the validity of the enactment of RA
constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller 8240 (amending certain provisions of the National
number may adjourn from day to day and may compel Internal Revenue Code by imposing so-called “sin
the attendance of absent Members in such manner, and taxes”) was premised on alleged violations of internal
under such penalties, as such House may provide. rules of procedure of the House of Representatives
rather than of constitutional requirements. Decided
Q: Rules of Proceeding? cases, both here and abroad, in varying forms of
expression, all deny to the courts the power to inquire
A: In Pacete v Comm. On Appointments79, the Court into allegations that, in enacting a law, a House of
ruled that Pacete’s confirmation stands and what is Congress failed to comply with its own rules, in the
decisive is that the same confirmation duly made is not absence of showing that there was a violation of
nullified simply by a motion of reconsideration being constitutional requirements or the rights of private
filed, without its being voted upon and approved. individuals.
The mere filing of a motion for reconsideration the A: Arroyo v De Venecia81, in its Resolution on the
effect of which, if the motion was approved, would Motion for Reconsideration, the Supreme Court ruled
dispense with the necessity of such approval, for which that it is well settled that a legislative act will not be
the concurrence of a majority of the members present is declared invalid for non-compliance with the internal
necessary. This is inconsistent with Rule 21 of the rules of the House.
Revised Rules of the Commission.
Q: Discipline of members?
In case of an adjournment sine die the period for filing
the motion for reconsideration having expired, A: Section 16, (3)82. Each House may determine the
rules of its proceedings, punish its Members for
76
Cruz, Isagani (2002). “Philippine Political Law: Central disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-
Lawbook Publishing Co., Inc. p. 134. ISBN 971-16-0491-4. thirds of all its Members, suspend or expel a
77
83 Phil. 17 (1949)
78
79
40 SCRA 58 (1971)
80
G.R. 127255, August 14, 1997
81
G.R. No. 127255, June 26, 1998
82

Member. A penalty of suspension, when imposed, shall doctrine of separation of powers, by itself, is not deemed
not exceed sixty days. to have effectively excluded the members of the
Congress from RA 3019 or its sanctions.
A: In Alejandrino v Quezon83, the Court held that, it
cannot dictate action on the legislative department
without a gross usurpation of power. Precedents have A: In De Venecia v Sandiganbayan86, the Court held
held that where a member has been expelled by the that the suspension or expulsion contemplated in the
legislative body, the courts have no power, irrespective Constitution is a House- imposed sanction against its
of whether the expulsion was right or wrong, to issue a members. It is, therefore, a penalty for disorderly
mandate to compel his reinstatement. behavior to enforce discipline, maintain order in its
proceedings, or vindicate its honor and integrity.
In this case, a resolution was adopted by the Philippine
Senate composed of the respondent Senators, on The doctrine of separation of powers by itself may not
February 5, 1924, depriving Senator Alejandrino of all be deemed to have effectively excluded members of
the prerogatives, privileges, and emoluments of his Congress from Republic Act No. 3019 nor from its
office for the period of one year from the first of sanctions. The maxim simply recognizes that each of the
January, 1924 for disorderly conduct and flagrant three co-equal and independent, albeit coordinate,
violation of the privileges of the Senate for having branches of the government – the Legislative, the
assaulted the Honorable Vicente de Vera, Senator for Executive and the Judiciary – has exclusive
the Sixth District. prerogatives and cognizance within its own sphere of
influence and effectively prevents one branch from
unduly intruding into the internal affairs of either
A: In Osmeña v Pendatun84, the President of the
branch.
Philippines himself who had been vilified by the
petitioner could not file any civil or criminal action Q: Journal and Record
against him because of this immunity. Nonetheless, the
majority of the members of the House of A: Section 16, (4)87. Each House shall keep a Journal of
Representatives in which the questioned speech was its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same,
delivered were not precluded from demonstrating their excepting such parts as may, in its judgment, affect
loyalty to the chief executive by declaring Osmeña national security; and the yeas and nays on any
guilty of disorderly behavior and suspending him in the question shall, at the request of one-fifth of the
exercise of their disciplinary power under what is now Members present, be entered in the Journal. Each House
Article VI, Section 16 (3), of the Constitution. shall also keep a Record of its proceedings.
Further, the Court said, in the case at bar, that the Q: The Enrolled Bill Theory?
determination of the acts which constitute disorderly
behavior is within the full discretionary authority of the A: One which has been duly introduced, finally passed
House concerned, and the Court will not review such by both houses, signed or authenticated by the proper
determination, the same being a political question. officers of each, approved by the President and filed by
the secretary of state.88
A: In Santiago v Sandiganbayan85, the Court held
that Sec. 13, RA 3019 (where it appears to be a A: In the case of Casco Chemical Co. v Gimenez89,
ministerial duty of the court to issue the order of the Court ruled that if a mistake was made in the
suspension upon a determination of the validity of the printing of the bill before it was certified by the
criminal information filed before it) does not state that Congress and approved by the President, the remedy is
the public officer should be suspended only in the office amendment or corrective legislation, not a judicial
where he is alleged to have committed the acts charged. decree. In this case, petitioners claimed that the phrase
Furthermore, the order of suspension provided in RA “urea formaldehyde” as used in a statue should be read
3019 is distinct from the power of Congress to discipline as “urea and formaldehyde,” to rectify an alleged error
its own ranks. Neither does the order of suspension in the printing of the enrolled bill. The Supreme Court,
encroach upon the power of Congress. The in dismissing this claim, declared:
83
46 Phil. 83 (1924) 86
G.R. No. 130240, Feb. 05, 2002
84
109 Phil. 863 (1960) 87
85
G.R. 126055, April 19, 2001 88
Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th rev. ed. 624
89
7 SCRA 347 (1963)
A: Enrolled bill prevails, except as to matters which,

Hence, "urea formaldehyde" is clearly a finished under the Constitution, must be entered in the Journal.
product, which is patently distinct and different from (See Astorga v Villegas, 56 SCRA 714)
urea" and "formaldehyde", as separate articles used in
the manufacture of the synthetic resin known as "urea
formaldehyde". Petitioner contends, however, that the Q: Congressional Record?
bill approved in Congress contained the copulative
conjunction "and" between the terms "urea" and Q: Session
"formaldehyde", and that the members of Congress
intended to exempt "urea" and "formaldehyde" Q: Regular Sessions and Special Sessions?
separately as essential elements in the manufacture of
the synthetic resin glue called "urea" formaldehyde",
not the latter as a finished product, citing in support of A: Section 1591. The Congress shall convene once
this view the statements made on the floor of the every year on the fourth Monday of July for its regular
Senate, during the consideration of the bill before said session, unless a different date is fixed by law, and shall
House, by members thereof. But, said individual continue to be in session for such number of days as it
statements do not necessarily reflect the view of the
Senate. Much less do they indicate the intent of the
may determine until thirty days before the opening of
House of Representatives (see Song Kiat Chocolate its next regular session, exclusive of Saturdays,
Factory vs. Central Bank, 54 Off. Gaz., 615; Mayon Sundays, and legal holidays. The President may call a
Motors Inc. vs. Acting Commissioner of Internal special session at any time.
Revenue, L-15000 [March 29, 1961]; Manila Jockey
Club, Inc. vs. Games & Amusement Board, L-12727
[February 29, 1960]). Furthermore, it is well settled
Q: When does Joint Session Congress
that the enrolled bill happens?
— which uses the term "urea formaldehyde" instead of
"urea and formaldehyde" — is conclusive upon the A: The House of Representatives and the Senate Voting
courts as regards the tenor of the measure passed by Separately on the following occasions:
Congress and approved by the President (Primicias vs.
Paredes, 61 Phil. 118, 120; Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito, 78
Phil. 1; Macias vs. Comm. on Elections, L-18684, 1. Choosing the President (Sec. 4, Art. VII)
September 14, 1961). If there has been any mistake in 2. Determine President’s disability (Sec.
the printing ofthe bill before it was certified by the 11, Art. VII)
officers of Congress and approved by the Executive — 3. Confirming nomination of the Vice
on which we cannot speculate, without jeopardizing President (Sec. 9, Art. VII)
the principle of separation of powers and undermining
one of the cornerstones of our democratic system — the
4. Declaring the existence of a state of war
remedy is by amendment or curative legislation, not by (Sec. 23, Art. VI)
judicial decree. 5. Proposing constitutional amendments
(Sec. 1, Art. XVII)
Q: Probative Value of the Journal?
While in Voting Jointly, to revoke or extend
A: In United States v Pons90, Supreme Court refused proclamation suspending the privilege of the writ of
to go beyond the recitals in the legislative journals, habeas corpus or placing the Philippines under martial
which it held to be conclusive on the courts. “To inquire law. (Sec. 18, Art. VII)
into the veracity of the journals of the Philippine
Legislature,” it ruled, “when they are, as we have said, Q: Salaries, Privileges and Disqualifications.
clear and explicit, would be to violate both the letter
and spirit of the organic laws by which the Philippine Q: Salaries of Congress.
Government was brought into existence, to invade a
coordinate and independent department of the A: Section 1092. The salaries of Senators and Members
Government and to interfere with the legitimate powers of the House of Representatives shall be determined by
and functions of the Legislature. law. No increase in said compensation shall take effect
until after the expiration of the full term of all the
Q: Matters to be entered in the Journal? Members of the Senate and the House of
Representatives approving such increase.
Q: Journal Entry Rule vs. Enrolled Bill Theory?
91
90
34 Phil. 729 (1916) 92
1987 Constitution of the Philippines, Art. VI

A: Section 2093. The records and books of accounts of

the Congress shall be preserved and be open to the A: Section 1196. A Senator or Member of the House of
public in accordance with law, and such books shall be Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable by not
audited by the Commission on Audit which shall more than six years imprisonment, be privileged from
publish annually an itemized list of amounts paid to and arrest while the Congress is in session. No Member shall
expenses incurred for each Member. be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for
any speech or debate in the Congress or in any
A: In Philconsa v Mathay94, the Court ruled that, Sec committee thereof.
14 of Art VI requires that not only the term of all
members of the House but also all of the Senators who A: In People v Jalosjos97, the Supreme Court denied
approved the increase must have fully expired before the motion of Congressman Jalosjos that he be allowed
those increases become fully effective. Therefore, some to fully discharged the duties of a Congressman,
parts of RA 4642 are declared void. The intendment of including attendance at legislative sessions and
the law also requires the expiration of the full term of all committee hearings despite his having been convicted
members of the Legislature who approved the salary by the trial court of a non- bailable offense. The denial
increase. was premised on the following:
In this instant case, Sec 1 of RA 4134 (approved 1964) 1. Membership in Congress does not exempt
provided for the increase in salary of members of an accused from statutes and rules which
Congress, to take effect in accordance with the apply to validly incarcerated persons;
Constitution. However, the budget for the fiscal year
1965-66 (RA 4642) implemented the increase in the 2. One rationale behind confinement,
salary of members of the HOR set by RA 4134— ahead whether pending appeal or after final
of scheduled effectivity. The reason given is that the conviction, is public self-defense, i.e., it is the
term of the members of the HOR who participated in injury to the public not, not injury to the
approval of said Act would expire in 1965, while the complainant, which state action in criminal law
term of 8 senators expires in 1969. Increase of salary, seeks to redress;
however, was declared void by the Court.
3. It would amount to the creation of a
A: In Ligot v Mathay95, the Court held that any salary privileged class, without justification in reason,
increase should not take effect until retirement of all if notwithstanding their liability for a criminal
legislators who approved it. To grant the petitioner‘s offense, they would be considered immune
claim is a subtle way of increasing his compensation from arrest during their attendance in
during his term of office and thus allow what the Congress and in going to and returning from
Constitution prohibits. Thus, Rep. Ligot’s retirement the same; and
pay should not be computed based on the new increased
salary, which he never received as an incumbent. 4. Accused-appellant is provided with an
office at the House of Representatives with
In the case at bar, Rep. Ligot‘s term in Congress will full complement of staff, as well as an office at
expire December 30, 1969. He is entitled to retirement the Administration Building, New Bilibid
gratuity under Commonwealth Act 186, Sec 12(c) as Prison, where he attends to his constituents; he
amended by RA 4968. The incoming Members of has, therefore, been discharging his mandate as
Congress will have a salary increase from P7,200 to member of the House of Representatives, and
P32,000 as provided for under RA 4134. Petitioner being a detainee, he should not even be
argues that his retirement pay must be computed based allowed by the prison authorities to perform
on that salary increase, and not on his actual salary as these acts.
Congressman. Auditor General denied his petition, as
well as Rep. Singson‘s who had a similar case. Q: Speech and Debate Clause?
Q: Freedom from Arrest? A: In Jimenez v Cabangbang98, Supreme Court held
declared that the privilege could not be
93
Supra. 96
1987 Constitution of the Philippines, Art. VI
94
18 SCRA 300 (1966) 97
G.R. 132875, February 03, 2000
95
56 SCRA 823 (1974) 98
17 SCRA 876 (1966)
invoked by a legislator who had allegedly maligned the hence, there was no vacancy in the governorship that
plaintiff in an open letter to the President of the Pacana could fill. Through Justice Escolin, the Court
Philippines coursed through and published in the unanimously rejected this argument and held that Adaza
newspapers. The finding was that he had written the automatically forfeited the governorship the moment he
letter at a time when the Congress was in recess and in took his oath as a member of the Batasang Pambansa.
his private capacity only.
A: Section 14102. No Senator or Member of the House
Q: Distinguish Incompatible and Forbidden of Representatives may personally appear as counsel
Office. before any court of justice or before the Electoral
Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other administrative
A: Section 1399. (Incompatible office) No Senator or bodies. Neither shall he, directly or indirectly, be
Member of the House of Representatives may hold any interested financially in any contract with, or in any
other office or employment in the Government, or any franchise or special privilege granted by the
subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, Government, or any subdivision, agency, or
including government- owned or controlled corporations instrumentality thereof, including any government-
or their subsidiaries, during his term without forfeiting owned or controlled corporation, or its subsidiary,
his seat. (Forbidden Office) Neither shall he be during his term of office. He shall not intervene in any
appointed to any office which may have been created or matter before any office of the Government for his
the emoluments thereof increased during the term for pecuniary benefit or where he may be called upon to act
which he was elected. on account of his office.
A: The purpose of incompatible office is to prevent him A: In Puyat vs. De Guzman103, a legislator entered his
from owing loyalty to another branch of the appearance as counsel for one of the parties to an intra-
government, to the detriment of the independence of the corporate dispute before the Securities and Exchange
legislature and the doctrine of separation of powers. Commission. He desisted when his representation was
This prohibition, however, is not absolute; what is not challenged under Sec. 14, Art.
allowed is the simultaneous holding of that office and
VI of the Constitution. Thereafter, he purchased two
the seat in Congress. Any legislator may hold any office
hundred pesos worth of stocks in the corporation from
or employment provided he forfeits, as a result, his
the faction he was representing and sought to intervene
position in the Congress. Forfeiture of the legislator’s
in the said dispute, this time as a stockholder. The
seat, or cessation of his tenure, shall be automatic upon
Supreme Court did not allow him to do so as his evident
holding of the incompatible office.100
purpose was to circumvent the constitutional
prohibition.
A: Even if a member of the Congress is willing to
forfeit his seat therein, he may not be appointed to any Q: Duty to Disclose?
office in the government that has been created or the
emoluments thereof have been increased during his Q: Electoral Tribunals
term. Such a position is forbidden office.
A: Section 17104. The Senate and the House of
Q: Disqualifications. Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal
which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to
A: In Adaza v Pacana, Jr.101, the Petitioner and the the election, returns, and qualifications of their
respondent were elected governor and vice- governor, respective Members. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be
respectively, of Misamis Oriental. Both subsequently composed of nine Members, three of whom shall be
ran for the Batasang Pambansa, but only the petitioner Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by the
won. Adaza then qualified as member of the lawmaking Chief Justice, and the remaining six shall be Members of
body, whereupon Pacana assumed the governorship as the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case
statutory successor. Adaza challenged Pacana’s take may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional
over, contending that under the parliamentary system a representation from the political parties and the parties
legislator could concurrently serve as governor; or organizations registered under the party-list system
represented therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral
99
1987 Constitution of the Philippines, Art. VI. Tribunal shall be its Chairman.
100
Cruz, Isagani (1995). "The Nature of the Constitution".
Constitutional Law. Philippines: Central 102
Lawbook Publishing Co., Inc. p. 127. ISBN 971-16-0333-0. 103
113 SCRA 31 (1982)
101
135 SCRA 431 (1985) 104

A: In Abbas v SET105, the Supreme Court held that it

cannot order the disqualification of the Senators- A: In Pimentel v HRET108, the Supreme Court said that
members of the Electoral Tribunal simply because they even assuming that party-list representatives comprise a
were themselves respondents in the electoral protests, sufficient number and have agreed to designate
considering the specific mandate of the Constitution and nominees to the HRET and the Commission on
inasmuch as all the elected Senators were actually Appointments, their primary recourse clearly rests with
named as respondents. the House of Representatives and not with the Court.
Only if the House fails to comply with the directive of
A: In Bondoc v Pineda106, a different question was the Constitution on proportional representation of
raised, to wit, whether the House of Representatives political parties in the HRET and Commission on
could, at the request of the dominant political party Appointments can the party-list representatives seek
therein, change its representative in the House of recourse from this Court through judicial review. Under
Representatives Electoral Tribunal, presumably “to the doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction, prior
thwart the promulgation of a decision freely reached by recourse to the House is necessary before the petitioners
the Tribunal.” may bring the case to Court.
While acknowledging the independence of the Tribunal Q: Commission on Appointments
as the “sole judge” of election contests involving the
members of the House of Representatives, the Supreme A: Section 18109. There shall be a Commission on
Court assumed jurisdiction, precisely to protect that Appointments consisting of the President of the Senate,
independence. as ex officio Chairman, twelve Senators, and twelve
Members of the House of Representatives, elected by
HRET was created as a non-partisan court. It must be each House on the basis of proportional representation
independent of Congress and devoid of partisan from the political parties and parties or organizations
influence and consideration. “Disloyalty to the party” registered under the party-list system represented
and “breach of party discipline” are not valid grounds therein. The chairman of the Commission shall not vote,
for the expulsion of a member. HRET members enjoy except in case of a tie. The Commission shall act on all
security of tenure; their membership may not be appointments submitted to it within thirty session days
terminated except for a just cause such as the expiration of the Congress from their submission. The Commission
of congressional term, death, resignation from the shall rule by a majority vote of all the Members.
political party, formal affiliation with another party, or
removal for other valid causes. A: In Daza v Singson110, the petitioner questioned his
replacement in the Commission on Appointments,
A: In Codilla v De Venecia107, the Court held that, the insisting his designation thereto as a representative of
Constitution expressly grants to the House of the Liberal Party was permanent and could not be
Representatives the prerogative, within constitutionally withdrawn. For his part, the respondent contended that
defined limits, to choose from its district and party-list he could be validly named in the petitioner’s place in
representatives those who may occupy the seats allotted view of the political realignment in the House of
to the House in HRET and the CA. Thus, petitioner’s Representatives following the organization of the Laban
primary recourse rests with the House of ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP). To which he
Representatives and not with this Court. Under the belonged. Both invoked the earlier case of Cunanan v
doctrine of primary jurisdiction, prior recourse to the Tan111, where the Supreme Court had held that the
House is necessary before petitioners may bring the case political affiliations in the two Houses of Congress
to the court. Sections 17 and 18, Article VI of the should be reflected in their respective representations in
Constitution state that party-list representatives must the Commission on Appointments. The petitioner
first show the House that they possess the required claimed that the formation of the LDP was a merely
numerical strength to be entitled to seats in the HRET temporary development whereas the respondent
and CA. Moreover, facts show, at that time, that party- maintained
list groups merely refrained from participating in the
election process. There was no mention of nominees. 108
G.R. No. 141489, November 29, 2002
109
105
166 SCRA 651 (1988) 110
180 SCRA 496 (1989)
106
201 SCRA 792 (1991) 111
5 SCRA 1
107
G.R. 150605, December 10, 2002
that it had permanently altered the political composition among its members, but these are to be expected in any
of the House of or Representatives. Ruling in favor of political organization, especially if it is democratic in
the respondent, the Supreme Court declared inter alia: structure. In fact even the monolithic Communist Party
in a number of socialist states has undergone similar
The petitioner, to repeat, bases his argument heavily on dissension, and even upheavals. But it surely cannot be
the non-registration of the LDP which, he claims has considered still temporary because of such discord.
not provided the permanent political realignment to
justify the questioned reorganization. As he insists: If the petitioner's argument were to be pursued, the 157
members of the LDP in the House of Representatives
(c) Assuming that the so-called new coalesced majority would have to be denied representation in the
is actually the LDP itself, then the proposed Commission on Appointments and, for that matter, also
reorganization is likewise illegal and ineffectual, the Electoral Tribunal. By the same token, the KBL,
because the LDP, not being a duly registered political which the petitioner says is now "history only," should
party, is not entitled to the "rights and privileges also be written off. The independents also cannot be
granted by law to political parties' (See. 160, BP No. represented because they belong to no political party.
881), and therefore cannot legally claim the right to be That would virtually leave the Liberal Party only with
considered in determining the required proportional all of its seventeen members to claim all the twelve
representation of political parties in the House of seats of the House of Representatives in the
Representatives. Commission on Appointments and the six legislative
seats in the House Electoral Tribunal.
xxx xxx xxx ... the clear constitutional intent behind
Section 18, Article VI, of the 1987 Constitution, is to A: Coseteng v Mitra, Jr.112
give the right of representation in the Commission on
Appointment only to political parties who are duly
A: Guingona v Gonzales113, the Supreme Court held
registered with the Comelec.
that a political party must have at least two elected
On November 23, 1989, however, that argument senators for every seat in the Commission on
boomeranged against the petitioner. On that date, the Appointments. Thus, where there are two or more
Commission on Elections in an en banc resolution political parties represented in the Senate, a political
affirmed the resolution of its First Division dated party/coalition with a single senator in the Senate cannot
August 28, 1989, granting the petition of the LDP for
registration as a political party. This has taken the wind constitutionally claim a seat in the Commission on
out of the sails of the petitioner, so to speak, and he Appointments. It is not mandatory to elect 12 Senators
must now limp to shore as best he can. to the Commission; what the Constitution requires is
that there must be at least a majority of the entire
The petitioner's contention that, even if registered, the membership.
party must still pass the test of time to prove its
permanence is not acceptable. Under this theory, a
registered party obtaining the majority of the seats in A: Section 19114. The Electoral Tribunals and the
the House of Representatives (or the Senate) would still Commission on Appointments shall be constituted
not be entitled to representation in the Commission on within thirty days after the Senate and the House of
Appointments as long as it was organized only recently Representatives shall have been organized with the
and has not yet "aged." The Liberal Party itself would
fall in such a category. That party was created in
election of the President and the Speaker. The
December 1945 by a faction of the Nacionalista Party Commission on Appointments shall meet only while the
that seceded therefrom to support Manuel A. Roxas's Congress is in session, at the call of its Chairman or a
bid for the Presidency of the Philippines in the election majority of all its Members, to discharge such powers
held on April 23, 1946. The Liberal Party won. At that and functions as are herein conferred upon it.
time it was only four months old. Yet no question was
raised as to its right to be represented in the
Commission on Appointments and in the Electoral
Tribunals by virtue of its status as the majority party in Q: Powers of Congress
both chambers of the Congress.
Q: General Plenary Powers
The LDP has been in existence for more than one year
now. It now has 157 members in the House of
Representatives and 6 members in the Senate. Its titular A: General (plenary) legislative power (Sec.1, Art. VI).
head is no less than the President of the Philippines and Legislative power is the power to propose, enact, amend
its President is Senator Neptali A. Gonzales, who took and repeal laws.
over recently from Speaker Ramon V. Mitra. It is true
that there have been, and there still are, some
internal disagreements
112
187 SCRA 377 (1990)
113
214 SCRA 789 (1992)
114

Q: What are the limitations on the legislative from Cotabato, filed an action to declare the act
power? unconstitutional.
A: 1. Substantive limitations A: In Cruz v Paras117,
 Express A: In Tobias v Abalos118, provision providing for a
o Bill or rights (Art.III) separate legislative district is germane to the subject of
o On appropriations [Secs. 25 and 29 (1) and the bill creating the City of Mandaluyong
(2), Art. VI]
o On taxation [Secs. 28 and 29 (3), Art. Q: Requirements as to certain laws,
VI; Sec. 4 (3), Art. XIV]
o On constitutional appellate jurisdiction of Q: Define Appropriation law.
the Supreme Court [Sec. 30, Art. VI]
o No law granting a title of royalty or A: A statute the primary and specific purpose of which
nobility shall be passed [Sec. 31, Art. VI] is to authorize the release of public funds from the
Treasury.
 Implied
o Non- delegation of powers; and Q: What are the classifications of appropriation
o Prohibition against the passage of law?
irrepealable laws.
A: There are two classifications of appropriation law
2. Procedural limitations and they are:
 Only one subject 1. General appropriation law; passed by

 Three readings on separate days annually, intended to provide for the financial
operations of the entire government during one
fiscal period.
Q: Discuss Legislative Process
2. Special appropriation law; designed for a
A: Requirements as to bills, As to titles of bills specific purpose.
A: In Tio vs. Videogram Regulatory Board115, in the Q: What are the implied (extra-constitutional)
case at bar, imposition of tax is sufficiently related to the limitations on appropriation measures?
regulation of video industry where the title is
comprehensive enough to include such subject A: The following are implied (extra-constitutional)
(taxation) related to the general purpose (creation of limitations on appropriation measures:
Videogram Board)
1. Appropriation must be devoted to a
A: In Lidasan v COMELEC116, the Court ruled that the public purpose.
title of RA 4790 is misleading as it does not say that part
of the territory of the province of Cotabato is being 2. The sum authorized to be released must be
transferred to Lanao del Sur. The subject of a bill should determinate, or at least determinable.
be expressed in the title. When part of a statute is held
unconstitutional and the remainder valid, the parts will Q: What are the Constitutional limitations on
be separated and the constitutional portion upheld. But special appropriation measures?
when the parts are mutually dependent and not
separable, the entire statute must be void. A: The following are Constitutional limitations on
special appropriation measures:
In this case, RA 4790, creating the municipality of
Dianaton in the province of Lanao del Sur, included as 1. Must specify the public purpose for
part of the new municipality a total of 12 barrios from which the sum is intended.
the neighboring province of Cotabato. Petitioner, a
resident of one of the barrios taken 2. Must be supported by funds actually
available as certified to by the National
Treasurer, or to be raised by a
115
151 SCRA 208 117
123 SCRA 106 (1994)
116
21 SCRA 479 (1967) 118
239 SCRA 106 (1994)
corresponding revenue proposal included legislative parameters provided in the decrees x x x the
therein. [Sec. 25 (4), Art. VI] mandate is to pay the principal, interest, taxes, and other
normal banking charges x x x when they shall become
Q: What are the rules on general appropriations
due. No uncertainty arises in executive implementation
measures?
as the limit will be the exact amounts as shown by the
books in the Treasury.
A: Sec. 25, Art. VI
A: In Philconsa v Enriquez121, on the issue whether
1. Congress may not increase the appropriations the power given to the members of Congress (under the
recommended by the President for the operation of the
1994 GAA) to propose and identify the projects to be
Government as specified in the budget. funded by the Countrywide Development Fund was an
encroachment by the legislature on executive power, the
2. The form, content and manner of preparation of the
Supreme Court stated: The spending power, called the
budget shall be prescribed by law.
“power of the purse” belongs to the Congress, subject
only to the veto power of the President. While it is the
3. No provision or enactment shall be embraced unless
President who proposes the budget, still, the final say on
it relates specifically to some particular appropriation
the matter of appropriations is lodged in Congress. The
therein. Any such provision or enactment shall be
power of appropriation carries with it the power to
limited in its operation to the appropriation to which it
specify the project or activity to be funded under the
relates. This is intended to prevent riders, or irrelevant
appropriation law. It can be as detailed and as broad as
provisions included in the bill to ensure its approval.
Congress wants it to be.
4. Procedure for approving appropriations for
Q: Tax laws
Congress shall strictly follow the procedure for
approving appropriations for other departments and
A: In Tolentino v Sec. of Finance122, it was held that
agencies. This is to prevent sub rosa appropriation by RA 7716 (Expanded VAT Law) did not violate Sec. 24,
Congress.
Art. VI of the Constitution. It is important to emphasize
that it is not the law, but the bill, which is required to
5. Prohibition against transfer appropriaitons. [Sec. 25 originate exclusively in the House of Representatives,
(5), Art. VI] because the bill may undergo such extensive changes in
the Senate that the result may be a rewriting of the
6. Prohibition against appropriations for sectarian
whole. As a result of the Senate action, a distinct bill
benefit. [Sec. 29 (2), Art. VI]
may be produced. To insist that a revenue statue, not just
the bill, must be substantially the same as the House bill
7. Automatic reappropriation. [Sec. 25 (7), Art. VI]
would be to deny the Senate’s power not only “to
concur with amendments” but also to “propose
A: In Demetria v Alba119, transfer of appropriations
amendments”. It would violate the coequality of
was declared by the Court to be prohibited. legislative power of the Senate. The Constitution does
not prohibit the filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in
A: In Guingona v Caraque120, the Supreme Court
anticipation of its receipt of the House bill.
upheld the constitutionality of the automatic
appropriation for debt service under the 1990 General
A: Lung Center vs. Q.C., G.R.No. 144104, June 29,
Appropriations Act. According to the Court, the
2004
legislative intent of R.A. 4860, Sec. 31,
P.D. 1177, and P.D. 1967, is the amount needed should
A: In Tan v Del Rosario, 237 SCRA 324 (2000), the
be automatically set aside in order to enable the
three purposes of Sec. 3(1), Art. VI are the following:
Republic of the Philippines to pay the principal, interest,
taxes and other normal banking charges on the loans,
1. to prevent hodge-podge or log-rolling
credit, indebtedness x x x when they become due
legislation
without the need to enact a separate law appropriating
funds therefor as the need arises. x x x although the
decrees do not state the specific amounts to be paid x x
x the amounts nevertheless are made certain by the
119
148 SCRA 208 (1987)
120
196 SCRA 221 (1991) 121
G.R. No. 113105, August 19, 1994
122
G.R. 115455, August 25, 1994

2. to prevent surprise or fraud upon the President cannot veto part of an item in an appropriation
legislature by means of provisions which bill while approving the remaining portion of the item.
might be overlooked Furthermore, the President cannot set aside a judgment
3. to fairly apprise the people of the subjects of the Supreme Court; neither can the veto power be
of legislation
exercised as a means of repealing R.A. 1797. The veto
also impairs the fiscal autonomy of the Judiciary, and
deprives retired justices of the right to a pension vested
A: Garcia vs. Executive Secretary, 211 SCRA 219
under R.A. 1797.
(1992), RIDER – a provision not related to the
appropriation act (is prohibited) A: Miller v Mardo125,
A: John Hay PAC v. Lim, G.R. No. 119775,
Q: Effectivity of Laws.
October 24, 2003
A: Tanada v Tuvera126,
Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
Fabian v. Desierto, G.R. No. 129742, September 16,
A: Executive Order No. 200127
1998
Q: What is Question Hour?
Q: Procedure for the passage of bills
A: Sec. 22, Art. VI provides that, “the heads of
A: In Tolentino v Secretary of Finance, the Supreme
departments may, upon their own initiative, with the
Court declared that the Presidential certification
consent of the President, or upon the request of either
dispensed with the requirement not only of printing and
House, as the rules of each House shall provide, appear
distribution but also that of reading the bill on separate
before and be heard by such House on any matter
days.
pertaining to their departments. Written questions shall
be submitted to the President of the Senate or the
A: In Philconsa v Enriquez123, on the issue of whether
Speaker of the House of Representatives at least three
Special Provision No.2 on the “Use of Funds” in the
days before their scheduled appearance. Interpellations
appropriation for the modernization of the AFP, General
shall not be limited to written questions, but may cover
Appropriations Act of 1994, which requires prior
matters related thereto. “When the security of the State
approval of Congress for the release of corresponding
or the public interest so requires and the President so
modernization funds, is unconstitutional, the Supreme
states in writing, the appearance shall be conducted in
Court did not resolve the issue of legislative veto, but
executive session.”
instead, ruled that any provision blocking an
administrative action in implementing a law or requiring
The objective of which is to obtain information in
legislative approval for executive acts must be
pursuit of Congress’ oversight function.
incorporated in a separate and substantive bill. Thus,
since Special Provision No. 2 is an “inappropriate
Q: What is the power of Legislative
provision, the President properly vetoed the same.
Investigation?
A: In Gonzales v Macaraig, G.R. No. 87636, Nov. 19,
A: Sec. 21, Art. VI states that, “the Senate or the House
1990, the President can veto an item. Doctrine of
of Representatives or any of its respective committees
inappropriate provisions – a provision that is
may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance
constitutionally inappropriate may be singled out for
with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of
veto if it is not an appropriation or revenue item. An
persons appearing in, or affected by, such inquiries shall
inappropriate provision in an appropriations bill is an
be respected.”
item in itself.
When the inquiry in which Congress requires their
appearance is “in aid of legislation” under Sec. 21, the
A: In Bengzon v Drilon , the Supreme Court declared
124
appearance is mandatory. When the Congress exercises
as unconstitutional the veto made by President Aquino
its power of inquiry, the only way for
of appropriations intended for the adjustment of
pensions of retired justices [pursuant to A.M. 91-8-225-
CA] under R.A. 910, as amended by R.A. 1797, as 125
2 SCRA 898 (1961)
this is not an item veto. The 126
136 SCRA 27 (1985)
127
June 18, 1987
123
235 SCRA 506
124
208 SCRA 133 (1992)
department heads to exempt themselves therefrom is by mistakes in the case at bar: (1) invitations to Neri did not
a valid claim of executive privilege. include possible statute; (2) contempt order lacks
required # of votes; (3) Senate did not first rule on the
A: In Armault v Nazareno128, Power of Investigation claim of executive privilege and instead dismissed Neri's
includes power to punish a contumacious witness for
explanation; (4) rules of procedure on inquiries in aid
contempt. Experience has shown that mere requests for of legislation – not duly published.
information are frequently unavailing. “In aid of
legislation” - not difficult to satisfy. Necessity or lack of
necessity for legislative action is determined by the sum 1.
Other Powers:
total of information to be gathered as a result of a. Act as board of canvassers for
investigation, and not by a fraction of such information
presidential election
elicited from single question. It is sufficient that the Pimentel v. Joint Com., G.R.
question is germane to the subject matter of inquiry. 163783, June 22, 2004
There is no need for it to be directly related or connected b. Call a special election for Presidency
to possible legislation. c. Decide on disability of the President
d. Legislative veto or extension for
A: Armault v Balagtas129, habeas corpus or declaration of
martial law
A: In Bengzon v Sen. Blue Ribbon Committee 130, e. Presidential Amnesties
investigation was not in aid of legislation where it f. Concur in treaties
merely aims at determining whether a law is violated. g. Declaration of existence of war
To allow such investigation is to violate separation of h. Delegation of emergency powers
powers. i. Utilization of natural resources
j. Amendments of constitution
A: In Senate v. Ermita131, when Congress merely k. Power of Impeachment
seeks to be informed on how department heads are
implementing the statutes, it is not imperative. The
“oversight function” of Congress may be facilitated by Executive Department
compulsory process only to the extent that it is
performed in pursuit of legislation. Appearance of The President
department heads in question hour is discretionary.
Q: Qualifications.
When Congress exercises its power of inquiry, the only
way for the department heads to exempt themselves A: No person may be elected President unless he is a
therefrom is by a valid claim of privilege. EXECUTIVE natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a registered
PRIVILEGE – privilege based on doctrine of separation voter, able to read and write, at least forty years of age
of powers, exempting executive from disclosure on the day of the election, and a resident of the
requirements where such exemption is necessary to the Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding
discharge of highly important executive responsibilities. such election.134
It covers “categories of information” not of persons.
Q: Election.
A: Sabio v. Gordon132,
A: The President and the Vice-President shall be elected
A: In Neri v Senate , Exception to legislative
133 by direct vote of the people for a term of six years which
inquiry: Executive Privilege (which is extended to all shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June next
close advisors of the President). It is wrong for Senate to following the day of the election and shall end at noon
punish one for contempt where executive privilege is of the same date, six years thereafter. The President
properly invoked. Senate's shall not be eligible for any re-election. No person who
has succeeded as President and has served as such for
more than four years shall be qualified for election to
128
87 Phil. 29 (1950) the same office at any time.
129
97 Phil. 358 (1955)
130
203 SCRA 767 (1991)
131
G.R. No. 169777, April 20, 2006,
132
G.R. No. 174340, October 17, 2006
133
G.R. No. 180643, March 25, 2008, 134
1987 Philippine Constitution, Sec. 2, Art. VII.

No Vice-President shall serve for more than two

successive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office A: Before they enter on the execution of their office,
for any length of time shall not be considered as an the President, the Vice-President, or the Acting
interruption in the continuity of the service for the full President shall take the following oath or affirmation:
term for which he was elected.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election faithfully and conscientiously fulfill my duties
for President and Vice-President shall be held on the as President (or Vice-President or Acting
second Monday of May. President) of the Philippines, preserve and
defend its Constitution, execute its laws, do
The returns of every election for President and Vice- justice to every man, and consecrate myself to
President, duly certified by the board of canvassers of the service of the Nation. So help me God."
each province or city, shall be transmitted to the (In case of affirmation, last sentence will be
Congress, directed to the President of the Senate. Upon omitted.)137
receipt of the certificates of canvass, the President of the
Senate shall, not later than thirty days after the day of Q: Privileges (Official Residence and Salary).
the election, open all the certificates in the presence of
the Senate and the House of Representatives in joint A: The President shall have an official residence. The
public session, and the Congress, upon determination of salaries of the President and Vice-President shall be
the authenticity and due execution thereof in the manner determined by law and shall not be decreased during
provided by law, canvass the votes. their tenure. No increase in said compensation shall take
effect until after the expiration of the term of the
The person having the highest number of votes shall be incumbent during which such increase was approved.
proclaimed elected, but in case two or more shall have They shall not receive during their tenure any other
an equal and highest number of votes, one of them shall emolument from the Government or any other source.
forthwith be chosen by the vote of a majority of all the Sec. 6, Art. VII
Members of both Houses of the Congress, voting
separately. A: In Republic v Sandiganbayan138, the Court noted
that the total accumulated salaries of the Marcos couple
amounted to P2, 319,583.33 which, when converted to
The Congress shall promulgate its rules for the dollars at the exchange rate then prevailing would have
canvassing of the certificates. an equivalent value of
$304, 372.43. This sum should be held as the only
The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole known lawful income of the respondents Marcos since
judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and they did not file any Statement of Assets and Liabilities,
qualifications of the President or Vice- President, and as required by law, from which their net worth could be
may promulgate its rules for the purpose.135 determined. Besides, under the 1935 Constitution,
Ferdinand Marcos, as President could not receive “any
Q: Term. other emolument from the government or any of its
subdivisions and instrumentalities”, and under the 1973
A: Six (6) years. No re-election; and no person who has Constitution, could not “receive during his tenure any
succeeded as President and has served for more than other emolument from the Government or any other
four years shall be qualified for election to the same source”. In fact, his management of businesses, like the
office at any time. administration of foundations to accumulate funds, was
expressly prohibited under the 1973 Constitution.
The six-year term of the incumbent President and Vice-
President elected in the February 7, 1986 election is, for Q: Rule on Succession.
purposes of synchronization of elections, hereby
extended to noon of June 30, 1992.136 A: In case of vacancy at the beginning of the term.
Q: Oath of office.
135
1987 Philippine Constitution, Sec. 4, Art. VII. 137
136
1987 Philippine Constitution, Sec. 5, Art. XVIII 138
G.R. No. 152154, July 15, 2003
(1) Death or permanent disability of the shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting
President-elect: Vice President-elect shall President.
become President.
A: When a majority of all the members of the Cabinet
(2) President-elect fails to qualify: Vice transmit to the Senate President and the Speaker their
President-elect shall act as President until the written declaration that the President is unable to
President-elect shall have qualified. discharge the powers and duties if his office, the Vice
President shall immediately assume the powers and
(3) President shall not have been chosen: Vice duties of the office as Acting President. x x x Thereafter,
President-elect shall act as President until a when the President transmits to the Senate President and
President shall have been chosen and qualified. Speaker his written declaration that no inability exists,
he shall reassume the powers and duties of his office.
(4) No President and Vice President chosen Meanwhile, should a majority of the Members of the
nor shall have qualified, or both shall have Cabinet transmit within 5 days to the Senate President
died or become permanently disabled: The and Speaker their written declaration that the President
President of the Senate or, in case of his is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his
inability, the Speaker of the House of office, Congress shall decide the issue. For this purpose,
Representatives shall act as President until a Congress shall convene, if not in session, within 48
President or a Vice President shall have been hours. And if, within 10 days from receipt of the last
chosen and qualified. In the event of inability written declaration or, if not in session, within 12 days
of the officials mentioned, Congress shall, by after it is required to assemble, the Congress determines
law, provide for the manner in which one who by a 2/3 vote of both Houses, voting separately, that the
is to act as President shall be selected until a President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of
President or Vice President shall have his office, the Vice President shall act as President;
qualified. otherwise, the President shall continue exercising the
powers and duties of his office.
A: In case of vacancy during term
A: In Estrada v Arroyo139, the Supreme Court declared
(1) Death, permanent disability, removal from that the resignation of President Estrada could not be
office, or resignation of the President: Vice
doubted as confirmed by his leaving Malacañang. In the
President shall become the President.
press release containing his final statement:
(2) No President and Vice President chosen
nor shall have qualified, or both shall have
1. he acknowledged the oath-taking of the
died or become permanently disabled: The
respondent as President;
President of the Senate or, in case of his
2. he emphasized he was leaving the palace for
inability, the Speaker of the House of
the sake of peace and in order to begin the
Representatives shall act as President until a
healing process (he did not say that he was
President or a Vice President shall have been
leaving due to any kind of disability and that
chosen and qualified. In the event of inability
he was going to reassume the Presidency as
of the officials mentioned, Congress shall, by
soon as the disability disappears);
law, provide for the manner in which one who
3. he expressed his gratitude to the people for the
is to act as President shall be selected until a
opportunity to serve them as President
President or Vice President shall have
(without doubt referring to the past
qualified.
opportunity);
4. he assured that he will not shirk from any
Q: In case of temporary disability
future challenge that may come in the same
service of the country; and
A: When the President transmits to the Senate President
5. he called on his supporters to join him in the
and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his
promotion of a constructive national spirit of
written declaration that he is unable to discharge the
reconciliation and solidarity.
powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to
them a written declaration to the contrary: such poers
and duties
139
G.R. No. 146738, March 02, 2001

The Court declared that the elements of a valid Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall
resignation are: forthwith proceed.
5. No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated
1. intent to resign; and against the same official more than once
2. act of relinquishment.
within a period of one year.
6. The Senate shall have the sole power to try and
Both were present when President Estrada left the decide all cases of impeachment. When sitting
Palace. for that purpose, the Senators shall be on oath
or affirmation. When the President of the
Q: Removal. Philippines is on trial, the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court shall preside, but shall not
A: By impeachment. The President, the Vice- President,
vote. No person shall be convicted without the
the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the
concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members
Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may
of the Senate.
be removed from office on impeachment for, and
7. Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not
conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution,
extend further than removal from office and
treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes,
disqualification to hold any office under the
or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and
Republic of the Philippines, but the party
employees may be removed from office as provided by
convicted shall nevertheless be liable and
law, but not by impeachment.140
subject to prosecution, trial, and punishment,
according to law.
Furthermore, Section 3, Article XI of the
8. The Congress shall promulgate its rules on
Constitution states that:
impeachment to effectively carry out the
purpose of this section.
1. The House of Representatives shall have the
exclusive power to initiate all cases of
impeachment. Q: Prohibitions
2. A verified complaint for impeachment may be
filed by any Member of the House of Q: Exceptions to prohibition from holding another
Representatives or by any citizen upon a
office:
resolution or endorsement by any Member
thereof, which shall be included in the Order of Q: Vice-President as member of the cabinet
Business within ten session days, and referred
to the proper Committee within three session A: The Vice President may be appointed as Member of
days thereafter. The Committee, after hearing, the Cabinet.
and by a majority vote of all its Members,
shall submit its report to the House within Q: Sec. of Justice as member of Judicial and
sixty session days from such referral, together Bar Council
with the corresponding resolution. The
resolution shall be calendared for consideration A: In Civil Liberties Union v Executive Secretary141,
by the House within ten session days from the Supreme Court declared as unconstitutional
receipt thereof. Executive Order No. 284 which allowed cabinet
3. A vote of at least one-third of all the Members members to hold two offices in government, in direct
of the House shall be necessary either to affirm contravention of Sec. 13, Art. VII. The prohibition on
a favorable resolution with the Articles of the President and his official family is all-embracing and
Impeachment of the Committee, or override its covers both public and private office employment, not
contrary resolution. The vote of each Member being qualified by the phrase “in the Government” x x x
shall be recorded. This is proof of the intent of the Constitution to treat
4. In case the verified complaint or resolution of them as a class by itself and to impose upon said class
impeachment is filed by at least one- third of stricter prohibitions.
all the Members of the House, the same shall
constitute the Articles of
A: In Cruz v COA142,
141
194 SCRA 317 (1991)
140
1987 Philippine Constitution, Sec. 2, Art. XI. 142
G.R. No. 138489, Nov. 29, 2001
A: In National Amnesty Commission v COA143, the is presumed to be the act of the President because the
prohibition on the President, to hold any other office or latter had not expressly repudiated the same.
employment, declared in CLU case must not, however,
be construed as applying to posts occupied by the The alter-ego principle is also known as the doctrine of
Executive officials without additional compensation in qualified political agency. Under this doctrine which
an ex-officio capacity, as provided by law and as recognizes the establishment of a single executive, all
required by the primary functions of the said officials’ executives and administrative organizations are adjuncts
office. The reason is that these posts do not comprise of the Executive Department, the heads of the various
“any other office” within the contemplation of the executive departments are assistants and agents of the
constitutional prohibition, but properly an imposition of Chief Executive, and except in cases where the Chief
additional duties and functions on said officials. To Executive is required by the Constitution or law to act in
illustrate, the Secretary of Transportation and person or the exigencies of the situation demand that he
Communications is the ex -officio Chairman of the act personally, the multifarious executive and
Board of the Philippine Ports Authority and the Light administrative functions of the Chief Executive are
Rail Transit Authority. The ex-officio position being performed by and through the executive departments,
actually and in legal contemplation part of the principal and the acts of the Secretaries of such departments
office, it follows that the official concerned has no right performed and promulgated in the regular course of
to receive additional compensation for his services in business are, unless disapproved or repudiated by the
said position. The reason is that these services are Chief Executive, presumptively the acts of the Chief
already paid for and covered by the compensation Executive.
attached to the principal office.
Q: Powers and Functions of the President. Q: Control of executive departments

Q: Executive Power. A: Sec. 17, Art. VII states that “the President shall have
control of all the executive departments, bureaus and
A: The executive power shall be vested in the President offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully
of the Philippines.144 The President shall have control of executed.
all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He
shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.145 A: Control is the power of an officer to alter or modify
or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had
A: In Marcos v Manglapus146, the Court referred to done in the performance of his duties and to substitute
the RESIDUAL powers of the President as the Chief the judgment of the former for that of the latter.148
Executive of the country, which powers include others
not set forth in the Constitution. EXAMPLE: The
President is immune from suit and criminal prosecution A: In Blaquera v Alcala149, R.A. No. 6791 was enacted
while he is in office. Such is not limited to those set pursuant to E.O. No. 292 or the Admin. Code of 1987
forth in the constitution. provided for productivity incentives to some employees
of certain GOCCs. A number of employees were given
A: In DENR v DENR Region 12 Employees 147, such incentives but a deduction was made from their
applying the doctrine of alter-ego, the power of the salaries, as a refund, by the President because said
President to reorganize the National Government may incentives were given by their departments without his
validly be delegated to his Cabinet Members exercising consent as required by the R.A. No. 6791.
control over a particular executive department.
Accordingly, in this case, the DENR Secretary can The Court upheld the constitutionality of the refund. It
validly reorganize the DENR by ordering the transfer of was further ruled that the President has Control over all
the DENR XII Regional Offices from Cotabato City to Government agencies and GOCCs. The power of
Koronadal, South Cotabato. The exercise of this President as head of government includes control which
authority by the DENR Secretary, as an alter ego of the means the power to alter what a subordinate officer had
President, done in the performance of his duties and to substitute
the judgment of the former for that of the latter.
143
G.R. 156982, September 8, 2004
144
Mondano v Silvosa
145
G.R. 109406, September 11, 1998
146
178 SCRA 760 (1989)
147
G.R. No. 149725, August 19, 2003

other officers lower in rank in the President alone, in the

A: In Hutchinson Ports Phils. Ltd. v SBMA 150, it courts, or in the heads of departments, agencies,
was discussed that the Subic Bay Metropolitan commissions, or boards. The President shall have the
Authority (SBMA) is under the control of the office of power to make appointments during the recess of the
the President, All projects undertaken by SBMA Congress, whether voluntary or compulsory, but such
involving P2-million or above require the approval of appointments shall be effective only until disapproved
the President of the Philippines under LOI 620. by the Commission on Appointments or until the next
adjournment of the Congress.153
A: In NEA v COA151, the Court ruled that NEA is under
the control of the President of the Philippines and is thus Q: What is Appointment?
required to abide by the directives and orders of the
latter. Executive officials who are subordinate to the A: It is the selection by the authority vested with the
President should not trifle with the President’s power, of an individual who is to exercise the functions
constitutional power of control over the executive of a given office. It is distinguished from designation
branch. There is only one chief executive who directs in that the latter simply means the imposition of
and controls the entire executive branch, and all other additional duties, usually by law, o a person already in
executive officials must implement in good faith his the public service. It is also different from the
directives and orders. This is necessary to provide order, commission in that the latter is the written evidence of
efficiency and coherence in carrying out the plans, the appointment.
policies and programs of the executive branch.
Q: What are the classifications of
NEA’s act of not implementing the salary increases in Appointment?
accordance with the schedule of payment specified in
E.O. No. 389 and NBC No. 458 cannot therefore be A: Permanent or Temporary. Permanent
countenanced.
A: Bermudez v Torres154,
Q: General supervision over local
governments/ autonomous regions A: In Sarmiento v Mison155, the Supreme Court
declared that the foregoing are the only categories of
A: In Pimentel v Aguirre152, the Supreme Court held appointments which require confirmation by the
that Sec. 4, Administrative Order No. 327, which Commission on Elections. In this case, it was held that
withholds 5% of the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) the appointment of Salvador Mison as Commissioner of
of local government units, is unconstitutional, because Customs needs no confirmation by the Commission on
the President’s power over local governments is only Appointments, because the Commissioner of the
one of general supervision, and not one of control. A Customs is not among the officers mentioned in the first
basic feature of local fiscal autonomy is the automatic sentence, Sec. 16, Art. VII.
release of LGU shares in the national internal revenue.
This is mandated by no less than the Consitution. A: In Concepcion-Bautista v Salonga156, the
Supreme Court held that the appointment of the
Q: Power of Appointment. Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights is not
otherwise provided for in the Constitution or in the law.
A: The President shall nominate and, with the consent Thus, there is no necessity for such appointment to be
of the Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads passed upon by the Commission on Appointments.
of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls, or officers of the armed forces A: In Calderon v Carale157, Article 254 of the Labor
from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other Code, as amended by R.A. No. 6715, insofar as it
officers whose appointments are vested in him in this requires confirmation by the Commission on
Constitution. He shall also appoint all other officers of Appointments of the appointment of the NLRC
the Government whose appointments are not otherwise Chairman and commissioners, is unconstitutional,
provided for by law, and those whom he may be because it violates Sec. 16, Art. VII.
authorized by law to appoint. The Congress may, by
law, vest the appointment of 153
154
G.R. No. 131429, August 4, 1999
150
G.R. No. 131367, August 31, 2000 155
156 SCRA 549 (1987)
151
377 SCRA 233 (2002) 156
172 SCRA 160 (1989)
152
G.R. 132988, July 19, 2000 157
G.R. No. 91636, April 23, 1992
A: In Manalo v Sistoza158, the Supreme Court said that A: In re Valenzuela161, it was discussed that during this
Congress cannot, by law, require the confirmation of period, the President is neither required to make
appointments of government officials other than those appointments to the courts nor allowed to do so.
enumerated in the first sentence of Sec. 16, Art. VII. Sections 4 (1) and 9 of Article VIII simply mean that the
President is required by law to fill up vacancies in the
A: In Soriano v Lista159, the Supreme Court said that courts within the time frames provided therein, unless
because the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) is no longer otherwise prohibited by Sec. 15, Art. VII. While filling
part of the Philippine Navy or the Armed Forces of the up of vacancies in the judiciary is undoubtedly in the
Philippines, but is now under the Department of public interest, there is no showing in this case of any
Transportation and Communications (DOTC), a civilian compelling reason to justify the making of the
agency, the promotion and appointment of respondent appointments during the period of the ban.
officers of the PCG will not require confirmation by the
commission on appointments. Obviously, the clause A: In De Rama v CA162, the Supreme Court ruled that
“officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or this provision applies only to presidential appointments.
naval captain” refers to military officers alone. There is no law that prohibits local executive officials
from making appointments during the last days of their
A: In Pimental v Ermita160, the power to appoint is tenure.
essentially executive in nature and the legislative may
not interfere with the exercise of this executive power A: In Matibag v Benipayo163, the Court held that it is a
except in those instances when the Constitution permanent appointment because it takes effect
expressly allows it to interfere. immediately and can no longer be withdrawn by the
President once the appointee has qualified into office.
In this instant case, several Senators, including members The fact that it is subject to confirmation by the
of the Commission on Appointments questioned the Commission on Appointments does not alter its
constitutionality of the appointments issued by the permanent character.
President to respondents as Acting Secretaries of their
respective departments, and to prohibit them from An ad interim appointment can be terminated for two
performing the duties of Department Secretaries. In causes specified in the Constitution: disapproval of the
denying the petition, the Supreme Court said that the appointment by the Commission on Appointments, or
essence of an appointment in an acting capacity is its adjournment by Congress without the Commission on
temporary nature. In case of vacancy in an office Appointments acting on the appointment. There is no
occupied by an alter ego of the President, such as the dispute that when the Commission on Appointments
office of Department Secretary, the President must disapproves an ad interim appointment, the appointee
necessarily appoint the alter ego of her choice as Acting can no longer be extended a new appointment, inasmuch
Secretary before the permanent appointee of her choice as the disapproval is a final decision of the Commission
could assume office. Congress, through a law, cannot in the exercise of its checking power on the appointing
impose on the President the obligation to appoint authority of the President. Such disapproval is final and
automatically the undersecretary as her temporary alter binding on both the appointee and the appointing power.
ego. An alter ego, whether temporary or permanent, But when an ad interim appointment is by-passed
holds a position of great trust and confidence. Acting because of lack of time or failure of the Commission on
appointments are a way of temporarily filling important Appointments to organize, there is no final decision by
offices but, if abused, they can also be a way of the Commission to give or withhold its consent to the
circumventing the need for confirmation by the appointment. Absent such decision, the President is free
Commission on Appointments. However, we find no to renew the ad interim appointment.
abuse in the present case. The absence of abuse is
readily apparent from President Arroyo’s issuance of an A: Larin v Executive Secretary164,
ad interim appointment to respondents immediately
upon the recess of Congress, way before the lapse of one Q: Executive Clemency
year.
158
G.R. No. 107369, August 11, 1999
159
G.R. No. 153881, March 24, 2003
161
A.M. No. 98-5-01-SC, Nov. 9, 1998
160
G.R. No. 164978, October 13, 2005
162
G.R. No. 131136, February 28, 2001
163
G.R. No. 149036, April 02, 2002
164
G.R. 112745, October 16, 1997

A: Barrioquinto v Fernandez165, lawless violence, rebellion or invasion, he necessarily

exercises a discretionary power solely vested in his
A: Vera v People , 166
wisdom. The Court cannot overrule the President’s
discretion or substitute its own. The only criterion is that
A: Cristobal v Labarador167, “whenever it becomes necessary”, the President may
call out the armed forces. In the exercise of the power,
A: Pelobello v Palatino168, on-the-spot decisions may be necessary in emergency
situations to avert great loss of human lives and mass
A: In Re Lontok169, destruction of property. Indeed, the decision to call out
the armed forces must be done swiftly and decisively if
A: In Torres v Gonzales170, on conditional pardon the it were to have any effect at all.
rule is reiterated in In re: Petition for Habeas Corpus of
Wilfredo S. Sumulong, that a conditional pardon is in A: In Sanlakas v Executive Secretary173,
the nature of a contract between the Chief Executive and
the convicted criminal; by the pardonee’s consent to the A: In Aquino v Enrile174,
terms stipulated in the contract, the pardonee has placed
himself under the supervision of the Chief Executive or A: In Olaguer v Military Commission No.34175, it was
his delegate who is duty bound to see to it that the held that military tribunals cannot try civilians when
pardonee complies with the conditions of the pardon. civil courts are open and functioning.
Sec. 64(i), Revised Administrative Code, authorizes the
President to order the arrest and re- incarceration of such A: In Navales v Abaya176, the Supreme Court said that
person who, in his judgement, shall fail to comply with in enacting R.A. No. 7055, lawmakers merely intended
the conditions of the pardon. And the exercise of this to return to the civilian courts jurisdiction over those
Presidential judgment is beyond judicial scrutiny. offenses that have been traditionally within their
jurisdiction, but did not divest the military courts
Q: Commander-in-Chief jurisdiction over cases mandated by the Articles of War.
Thus, the RTC cannot divest the General Court Martial
A: The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of of jurisdiction over those charged with violations of Art.
all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it 63 (Disrespect Toward the President), 64 (Disrespect
becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces Toward Superior Officer), 67 (Mutiny or Sedition), 96
to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or (Conduct unbecoming an Officer and a Gentleman) and
rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the 97 (General Articles) of the Articles of War, as these are
public safety requires it, he may, for a period not specifically include as “service- connected offenses or
exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ crimes” under Sec. 1, R.A. 7055.
of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part
thereof under martial law. x x x.171 A: In Lansang v Garcia177,
A: In Integrated Bar of the Philippines v Zamora172, A: In Re: De Villa178,
the Court declared that the factual necessity of calling
out the armed forces is something that is for the A: In David v Arroyo179, the Supreme Court said that
President to decide, but the Court may look into the the petitioners failed to prove that President Arroyo’s
factual basis of the declaration to determine if it was exercise of the calling- out power, by issuing
done with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack Presidential Proclamation No. 1017, is totally bereft of
of jurisdiction. factual basis. The Court noted the Solicitor General’s
Consolidated Comment and Memorandum showing a
The Supreme Court also said that when the President detailed narration of the events leading to the issuance
calls out the armed forces to suppress of PP 1017, with supporting reports forming part of the
record. Thus,
165
G.R. L-1278, January 21, 1949
166
7 SCRA 152 (1963)
167
71 Phil. 34 (1941)
173
G.R. No. 159085, Feb. 02, 2004
168
72 Phil. 441 (1941)
174
59 SCRA 183 (1974)
169
43 Phil.293 (1923)
175
150 SCRA 144 (1987)
170
152 SCRA 273 (1987)
176
G.R. No. 162318, October 25, 2004
171
177
42 SCRA 448 (1971)
1987 Philippine Constitution, Sec.18, Art. VII. 178
G.R. No. 158802, November 17, 2004
172
G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000 179
G.R. No. 171390, May 03, 2006
absent any contrary allegations, the Court is convinced less temporary nature take the form of
that the President was justified in issuing PP 1017, executive agreements; and
calling for military aid. Indeed, judging from the
seriousness of the incidents, President Arroyo was not 2. In treaties, formal documents require
expected to simply fold her arms and do nothing to ratification, while executive agreements
prevent or suppress what she believed was lawless become binding through executive action.
violence, invasion or rebellion.
A: In Go Tek v Deportation Board185,
Q: Emergency Powers
Q: Legislation
Q: Contracting and guaranteeing foreign loans
Q: Address Congress
A: In Constantino v Cuisia180,
A: The President shall address the Congress at the
Q: Foreign Affairs opening of its regular session. He may also appear
before it at any other time.186
A: The President may contract or guarantee foreign
loans on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines with Q: Preparation and submission of the budget
the prior concurrence of the Monetary Board, and
subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. A: The President shall submit to the Congress, within
The Monetary Board shall, within thirty days from the thirty days from the opening of every regular session as
end of every quarter of the calendar year, submit to the the basis of the general appropriations bill, a budget of
Congress a complete report of its decision on expenditures and sources of financing, including
applications for loans to be contracted or guaranteed by receipts from existing and proposed revenue
the Government or government- owned and controlled measures.187
corporations which would have the effect of increasing
the foreign debt, and containing other matters as may be Q: Veto-Power
provided by law.181
Q: Emergency Powers
A: No treaty or international agreement shall be valid
and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds Q: Immunity from suit
of all the Members of the Senate.182
A: In Beltran v Macasiar188, the Court held that the
A: In People’s Movement for Press Freedom, et al. privilege of immunity from suit pertains to the President
v Hon. Raul Manglapus183, by virtue of the office and may be invoked only by the
holder of the office; not by any other person in the
A: In Commissioner of Customs v Eastern Sea President’s behalf. The choice of whether to exercise the
Trading184, the Supreme Court distinguished treaties privilege or to waive is solely the President’s
from executive agreements, thus: prerogative. It is a decision that cannot be assumed and
imposed by any other person. Furthermore, there is
1. international agreements which involve nothing in our laws that would prevent the President
political issues or changes of national policy from waiving the privilege.
and those involving international arrangements
of a permanent character take the form of a A: In Gloria v CA189, the Court said that even if he is
treaty; while international agreements an alter- ego of the President, the DECS Secretary
involving adjustment of details carrying out cannot invoke the President’s immunity from suit in a
well established national policies and traditions case filed against him, inasmuch as the questioned acts
and involving arrangements of a more or are not those of the President.
Vice-President
180
G.R. No. 106064, October 13, 2005. 185
79 SCRA 17 (1977)
181
1987 Philippine Constitution, Sec.23, Art. VII.
182
1987 Philippine Constitution, Sec.22, Art. VII.
183
G.R. No. 84642, En Banc Resolution dated April 13, 1988 188
G.R. 82585, Nov. 14, 1988.
184
3 SCRA 351 (1961) 189
G.R. No. 119903, August 15, 2000.

Q: Qualifications, election, term, oath and excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
removal. instrumentality of the Government.191
A: The same as the President (Sec.3, Art.VII), but no Q: Where Judicial Power is vested?
Vice President shall serve for more than 2 successive
terms. A: The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme
Court and in such lower courts as may be established by
Q: Privileges and Salary law.192
Q: Prohibitions Q: Constitutional Safeguards to insure the
independence of the Judiciary.
Q: Succession
A: The following insures the independence of the
Q: Pardoning Power Judiciary:
A: Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise 1. The Supreme Court is a constitutional body it
provided in this Constitution, the President may grant may not be abolished by the legislature.
reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit fines 2. The members of the Supreme Court are
and forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment. He removable only by impeachment.
shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the 3. The Supreme Court may not be deprived of its
concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the minimum original and appellate jurisdiction;
Congress.190 appellate jurisdiction may not be increased
without its advice and concurrence.
1. Pardon is an act of grace which exempts the 4. The Supreme Court has administrative
individual on whom it is bestowed from the supervision over all inferior courts and
punishment that the law inflicts for the crime personnel.
he has committed. 5. The Supreme Court has the exclusive power to
discipline judges/justices of inferior courts.
2. Commutation is the reduction or mitigation of 6. The members of the Judiciary have security of
the penalty. tenure.
7. The members of the Judiciary may not be
3. Reprieve is the postponement of a sentence or designated to any agency performing quasi-
stay of execution. judicial or administrative functions.
8. Salaries of judges may not be reduced; the
4. Parole is the release from imprisonment but Judiciary enjoys fiscal autonomy.
without full restoration of liberty, as parolee is
still in the custody of the law although not in
confinement. Q: The Supreme Court
5. Amnesty is an act of grace, concurred in by Q: Composition and Mode of Sitting

the legislature, usually extended to groups of
persons who committed political offenses, A: A Chief Justice and 14 Associate Justices. It may sit
which puts into oblivion the offense itself. en banc or its discretion, in divisions of three, five or
seven members. Any vacancy shall be filled within
ninety (90) days from occurrence thereof.193
Judicial Department
A: En Banc: All cases involving the constitutionality of
Q: The Judicial Power a treaty, international or executive agreement, or law;
and all other cases which, under the Rules of Court, are
A: Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of to be heard en banc, including those involving the
justice to settle actual controversies involving rights constitutionality, application or
which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to
determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or
191
1987 Philippine Constitution, Sec.1,(2), Art. VIII.
192
193
190
1987 Philippine Constitution, Sec.19, Art.VII. 1987 Philippine Constitution, Sec.4 (1), Art.VIII
operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, Q: Procedure for Appointment

instructions, ordinances and other regulations. These
cases are decided with the concurrence of a majority of A: Appointed by the President of the Philippines from
the members who actually took part in the deliberation among a list of at least three nominees prepared by the
on the issues and voted thereon. Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy; the
appointment shall need no confirmation.198
A: Division: Other cases or matters may be heard in
division, and decided or resolved with the concurrence A: Any vacancy in the Supreme Court shall be filled
of a majority of the members who actually took part in within ninety (90) days from the occurrence thereof.199
the deliberations on the issue and voted thereon, but in
no case without the concurrence of at least three (3) A: For lower courts, the President shall issue the
such members. appointment within ninety (90) days from the
submission by the JBC of such list.200
However, when the required number is not obtained, the
case shall be decided en banc. Q: No non-judicial work for judges
Moreover, no doctrine or principle of law laid down by A: The Members of the Supreme Court and of other
the court in a decision rendered en banc or in division courts established by law shall not be designated to any
may be modified or reversed except by the court sitting agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative
en banc. function.201
Q: Mode of Sitting A: In Meralco v Pasay Trans. Co.202,
A: In MMDA v Jancom194, A: In Garcia v Macaraig203,
A: In People v Gacott195, it was held that the first Q: Salary
clause in the said section is a declaration of the grant of
the disciplinary power to, and the determination of the A: In Nitafan v Commissioner (Tan) Of Internal
procedure in the exercise thereof by, the Court en banc. Revenue204, it was held that imposition of income tax
It did not intend that all administrative disciplinary cases on salaries of judges does not violate the constitutional
should be heard and decided by the whole Court. The prohibition against decrease in salaries.
second clause, intentionally separated from the first by a
comma, declared that the Court en banc may “order Q: Tenure
their dismissal by a vote of a majority”. Thus, only cases
involving dismissal of judges of lower courts are A: Supreme Court: Justices may be removed only by
specifically required to be decided by the Court en impeachment.205
banc.
Q: Removal
Q: Appointments to the Judiciary
A: In Re: First Indorsement from Hon. Raul M.
Q: Qualifications Gonzales206, the Supreme Court said that the Special
Prosecutor (Tanodbayan) is without authority to conduct
A: Of proven competence, integrity, probity and an investigation on charges against a member of the
independence.196 Supreme Court with the end view of filing a criminal
information against him with the Sandiganbayan. This
Q: Qualifications for Supreme Court is so, because if
A: Natural born citizen of the Philippines, at least 40 198
1987 Philippine Constitution, Sec.9, Art.VIII
years of age, for 15 years or more a judge of a lower 199
1987 Philippine Constitution, Sec.4 (1), Art.VIII
court or engaged in the practice of law in the 200
Philippines.197 201
202
57 Phil. 600 (1932)
203
3 SCRA 106 (1971)
204
152 SCRA 284 (1987)
194
G.R. 147465, April 10, 2002. 205
1987 Philippine Constitution, Sec. 2, Art. XI.
195
G.R. No. 116049, July 13, 1995 206
A.M. No. 88-4-5433, April 15, 1988/ 160 SCRA 771
196
1987 Philippine Constitution, Sec.7,(3), Art. VIII. (1988)
197

convicted in the criminal case, the Justice would be A: In Santiago v Bautista209, it was held that the courts
removed, and such removal would violate his security of may not exercise judicial power when there is no
tenure. applicable law.
Q: Fiscal autonomy Hence, an award of honors to a student by a board of
teachers may not be reversed by a court where the
A: The Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. awards are governed by no applicable law.
Appropriations for the Judiciary may not be reduced by
the legislature below the amount appropriated for the
previous year and, after approval, shall be automatically A: In Felipe v Leuterio210,
and regularly released.207
Q: Deliberations
Q: Jurisdiction
A: The conclusions of the Supreme Court in any case
A: Original jurisdiction: over cases affecting submitted to it for the decision en banc or in division
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and shall be reached in consultation before the case the case
over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo assigned to a Member for the writing of the opinion of
warranto and habeas corpus. the Court. A certification to this effect signed by the
Chief Justice shall be issued and a copy thereof attached
Appellate jurisdiction: Review, revise, reverse, modify, to the record of the case and served upon the parties.
or affirm on appeal or certiorari as the law or Rules of Any Member who took no part, or dissented, or
Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower abstained from a decision or resolution must state the
courts in: reason therefor. The same requirements shall be
observed by all lower collegiate court.211
1. In all cases in which the
constitutionality or validity of any
A: Conclusions in any case submitted to it for decision
treaty, international or executive
shall be reached in consultation before the case is
agreement, law, presidential decree,
assigned to a member for the writing of the opinion of
proclamation, order, instruction,
the Court. A certification to this effect signed by the
ordinance or regulation is in
Chief Justice shall be issued. This requirement is
question;
applicable also to lower collegiate courts.
2. All cases involving the legality of
However, this does requirement does not apply to
any tax, impost, assessment, or toll,
administrative cases.212
or any penalty imposed in relation
thereto;
A: In Prudential Bank v Castro213, the Supreme Court
ruled that “lack of merit” is sufficient declaration of the
3. All cases in which the jurisdiction of
legal basis for denial of petition for review or motion for
any lower court is in issue;
reconsideration.
4. All criminal cases in which the A: In Consing v Court of Appeals214,
penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua
or higher; and Q: Voting
5. All cases in which only an error or A: In Cruz v DENR215, when the votes are equally
question of law is involved. divided and the majority vote is not obtained, then
pursuant to Sec. 7, Rule 56 of the Rules of Civil
Note that this power does not include the power of the Procedure, the petition shall be dismissed.
Supreme Court to review decisions of administrative
bodies, but is limited to final judgments and orders of
lower courts.208
209
32 SCRA 188 (1970)
210
91 Phil. 482 (1952)
211
1987 Philippine Constitution, Sec. 13, Art.VIII.
212
158 SCRA 646 (1988)
213
158 SCRA 646 (1988)
207
214
177 SCRA 14 (1989)
1987 Philippine Constitution, Sec.3, Art.VIII 215
G.R. No. 135385, Dec. 06, 2000
208
Ruffy v Chief of Staff
Q: Requirements as to decisions any subsequent pleadings, manifestations, comments or

motions, decides to deny due course to a petition, and
A: No decision shall be rendered by any court without states- in a minute resolution- that the questions raised
expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the are factual or no reversible error in the respondent
law on which it is based.216 court’s decision is shown or some other legal basis
stated in the resolution, there is sufficient compliance
A: In Valladolid v Inciong217
with the constitutional requirement.
A: In Nunal v COA218 A: In Fr. Martinez v CA226, the Court of Appeals
denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in this
A: In People v Bugarin219 wise: “Evidently, the motion poses nothing new. The
points and arguments raised by the movants have been
A: In Hernandez v Court of Appeals220 considered and passed upon in the decision sought to be
reconsidered. Thus, we find no reason to disturb the
A: In Yao v CA221 same. “The Supreme Court held that there was adequate
compliance with the constitutional provision.
A: In Dizon v Judge Lopez222, respondent Judge was
held to have violated Sec. 15, Art. VIII, because Q: Periods for deciding cases
although she promulgated her decision within three
months from submission, only the dispositive portion A: Section 15, Art. VII provides the period for deciding
was read at such promulgation, and it took one year and cases:
8 months more before a copy of the complete decision
was furnished the complainant. What respondent did 1. All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of
was to render a “sin perjuicio” judgment, which is a this Constitution must be decided or resolved
judgment without a statement of the facts in support of within twenty-four months from date of
its conclusions, to be later supplemented by the final submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless
judgment. As early as 1923, the Supreme Court already reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months
expressed its disapproval of the practice of rendering for all lower collegiate courts, and three
“sin perjuicio” judgments. What should be promulgated months for all other lower courts.
must be the complete decision. 2. A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for
decision or resolution upon the filing of the
The decision, which consisted only of the dispositive last pleading, brief, or memorandum required
portion (denominated a sin perjuicio judgment) was held by the Rules of Court or by the court itself.
invalid. 3. Upon the expiration of the corresponding
period, a certification to this effect signed by
A: In Asiavest v CA223 the Chief Justice or the presiding judge shall
forthwith be issued and a copy thereof attached
Q: Petition for Review with Motion for
to the record of the case or matter, and served
Reconsideration
upon the parties. The certification shall state
why a decision or resolution has not been
A: No petition for review or motion for reconsideration
rendered or issued within said period.
of a decision of the court shall be refused due course or
4. Despite the expiration of the applicable
denied without stating the legal basis therefor.224
mandatory period, the court, without prejudice
to such responsibility as may have been
A: In Tichangco v Enriquez225, it was held that when
incurred in consequence thereof, shall decide
the Court, after deliberating on a petition and
or resolve the case or matter submitted thereto
for determination, without further delay.
216
1987 Philippine Constitution, Sec. 14(1), Art. VIII.
217
121 SCRA 205 (1992)
218
169 SCRA 356 (1989)
219
273 SCRA 384 (1996)
220
228 SCRA 429 (1993)
221
G.R. No. 132428, October 24, 2000 226
G.R. 123547, May 21, 2001
222
A.M. 96-1338, September 05, 1997
223
G.R. No. 110263, July 20, 2001
224
1987 Philippine Constitution, Sec. 14(2), Art. VIII.
225
G.R. No. 150629, June 30, 2004

A: In re: Problem of Delays in cases Before the A: Zaldivar vs. Gonzales239

Sandiganbayan227, Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice
Francis Garchitorena was fined P20,000 and was A: In re: Cunanan, 94 Phil. 534 (1954)
relieved of his powers, functions and duties as Presiding
Justice, so that he may devote himself exclusively to A: Aguirre vs. Rana, Bar Matter No. 1036, June 10,
decision-writing. His motion for reconsideration was 2003
denied on January 31, 2002.
Q: Integration of the Bar
Q: Presidential Electoral Tribunal
A: In re: Edillon240, it was discussed that, the
Q: Administrative powers enforcement of the penalty of removal does not amount
to deprivation of property without due process of law.
A: The Supreme Court shall have administrative The practice of law is not a property right but a mere
supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof.228 privilege, and as such must bow to the inherent
regulatory power of the Supreme Court to exact
Q: Supervision of lower courts compliance with the lawyer’s public responsibilities.
A: In re Demetria229, A: In re: IBP Elections Bar Matter No. 491241 Q:
A: Temporarily assign judges to other stations as public Legal assistance to the Underprivileged Q:
interest may require; but the assignment shall not exceed
six months without the consent of the judge Report on the Judiciary
concerned.230
Q: Lower Courts
A: Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid
miscarriage of justice.231 Q: Qualifications for Lower Collegiate Courts
A: In People v Pilotin232 A: Natural born citizen of the Philippines, member of
the Philippine Bar, but Congress may prescribe other
A: In Mondiguing v Abad 233
qualifications.242
A: In People v Sola234 Q: Qualifications for Lower Courts
A: Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary A: Citizen of the Philippines, member of the Philippine
in accordance with the Civil Service Law.235 Bar, but Congress may prescribe other qualifications.243
A: Promulgate rules concerning the enforcement and A: Lower Courts: The Members of the Supreme Court
protection of constitutional rights236 and judges of the lower court shall hold office during
good behavior until they reach the age of seventy years
A: Promulgate Rules concerning pleading, practice and or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their
procedure237 office. The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power
to discipline judges of lower courts, or order their
A: Admission to the Practice of Law238 dismissal by a vote of majority of the Members who
actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in
the case and voted in thereon.244
227
A.M. No. 00-8-05-SC, Nov. 28, 2001
228
1987 Philippine Constitution, Sec. 6, Art. VIII.
229
AM. No. 00-7-09-CA, March 27, 2001
230
231
232
65 SCRA 635 (1975)
233
SCRA 14 (1975) 239
166 SCRA 316 (1988)
234
103 SCRA 393 (1981) 240
84 SCRA 554 (1978)
235
1987 Philippine Constitution, Sec. 5, Art. VIII. 241
(October 06. 1989)
236
1987 Philippine Constitution, Sec.7,(1) and (2), Art. VIII.
237
1987 Philippine Constitution, Sec.7,(1) and (2), Art. VIII.
238
A: No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary to submit to, and to receive whatever court or judge
when it undermines the security of tenure of its awarding writ shall consider in his behalf.
members.245
Extends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention
A: In De La Llana v Alba246, it was held that B.P.
by which any person is deprived of his liberty, or by
129 was a valid reorganization law, and that, therefore, which the rightful custody of any person is withheld
the abolition of then existing judicial offices did not from the person entitled thereto.249
violate security of tenure. (Note: In view of the clear
declaration of Sec. 2, Art. VIII, the ruling in De la Llana
 May be granted by the SC on any day at any
may be said to have been modified accordingly.)
time.
Q: The Judicial and Bar Council
 May be granted by CA, in cases allowed by
law.
A: Composition, Section 8 (1), Art. VIII:
1. Ex-officio members: Chief Justice, as  May also be granted by the RTC –

Chairman; the Secretary of Justice, enforceable only within RTC’s district.
and a representative of Congress.
Q: Writ of Habeas Data
2. Regular members:
A representative of A: The writ of habeas data is an independent remedy to
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, protect the right to privacy, especially the right to
a professor of law, a retired justice of informational privacy. The essence of the constitutional
the Supreme Court, and a right to informational privacy goes to the very heart of a
representative of the private sector. person’s individuality, an exclusive and personal sphere
upon which the State has no right to intrude without any
3. Secretary ex-officio: The Clerk of the legitimate public concern. The basic attribute of an
effective right to informational privacy is the right of an
Supreme Court.
individual to control the flow of information concerning
A: Appointment: The regular members shall be or describing them.
appointed by the President for a term of four (4) years,
with the consent of the Commission on Appointments. It is a remedy available to any person whose right to
They shall receive such emoluments as ay be privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or
determined by the Supreme Court.247 threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission
of a public official or employee, or of a private
A: Powers/ Functions: Principal function of individual or entity engaged in gathering, collecting or
recommending appointees to the Judiciary. May storing of data or information regarding the person,
exercise such other functions and duties as the Supreme family, honor and correspondence of the aggrieved
Court may assign to it.248 party.250
Q: Automatic Release of appropriations for the Q: Writ of Amparo

judiciary
A: The nature and time-tested role of amparo has
Q: Writ of Habeas Corpus shown that it is an effective and inexpensive instrument
for the protection of constitutional rights.251
A: Writ issued by court directed to person detaining
another, commanding him to produce the body of the Amparo, literally “to protect” originated from Mexico
prisoner at designated time and place, with the day and and spread throughout the Western Hemisphere where it
cause of his capture and detention, to do, gradually evolved into various forms, depending on the
particular needs of each country.
245
246
122 SCRA 291 (1983) Rule of Court, Rule 102.
247 250
A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC, Sec.1(February 2,2008)
1987 Philippine Constitution, Sec. 8(2), Art. VIII. 251
Azcuna, The Writ of Amparo: A Remedy to Enforce
248
1987 Philippine Constitution, Sec. 8(5), Art. VIII. Fundamental Rights, 37 Ateneo L J. 15 (1993)

The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available

to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is
violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act
or omission of a public official or employee, or of a
private individual or entity.252
An extraordinary feature is Section 14 of the Rule which

allows the grant by the court of interim reliefs, which
may either be a temporary protection order, inspection
order, production order or a witness protection order.
Q: Define Writ of Kalikasan
A: A special civil action akin to writ of amparo but

protects one’s right for a healthy environment rather
than constitutional rights.
252
A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, Sec.1. (October 24, 2007)

Constitutional Law 1 Part I Introduction

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Constitutional Law 1 Part I Introduction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

Part I - Introduction interpreted in accordance with the intent of its framers.

 Ut magis valeat quam pereat. The Constitution

From the Syllabus of Atty. Jamon by Alvin Angelo C. Rufino (2013)

Q: Doctrine of Proper Submission Q: What is the purpose of Separation of

From the Syllabus of Atty. Jamon by Alvin Angelo C. Rufino (2013)

A: Political questions are “those questions which, under

From the Syllabus of Atty. Jamon by Alvin Angelo C. Rufino (2013)

A: In Lacson v Perez, G.R. No. 147780, May 10,

A: In Executive Secretary v CA50, The modern view

From the Syllabus of Atty. Jamon by Alvin Angelo C. Rufino (2013)

justify allowing attacks on overly broad statutes with no

From the Syllabus of Atty. Jamon by Alvin Angelo C. Rufino (2013)

Q: What is the composition of the House of

The youth representative must not be more than thirty 61

3. Ang Bagong Buhay Hayaang Yumabong

From the Syllabus of Atty. Jamon by Alvin Angelo C. Rufino (2013)

1. A minor follows the domicile of his Q: Organizations and Sessions of Legislatives

From the Syllabus of Atty. Jamon by Alvin Angelo C. Rufino (2013)

A: Enrolled bill prevails, except as to matters which,

From the Syllabus of Atty. Jamon by Alvin Angelo C. Rufino (2013)

A: Section 2093. The records and books of accounts of

From the Syllabus of Atty. Jamon by Alvin Angelo C. Rufino (2013)

A: In Abbas v SET105, the Supreme Court held that it

From the Syllabus of Atty. Jamon by Alvin Angelo C. Rufino (2013)

 Only one subject 1. General appropriation law; passed by

From the Syllabus of Atty. Jamon by Alvin Angelo C. Rufino (2013)

From the Syllabus of Atty. Jamon by Alvin Angelo C. Rufino (2013)

No Vice-President shall serve for more than two

From the Syllabus of Atty. Jamon by Alvin Angelo C. Rufino (2013)

Q: Powers and Functions of the President. Q: Control of executive departments

From the Syllabus of Atty. Jamon by Alvin Angelo C. Rufino (2013)

other officers lower in rank in the President alone, in the

From the Syllabus of Atty. Jamon by Alvin Angelo C. Rufino (2013)

A: Barrioquinto v Fernandez165, lawless violence, rebellion or invasion, he necessarily

From the Syllabus of Atty. Jamon by Alvin Angelo C. Rufino (2013)

5. Amnesty is an act of grace, concurred in by Q: Composition and Mode of Sitting

operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, Q: Procedure for Appointment

From the Syllabus of Atty. Jamon by Alvin Angelo C. Rufino (2013)

Q: Requirements as to decisions any subsequent pleadings, manifestations, comments or

From the Syllabus of Atty. Jamon by Alvin Angelo C. Rufino (2013)

A: In re: Problem of Delays in cases Before the A: Zaldivar vs. Gonzales239

1. Ex-officio members: Chief Justice, as  May also be granted by the RTC –

Q: Automatic Release of appropriations for the Q: Writ of Amparo

From the Syllabus of Atty. Jamon by Alvin Angelo C. Rufino (2013)

The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available

An extraordinary feature is Section 14 of the Rule which

Q: Define Writ of Kalikasan

A: A special civil action akin to writ of amparo but

You might also like