Prepared by: Ma. Nicole Joy De Asis
Basis and Influences on the
1JD5
3. PHILIPPINE LEGAL SYSTEM
The legal system of the Philippines is a
mixture of Roman (civil law) and
Anglo-American (common law) systems,
customary usage, and Islamic law. The
civil law operates in areas such as
family relations, property, succession,
contract and criminal law while statutes
and principles of common law origin are
evident in such areas as constitutional
law, procedure, corporations law,
taxation, insurance, labor relations,
banking and currency.
3.1. Definition of Legal System
A legal system is the framework of rules,
procedures, and institutions that a
community uses to interpret and enforce
their laws. A legal system is binding on
all legal disputes within its jurisdiction.
3.2. Legal Systems in the World
There are four main legal systems in the
modern world:
1. Common law;
2. Civil law;
3. Religious law; and
4. Customary law/monarchy.
As the world becomes more
interdependent, a fifth category of legal
systems has developed — the hybrid
legal system, which is a legal system
that is a combination of two or more
legal systems.
3.3.
Philippine Legal System
Philippine legal history may be
categorized according to the various
periods in the political history of the
country: the pre-Spanish period (pre
1521); the Spanish regime (1521-1898);
the Philippine Republic of 1898; the
American regime (1898-1935); the
Commonwealth era (1935-1946); the
Japanese occupation (1941-1944); the
Period of the Republic (1946-1972); the
Martial Law Period (1972-1986); and the
continuation of the Republic.
4. LAWS
4.1. Definition of Law
In general sense, law is the science of
moral laws founded on the rational
nature of man that governs his free
activity for the realization of an individual
and social ends under an aspect of
mutual conditional dependence.
In specific sense, law is a rule of
conduct, just, obligatory promulgated by
a legitimate authority for common
observance and benefit.
4.2. Characteristics
(1) it is a rule of human conduct, (2)
promulgated by competent authority, (3)
obligatory, and (4) general observance.
4.3. Effectivity of Laws: Article 2, New
Civil Code
Tanada vs. Tuvera, 136 SCRA 27
(1985), 146 SCRA 446 (1986)
Ponente: Escolin, J.
Doctrine:
In interpreting Art. 2 of the Civil
Code, which provides that Laws shall
take effect after fifteen days following
the completion of their publication in the
Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise
provided x x x. The Supreme Court
explained that the publication of all
presidential issuances "of a public
nature" or "of general applicability" is
mandated by law. Obviously,
presidential decrees that provide for
fines, forfeitures or penalties for their
violation or otherwise impose a burden
or. the people, such as tax and revenue
measures, fall within this category. Other
presidential issuances which apply only
to particular persons or class of persons
such as administrative and executive
orders need not be published on the
assumption that they have been
circularized to all concerned.
Facts:
1. In the case of Tanada vs Tuvera,
petitioners filed the case
questioning the several
Presidential Decrees, Letters of
Instructions, General Orders,
Proclamations, Executive Orders,
Letter of Implementation and
Administrative Orders of the
President Ferdinand Marcos.
2. According to the petitioner, the
right of the people to be informed
was violated because these
issuances were not published
prior to its effectivity thereby
violating Section 6, Art. IV of the
1973 Constitution. Thus, the
petitioners pray for the Court to
order the publication of the
issuances in question.
3. The respondents countered the
petition by alleging that the
petitioners do not have the legal
personality to sue.
ISSUE:
Whether or not publication in the
Official Gazette is required before any
law or statute becomes valid and
enforceable?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that only
some of the issuances should be
published.
In interpreting Art. 2 of the Civil
Code, which provides that Laws shall
take effect after fifteen days following
the completion of their publication in the
Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise
provided x x x. The Supreme Court
explained that the publication of all
presidential issuances "of a public
nature" or "of general applicability" is
mandated by law.
Umali vs. Estanislao, 209 SCRA 446
(1992)
Ponente: Padilla, J.:
Facts:
1. In the case of Umale and
Estanislao, congress enacted
Republic Act 7167 amending the
National Internal Revenue Code
(NIRC) adjusting the basic and
additional exemptions allowable
to individuals for income tax
purposes to the poverty threshold
level).
2. The said Act was signed and
approved by the President on 19
December 1991 and published
on 14 January 1992 in "Malaya" a
newspaper of general circulation.
3. On 26 December 1991, the
Continuity of Internal Rule
promulgated Revenue
Regulations No. 1-92 stating that
the regulations shall take effect
on compensation income from
January 1, 1992. Petitioners filed
a petition for mandamus to
compel the CIR to implement RA
7167 in regard to income earned
or received in 1991, and
prohibition to enjoin the CIR from
implementing the revenue
regulation.
Issues: Whether or not the Rep. Act
7167 is effective and covers or applies
to compensation income?
Ruling:
Yes. The Court is of the considered view
that Rep. Act 7167 should cover or
extend to compensation income earned
or received during the calendar year
1991. The Act is a social legislation
intended to alleviate the present
economic plight of the lower income
taxpayers.
Bengzon vs. Drilon, 208 SCRA 33
(1992)
Ponente: Gutierrez, Jr., J.:
Case. Petition assailing Pres. Aquino’s
vetoing provisions in GAA
Facts.
1. In the case of Bengzon and
Drilon, Congress passed SC and
CA Justices Retirement Act
which fixed their pension to the
salary the justices used to earn.
Pension to Commission Members
Act passed with automatic
readjusting pension features.
2. Marcos issued a Presidential
Decree extending same benefits
to armed forces as the preceding
Act. Another PD was issued
readjusting pensions of SC and
CA Justices, Constitutional
Commissions Members and
Chairs, and armed forces to the
prevailing salaries. Another PD
was issued giving armed forces
pensions automatic readjustment.
3. Congress passes a bill that
sought to readjust Justices
pension automatically as those of
the armed forces. But Pres.
Aquino vetoed the bill saying that
it is against the Compensation
and Position Classification Act.
4. Justices filed a petition claiming
that the PD pegging the pension
to prevailing salaries is invalid
 because it did not receive proper
publication. Lower court granted
it.
5. Recognizing the court’s grant of
their petition, Congress included
their new pensions in the GAA
house bill. Pres. vetoed the
provisions of the bill relating to
Justice’s pensions.
Issue.
Does the veto deprive the Justices of
pensions due to them? -Yes
Ratio. Yes, because the Judiciary has
fiscal autonomy. Moreover, the
reasoning the Justices are unduly
favored is unfounded. There are more
members of the armed forces than the
Justices. Should there be an issue on
delimitation, authorities should begin
with the armed forces.
Doctrine. The concept relevant to Legal
Research appears not in the ratio but
only in a passing remark provided by the
Court in this case. Before ending its
opinion, the court discussed a passage
in the OSG’s comments for the
respondent. Said passage cited some
lines from a US case stating: “To lay
with one hand the power of the
government on the property of the
citizen, and with the other to bestow
upon favored individuals . . . is
nonetheless a robbery because it is
done under the forms of law . . .” (LAW
Association v. Topeka). To this, the court
retorted that the case is entitled Citizen’s
Savings and Loan Association of
Cleveland, Ohio v. Topeka City and not
as cited by the OSG. More than that, the
court also notes that the cited case
relates to a decision where tax
imposition cannot be for private
interests. The Court pointed out that
good lawyers should read primary
sources and cite relevant cases only.
The citation provided by the OSG is
neither a primary nor a relevant case. In
sum, OSG’s research is lax.
Farinas vs. Executive Secretary, 417
SCRA 503 (2003)
FACTS:
RA 9006, The Fair Election Act, was
signed into law by President Arroyo.
Petitioners, members of the Minority of
the House of Representatives, filed
a Petition to declare said Act
unconstitutional because it violated Sec.
26, Article 6 of the Constitution requiring
every law to have only one subject
which should be expressed in its title.
Moreover, it is violative of the Due
Process Clause of the Constitution with
regards to Sec. 16 which states that
“This act shall take effect immediately
upon its approval”.
HELD: The effectivity clause of RA 9006
is defective, but it does not render the
entire law defective. Under the case of
Tañada vs Tuvera, the phrase “unless
otherwise provided” refers to the date
and not to publication, which is
indispensable.
La Bugal-b'laan Tribal Association,
Inc. vs. Ramos, 421 SCRA 148, 215
(2004)
FACTS:
On July 25, 1987, two days before the
convening of the First Congress,
President Aquino, in her exercise of
legislative power during the
Provisional Constitution, issued EO 279
with the clause “shall take effect
immediately”. EO 279 was published on
August 3, 1987.
ISSUE:
W.O.N. EO 279 violated EO 200 where
a law shall take effect after 15 days
following its publication and W.O.N.
legislative powers of the President
ceased to exist upon the convening of
the First Congress two days after EO
279’s issuance, thereby making such
issuance invalid.
HELD:
EO 279 is an effective and validly
enacted statute. There is nothing in EO
200 that prevent a law from taking effect
on a date other than, or before, the
15-day period after its publication. The
15-day period only applies to those laws
that do not provide for its own effectivity
date. When EO 279 was published, it
became immediately effective upon its
publication. On EO 279’s validity, it was
issued before the convening of the First
Congress therefore the President was
validly exercising her legislative powers.
4.5. Classification of Laws
Natural Law -divine inspiration in man,
derives its force and authority from God.
Binding to the whole world
A. Physical Law -universal rule of action
that governs the
conduct and movement of things i.e law
of gravitation.
B. Moral Law -establishes what is right
and what is wrong as dictated by human
conscience
C. Divine Law -divine positive law 10
commandments; divine human positive
law, enacted by man for their general
welfare.
Positive Law
A. Public Law -Constitutional Law, the
fundamental law of the land which
defines the powers of the government;
Administrative Law, fixes organization
and its functions; International Law,
regulates the community of nations
B. Private Law - Substantive, creates
duties, rights; and
Procedural, means & methods in courts
4.5.1 Acts of Public Acts (1900-1935)
MALOLOS REPUBLIC, 1899 – 1901
The first Filipino legislature was
convened on September 15, 1898 in
Barasoain Church, Malolos, Bulacan.
Later known as the Malolos Republic, it
drafted the first constitution of the
Philippines, which was also the first
democratic constitution in Asia. The
Congress included delegates from
different provinces of the Philippines,
some elected and some appointed. It
was a short-lived legislature, unable to
pass any laws due to the onset of the
Philippine-American War. The first
Philippine Republic was ended on
March 23, 1901 with the capture of
President Emilio Aguinaldo in Palanan,
Isabela.
PHILIPPINE COMMISSION, 1899 –
1916
In 1899, United States President William
McKinley appointed a commission led
by Dr. Jacob Schurman to study and
investigate the conditions in the
Philippine Islands. This would be known
as the first Philippine Commission. It
was followed by another investigative
commission led by William Howard Taft
in 1900, which also had limited
legislative and executive powers. From
1901 onwards, the Philippine
Commission would be regularized. It
exercised both executive and legislative
powers, with three Filipino delegates,
namely Benito Legarda, Trinidad Pardo
de Tavera, Jose Luzuriaga. After the
organization of the Philippine Assembly
(see below) in 1907, the commission
stayed on as the upper house of the
legislature.
PHILIPPINE ASSEMBLY, 1907 – 1916
Electoral representation in the
Philippines by Filipinos began when the
American insular government allowed
partial self-governance by establishing
the Philippine Assembly. The assembly,
as the lower house, shared legislative
power with the Philippine Commission,
which remained under American control,
as membership in the Philippine
Commission was still restricted to
appointed American officials. In 1907,
still under American rule, the Philippines
held its first national elections for the
newly created representative body,
which had an inaugural membership of
81 Filipinos representing their respective
districts. In the succeeding years, the
number of districts were increased to 85
in 1910, and 91 in 1912.
RESIDENT COMMISSIONERS, 1907 –
1946
From 1907 to 1946, the Philippine
legislature sent a representative to sit in
the U.S. House of Representatives, as
resident commissioner. Under Spain,
the Philippines had also been given
limited representation in the Spanish
Cortes, and like the resident
commissioners, they had the right to
speak, but not to vote. The restoration of
Philippine independence in 1946 ended
Philippine representation in the U.S.
Congress. (Note: To this day, Puerto
Rico still has a resident commissioner in
the U.S. House of Representatives.)
THE PHILIPPINE LEGISLATURE, 1916
– 1935
Upon the enactment of the Jones Law in
1916, the Filipinos were subsequently
granted the opportunity to hold other
offices in the government. Positions in
the Philippine Senate were opened to
Filipinos, with 12 senatorial districts and
two senators elected from each. The
inaugural President of the Senate in
1916 was Manuel L. Quezon,
representing the fifth senatorial district.
He would hold this position until the
establishment of the Commonwealth of
the Philippines in 1935. For the 19 years
prior to the Commonwealth, the Senate
presidency was the highest position a
Filipino could hold.
From the first Philippine Commission to
the establishment of the Commonwealth
of the Philippines, the Philippine
legislature were passing public acts.
This form of legislation is started at
Congress, with the approval of the
American governor-general of the
Philippine Islands.

4.5.2 Commonwealth Acts
(1935-1946)
COMMONWEALTH OF THE
PHILIPPINES, 1935 – 1946
On November 15, 1935, Quezon took
his oath as the first President of the
Commonwealth of the Philippines,
giving control of the executive branch of
government to the Filipinos. It was also
in this era that the Supreme Court of the
Philippines was completely Filipinized.
By virtue of the 1935 Constitution, the
bicameral Philippine legislature was
merged to form the unicameral National
Assembly.
Two elections were held under the
Commonwealth. The first, in 1935,
elected the President of the Philippines
as well as members of the National
Assembly; the second, in 1939, elected
only members of the National Assembly.
The National Assembly would be
retained until 1941, when a new
structure for the legislature was
introduced through a constitutional
amendment.
From the Commonwealth period to the
inauguration of the Third Philippine
Republic, the Philippine legislature was
passing Commonwealth acts (CA). This
form of legislation is started at the
National Assembly and approved by the
President of the Philippines.
4.5.3 Republic Acts (1946-1972)
The independent Republic of the
Philippines was finally proclaimed on
July 4, 1946 with Manuel Roxas as
President. The Second Congress of the
Commonwealth was transformed into
the first Congress of the Republic of the
Philippines, also made up of the Senate
and the House of Representatives. This
would mark the beginning of the count
of Congresses of the Republic until the
imposition of Martial Law in 1972, when
Congress would be dissolved.
This era started the legislation of
republic acts which would continue until
1972. Upon the restoration of
democracy in 1986 and the ratification
of the 1987 Constitution, the naming of
laws as republic acts would be
reinstated.
4.5.4 Presidential Decrees
(1972-1986)
MARTIAL LAW AND THE FOURTH
REPUBLIC, 1972-1986
On September 23, 1972 President
Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Presidential
Proclamation No. 1081, placing the
entire country under Martial Law. This
coincided with the closing of the
sessions of both chambers of Congress.
Days before the scheduled reopening of
the Senate and the House of
Representatives, Marcos promulgated
the 1973 Constitution, which effectively
abolished the bicameral legislature and
replaced it with a unicameral legislature.
Opposition legislators reported to the
Legislative Building on January 22,
1973, but found the building padlocked
and under an armed guard.
Under martial rule, Marcos created the
Batasang Bayan in 1976, by virtue of
Presidential Decree No. 995, to serve as
a legislative advisory council—a
quasi-legislative machinery to normalize
the legislative process for the eventual
actualization of the 1973 Constitution.
The Batasang Bayan would hold office
in the Philippine International
Convention Center (a modernist
structure designed by National Artist for
Architecture Leandro Locsin, within the
Cultural Center of the Philippines
Complex—a pet project of First Lady
Imelda R. Marcos). The consultative
body would serve until 1978.
The Batasang Bayan would be replaced
in 1978 by an elected unicameral body:
the Interim Batasang Pambansa (IBP), a
parliamentary legislature, as provided
for in the 1973 Constitution. On April 7,
1978, elections for were held. Those
elected to the IBP would be called
Mambabatas Pambansa
(Assemblymen) who would be elected
per region, via a bloc-voting system.
The IBP opened on Independence Day
1984 in the Batasan Pambansa in
Quezon City.
Members of the Regular Batasang
Pambansa (RBP) were elected in 1984,
this time at-large and per province. The
RBP held its inaugural session on July
23, 1984.
In 1986, President Marcos succumbed
to international pressure and called for a
snap presidential election. Though
Marcos and his running mate former
Senator and Assemblyman Arturo
Tolentino were proclaimed by the
Batasang Pambansa as the winners of
the election, a popular revolt installed
opposition leaders Corazon C. Aquino
and Salvador H. Laurel as President
and Vice President, respectively.
For both the IBP and RBP, the laws
passed would be called “Batas
Pambansa,” which did not continue the
previous numbering of Republic Acts.
4.5.5 Executive Orders (1986-1987)
4.5.6 Republic Acts (1987-present)
THE FIFTH REPUBLIC, 1987 –
PRESENT
On March 25, 1986, President Aquino
declared a revolutionary government by
virtue of Presidential Proclamation No.
3, s. 1986, which suspended some
provisions of the 1973 Constitution and
promulgated in its stead a transitory
constitution. This effectively abolished
the Batasang Pambansa. A
constitutional commission, tasked with
drafting a new charter, was created by
virtue of Proclamation No. 9 issued on
April 23, 1986.
Following the overwhelming ratification
of the 1987 Constitution through a
national plebiscite held on February 2,
1987, the 1987 Constitution finally came
into full force and effect on February 11,
1987. It re-established a bicameral
legislature, composed of the House of
Representatives and the Senate, much
like the way it was before martial law.
The former, being much larger in
composition, reopened in the Batasan
Pambansa while the Senate, still with its
24 members, returned to the Legislative
Building. In 1997, the Senate of the
Philippines moved to the GSIS building
where it is currently housed.
Laws passed by the bicameral
legislature would restore “Republic
Acts”, as the laws were named in the
Third Republic (1946-1972). Moreover, it
was decided to maintain the old count,
taking up where the last pre-martial law
Congress left off. Thus, the last
Congress under the 1935 Constitution
was the seventh Congress, and the first
Congress under the 1987 Constitution
became the eighth Congress.
5. STATUTES
5.1. Definition of Statutes
-A written will of the legislature
expressed according to the form
necessary to constitute it a law of the
state and rendered authentic by certain
prescribed forms and solemnities.
5.2. Classes of Statutes
● Republic Acts
● Presidential Decrees
● Mga Batas Pambansa
● Commonwealth Acts
● Acts of the Legislature
● Presidential
Directives/Issuances
5.2.1 Constitution
Written instrument enacted by direct
action of the people by which the
fundamental powers of the government
are established, limited and defined, and
by which those powers are distributed
among the several departments for their
safe and useful exercise for the benefit
of the body politic (Malcolm, Philippine
Constitutional Law, p. 6)
5.2.2 Treaty
international agreements entered into by
the Philippines which require legislative
concurrence after executive ratification.
This term may include compacts like
conventions, declarations, covenants
and acts.
5.2.3 Statutes Proper: Parts
1. Title – the heading on the
preliminary part, furnishing
the name by which the act is
individually known. It is
usually prefixed to the statute
in the brief summary of its
contents.
2. Preamble – part of statute
explaining the reasons for its
enactment and the objects
sought to be accomplished.
Usually, it starts with
“whereas”.
3. Enacting clause – part of
statute which declares its
enactment and serves to
identify it as an act of
legislation proceeding from
the proper legislative
authority. “Be enacted” is the
usual formula used to start
this clause.
4. Body – the main and
operative part of the statute
containing its substantive and
even procedural provisions.
Provisos and exceptions may
also be found.
5. Repealing Clause –
announces the prior statutes
or specific provisions which
have been abrogated by
reason of the enactment of
the new law.
6. Saving Clause – restriction in
a repealing act, which is
intended to save rights,
pending proceedings,
penalties, etc. from the
 annihilation which would
result from an unrestricted Two-pronged purpose combined in one
repeal. statute: It creates the municipality of
7. Separability Clause – Dianaton purportedly from 21 barrios in
provides that in the event that the towns of Butig and Balabagan,both
one or more provisions or in the province of Lanao del Sur; and It
unconstitutional, the also dismembers two municipalities in
remaining provisions shall still Cotabato, a province different from
be in force. Lanao del Sur.
8. Effectivity Clause –
announces the effective date RATIONALE: Title to be couched in a
of the law. language sufficient to notify the
legislators and the public and those
5.2.3.1 Title: Lidasan vs. COMELEC, concerned of the import of the single
21 SCRA 496 (1967) subject thereof. A title which is so
FACTS: uncertain that the average person
RA 4790 “An Act Creating the reading it would not be informed of the
Municipality of Dianaton in the Province purpose of the enactment or put on
of Lanao del Sur” was signed into law inquiry as to its contents, which is
consisting of 21 barrios, 12 of which are misleading, either in referring to or
from the municipalities of Parang and indicating one subject where another or
Buldon,province of Cotabato. The Office different one is really embraced in the
of the Presidentrecommended the act, or in omitting any expression or
COMELEC to suspend the operation of indication of the real subject or scope of
the statute until clarified. the act, is bad.
Notwithstanding, the COMELEC
declared that the statute should be *PREAMBLE does not create right nor
implemented unless declared grant any right, not a sourceof
unconstitutional by the SC. Hence the government power, not an essential part
petition for certiorari and prohibition filed of a statute
by Bara Lidasan, a resident and
taxpayer of the detached portion 5.2.3.2 Preamble:
ofParang, Cotabato and a qualified People vs. Echavez, 95 SCRA 663
voter. (1980)
FACTS:
HELD: RA 4790 is unconstitutional Fiscal Ello filed before the lower court
because it violates the provision that “no separate information against 16 persons
bill which may be enacted into law shall charging them with squatting penalized
embrace more than one subject which by PD 772. The Informations were
shall be expressed in the title of the bill” dismissed on the grounds that(1) entry
should be by force, intimidation or threat
and not through stealth and strategy as
alleged; (2)PD 772 does not apply to the
cultivation of a grazing land. Motion for
consideration was likewise denied.
The phrase “and for other purposes” in
the decree does not include agricultural
purposes because its preamble does
not mention the Secretary ofAgriculture
and makes reference to the affluent
class. Hence, the appeal to this Court.
HELD: Lower court’s decision affirmed.
The decree does not apply to pasture
lands because its preamble shows that
it was intended to apply to squatting in
urban communities or more particularly
to illegal constructions in squatter areas
made by well-to-do individuals. The
squatting complained of involves
pasture lands in rural areas.On the other
hand, it is punished by RA 947
Aglipay vs. Ruiz, 64 Phil 201
FACTS:
Mons. Aglipay sought an issuance of
prohibition from the court to prevent
Director ofPosts from issuing and selling
postage stamps commemorative of the
33rd International Eucharistic Congress
which violates the provision that “no
public money or property shall ever be
appropriated, applied or used, directly or
indirectly,for the benefit, or support of
any sect, church, denomination…” or
the principle of separation of church and
state.
HELD: Petition denied. RA 4052 which
appropriate a sum of P60,000 for the
said stamps contemplates non religious
purpose in view. Stamps were not
issued and sold for the benefit of the
Roman CatholicChurch; nor money
derived from the sale given to that
church. Moreover, what is emphasized
is not the Eucharistic Congress itself but
Manila as the seat of that congress.
RATIONALE: What is guaranteed by our
Constitution is religious liberty and not
mere religious toleration. Religious
freedom, as a Constitutional mandate, is
not inhibition of profound reverence for
religion and is not a denial of its
influence in human affairs
5.2.3.3 Enacting Clause
The enacting clause of all Acts hereafter
passed by the Philippine Legislature
shall be conceived in the following
terms: "Be it enacted by the Senate and
House of Representatives of the
Philippines in Legislature assembled
and by the authority of the same:" (El
Senado y la Cdmara de Representantes
de Filipinas constituidos en Legislatura y
por autoridad de la misma decretan:).
5.2.3.4 Purview or Body of the Statute
5.2.3.5 Repealing Clause
Civil Code of the Philippines
Art. 7. Laws are repealed only by
subsequent ones, and their violation or
non-observance shall not be excused by
disuse, or custom or practice to the
contrary.
When the courts declared a law to be 5.3. Law-Making: The Legislative
inconsistent with the Constitution, the Process: How a Bill Becomes a Law
former shall be void and the latter shall
govern. Administrative or executive acts, Filing/Calendaring for First
orders and regulations shall be valid Reading
only when they are not contrary to the A bill is filed in the Office
laws or the Constitution. of the Secretary where it is
given a corresponding
Article 7 is obvious because time moves
number and calendared for
forward.
First Reading.
Only subsequent laws can repeal prior
First Reading
laws either through:
1. A repealing clause Its title, bill number, and
author’s name are read on
5.3.3.6 Separability Clause
the floor, after which it is
A separability clause is a legal provision
referred to the proper
that states that if any part of a contract
committee.
or law is found to be invalid or
unenforceable, the remaining parts of Committee Hearings/Report
the contract or law will still be valid and
enforceable. This means that even if Committee conducts
one part of the contract or law is hearings and consultation
deemed illegal or unenforceable, the meetings. It then either
rest of the contract or law can still be approves the proposed bill
upheld and enforced. without an amendment,
approves it with changes, or
5.3.3.7 Effectivity Clause recommends substitution or
Governs the time by which a law is consolidation with similar
made effective and can already be bills filed.
implemented and given full force and Calendaring for Second
effect. Reading

The Committee Report

with its approved bill version
is submitted to the
Committee on Rules for
calendaring for Second
Reading.

Second Reading
 Bill author delivers
sponsorship speech on the
floor. Senators engage in
debate, interpellation, turno
en contra, and rebuttal to
highlight the pros and cons
of the bill. A period of
amendments incorporates
necessary changes in the bill
proposed by the committee
or introduced by the
Senators themselves on the
floor.
Voting on Second Reading
Senators vote on the
second reading version of
the bill. If approved, the bill is
calendared for third reading.
Voting on Third Reading
Printed copies of the bill’s
final version are distributed
to the Senators. This time,
only the title of the bill is read
on the floor. Nominal voting
is held. If passed, the
approved Senate bill is
referred to the House of
Representatives for
concurrence.
At the House of
Representatives
The Lower Chamber
follows the same procedures
(First Reading, Second
Reading and Third Reading).
Back to the Senate
If the House-approved
version is compatible with
that of the Senate’s, the final
version’s enrolled form is
printed. If there are certain
differences, a Bicameral
Conference Committee is
called to reconcile conflicting
provisions of both versions of
the Senate and of the House
of Representatives.
Conference committee
submits report on the
reconciled version of the bill,
duly approved by both
chambers. The Senate prints
the reconciled version in its
enrolled form.
Submission to Malacañang
Final enrolled form is
submitted to Malacañang.
The President either signs it
into law, or vetoes and sends
it back to the Senate with
veto message.