1. The requirements in creating an LGU.

The following are the req: Under the Article 10 Sec. 10 of our constitution, no province, city,
municipality of barangay may be created, except in accordance with the criteria established in the
local government code and subject to the approval by a majority of the votes in a plebiscite in the
political units directly affected. There should also be a statute enacted by the Legislative
Department for the purpose. Moreover, creating a local gov unit should be exercised within the
prescribed limits under the law.

2. Sec. 19, Art. VI of the RA 9054 is unconstitutional but not all of its provisions.

Applying the jurisprudence laid down in the case of Sema v. COMELEC, the ARMM does not have the
power to create a legislative district because this has been exclusively lodged by the Constitution in
Congress. The creation of a legislative district is tantamount to the creation of a national office which is
beyond the jurisdiction of the ARMM.

In the case at bar, whose facts are analogous to the case of Sema v. COMELEC, the conclusion is that
Shariff Kabunsuan is not entitled to one representative for the same reason stated in applying the ruling
of the court in the case of Sema.

3. Veto (process)

Under the constitution, when a bill has been duly approved by both houses of congress, it shall be
presented to the President for his approval or disapproval. When the president shall approve the bill, it
shall become a law. When the president shall disapprove the bill, he exercises his power to veto,
wherein it shall be returned to Congress along with the reason for his objections to the bill. The
President may veto items in revenue, appropriations, and tariff bills. For bills not falling under the
mentioned class, he can only veto it in its entirety.

4. Legislative Veto

The concept of legislative veto, which is a violation on the doctrine of separation of powers and
therefore unconstitutional, is the insertion of a provision in a stature granting congress the power to
approve or disapprove an administrative implementing rules and regulations issued by the executive for
the purpose of its implementation. It is a form of an inward-turning legislation which results to a
congressional leash to the executive department.

5. Initiative

In an initiative, the people shall propose an enactment or amendment of a law through an election for
the purpose. On the other hand, a referendum shall occur when the people, through an election for the
purpose, approve or disapprove the enactment or amendment by the congress.

6. Bicameral Conference Committee (is there a circumvention of the “no amendment rule”?)

The contention is untenable.

 In the case decided by the supreme court touching on the subject matter of the bicameral
conference committee, it was held that the practice of reconciling disagreeing provisions is within
the powers of both houses of congress to provide for a mechanism to come up with a bill acceptable
to both houses of congress. Both houses of congress are represented in the bicameral conference
committee to thresh out differing provisions as provide for in their respective rules of procedure.

Furthermore, there is no circumvention of the No Amendment rule as provided for in the

constitution. The reason being that the bills passed by both houses of congress have already
undergone the three readings and the BCC is necessary to agree the differing provisions of the bill.
In addition, to uphold the contention of having the consolidated bill undergo another set of three
readings would result to a perpetual process of subjecting it to amendments and subsequently, the
BCC all over again.

7. Exclusive Origination Clause (it is not the law but the bill which must originate from the house)

According to jurisprudence, it is not the law, but the bill which must originate from the House. When the
Senate creates a bill in participation of an appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill, the origination clause of
the Constitution is not violated when the Senate does not act on the bill by subjecting it to the first
reading and referring it to the appropriate committee.

As called from the facts of the case, the Senate approved the senate bill on May 7, 2005, which is
already after the House approved the bill on third reading on February 28, 2005.

Therefor, the exclusive origination clause is not violated.

8. Question Hour

Question hour is the power of the congress to request the heads of the executive department to appear
before it and be heard on any matter in relation to the functions of his office. Also, the heads of the
executive department may appear when consented by the President. In inquiries in aid of legislation,
Congress may call any person whom it may deem upon its discretion as a proper resource person for the
purpose of the inquiry. When a person refuses to appear before the congress exercising its power of
legislative inquiry, Congress may compel him to do so and his subsequent refusal shall, at the behest of
Congress, be under the pail of being cited for contempt. The limitations for the exercise of its power to
inquire in aid of legislation is there is a need for published rules of procedure and this should be
complied with.

9. Does the congress have the power to inquire?

Congress shall have the power to inquire on any subject matter it deems necessary to obtain for the
purpose of exercising its power of inquiry in aid of legislation. The limitation is that it must adhere to the
right of executive privilege. Executive privilege may be invoked when the matter already affects national
security or within the sphere of the executive relating to matters f national policy.
But the right to obtain information in aid of legislation is not similar to the people’s right to public
information. The latter is different in concept and is governed by different rules on procedure.

10. Enrolled Bill Doctrine

The enrolled bill doctrine means that when a bill bears the signature of the senate president and the
speaker of the house and attested to by the secretaries of both houses is conclusive if its approval.

In the case at bar, applying jurisprudence wherein the senate president withdrew his signature in a bill,
the enrolled bill doctrine is no longer operative. The effect being, is as if he never intended to sign and
approve the bill.

11. What happens when there is doubt to the legislative intent of the Congress?

When there is doubt as to the legislative intent of congress, the court shall review the journal, it being,
as held in the case of US v. Pons, an official document. The journals shall bear probative value to the
proceeding of either house.

Even if the rule is that the enrolled bill doctrine prevails over the journal as to issues regarding its
content, since the Senate President withdrew his signature to the bill, the enrolled bill doctrine is now
inoperative and the journals shall be referred to in ascertaining its enactment.

12. Requisites for a winning candidate to be considered as a member of the House of

Representative.

The requisites in order for a winning candidate to be considered as a member of the House of
Representatives are the following:

a) There is a valid proclamation by the COMELEC;

b) That the winning candidate took his oath of office; and
c) The candidate has assumed his office

13. Who shall have jurisdiction over those who wish to become as member of the House of REP?

It shall be the COMELEC that has jurisdiction over K’s qualifications.

In the case of Reyes v. COMELEC, the court ruled that one of the requisites to become a member of the
House of Reps is a valid proclamation as the winning candidate.

In the case at bar, there is no valid proclamation because she was disqualified to run and her certificate
of candidacy was cancelled. In addition, she did not yet undergo the other two requisites to become a
member of the House when the COMELEC took cognizance of her case.

If the facts were different to the effect that she was already considered a member of the House of Rep
when the contest to her qualification/s was/were filed, the Constitution provides that the Electoral
Tribunal shall have sole jurisdiction of all contest relating to the election returns or qualifications of its
members. But that is not the case here.
 14. Release of the Magna Carta Benefits.
- Is there a valid transfer of savings?
- Requisites for a valid use of savings.
a) The release of the Magna Carta benefits by the DOST is not proper.

In a case wherein the facts are analogous to the case at bar, the Supreme Court upheld the contention
of the Commission on Audit wherein it held that notwithstanding the law granting the additional
allowances and benefits, there is still a need for an appropriation law to validly execute the provisions of
the law granting the allowances.

This is in keeping with the provision of the Constitution that no money shall be paid for out of the
treasury in the absence of an appropriation therefor.

Applying the ruling to the case at bar, there being no appropriation for the purpose of granting the
benefits under RA 8439, the release thereof is not proper.

b) There is no vail transfer of savings in this case.

According to jurisprudence laid down in a case with facts analogous to the case at bar, for there to be a
valid use of savings, the following requisites must concur:

- That the appropriation for the purpose of the source of such savings have already been
exhausted;
- That the augmentation is within the department as required in the constitution; and
- The item for the augmentation of the savings is provided for in the appropriation act.

In the case at bar, there was no appropriation for the purpose of granting the Magna Carta benefits, in
spite of the augmentation being made within the department as limited by the invalidation of cross-
border transfers.

In conclusion, there was no valid transfer of savings.