Legislative Department

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017
MENDIOLA, MANILA
compliance with the requirements of this Act

is hereby affirmed, recognized and
ARTICLE VI guaranteed.
THE LEGISLATIVE Sec. 3. Definition of Terms. For purposes of

this Act, the following terms shall mean:
DEPARTMENT
(a) "Initiative" is the power of the people to
Section 1. The legislative power shall be vested
propose amendments to the Constitutions or
in the Congress of the Philippines which shall
to propose and enact legislations through an
consist of a Senate and a House of
election called for the purpose.
Representatives, except to the extent reserved
There are three (3) systems of initiative,
to the people by the provision on initiative and
namely:
referendum.
Section 2. The Senate shall be composed of a.1 Initiative on the Constitution which refers
twenty-four Senators who shall be elected at to a petition proposing amendments to the
large by the qualified voters of the Philippines, Constitution;
as may be provided by law.
a.2 Initiative on statutes which refers to a
petition proposing to enact a national
legislation; and
REPUBLIC ACT a.3. Initiative on local legislation which refers

to a petition proposing to enact a regional,
6745 provincial, city, municipal, or barangay law,
resolution or ordinance.
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A SYSTEM OF
(b) "Indirect initiative" is exercise of
INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM
initiative by the people through a proposition
AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR
sent to Congress or the local legislative body
for action.
I. General Provision
(c) "Referendum" is the power of the
Sec. 1. Title. This Act shall be known as "The electorate to approve or reject a legislation
Initiative and Referendum Act." through an election called for the purpose. It
may be of two classes, namely:
Sec. 2. Statement of Policy. The power of the
people under a system of initiative and c.1. Referendum on statutes which refers to a
referendum to directly propose, enact, petition to approve or reject an act or law, or
approve or reject, in whole or in part, the part thereof, passed by Congress; and
Constitution, laws, ordinances, or resolutions
passed by any legislative body upon
COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

“Resilience is about being able to overcome the unexpected. The goal of resilience is to thrive...”
SUBIJANO, CHRISTOPHER
Page | 1
MENDIOLA, MANILA
c.2. Referendum on local law which refers to a district is represented by at least three per
petition to approve or reject a law, resolution centum (3%) of the registered voters thereof,
or ordinance enacted by regional assemblies shall sign a petition for the purpose and
and local legislative bodies. register the same with the Commission.
(d) "Proposition" is the measure proposed
by the voters. (b) A petition for an initiative on the 1987
Constitution must have at least twelve per
centum (12%) of the total number of
(e) "Plebiscite" is the electoral process by registered voters as signatories, of which
which an initiative on the Constitution is every legislative district must be represented
approved or rejected by the people. by at least three per centum (3%) of the
registered voters therein. Initiative on the
(f) "Petition" is the written instrument Constitution may be exercised only after five
containing the proposition and the required (5) years from the ratification of the 1987
number of signatories. It shall be in a form to Constitution and only once every five (5)
be determined by and submitted to the years thereafter.
Commission on Elections, hereinafter
referred to as the Commission. (c) The petition shall state the following:
(g) "Local government units" refers to c.1. contents or text of the proposed law
provinces , cities, municipalities and sought to be enacted, approved or rejected,
barangays. amended or repealed, as the case may be;
c.2. the proposition;
(h) "Local legislative bodies" refers to the c.3. the reason or reasons therefor;
Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Sangguniang c.4. that it is not one of the exceptions
Panlungsod, Sangguniang Bayan, and provided herein;
Sangguniang Nayon. c.5. signatures of the petitioners or registered
voters; and
(i) "Local executives" refers to the Provincial c.6. an abstract or summary in not more than
Governors, City or Municipal Mayors and one hundred (100) words which shall be
Punong Barangay, as the case may be. legibly written or printed at the top of every
page of the petition.
Sec. 4. Who may exercise. The power of
initiative and referendum may be exercised (d) A referendum or initiative affecting a law,
by all registered voters of the country, resolution or ordinance passed by the
autonomous regions, provinces, cities, legislative assembly of an autonomous region,
municipalities and barangays. province or city is deemed validly initiated if
the petition thereof is signed by at least ten
per centum (10%) of the registered voters in
Sec. 5. Requirements. (a) To exercise the
the province or city, of which every legislative
power of initiative or referendum, at least ten
district must be represented by at least three
per centum (10%) of the total number of the
per centum (3%) of the registered voters
registered voters, of which every legislative
therein; Provided, however, That if the

Page | 2
MENDIOLA, MANILA
province or city is composed only of one (1) Within a period of thirty (30) days from
legislative district, then at least each receipt of the petition, the Commission shall,
municipality in a province or each barangay upon determining the sufficiency of the
in a city should be represented by at least petition, publish the same in Filipino and
three per centum (3%) of the registered English at least twice in newspapers of
voters therein. general and local circulation and set the date
of the initiative or referendum which shall not
(e) A referendum of initiative on an ordinance be earlier than forty-five (45) days but not
passed in a municipality shall be deemed later than ninety (90) days from the
validly initiated if the petition therefor is determination by the Commission of the
signed by at least ten per centum (10%) of sufficiency of the petition.
the registered voters in the municipality, of
which every barangay is represented by at Sec. 9. Effectivity of Initiative or
least three per centum (3%) of the registered Referendum Proposition. (a) the
voters therein. Proposition of the enactment, approval,
amendment or rejection of a national law
(f) A referendum or initiative on a barangay shall be submitted to and approved by a
resolution or ordinance is deemed validly majority of the votes cast by all the registered
initiated if signed by at least ten per centum voters of the Philippines.
(10%) of the registered voters in said
barangay. If, as certified to by the Commission, the
proposition is approved by a majority of the
Sec. 6. Special Registration. The votes cast, the national law proposed for
Commission on Election shall set a special enactment, approval, or amendment shall
registration day at least three (3) weeks become effective fifteen (15) days following
before a scheduled initiative or referendum. completion of its publication in the Official
Gazette or in a newspaper of general
Sec. 7. Verification of Signatures. The circulation in the Philippines. If, as certified
Election Registrar shall verify the signatures by the Commission, the proposition to reject a
on the basis of the registry list of voters, national law is approved by a majority of the
voters' affidavits and voters identification votes cast, the said national law shall be
cards used in the immediately preceding deemed repealed and the repeal shall become
election. effective fifteen (15) days following the
completion of publication of the proposition
and the certification by the Commission in the
Official Gazette or in newspaper of general
II. National Initiative and Referendum circulation in the Philippines.
Sec. 8. Conduct and Date of Initiative or

However, if the majority vote is not obtained,
Referendum. The Commission shall call and
the national law sought to be rejected or
supervise the conduct of initiative or
amended shall remain in full force and effect.
referendum.

Page | 3
MENDIOLA, MANILA
(b) The proposition in an initiative on the Sec. 12. Appeal. The decision of the
Constitution approved by a majority of the Commission on the findings of the sufficiency
votes cast in the plebiscite shall become or insufficiency of the petition for initiative or
effective as to the day of the plebiscite. referendum may be appealed to the Supreme
Court within thirty (30) days from notice
(c) A national or local initiative propositions thereof.
approved by majority of the votes cast in an
election called for the purpose shall become
effective fifteen (15) days after certification
and proclamation by the Commission. III. Local initiative and Referendum
Sec. 10. Prohibited Measures. The following Sec. 13. Procedure in Local Initiative. (a)
cannot be the subject of an initiative or Not less than two thousand (2,000) registered
referendum petition: voters in case of autonomous regions, one
thousand (1,000) in case of provinces and
(a) No petition embracing more than one (1) cities, one hundred (100) in case of
subject shall be submitted to the electorate; municipalities, and fifty (50) in case of
and barangays, may file a petition with the
Regional Assembly or local legislative body,
respectively, proposing the adoption,
(b) Statutes involving emergency measures, enactment, repeal, or amendment, of any law,
the enactment of which are specifically vested ordinance or resolution.
in Congress by the Constitution, cannot be
subject to referendum until ninety (90) days
after its effectivity. (b) If no favorable action thereon is made by
local legislative body within (30) days from
Sec. 11. Indirect Initiative. Any duly its presentation, the proponents through their
accredited people's organization, as defined duly authorized and registered
by law, may file a petition for indirect representative may invoke their power of
initiative with the House of Representatives, initiative, giving notice thereof to the local
and other legislative bodies. The petition shall legislative body concerned.
contain a summary of the chief purposes and
contents of the bill that the organization (c) The proposition shall be numbered
proposes to be enacted into law by the serially starting from one (1). The Secretary
legislature. of Local Government or his designated
representative shall extend assistance in the
The procedure to be followed on the initiative formulation of the proposition.
bill shall be the same as the enactment of any
legislative measure before the House of (d) Two or more propositions may be
Representative except that the said initiative submitted in an initiative.
bill shall have precedence over the pending
legislative measures on the committee.
(e) Proponents shall have one hundred
twenty (120) days in case of autonomous

Page | 4
MENDIOLA, MANILA
regions, ninety (90) days in case of provinces Sec. 14. Effectivity of Local Propositions. If
and cities, sixty (60) days in case of the proposition is approved by a majority of
municipalities, and thirty (30) days in case of the votes cast, it shall take effect fifteen (15)
barangays, from notice mentioned in days after certification by the Commission as
subsection (b) hereof to collect the required if affirmative action thereon had been made
number of signatures. by the local legislative body and local
executive concerned. If it fails to obtain said
(f) The petition shall be signed before the number of votes, the proposition is
Election Registrar, or his designated considered defeated.
representative, in the presence of a
representative of the proponent, and a Sec. 15. Limitations on Local Initiatives. (a)
representative of the regional assemblies and The power of local initiative shall not be
local legislative bodies concerned in a public exercised more than once a year.
place in the autonomous region or local
government unit, as the case may be. (b) Initiative shall extend only to subjects or
Signature stations may be established in as matters which are within the legal powers of
many places as may be warranted. the local legislative bodies to enact.
(g) Upon the lapse of the period herein (c) If at any time before the initiative is held,
provided, the Commission on Elections, the local legislative body shall adopt in toto
through its office in the local government unit the proposition presented, the initiative shall
concerned shall certify as to whether or not be canceled. However, those against such
the required number of signatures has been action may, if they so desire, apply for
obtained. Failure to obtain the required initiative in the manner herein provided.
number is a defeat of the proposition.
Sec. 16. Limitations Upon Local Legislative
(h) If the required number of the signatures is Bodies. Any proposition or ordinance or
obtained, the Commission shall then set a resolution approved through the system of
date for the initiative at which the proposition initiative and referendum as herein provided
shall be submitted to the registered voters in shall not be repealed, modified or amended,
the local government unit concerned for their by the local legislative body concerned within
approval within ninety (90) days from the six (6) months from the date therefrom, and
date of certification by the Commission, as may be amended, modified or repealed by the
provided in subsection (g) hereof, in case of local legislative body within (3/4) of all its
autonomous regions, sixty (60) days in case members: Provided, however, that in case of
of the provinces and cities, forty-five (45) barangays, the period shall be in (1) year
days in case of municipalities, and thirty (30) after the expiration of the first six (6) months.
days in case of barangays. The initiative shall
then be held on the date set, after which the Sec. 17. Local Referendum. Notwithstanding
results thereof shall be certified and the provisions of Section 4 hereof, any local
proclaimed by the Commission on Elections. legislative body may submit to the registered
voters of autonomous region, provinces,

Page | 5
MENDIOLA, MANILA
cities, municipalities and barangays for the Appropriations Act of the current year.
approval or rejection, any ordinance or Thereafter, such sums as may be necessary
resolution duly enacted or approved. for the full implementation of this Act shall be
included in the annual General
Said referendum shall be held under the Appropriations Act.
control and direction of the Commission
within sixty (60) days in case of provinces Sec. 22. Separability Clause. If any part or
and cities, forty-five (45) days in case of provision of this Act is held invalid or
municipalities and thirty (30) days in case of unconstitutional, the other parts or
barangays. provisions thereof shall remain valid and
effective.
The Commission shall certify and proclaim
the results of the said referendum. Sec. 23. Effectivity. This Act shall take effect
fifteen (15) days after its publication in a
Sec. 18. Authority of Courts. Nothing in this newspaper of general circulation.
Act shall prevent or preclude the proper
courts from declaring null and void any Approved, August 4, 1989.
proposition approved pursuant to this Act for
violation of the Constitution or want of
capacity of the local legislative body to enact
the said measure.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator unless
he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines
and, on the day of the election, is at least thirty-
IV. Final Provisions five years of age, able to read and write, a
registered voter, and a resident of the
Sec. 19. Applicability of the Omnibus
Philippines for not less than two years
Election Code. The Omnibus Election Code
immediately preceding the day of the election.
and other election laws, not inconsistent with
the provisions of this Act, shall apply to all
initiatives and referenda. Section 4. The term of office of the Senators
shall be six years and shall commence, unless
otherwise provided by law, at noon on the
Sec. 20. Rules and Regulations. The thirtieth day of June next following their
Commission is hereby empowered to election. No Senator shall serve for more than
promulgate such rules and regulations as may two consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation
be necessary to carry out the purposes of this of the office for any length of time shall not be
Act. considered as an interruption in the continuity
of his service for the full term of which he was
Sec. 21. Appropriations. The amount elected.
necessary to defray the cost of the initial
implementation of this Act shall be charged
against the Contingent Fund in the General

Page | 6
MENDIOLA, MANILA
PIMENTEL vs. COMELEC GR 161658, Nov. 3, Constitution. Whatever limits it imposes must
2003 be observed.
Facts: Congress passed RA 9165,

Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, Section 5. (1) The House of Representatives
and makes it mandatory for candidates for shall be composed of not more than two
public office, students of secondary and hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise
tertiary schools, officers and employees of fixed by law, who shall be elected from
public and private offices, and persons legislative districts apportioned among the
charged before the prosecutor’s office with provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila
certain offenses, among other personalities, area in accordance with the number of their
to undergo a drug test. Hence, Senator respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a
Pimentel, who is a senatorial candidate for uniform and progressive ratio, and those who,
the 2004 synchronized elections, challenged as provided by law, shall be elected through a
Section 36(g) of the said law. party-list system of registered national,
regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.
Issue: is the mandatory drug testing of
candidates for public office an (2) The party-list representatives shall
unconstitutional imposition of additional constitute twenty per centum of the total
qualification on candidates for Senator? number of representatives including those
under the party list. For three consecutive
terms after the ratification of this Constitution,
Held: Yes. Section 36 (g) of RA 9165, one-half of the seats allocated to party-list
requiring all candidates for public office representatives shall be filled, as provided by
whether appointed or elected both in the law, by selection or election from the labor,
national or local government undergo a peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural
mandatory drug test is UNCONSITUTIONAL. communities, women, youth, and such other
Under Sec.3, Art. VI of the Constitution, an sectors as may be provided by law, except the
aspiring candidate for Senator needs only to religious sector.
meet 5 qualifications: (1) citizenship, (2)
voter registration, (3) literacy, (4) age, and (3) Each legislative district shall comprise, as
(5) residency. The Congress cannot validly far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and
amend or otherwise modify these adjacent territory. Each city with a population
qualification standards, as it cannot disregard, of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each
evade, or weaken the force of a constitutional province, shall have at least one representative.
mandate, or alter or enlarge the Constitution.
It is basic that if a law or an administrative (4) Within three years following the return of
rule violates any norm of the Constitution, every census, the Congress shall make a
that issuance is null and void and has no reapportionment of legislative districts based
effect. In the discharge of their defined on the standards provided in this section.
functions, the three departments of
government have no choice but to yield
obedience to the commands of the

Page | 7
MENDIOLA, MANILA
TOBIAS VS ABALOS (2) Does it violate Section 5(1) of Article VI of

G.R. No. L-114783 December 8, 1994 the Constitution on the limit of number of
rep?
FACTS: Complainants, invoking their right (3) Is the inexistence of mention of census in
as taxpayers and as residents of Mandaluyong, the law show a lack of constitutional
filed a petition questioning the requirement?
constitutionality of Republic Act No. 7675,
otherwise known as "An Act Converting the RULINGS: The Supreme Court ruled that the
Municipality of Mandaluyong into a Highly contentions are devoid of merit. With regards
Urbanized City to be known as the City of to the first contention of one subject one bill
Mandaluyong." Before the enactment of the rule, the creation of a separate congressional
law, Mandaluyong and San Juan belonged to district for Mandaluyong is not a separate and
the same legislative district. distinct subject from its conversion into a
The petitioners contended that the act is HUC but is a natural and logical consequence.
unconstitutional for violation of three In addition, a liberal construction of the "one
provisions of the constitution. First, it violates title-one subject" rule has been invariably
the one subject one bill rule. The bill provides adopted by this court so as not to cripple or
for the conversion of Mandaluyong to HUC as impede legislation.
well as the division of congressional district
of San Juan and Mandaluyong into two The second contention that the law violates
separate district. Second, it also violate the present limit of the number of
Section 5 of Article VI of the Constitution, representatives, the provision of the section
which provides that the House of itself shows that the 250 limit is not absolute.
Representatives shall be composed of not The Constitution clearly provides that the
more than two hundred and fifty members, House of Representatives shall be composed
unless otherwise fixed by law. The division of of not more than 250 members, "unless
San Juan and Mandaluyong into separate otherwise provided by law”. Therefore, the
congressional districts increased the increase in congressional representation
members of the House of Representative mandated by R.A. No. 7675 is not
beyond that provided by the unconstitutional.
Constitution. Third, Section 5 of Article VI also
provides that within three years following the With regards, to the third contention that
return of every census, the Congress shall there is no mention in the assailed law of any
make a reapportionment of legislative census to show that Mandaluyong and San
districts based on the standard provided in Juan had each attained the minimum
Section 5. Petitioners stated that the division requirement of 250,000 inhabitants to justify
was not made pursuant to any census their separation into two legislative districts,
showing that the minimum population unless otherwise proved that the
requirement was attained. requirements were not met, the said Act
enjoys the presumption of having passed
ISSUE: through the regular congressional processes,
(1) Does RA 7675 violate the one subject one including due consideration by the members
bill rule? of Congress of the minimum requirements for

Page | 8
MENDIOLA, MANILA
the establishment of separate legislative representative of the first district of Leyte,

district. pleads for the annulment of Section 1 of
The petition was dismissed for lack of merit. Resolution no. 2736, redistricting certain
municipalities in Leyte, on the ground that it
violates the principle of equality of
representation.
MARIANO, JR. VS. COMELEC The province of Leyte with the cities of
G.R. No. 118627; 242 SCRA 213, March 7, Tacloban and Ormoc is composed of 5
districts. The 3rd district is composed of:
Almeria, Biliran, Cabucgayan, Caibiran,
FACTS: Petitioners suing as tax payers, assail Calubian, Culaba, Kawayan, Leyte, Maripipi,
a provision (Sec 51) of RA No. 7859 (An Act Naval, San Isidro, Tabango and Villaba.
Converting the Municipality of Makati Into a
Highly Urbanized City to be known as the City Biliran, located in the 3rd district of Leyte,
of Makati) on the ground that the same was made its subprovince by virtue of
attempts to alter or restart the “3-consecutive Republic Act No. 2141 Section 1 enacted on
term” limit for local elective officials 1959. Said section spelled out the
disregarding the terms previously served by municipalities comprising the subprovince:
them, which collides with the Constitution Almeria, Biliran, Cabucgayan, Caibiran, Culaba,
(Sec 8, Art X & Sec 7, Art VI). Kawayan, Maripipi and Naval and all the
territories comprised therein.
ISSUE: Whether or not challenge to the
constitutionality of questioned law is with On 1992, the Local Government Code took
merit. effect and the subprovince of Biliran became
a regular province. (The conversion of Biliran
HELD: No. The requirements before a litigant into a regular province was approved by a
can challenge the constitutionality of a law majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite.) As a
are well-delineated. They are: (1) there must consequence of the conversion, eight
be an actual case or controversy; (2) the municipalities of the 3rd district composed
question of constitutionality must be raised the new province of Biliran. A further
by the proper party; (3) the constitutional consequence was to reduce the 3rd district to
question must be raised at the earliest five municipalities (underlined above) with a
possible opportunity; and (4) the decision on total population of 146,067 as per the 1990
the constitutional question must be necessary census.
to the determination of the case itself.
To remedy the resulting inequality in the
distribution of inhabitants, voters and
municipalities in the province of Leyte,
respondent COMELEC held consultation
MONTEJO vs. COMELEC meetings with the incumbent representatives
242 SCRA 415 March 16, 1995 of the province and other interested parties
and on December 29, 1994, it promulgated
FACTS: Petitioner Cerilo Roy Montejo,

Page | 9
MENDIOLA, MANILA
the assailed resolution where, among others, geographically located shall be

it transferred the municipality of Capoocan of correspondingly adjusted by the Commission
the 2nd district and the municipality of on Elections but such adjustment shall not be
Palompon of the 4th district to the 3rd made within one hundred and twenty days
district of Leyte. before the election.
ISSUE: Whether the unprecedented exercise Minor adjustments does not involve change in
by the COMELEC of the legislative power of the allocations per district. Examples include
redistricting and reapportionment is valid or error in the correct name of a particular
not. municipality or when a municipality in
between which is still in the territory of one
RULING: assigned district is forgotten. And consistent
Section 1 of Resolution no. 2736 is annulled with the limits of its power to make minor
and set aside. adjustments, section 3 of the Ordinance did
not also give the respondent COMELEC any
The deliberations of the members of the authority to transfer municipalities from one
Constitutional Commission shows that legislative district to another district. The
COMELEC was denied the major power of power granted by section 3 to the respondent
legislative apportionment as it itself exercised is to adjust the number of members (not
the power. Regarding the first elections after municipalities.)
the enactment of the 1987 constitution, it is
the Commission who did the Notes:
reapportionment of the legislative districts
and for the subsequent elections, the power Petitioner also prayed for the transfer of the
was given to the Congress. municipality of Tolosa from the 1st district to
the 2nd district. It is likewise denied.
Also, respondent COMELEC relied on the
ordinance appended to the 1987 constitution
as the source of its power of redistricting
which is traditionally regarded as part of the
power to make laws. Said ordinance states AQUINO III vs. COMELEC
that: G.R. No. 189793, April 7, 2010
Section 2: The Commission on Elections is FACTS: The said case was filed by the
hereby empowered to make minor petitioners by way of a Petition for Certiorari
adjustments to the reapportionment herein and Prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of
made.” Court. It was addressed to nullify and
declared as unconstitutional, R.A. 9716
Section 3 : Any province that may hereafter entitled “An Act Reapportioning the
be created…The number of Members Composition of the First (1st) and Second
apportioned to the province out of which Legislative Districts (2nd) in the province of
such new province was created or where the Camarines Sur and Thereby Creating a New
city, whose population has so increases, is Legislative District from such

Page | 10
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Reapportionment.” was mentioned about a population. While in

cities, a minimum population of 250,000 must
Said Act originated from House Bill No. 4264, first be satisfied. In 2007, CamSur had a
and it was enacted by President Macapagal- population of 1,693,821 making the province
Arroyo. Effectuating the act, it has divided the entitled to two additional districts from the
existing four districts, and present of four. Based on the formulation of
apportioned districts shall form additional Ordinance, other than population, the results
district where the new first district shall of the apportionment were valid. And lastly,
be composed of 176,383 population count. other factors were mentioned during the
deliberations of House Bill No. 4264.
Petitioners contend that the reapportionment
runs afoul of the explicit constitutional
standard with a minimum population of
250,000 for the creation of a legislative VETERANS FEDERATION PARTY v.
district under Section 5 (3), Article VI of the COMELEC
1987 Constitution. It was emphasized as well [G.R. No. 136781. October 6, 2000]
by the petitioners that if population is less
than that provided by theConstitution, it must
be stricken-down for non-compliance with FACTS: COMELEC proclaimed 14 party-list
the minimum population requirement, unless representatives from 13 parties which
otherwise fixed by law. obtained at least 2% of the total number of
votes cast for the party-list system as
Respondents have argued that the petitioners members of the House of Representatives.
are guilty of two fatal technical effects: first, Upon petition for respondents, who were
error in choosing to assail R.A. 9716 via the party-list organizations, it proclaimed 38
Remedy of Certiorari and Prohibition under additional party-list representatives although
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. And second, they obtained less than 2% of the total
petitioners have no locus standi to question number of votes cast for the party-list system
the constitutionality of R.A. 9716. on the ground that under the Constitution, it
is mandatory that at least 20% of the
ISSUE: Whether or not Republic Act No. 9716 members of the House of Representatives
is unconstitutional and therefore null and come from the party-list representatives.
void, or whether or not a population of
250,000 is an indispensable constitutional ISSUE: Is the twenty percent allocation for
requirement for the creation of a new party-list representatives mentioned in
legislative district in a province. Section 5 (2), Article VI of the Constitution,
mandatory or is it merely a ceiling? In other
RULING: It was ruled that the said Act is words, should the twenty percent allocation
constitutional. The plain and clear distinction for party-list solons be filled up completely
between a city and a province was explained and all the time?
under the second sentence of Section 5 (3) of
the Constitution. It states that a province is RULING: It is not mandatory. It merely
entitled into a representative, with nothing provides a ceiling for the party-list seats in

Page | 11
MENDIOLA, MANILA
the House of Representatives. The threshold, Congress wanted to ensure that

Constitution vested Congress with the broad only those parties, organizations and
power to define and prescribe the mechanics coalitions having a sufficient number of
of the party-list system of representatives. In constituents deserving of representation are
the exercise of its constitutional prerogative, actually represented in Congress. This intent
Congress deemed it necessary to require can be gleaned from the deliberations on the
parties participating in the system to obtain proposed bill. The two percent threshold is
at least 2% of the total votes cast for the party consistent not only with the intent of the
list system to be entitled to a party-list seat. framers of the Constitution and the law, but
Congress wanted to ensure that only those with the very essence of "representation."
parties having a sufficient number of Under a republican or representative state, all
constituents deserving of representation are government authority emanates from the
actually represented in Congress. people, but is exercised by representatives
chosen by them. But to have meaningful
FORMULA FOR representation, the elected persons must
have the mandate of a sufficient number of
people. Otherwise, in a legislature that
determination of total number of party-list features the party-list system, the result
representatives = #district might be the proliferation of small groups
representatives/.80 x .20 which are incapable of contributing
significant legislation, and which might even
pose a threat to the stability of Congress.
Thus, even legislative districts are
apportioned according to "the number of
additional representatives of first party = # their respective inhabitants, and on the basis
of votes of first party/ # of votes of party of a uniform and progressive ratio" to ensure
list system meaningful local representation.
ISSUE: How should the additional seats of a

additional seats for concerned party = # of qualified party be determined?
votes of concerned party/ # votes of first
party x additional seats for concerned RULING:
party Step One. There is no dispute among the
petitioners, the public and the private
respondents, as well as the members of this
Court that the initial step is to rank all the
ISSUE: Are the two percent threshold participating parties, organizations and
requirement and the three-seat limit coalitions from the highest to the lowest
provided in Section 11 (b) of RA 7941 based on the number of votes they each
constitutional? received. Then the ratio for each party is
computed by dividing its votes by the total
RULING: Yes. In imposing a two percent votes cast for all the parties participating in

Page | 12
MENDIOLA, MANILA
the system. All parties with at least two Resolution No. 07-88. BANAT did not file a
percent of the total votes are guaranteed one motion for reconsideration of NBC Resolution
seat each. Only these parties shall be No. 07-88.
considered in the computation of additional
seats. The party receiving the highest number On 9 July 2007, Bayan Muna, Abono, and A
of votes shall thenceforth be referred to as the Teacher asked the COMELEC, acting as NBC,
“first” party. to reconsider its decision to use
the Veterans formula as stated in its NBC
Step Two. The next step is to determine the Resolution No. 07-60 because
number of seats the first party is entitled to, the Veterans formula is violative of the
in order to be able to compute that for the Constitution and of Republic Act No. 7941
other parties. Since the distribution is based (R.A. No. 7941). On the same day, the
on proportional representation, the number COMELEC denied reconsideration during the
of seats to be allotted to the other parties proceedings of the NBC.
cannot possibly exceed that to which the first
party is entitled by virtue of its obtaining the ISSUE: Considering the allegations in the
most number of votes. petitions and the comments of the parties in
these cases, we defined the following issues in
Step Three The next step is to solve for the our advisory for the oral arguments set on 22
number of additional seats that the other April 2008:
qualified parties are entitled to, based on 1. Is the twenty percent allocation for
proportional representation. party-list representatives in Section 5(2),
Article VI of the Constitution mandatory or
merely a ceiling?
2. Is the three-seat limit in Section 11(b) of
RA 7941 constitutional?
BANAT VS COMELEC GR no. 179271 April
3. Is the two percent threshold prescribed
21 2009
in Section 11(b) of RA 7941 to qualify for one
FACTS: On 27 June 2002, BANAT filed seat constitutional?
a Petition to Proclaim the Full Number of 4. How shall the party-list representative
Party-List Representatives Provided by the seats be allocated?
Constitution, docketed as NBC No. 07-041 5. Does the Constitution prohibit the major
(PL) before the NBC. BANAT filed its petition political parties from participating in the
because "the Chairman and the Members of party-list elections? If not, can the major
the COMELEC have recently been quoted in political parties be barred from participating
the national papers that the COMELEC is duty in the party-list elections?
bound to and shall implement
the Veterans ruling, that is, would apply the
Panganiban formula in allocating party-list RULING: WHEREFORE we PARTIALLY
seats." GRANT the petition. We SET ASIDE the
Resolution of the COMELEC dated 3 August
BANAT filed a petition for certiorari and 2007 in NBC No. 07-041 (PL) as well as the
mandamus assailing the ruling in NBC Resolution dated 9 July 2007 in NBC No. 07-

Page | 13
MENDIOLA, MANILA
60. We declareunconstitutional the two two steps in the second round of seat
percent threshold in the distribution of allocation. First, the percentage is multiplied
additional party-list seats. by the remaining available seats, 38, which is
the difference between the 55 maximum seats
reserved under the Party-List System and the
Ratio: Neither the Constitution nor R.A. No. 17 guaranteed seats of the two-percenters.
7941 mandates the filling-up of the entire The whole integer of the product of the
20% allocation of party-list percentage and of the remaining available
representatives found in the Constitution. seats corresponds to a party’s share in the
However, we cannot allow the continued remaining available seats. Second, we assign
existence of a provision in the law which one party-list seat to each of the parties next
will systematically prevent the in rank until all available seats are completely
constitutionally allocated 20% party-list distributed. We distributed all of the
representatives from being filled. The three- remaining 38 seats in the second round of
seat cap, as a limitation to the number of seats seat allocation. Finally, we apply the three-
that a qualified party-list organization may seat cap to determine the number of seats
occupy, remains a valid statutory device that each qualified party-list candidate is entitled.
prevents any party from dominating the
party-list elections. Neither the Constitution nor R.A. No. 7941
prohibits major political parties from
We rule that, in computing the allocation participating in the party-list system. On
of additional seats, the continued operation the contrary, the framers of the Constitution
of the two percent threshold for the clearly intended the major political parties to
distribution of the additional seats as found in participate in party-list elections through
the second clause of Section 11(b) of R.A. No. their sectoral wings. In fact, the members of
7941 is unconstitutional. This Court finds the Constitutional Commission voted down,
that the two percent threshold makes it 19-22, any permanent sectoral seats, and in
mathematically impossible to achieve the the alternative the reservation of the party-
maximum number of available party list list system to the sectoral groups. In defining
seats when the number of available party list a "party" that participates in party-list
seats exceeds 50. The continued operation of elections as either "a political party or a
the two percent threshold in the distribution sectoral party," R.A. No. 7941 also clearly
of the additional seats frustrates the intended that major political parties will
attainment of the permissive ceiling. participate in the party-list elections.
Excluding the major political parties in party-
In declaring the two percent threshold list elections is manifestly against the
unconstitutional, we do not limit our Constitution, the intent of the Constitutional
allocation of additional seats to the two- Commission, and R.A. No. 7941. This Court
percenters. The percentage of votes garnered cannot engage in socio-political engineering
by each party-list candidate is arrived at by and judicially legislate the exclusion of major
dividing the number of votes garnered by political parties from the party-list elections
each party by 15,950,900, the total number of in patent violation of the Constitution and the
votes cast for party-list candidates. There are law.

Page | 14
MENDIOLA, MANILA
out of the 155 parties garnered more than

2%.
In view of the inclusion of major political
parties (according to Puno, J.) In sum, the evils that faced our marginalized
The Court today effectively reversed the and underrepresented people at the time of
ruling in Ang Bagong Bayani v. COMELEC with the framing of the 1987 Constitution still
regard to the computation of seat allotments haunt them today. It is through the party-list
and the participation of major political parties system that the Constitution sought to
in the party-list system. I vote for the formula address this systemic dilemma. In ratifying
propounded by the majority as it benefits the the Constitution, our people recognized how
party-list system but I regret that my the interests of our poor and powerless
interpretation of Article VI, Section 5 of the sectoral groups can be frustrated by the
Constitution with respect to the participation traditional political parties who have the
of the major political parties in the election of machinery and chicanery to dominate our
party-list representatives is not in direct political institutions. If we allow major
congruence with theirs, hence political parties to participate in the party-list
system electoral process, we will surely
There is no gainsaying the fact that the party- suffocate the voice of the
list parties are no match to our traditional marginalized, frustrate their sovereignty
political parties in the political arena. This is and betray the democratic spirit of the
borne out in the party-list elections held in Constitution. That opinion will serve as the
2001 where major political parties were graveyard of the party-list system.
initially allowed to campaign and be voted for.
The results confirmed the fear expressed by IN VIEW WHEREOF, I dissent on the
some commissioners in the Constitutional ruling allowing the entry of major political
Commission that major political parties parties into the party-list system.
would figure in the disproportionate
distribution of votes: of the 162 parties which
participated, the seven major political In view of 2% being unconstitutional
parties made it to the top 50. These seven (according to Nachura, J.)
parties garnered an accumulated 9.54% of
the total number of votes counted, yielding an However, I wish to add a few words to
average of 1.36% each, while the remaining support the proposition that the inflexible 2%
155 parties (including those whose threshold vote required for entitlement by a
qualifications were contested) only obtained party-list group to a seat in the House of
90.45% or an average of 0.58% each. Of these Representatives in Republic Act (R.A.) No.
seven, three parties or 42.8% of the total 7941 is unconstitutional. This minimum vote
number of the major parties garnered more requirement ─ fixed at 2% of the total
than 2% of the total number of votes each, a number of votes cast for the party list system
feat that would have entitled them to seat ─ presents an unwarranted obstacle to the
their members as party-list representatives. full implementation of Section 5 (2), Article VI,
In contrast, only about 4% of the total of the Philippine Constitution. As such, it
number of the remaining parties, or only 8 effectively defeats the declared constitutional

Page | 15
MENDIOLA, MANILA
policy, as well as the legislative objective 5. to enable sectoral representatives to rise to

expressed in the enabling law, to allow the the same majesty as that of the elected
people’s broadest representation in representatives in the legislative body, rather
Congress,the raison d’etre for the adoption of than owing to some degree their seats in the
the party-list system. legislative body either to an outright
constitutional gift or to an appointment by
Today, a little over eight (8) years after this the President of the Philippines;
Court’s decision in Veterans Federation Party,
we see that in the 14th Congress, 55 seats are 6. if no threshold is imposed, this will actually
allocated to party-list representatives, using proliferate political party groups and those
the Veterans formula. But that figure (of 55) who have not really been given by the people
can never be realized, because the 2% sufficient basis for them to represent their
threshold vote requirement makes it constituents and, in turn, they will be able to
mathematically impossible to have more than get to the Parliament through the backdoor
50 seats. After all, the total number of votes under the name of the party-list system; and
cast for the party-list system can never
exceed 100%. 7. to ensure that only those with a more or
less substantial following can be
Lest I be misunderstood, I do not advocate represented.9
doing away completely with a threshold vote
requirement. The need for such a minimum However, with the burgeoning of the
vote requirement was explained in careful population, the steady increase in the party-
and elaborate detail by Chief Justice Puno in list seat allotment as it keeps pace with the
his separate concurring opinion in Veterans creation of additional legislative districts, and
Federation Party. I fully agree with him that a the foreseeable growth of party-list groups,
minimum vote requirement is needed -- the fixed 2% vote requirement is no longer
viable. It does not adequately respond to the
1. to avoid a situation where the candidate inevitable changes that come with time; and it
will just use the party-list system as a fallback is, in fact, inconsistent with the Constitution,
position; because it prevents the fundamental law from
ever being fully operative.
2. to discourage nuisance candidates or
parties, who are not ready and whose chances It is correct to say, and I completely agree
are very low, from participating in the with Veterans Federation Party, that Section 5
elections; (2), Article VI of the Constitution, is not
mandatory, that it merely provides a ceiling
3. to avoid the reserve seat system by opening for the number of party-list seats in
up the system; Congress. But when the enabling law, R.A.
7941, enacted by Congress for the precise
4. to encourage the marginalized sectors to purpose of implementing the constitutional
organize, work hard, and earn their seats provision, contains a condition that places the
within the system; constitutional ceiling completely beyond
reach, totally impossible of realization, then

Page | 16
MENDIOLA, MANILA
we must strike down the offending condition memoranda.

as an affront to the fundamental law. This is
not simply an inquiry into the wisdom of the Meanwhile, dissatisfied with the pace of the
legislative measure; rather it involves the COMELEC, Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor
duty of this Court to ensure that Party filed a Petition before this Court on
constitutional provisions remain effective at April 16, 2001. This Petition, docketed as GR
all times. No rule of statutory construction No. 147589, assailed COMELEC Omnibus
can save a particular legislative enactment Resolution No. 3785. In its Resolution dated
that renders a constitutional provision April 17, 2001, the Court directed
inoperative and ineffectual. respondents to comment on the Petition
within a non-extendible period of five days
from notice.
On April 17, 2001, Petitioner Bayan Muna

BAGONG BAYANI LABOR PARTY VS also filed before this Court a Petition,
COMELEC GR 147589 June 26, 2001 docketed as GR No. 147613, also challenging
COMELEC Omnibus Resolution No. 3785. In
Facts: On April 10, 2001, Akbayan Citizens its Resolution dated May 9, 2001, the Court
Action Party filed before the COMELEC a ordered the consolidation of the two
Petition praying that "the names of [some of Petitions before it; directed respondents
herein respondents] be deleted from the named in the second Petition to file their
'Certified List of Political Parties/Sectoral respective Comments on or before noon of
Parties/Organizations/Coalitions May 15, 2001; and called the parties to an
Participating in the Party List System for the Oral Argument on May 17, 2001. It added that
May 14, 2001 Elections' and that said the COMELEC may proceed with the counting
certified list be accordingly amended." It also and canvassing of votes cast for the party-list
asked, as an alternative, that the votes cast elections, but barred the proclamation of
for the said respondents not be counted or any winner therein, until further orders of
canvassed, and that the latter's nominees not the Court.
be proclaimed. On April 11, 2001, Bayan
Muna and Bayan Muna-Youth also filed a
Petition for Cancellation of Registration and ISSUES: During the hearing on May 17, 2001,
Nomination against some of herein the Court directed the parties to address the
respondents. following issues:
1. Whether or not recourse under Rule 65
On April 18, 2001, the COMELEC required the is proper under the premises. More
respondents in the two disqualification cases specifically, is there no other plain, speedy or
to file Comments within three days from adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
notice. It also set the date for hearing on April law?
26, 2001, but subsequently reset it to May 3, 2. Whether or not political parties may
2001. During the hearing, however, participate in the party-list elections.
Commissioner Ralph C. Lantion merely 3. Whether or not the party-list system is
directed the parties to submit their respective exclusive to 'marginalized and

Page | 17
MENDIOLA, MANILA
underrepresented' sectors and organizations. Court in a verified petition for certiorari

4. Whether or not the COMELEC under Rule 65.
committed grave abuse of discretion in
promulgating Omnibus Resolution No. 3785." Moreover, the assailed Omnibus Resolution
was promulgated by Respondent
Commission en banc; hence,no motion for
RULING: WHEREFORE, this case reconsideration was possible, it being a
is REMANDED to the COMELEC, which is prohibited pleading under Section 1 (d), Rule
hereby DIRECTED to immediately conduct 13 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.
summary evidentiary hearings on the
qualifications of the party-list participants The Court also notes that Petitioner Bayan
in the light of the guidelines enunciated in Muna had filed before the COMELEC a
this Decision. Considering the extreme Petition for Cancellation of Registration and
urgency of determining the winners in the Nomination against some of herein
last party-list elections, the COMELEC is respondents. The COMELEC, however, did
directed to begin its hearings for the parties not act on that Petition.
and organizations that appear to have
garnered such number of votes as to qualify In view of the pendency of the elections,
for seats in the House of Representatives. The Petitioner Bayan Muna sought succor from
COMELEC is further DIRECTED to submit to this Court, for there was no other adequate
this Court its compliance report within 30 recourse at the time. Subsequent events have
days from notice hereof. proven the urgency of petitioner's action; to
this date, the COMELEC has not yet
The Resolution of this Court dated May 9, formally resolved the Petition before it.
2001, directing the COMELEC "to refrain But a resolution may just be a formality
from proclaiming any winner" during the because the COMELEC, through the Office of
last party-list election, shall remain in force the Solicitor General, has made its position
until after the COMELEC itself will have on the matter quite clear.
complied and reported its compliance with
the foregoing disposition. In any event, this case presents an exception
to the rule that certiorari shall lie only in
This Decision is immediately executory upon the absence of any other plain, speedy and
the Commission on Elections' receipt thereof. adequate remedy. It has been held that
No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. certiorari is available, notwithstanding the
presence of other remedies, "where the issue
In view of standing on COMELEC OR 3785 raised is one purely of law, where public
Petitioners attack the validity of COMELEC interest is involved, and in case of urgency."
Omnibus Resolution 3785 for having been Indeed, the instant case is indubitably imbued
issued with grave abuse of discretion, insofar with public interest and with extreme
as it allowed respondents to participate in the urgency, for it potentially involves the
party-list elections of 2001. Indeed, under composition of 20 percent of the House of
both the Constitution and the Rules of Court, Representatives.
such challenge may be brought before this

Page | 18
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Moreover, this case raises transcendental or group for that matter — may do so. The
constitutional issues on the party-list requisite character of these parties or
system, which this Court must urgently organizationsmust be consistent with
resolve, consistent with its duty to "formulate the purpose of the party-list system, as laid
guiding and controlling constitutional down in the Constitution and RA 7941.
principles, precepts, doctrines, or rules."
"Proportional representation" here does not
Finally, when the decision sought to be set refer to the number of people in a particular
aside is a nullity, or when the need for relief is district, because the party-list election is
extremely urgent and certiorari is the only national in scope. Neither does it allude to
adequate and speedy remedy available." numerical strength in a distressed or
oppressed group. Rather, it refers to the
In view of the participation of political representation of the "marginalized and
parties underrepresented" as exemplified by the
In its Petition, Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW enumeration in Section 5 of the law; namely,
Labor Party contends that "the inclusion of "labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban
political parties in the party-list system is poor, indigenous cultural
the most objectionable portion of the communities, elderly,
questioned Resolution." For its part, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, ove
Petitioner Bayan Muna objects to the rseas workers, and professionals."
participation of "major political parties."
However, it is not enough for the candidate to
For its part, Section 2 of RA 7941 also claim representation of the marginalized and
provides for "a party-list system of registered underrepresented, because representation is
national, regional and sectoral parties or easy to claim and to feign. The party-list
organizations or coalitions thereof, . . .." organization or party must factually and truly
Section 3 expressly states that a "party" represent the marginalized and
is "either a political party or a sectoral underrepresented constituencies mentioned
party or a coalition of parties." More to the in Section 5. Concurrently, the persons
point, the law defines "political party" as "an nominated by the party-list candidate-
organized group of citizens advocating an organization must be "Filipino citizens
ideology or platform, principles and policies belonging to marginalized and
for the general conduct of government and underrepresented sectors, organizations and
which, as the most immediate means of parties."
securing their adoption, regularly nominates
and supports certain of its leaders and Finally, "lack of well-defined constituency"
members as candidates for public office." refers to the absence of a traditionally
identifiable electoral group, like voters of a
In view of terms marginalized and congressional district or territorial unit of
underrepresented government. Rather, it points again to those
That political parties may participate in the with disparate interests identified with the
party-list elections does not mean, however, "marginalized or underrepresented."
that any political party — or any organization

Page | 19
MENDIOLA, MANILA
In the end, the role of the COMELEC is to see and underrepresented in our midst are the
to it that only those Filipinos who are majority who wallow in poverty, destitution
"marginalized and underrepresented" and infirmity. It was for them that the party-
become members of Congress under the list system was enacted — to give them not
party-list system, Filipino-style. only genuine hope, but genuine power; to
give them the opportunity to be elected and
While the enumeration of marginalized and to represent the specific concerns of their
underrepresented sectors is not exclusive, it constituencies; and simply to give them a
demonstrates the clear intent of the law that direct voice in Congress and in the larger
not all sectors can be represented under the affairs of the State.
party-list system. It is a fundamental principle
of statutory construction that words
employed in a statute are interpreted in In view of COMELEC’s grave abuse of
connection with, and their meaning is discretion
ascertained by reference to, the words and When a lower court, or a quasi-judicial
the phrases with which they are associated or agency like the Commission on Elections,
related. Thus, the meaning of a term in a violates or ignores the Constitution or the law,
statute may be limited, qualified or its action can be struck down by this Court on
specialized by those in immediate the ground of grave abuse of discretion.
association. Indeed, the function of all judicial and quasi-
judicial instrumentalities is to apply the law
as they find it, not to reinvent or second-
In view of OSG contention guess it.
Notwithstanding the unmistakable statutory
policy, the Office of the Solicitor General
contends that any party or group that is not In view of the Courts assistance
disqualified under Section 6 of RA 7941 may The Court, therefore, deems it proper to
participate in the elections. Hence, it admitted remand the case to the COMELEC for the
during the Oral Argument that even an latter to determine, after summary
organization representing the super rich of evidentiary hearings, whether the 154 parties
Forbes Park or Dasmariñas Village could and organizations allowed to participate in
participate in the party-list elections. the party-list elections comply with the
requirements of the law. In this light, the
Indeed, the law crafted to address the Court finds it appropriate to lay down the
peculiar disadvantages of Payatas hovel following guidelines, culled from the law and
dwellers cannot be appropriated by the the Constitution, to assist the COMELEC in
mansion owners of Forbes Park. The interests its work.
of these two sectors are manifestly disparate;
hence, the OSG's position to treat them
similarly defies reason and common In view of the 2 systems of representation
sense. (Mendoza, J.) Indeed, the two systems of
representation are not identical. Party list
It is ironic, therefore, that the marginalized representation is a type of proportional

Page | 20
MENDIOLA, MANILA
representation designed to give those who

otherwise cannot win a seat in the House In sum, a problem was placed before the
of Representatives in district elections a Constitutional Commission that the existing
chance to win if they have sufficient "winner-take-all" one-seat district system of
strength on a nationwide basis. (In this election leaves blocks of voters
sense, these groups are considered underrepresented. To this problem of
"marginalized and underrepresented.") underrepresentation two solutions were
Under the party-list system, representatives proposed: sectoral representation and party-
are elected from multi-seat districts in list system or proportional representation.
proportion to the number of votes received in The Constitutional Commission chose the
contrast to the "winner-take-all" single-seat party-list system.
district in which, even if a candidate
garners 49.9% of the votes, he gets no Thus, neither textual nor historical
seat. consideration yields support for the view that
the party-list system is designed exclusively
Thus, under the party-list system, a party or for labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous
candidate need not come in first in order cultural communities, women, and youth
to win seats in the legislature. On the other sectors.
hand, in the "winner-take-all" single-seat
district, the votes cast for a losing candidate For while the representation of "marginalized
are wasted as only those who vote for the and underrepresented" sectors is a basic
winner are represented. purpose of the law, it is not its only purpose.
As already explained, the aim of proportional
What the advocates of sectoral representation representation is to enable those who cannot
wanted was permanent reserved seats for win in the "winner-take-all" district elections
"marginalized sectors" by which they mean a chance of winning. These groups are not
the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous necessarily limited to the sectors mentioned
cultural communities, women, and youth in §5, i.e., labor, peasants, fisherfolk, urban
sectors. Under Art. VI, §5(2), these sectors poor, indigenous cultural communities, the
were given only one-half of the seats in the elderly, the handicapped, women, the youth,
House of Representatives and only for three veterans, overseas workers, and professionals.
terms. On the other hand, the "third or fourth These groups can possibly include other
placers" in district elections, for whom the sectors.
party-list system was intended, refer to those
who may not win seats in the districts but
nationwide may be sufficiently strong to
ATONG PAGLAUM, INC., represented by its
enable them to be represented in the House.
President, Mr. Alan Igot, Petitioner, v.
They may include Villacorta's "marginalized"
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
or "underprivileged" sectors, but they are not
limited to them. There would have been no
FACTS: 52 party-list groups and
need to give the "marginalized sectors" one-
organizations filed separate petitions totaling
half of the seats for the party-list system for
54 with the Supreme Court (SC) in an effort to
three terms if the two systems are identical.
reverse various resolutions by the

Page | 21
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Commission on Elections (Comelec) Political Law- Party-list system

disqualifying them from the May 2013 party-
list race. The Comelec, in its assailed Commissioner Christian S. Monsod, the main
resolutions issued in October, November and sponsor of the party-list system, stressed that
December of 2012, ruled, among others, that "the party-list system is not synonymous with
these party-list groups and organizations that of the sectoral representation."
failed to represent a marginalized and Indisputably, the framers of the 1987
underrepresented sector, their nominees do Constitution intended the party-list system to
not come from a marginalized and include not only sectoral parties but also non-
underrepresented sector, and/or some of the sectoral parties. The framers intended the
organizations or groups are not truly sectoral parties to constitute a part, but not
representative of the sector they intend to the entirety, of the party-list system.As
represent in Congress. explained by Commissioner Wilfredo
Villacorta, political parties can participate in
Petitioners argued that the COMELEC the party-list system "For as long as they field
committed grave abuse of discretion candidates who come from the different
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in marginalized sectors that we shall designate
disqualifying petitioners from participating in in this Constitution."
the 13 May 2013 party-list elections, either by
denial of their new petitions for registration Republic Act No. 7941 or the Party-List
under the party-list system, or by cancellation System Act is the law that implements the
of their existing registration and accreditation party-list system prescribed in the
as party-list organizations; andsecond, Constitution.
whether the criteria for participating in the
party-list system laid down inAng Bagong Section 3(a) of R.A. No. 7941 defines a "party"
Bayani and Barangay Association for National as"either a political party or a sectoral
Advancement and Transparency v. partyor a coalition of parties." Clearly, a
Commission on Elections(BANAT) should be political party is different from a sectoral
applied by the COMELEC in the coming 13 party. Section 3(c) of R.A. No. 7941 further
May 2013 party-list elections. provides that a"political partyrefers to
anorganized group of citizens advocating an
ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC ideology or platform, principles and policies
committed grave abuse of discretion for the general conduct of government."On
the other hand, Section 3(d) of R.A. No. 7941
HELD: No. The COMELEC merely followed provides that a "sectoral partyrefers to an
the guidelines set in the cases of Ang organized group of citizens belonging to any
Bagong Bayani and BANAT. However, the of the sectors enumerated in Section 5
Supreme Court remanded the cases back hereofwhose principal advocacy pertains to
to the COMELEC as the Supreme Court now the special interest and concerns of their
provides for new guidelines which sector."R.A. No. 7941 provides different
abandoned some principles established in definitions for a political and a sectoral party.
the two aforestated cases. Obviously, they are separate and distinct from
each other.

Page | 22
MENDIOLA, MANILA
the party has at least one remaining qualified

Under the party-list system, an ideology- nominee.
based or cause-oriented political party is
clearly different from a sectoral party. A In determining who may participate in the
political party need not be organized as a coming 13 May 2013 and subsequent party-
sectoral party and need not represent any list elections, the COMELEC shall adhere to
particular sector. There is no requirement in the following parameters:
R.A. No. 7941 that a national or regional
political party must represent a "marginalized 1. Three different groups may participate in
and underrepresented" sector. It is sufficient the party-list system: (1) national parties or
that the political party consists of citizens organizations, (2) regional parties or
who advocate the same ideology or platform, organizations, and (3) sectoral parties or
or the same governance principles and organizations.
policies,regardless of their economic status as
citizens. 2. National parties or organizations and
regional parties or organizations do not need
Political Law- parameters in qualifying to organize along sectoral lines and do not
party- lists need to represent any "marginalized and
underrepresented" sector.
The COMELEC excluded from participating in
the 13 May 2013 party-list elections those 3. Political parties can participate in party-list
that did not satisfy these two criteria: (1) all elections provided they register under the
national, regional, and sectoral groups or party-list system and do not field candidates
organizations must represent the in legislative district elections. A political
"marginalized and underrepresented" sectors, party, whether major or not, that fields
and (2) all nominees must belong to the candidates in legislative district elections can
"marginalized and underrepresented" sector participate in party-list elections only
they represent. Petitioners may have been through its sectoral wing that can separately
disqualified by the COMELEC because as register under the party-list system. The
political or regional parties they are not sectoral wing is by itself an independent
organized along sectoral lines and do not sectoral party, and is linked to a political
represent the "marginalized and party through a coalition.
underrepresented."
4. Sectoral parties or organizations may
Also, petitioners' nominees who do not either be "marginalized and
belong to the sectors they represent may have underrepresented" or lacking in "well-defined
been disqualified, although they may have a political constituencies." It is enough that
track record of advocacy for their sectors. their principal advocacy pertains to the
Likewise, nominees of non-sectoral parties special interest and concerns of their sector.
may have been disqualified because they do The sectors that are "marginalized and
not belong to any sector. Moreover, a party underrepresented" include labor, peasant,
may have been disqualified because one or fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural
more of its nominees failed to qualify, even if communities, handicapped, veterans, and

Page | 23
MENDIOLA, MANILA
overseas workers. The sectors that lack "well- possibly qualify to participate in the coming
defined political constituencies" include 13 May 2013 party-list elections under the
professionals, the elderly, women, and the new parameters prescribed by this Court.
youth.
Petitions Granted
5. A majority of the members of sectoral
parties or organizations that represent the Ang Ladlad LGBT Party vs. COMELEC
"marginalized and underrepresented" must G.R. No. 190582 April 8, 2010
belong to the "marginalized and
underrepresented" sector they represent.
Similarly, a majority of the members of FACTS: Petitioner is an organization
sectoral parties or organizations that lack composed of men and women who identify
"well-defined political constituencies" must themselves as lesbians, gays, bisexuals, or
belong to the sector they represent. The trans-gendered individuals (LGBT’s).
nominees of sectoral parties or organizations Incorporated in 2003, Ang Ladlad first
that represent the "marginalized and applied for registration with the COMELEC in
underrepresented," or that represent those 2006 as a party-list organization under
who lack "well-defined political Republic Act 7941, otherwise known as the
constituencies," either must belong to their Party-List System Act. The application for
respective sectors, or must have a track accreditation was denied on the ground that
record of advocacy for their respective the organization had no substantial
sectors. The nominees of national and membership base. In 2009, Ang Ladlad again
regional parties or organizations must be filed a petition for registration with the
bona-fide members of such parties or COMELEC upon which it was dismissed on
organizations. moral grounds.
6. National, regional, and sectoral parties or Ang Ladlad sought reconsideration but the
organizations shall not be disqualified if some COMELEC upheld its First Resolution, stating
of their nominees are disqualified, provided that “the party-list system is a tool for the
that they have at least one nominee who realization of aspirations of marginalized
remains qualified.
individuals whose interests are also the
nation’s. Until the time comes when Ladlad is
This Court is sworn to uphold the 1987 able to justify that having mixed sexual
Constitution, apply its provisions faithfully, orientations and transgender identities is
and desist from engaging in socio-economic beneficial to the nation, its application for
or political experimentations contrary to
accreditation under the party-list system will
what the Constitution has ordained. Judicial remain just that.” That “the Philippines
power does not include the power to re-write cannot ignore its more than 500 years of
the Constitution. Thus, the present petitions Muslim and Christian upbringing, such that
should be remanded to the COMELEC not some moral precepts espoused by said
because the COMELEC committed grave religions have sipped into society and these
abuse of discretion in disqualifying are not publicly accepted moral norms.”
petitioners, but because petitioners may now COMELEC reiterated that petitioner does not

Page | 24
MENDIOLA, MANILA
have a concrete and genuine national poltical religious justification is inconsistent with this
agenda to benefit the nation and that the policy of neutrality.”
petition was validly dismissed on moral
grounds. It also argued for the first time that Laws of general application should apply with
the LGBT sector is not among the sectors equal force to LGBTs and they deserve to
enumerated by the Constitution and RA 7941. participate in the party-list system on the
Thus Ladlad filed this petition for Certiorari same basis as other marginalized and under-
under Rule 65. represented sectors.
The principle of non-discrimination requires

the laws of general application relating to
ISSUE: Whether or not Petitioner should be elections be applied to all persons, regardless
accredited as a party-list organization under of sexual orientation.
RA 7941.
HELD: The Supreme Court granted the CONGRESSMAN JOVITO S. PALPARAN, JR.
petition and set aside the resolutions of the V. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMELEC. It also directed the COMELEC to ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL G.R. No. 189506,
grant petitioner’s application for party-list February 11, 2010Abad, J.
accreditation.
FACTS: In the 2007 elections, Bantay party-

The enumeration of marginalized and under-
list group received the sufficient voting
represented sectors is not exclusive. The
percentage entitling it to a seat in the House
crucial element is not whether a sector is
of Representatives in which Petitioner Jovito
specifically enumerated, but whether a
S. Palparan, Jr. is the first nominee of the said
particular organization complies with the
party-list group. Respondents Reynaldo
requirements of the Constitution and RA
Lesaca, Jr. , Cristina Palabay, Renato M. Reyes.
7941. Ang Ladlad has sufficiently
Jr. ,Erlinda Cadapan, Antonia Flores, and
demonstrated its compliance with the legal
Joselito Ustarez are members of the other
requirements for accreditation. Nowhere in
party-list groups filed with the HRET a
the records has the respondent ever
petition for quo warranto against Bantay and
found/ruled that Ang Ladlad is not qualified
its nominee, Palaparan. They alleged that
to register as a party-list organization under
Palapran is not eligible to sit in the House of
any of the requisites under RA 7941.
Representative because he did not belong to a
Our Constitution provides in Article III, marginalized and underrepresented sectors
Section 5 that “no law shall be made which then are the victims of communist
respecting an establishment of religion, or rebels, Civilian Forces Geographical Units
prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” At (CAFGUs), security guards and former rebels.
bottom, what our non-establishment clause Palaparan claimed that he was just Bantay’s
calls for is “government neutrality in religious nominee and that HRET had no jurisdiction
matters. Clearly, “governmental reliance on over his person since it was actually the
party-list that was elected to assume

Page | 25
MENDIOLA, MANILA
membership in the House of Representatives. his qualifications ends and the HRET’s own
Furthermore, he said that such question jurisdiction begins. Section 17, Article VI of
should be raised before the party-listgroup, the Constitution provides that the HRET shall
not before the HRET. On July 23, 2009 HRET be the sole judge of all contests relating to,
issued an order upholding its jurisdiction among other things, the qualifications of the
over the question of petitioner Palparan’s members of the House of Representatives.
qualifications. Palparan filed a motion for Since party- list nominees are “elected
reconsideration but the HRET denied it by a members” of the House of Representatives no
resolution dated September 10, 2009. less than the district representatives are, the
HRET has jurisdiction to hear and pass upon
ISSUE: Whether the HRET has the jurisdiction their qualifications. By analogy with the cases
concerning the eligibilities of the nominees of of district representatives, once the party or
the party-list groups that won seats in the organization of the party-list nominee has
lower house of Congress. been proclaimed and the nominee has taken
his oath and assumed office as member of the
HELD: YES. Under Section 5, Article VI of the
House of Representatives, the
Constitution, the members of the House of
COMELEC’s jurisdiction over election contests
Representatives are of two kinds: “members relating to his qualifications ends and the
who shall be elected from legislative districts” HRET’s own jurisdiction begins.
and“those who shall be elected through a
party -list system of registered national,
regional, and sectoral parties or
organizations”. Thus, it is the party-list
representatives who are “elected” into office, PHILIPPINE GUARDIANS BROTHERHOOD,
not their parties or organizations. Although it INC. (PGBI), represented by its Secretary-
is the party-list organization that is voted for General GEORGE FGBF GEORGE
in the elections, it is not the organization that DULDULAO, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON
sits as and becomes member of the House of ELECTIONS, Respondent.
Representatives. As contemplated in Section
17 Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, the
HRET shall be the FACTS: For the upcoming May 2010 elections,
sole judge of all contests relating to the electi the COMELECen banc issued on October 13,
on, returns, and qualifications of the members 2009 Resolution No. 8679 deleting several
of theHouse of Representatives. Since the party-list groups or organizations from the
party-list representatives and districts list of registered national, regional or sectoral
representatives are treated in like manner, parties, organizations or coalitions.Among the
the HRET has jurisdiction to hear and pass party-list organizations affected was PGBI; it
upon their qualifications. Once the party or was delisted because it failed to get 2% of the
organization of the party-list nominee has votes cast in 2004 and it did not participate in
been proclaimed and the nominee has taken the 2007 elections.PGBI filed its Opposition to
his oath and assumed office as member of the Resolution No. 8679, but likewise sought,
House of Representatives, the COMELEC’s through its pleading, the admission ad
jurisdiction over election contests relating to cautelam of its petition for accreditation as a

Page | 26
MENDIOLA, MANILA
party-list organization under the Party-List

System Act. The COMELEC denied PGBIs PGBIs situation a party list group or
motion/opposition for lack of merit. organization that failed to garner 2% in a
prior election and immediately thereafter did
ISSUE: Whether or not there is legal basis for not participate in the preceding election is
delisting PGBI. something that is not covered by Section 6(8)
of RA 7941.From this perspective, it may be
HELD: COMELEC's decision is annulled. an unintended gap in the law and as such is a
matter for Congress to address. The Court
POLITICAL LAW: delisting of any national, cannot and do not address matters over
regional or sectoral party which full discretionary authority is given by
the Constitution to the legislature; to do so
The law is clear the COMELEC may motu will offend the principle of separation of
proprio or upon verified complaint of any powers. If a gap indeed exists, then the
interested party, remove or cancel, after due present case should bring this concern to the
notice and hearing, the registration of any legislatures notice.
national, regional or sectoral party,
organization or coalition if it: (a)fails to On the due process issue, PGBI's right to due
participate in the last two (2) preceding process was not violated for PGBI was given
elections; or(b)fails to obtain at least two per an opportunity to seek, as it did seek, a
centum (2%) of the votes cast under the reconsideration of Resolution No. 8679.The
party-list system in the two (2) preceding essence of due process is simply the
elections for the constituency in which it has opportunity to be heard; as applied to
registered. The word or is a disjunctive term administrative proceedings, due process is
signifying disassociation and independence of the opportunity to explain ones side or the
one thing from the other things enumerated; opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the
it should, as a rule, be construed in the sense action or ruling complained of. A formal or
in which it ordinarily implies,as a disjunctive trial-type hearing is not at all times and in all
word. Thus, the plain, clear and unmistakable instances essential. The requirement is
language of the law provides for two (2) satisfied where the parties are afforded fair
separate reasons for delisting. and reasonable opportunity to explain their
side of the controversy at hand. What is
To reiterate, (a) Section 6(8) of RA 7941 frowned upon is absolute lack of notice and
provides for two separate grounds for hearing. PGBI was not denied due process. In
delisting; these grounds cannot be mixed or any case, given the result of this Resolution,
combined to support delisting; and (b) the PGBI has no longer any cause for complaint
disqualification for failure to garner 2% on due process grounds.
party-list votes in two preceding elections
should now be understood to mean failure to The petition for review is GRANTED.
qualify for a party-list seat in two preceding
elections for the constituency in which it has
registered. This is how Section 6(8) of RA
7941 should be understood and applied.

Page | 27
MENDIOLA, MANILA
BANTAY vs. COMELEC In the first petition (G.R. No. 177271), BA-RA
G.R. No. 177271 May 4, 2007 7941 and UP-LR assail the Comelec
resolutions accrediting private respondents
FACTS: Before the Court are two consolidated Biyaheng Pinoy et al., to participate in the
petitions for certiorari and mandamus to forthcoming party-list elections without
nullify and set aside certain issuances of the simultaneously determining whether or not
Commission on Elections (Comelec) their respective nominees possess the
respecting party-list groups which have requisite qualifications defined in R.A. No.
manifested their intention to participate in 7941, or the "Party-List System Act" and
the party-list elections on May 14, 2007. belong to the marginalized and
underrepresented sector each seeks to.
A number of organized groups filed the
necessary manifestations and subsequently In the second petition (G.R. No. 177314),
were accredited by the Comelec to participate petitioners Loreta Ann P. Rosales, Kilosbayan
in the 2007 elections. Bantay Republic Act Foundation and Bantay Katarungan
(BA-RA 7941) and the Urban Poor for Legal Foundation impugn Comelec Resolution
Reforms (UP-LR) filed with the Comelec an dated April 3, 2007.
Urgent Petition to Disqualify, seeking to
disqualify the nominees of certain party-list While both petitions commonly seek to
organizations. Docketed in the Comelec as compel the Comelec to disclose or publish the
SPA Case No 07-026, this urgent petition has names of the nominees of the various party-
yet to be resolved. list groups named in the petitions, BA-RA
Meanwhile petitioner Rosales, in G.R. No. 7941 and UP-LR have the additional prayers
177314, addressed 2 letters to the Director of that the 33 private respondents named
the Comelec’s Law Department requesting a therein be "declare[d] as unqualified to
list of that groups’ nominees. Evidently participate in the party-list elections and that
unbeknownst then to Ms. Rosales, et al., was the Comelec be enjoined from allowing
the issuance of Comelec en banc Resolution respondent groups from participating in the
07-0724 under date April 3, 2007 virtually elections.
declaring the nominees’ names confidential
and in net effect denying petitioner Rosales’ ISSUE:
basic disclosure request. Comelec’s reason for
keeping the names of the party list nominees 1. Can the Court cancel the accreditation
away from the public is deducible from the accorded by the Comelec to the respondent
excerpts of the news report appearing in the party-list groups named in their petition on
April 13, 2007 issue of the Manila Bulletin, is the ground that these groups and their
that there is nothing in R.A. 7941 that respective nominees do not appear to be
requires the Comelec to disclose the names of qualified.
nominees, and that party list elections must 2. Whether respondent Comelec, by refusing
not be personality oriented according to to reveal the names of the nominees of the
Chairman Abalos. various party-list groups, has violated the
right to information and free access to
documents as guaranteed by the Constitution;

Page | 28
MENDIOLA, MANILA
and acts, transactions, or decisions, as well to

3. Whether respondent Comelec is mandated government research data used as basis for
by the Constitution to disclose to the public policy development, shall be afforded the
the names of said nominees. citizen, subject to such limitations as may be
provided by law.
HELD: The 1st petition is partly DENIED
insofar as it seeks to nullify the accreditation Section 28, Article II of the Constitution
of the respondents named therein. However, reading:
insofar as it seeks to compel the Comelec to Sec. 28. Subject to reasonable conditions
disclose or publish the names of the nominees prescribed by law, the State adopts and
of party-list groups, sectors or organizations implements a policy of full public disclosure
accredited to participate in the May 14, 2007 of all its transactions involving public interest.
elections, the 2 petitions are GRANTED.
Accordingly, the Comelec is hereby ORDERED COMELEC’s basis of its refusal to disclose the
to immediately disclose and release the names of the nominees of subject party-list
names of the nominees of the party-list groups, Section 7 of R.A. 7941,which last
groups, sentence reads: "[T]he names of the party-list
nominees shall not be shown on the certified
1. The Court is unable to grant the desired list" is certainly not a justifying card for the
plea of petitioners BA-RA 7941 and UP-LR for Comelec to deny the requested disclosure.
cancellation of accreditation on the grounds There is absolutely nothing in R.A. No. 7941
thus advanced in their petition. The exercise that prohibits the Comelec from disclosing or
would require the Court to make a factual even publishing through mediums other than
determination, a matter which is outside the the "Certified List" of the names.
office of judicial review by way of special civil
action for certiorari. In certiorari proceedings, It has been repeatedly said in various
the Court is not called upon to decide factual contexts that the people have the right to
issues and the case must be decided on the elect their representatives on the basis of an
undisputed facts on record. The sole function informed judgment. While the vote cast in a
of a writ of certiorari is to address issues of party-list elections is a vote for a party, such
want of jurisdiction or grave abuse of vote, in the end, would be a vote for its
discretion and does not include a review of nominees, who, in appropriate cases, would
the tribunal’s evaluation of the evidence. eventually sit in the House of Representatives.
(note that nowhere in R.A. No. 7941 is there a The Court frowns upon any interpretation of
requirement that the qualification of a party- the law or rules that would hinder in any way
list nominee be determined simultaneously the free and intelligent casting of the votes in
with the accreditation of an organization. ) an election
2. Section 7, Article III of the Constitution, viz:

Sec.7. The right of the people to information 3. COMELEC has a constitutional duty to
on matters of public concern shall be disclose and release the names of the
recognized. Access to official records, and to nominees of the party-list groups named in
documents, and papers pertaining to official the herein petitions. The right to information
is a public right where the real parties in
Page | 29
MENDIOLA, MANILA
interest are the public, or the citizens to be benefit the nation as a whole, to become
precise, but like all constitutional guarantees, members of the House of Representatives.
however, the right to information and its Towards this end, the State shall develop and
companion right of access to official records guarantee a full, free and open party system
are not absolute. The people’s right to know is in order to attain the broadcast possible
limited to "matters of public concern" and is representation of party, sectoral or group
further subject to such limitation as may be interests in the House of Representatives by
provided by law. But no national security or enhancing their chances to compete for and
like concerns is involved in the disclosure of win seats in the legislature, and shall provide
the names of the nominees of the party-list the simplest scheme possible.
groups in question. Doubtless, the Comelec
committed grave abuse of discretion in Section 3. Definition of Terms.
refusing the legitimate demands of the (a) The party-list system is a mechanism of
petitioners for a list of the nominees of the proportional representation in the election of
party-list groups subject of their respective representatives to the House of
petitions. Mandamus, therefore, lies. Representatives from national, regional and
sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions
thereof registered with the Commission on
Elections (COMELEC). Component parties or
organizations of a coalition may participate
independently provided the coalition of
RA 7941 which they form part does not participate in
the party-list system.
FOR THE ELECTION OF PARTY-LIST
REPRESENTATIVES THROUGH THE (b) A party means either a political party or a
PARTY-LIST SYSTEM, AND sectoral party or a coalition of parties.
APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR
(c) A political party refers to an organized
Section 1. Title. This Act shall be known as group of citizens advocating an ideology or
the "Party-List System Act." platform, principles and policies for the
general conduct of government and which, as
Section 2. Declaration of part y. The State the most immediate means of securing their
shall promote proportional representation in adoption, regularly nominates and supports
the election of representatives to the House of certain of its leaders and members as
Representatives through a party-list system candidates for public office. It is a national
of registered national, regional and sectoral party when its constituency is spread over
parties or organizations or coalitions thereof, the geographical territory of at least a
which will enable Filipino citizens belonging majority of the regions. It is a regional party
to marginalized and under-represented when its constituency is spread over the
sectors, organizations and parties, and who geographical territory of at least a majority of
lack well-defined political constituencies but the cities and provinces comprising the
who could contribute to the formulation and region.
enactment of appropriate legislation that will

Page | 30
MENDIOLA, MANILA
(d) A sectoral party refers to an organized Provided, That the sectors shall include labor,
group of citizens belonging to any of the peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous
sectors enumerated in Section 5 hereof whose cultural communities, elderly, handicapped,
principal advocacy pertains to the special women, youth, veterans, overseas workers,
interest and concerns of their sector, and professionals.
(e) A sectoral organization refers to a group The COMELEC shall publish the petition in at
of citizens or a coalition of groups of citizens least two (2) national newspapers of general
who share similar physical attributes or circulation.
characteristics, employment, interests or The COMELEC shall, after due notice and
concerns. hearing, resolve the petition within fifteen
(15) days from the date it was submitted for
(f) A coalition refers to an aggrupation of duly decision but in no case not later than sixty
registered national, regional, sectoral parties (60) days before election.
or organizations for political and/or election
purposes. Section 6. Refusal and/or Cancellation of
Registration. The COMELEC may, motu propio
Section 4. Manifestation to Participate in the or upon verified complaint of any interested
Party-List System. Any party, organization, or party, refuse or cancel, after due notice and
coalition already registered with the hearing, the registration of any national,
Commission need not register anew. However, regional or sectoral party, organization or
such party, organization, or coalition shall file coalition on any of the following grounds:
with the Commission, not later than ninety
(90) days before the election, a manifestation (1) It is a religious sect or denomination,
of its desire to participate in the party-list organization or association, organized for
system. religious purposes;
(2) It advocates violence or unlawful means
Section 5. Registration. Any organized group to seek its goal;
of persons may register as a party, (3) It is a foreign party or organization;
organization or coalition for purposes of the (4) It is receiving support from any foreign
party-list system by filing with the COMELEC government, foreign political party,
not later than ninety (90) days before the foundation, organization, whether directly or
election a petition verified by its president or through any of its officers or members or
secretary stating its desire to participate in indirectly through third parties for partisan
the party-list system as a national, regional or election purposes;
sectoral party or organization or a coalition of (5) It violates or fails to comply with laws,
such parties or organizations, attaching rules or regulations relating to elections;
thereto its constitution, by-laws, platform or (6) It declares untruthful statements in its
program of government, list of officers, petition;
coalition agreement and other relevant (7) It has ceased to exist for at least one (1)
information as the COMELEC may require: year; or
(8) It fails to participate in the last two (2)
preceding elections or fails to obtain at least

Page | 31
MENDIOLA, MANILA
two per centum (2%) of the votes cast under in the party-list system shall not be
the party-list system in the two (2) preceding considered resigned.
elections for the constituency in which it has
registered. Section 9. Qualifications of Party-List
Nominees. No person shall be nominated as
Section 7. Certified List of Registered Parties. party-list representative unless he is a
The COMELEC shall, not later than sixty (60) natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a
days before election, prepare a certified list of registered voter, a resident of the Philippines
national, regional, or sectoral parties, for a period of not less than one (1)year
organizations or coalitions which have immediately preceding the day of the election,
applied or who have manifested their desire able to read and write, a bona fide member of
to participate under the party-list system and the party or organization which he seeks to
distribute copies thereof to all precincts for represent for at least ninety (90) days
posting in the polling places on election day. preceding the day of the election, and is at
The names of the part y-list nominees shall least twenty-five (25) years of age on the day
not be shown on the certified list. of the election.
Section 8. Nomination of Party-List In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he

Representatives. Each registered party, must at least be twenty-five(25) but not more
organization or coalition shall submit to the than thirty (30) years of age on the day of the
COMELEC not laterthan forty-five (45) days election. Any youth sectoral representative
before the election a list of names, not less who attains the age of thirty (30) during his
than five (5), from which party-list term shall be allowed to continue in office
representatives shall be chosen in case it until the expiration of his term.
obtains the required number of votes.
Section 10. Manner of Voting. Every voter
A person may be nominated in one (1) list shall be entitled to two (2) votes: the first is a
only. Only persons who have given their vote for candidate for member of the House of
consent in writing may be named in the list. Representatives in his legislative district, and
The list shall not include any candidate for the second, a vote for the party, organizations,
any elective office or a person who has lost or coalition he wants represented in the
his bid for an elective office in the house of Representatives: Provided, That a
immediately preceding election. No change of vote cast for a party, sectoral organization, or
names or alteration of the order of nominees coalition not entitled to be voted for shall not
shall be allowed after the same shall have be counted:
been submitted to the COMELEC except in
cases where the nominee dies, or withdraws Provided, finally, That the first election under
in writing his nomination, becomes the party-list system shall be held in May
incapacitated in which case the name of the 1998. The COMELEC shall undertake the
substitute nominee shall be placed last in the necessary information campaign for purposes
list. Incumbent sectoral representatives in the of educating the electorate on the matter of
House of Representatives who are nominated the party-list system.

Page | 32
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Section 11. Number of Party-List

Representatives. The party-list Section 13. How Party-List Representatives
representatives shall constitute twenty per are Chosen. Party-list representatives shall be
centum (20%) of the total number of the proclaimed by the COMELEC based on the list
members of the House of Representatives of names submitted by the respective parties,
including those under the party-list. organizations, or coalitions to the COMELEC
according to their ranking in said list.
For purposes of the May 1998 elections, the
first five (5) major political parties on the Section 14. Term of Office. Party-list
basis of party representation in the House of representatives shall be elected for a term of
Representatives at the start of the Tenth three (3) years which shall begin, unless
Congress of the Philippines shall not be otherwise provided by law, at noon on the
entitled to participate in the party-list system. thirtieth day of June next following their
In determining the allocation of seats for the election. No party-list representatives shall
second vote, the following procedure shall be serve for more than three (3) consecutive
observed: terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for
any length of time shall not be considered as
(a) The parties, organizations, and coalitions an interruption in the continuity his service
shall be ranked from the highest to the lowest for the full term for which he was elected.
based on the number of votes they garnered
during the elections. Section 15. Change of Affiliation; Effect. Any
(b) The parties, organizations, and coalitions elected party-list representative who changes
receiving at least two percent (2%) of the his political party or sectoral affiliation during
total votes cast for the party-list system shall his term of office shall forfeit his seat:
be entitled to one seat each: Provided, That Provided, That if he changes his political
those garnering more than two percent (2%) party or sectoral affiliation within six (6)
of the votes shall be entitled to additional months before an election, he shall not be
seats in proportion to their total number of eligible for nomination as party-list
votes : Provided, finally, That each party, representative under his new party or
organization, or coalition shall be entitled to organization.
not more than three (3) seats.
Section 16. Vacancy. In case of vacancy in the
Section 12. Procedure in Allocating Seats for seats reserved for partylist representatives,
Party-List Representatives. The COMELEC the vacancy shall be automatically filled by
shall tally all the votes for the parties, the next representative from the list of
organizations, or coalitions on a nationwide nominees in the order submitted to the
basis, rank them according to the number of COMELEC by the same party, organization, or
votes received and allocate party-list coalition, who shall serve for the unexpired
representatives proportionately according to term. If the list is exhausted, the party,
the percentage of votes obtained by each organization coalition concerned shall submit
party, organization, or coalition as against the additional nominees.
total nationwide votes cast for the party-list
system.

Page | 33
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Section 17. Rights of Party-List natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, on

Representatives. Party-List Representatives the day of the election, is at least twenty-five
shall be entitled to the same salaries and years of age, able to read and write, and,
emoluments as regular members of the House except the party-list representatives, a
of Representatives. registered voter in the district in which he shall
be elected, and a resident thereof for a period
Section 18. Rules and Regulations. The of not less than one year immediately
COMELEC shall promulgate the necessary preceding the day of the election.
rules and regulations as may be necessary to
carry out the purposes of this Act.
Section 19. Appropriations. The amount In Coquilla v COMELEC, the Supreme Court
necessary for the implementation of this Act ruled that the petitioner had not been a
shall be provided in the regular resident of Oras, Eastern Samar, for at least
appropriations for the Commission on one year prior to the May 14, 2001 elections.
Elections starting fiscal year 1996 under the Although Oras was his domicile of origin,
General Appropriations Act. Starting 1995, petitioner lost the same when he became a US
the COMELEC is hereby authorized to utilize citizen after enlisting in the US Navy. From
savings and other available funds for then on, until November 10, 2000, when he
purposes of its information campaign on the reacquired Philippine citizenship through
party-list system. repatriation, petitioner was an alien without
any right to reside in the Philippines. In Caasi
Section 20. Separability Clause. If any part of v COMELEC, it was held that immigration to
this Act is held invalid or unconstitutional, the the US by virtue of the acquisition of a “green
other parts or provisions thereof shall remain card” constitutes abandonment of domicile in
valid and effective. the Philippines.
Section 21. Repealing Clause. All laws,

decrees, executive orders, rules and
regulations, or parts thereof, inconsistent CASE DOCTRINES:
with the provisions of this Act are hereby
repealed.
Romualdez-Marcos v COMELEC
Section 22. Effectivity. This Act shall take
The Court upheld the qualification of Mrs.
effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in
Imelda Romualdez Marcos (IRM), despite her
a newspaper of general circulation. Approved,
own declaration in her certificate of
March 3, 1995.
candidacy that she had resided in the district
for only seven months, because of the
following:
Section 6. No person shall be a Member of the a. A minor follows the domicile of his
House of Representatives unless he is a parents; Tacloban became IRM’s
domicile of origin by operation of law

Page | 34
MENDIOLA, MANILA
when her father brought the famiy to domicile includes the twin elements of "the
Leyte; fact of residing or physical presence in a fixed
b. Domicile of origin is lost only when place" and animus manendi, or the intention
there is actual removal or change of of returning there permanently.
domicile, a bonafide intention of
abandoning the former residence and Residence, in its ordinary conception, implies
establishing a new one, and acts the factual relationship of an individual to a
which correspond with the purpose; certain place. It is the physical presence of a
in the absence of clear and positive person in a given area, community or country.
proof of the occurrence of all these, The essential distinction between residence
the domicile of origin should be and domicile in law is that residence involves
deemed to continue; the intent to leave when the purpose for
c. The wife does not automatically gain which the resident has taken up his abode
the husband’s domicile because the ends. One may seek a place for purposes such
term “residence” in Civil Law does not as pleasure, business, or health. If a person's
mean the same thing in Political Law; intent be to remain, it becomes his domicile; if
when IRM married Marcos in 1954, his intent is to leave as soon as his purpose is
she kept her domicile or origin and established it is residence. 22 It is thus, quite
merely gained a new home, not a perfectly normal for an individual to have
domicilium necessarium; different residences in various places.
d. Even assuming that she gained a new However, a person can only have a single
domicile after her marriage and domicile, unless, for various reasons, he
acquired the right to choose a new successfully abandons his domicile in favor of
only after her husband died, her acts another domicile of choice. In Uytengsu
following her return to the country vs. Republic, 23 we laid this distinction quite
clearly indicate that she chose clearly:
Tacloban, her domicile of origin, as
her domicile of choice. There is a difference between
domicile and residence.
RESIDENCE IS SYNONYMOUS WITH DOMICILE "Residence" is used to indicate
IN ELECTION LAWS a place of abode, whether
permanent or temporary;
Article 50 of the Civil Code decrees that "[f]or "domicile" denotes a fixed
the exercise of civil rights and the fulfillment permanent residence to
of civil obligations, the domicile of natural which, when absent, one has
persons is their place of habitual residence." the intention of returning. A
In Ong vs. Republic 20 this court took the man may have a residence in
concept of domicile to mean an individual's one place and a domicile in
"permanent home", "a place to which, another. Residence is not
whenever absent for business or for pleasure, domicile, but domicile is
one intends to return, and depends on facts residence coupled with the
and circumstances in the sense that they intention to remain for an
disclose intent." 21 Based on the foregoing, unlimited time. A man can

Page | 35
MENDIOLA, MANILA
have but one domicile for the 3. Acts which correspond with
same purpose at any time, but the purpose.
he may have numerous places
of residence. His place of In the absence of clear and positive proof
residence is generally his based on these criteria, the residence of
place of domicile, but it is not origin should be deemed to continue. Only
by any means necessarily so with evidence showing concurrence of all
since no length of residence three requirements can the presumption of
without intention of continuity or residence be rebutted, for a
remaining will constitute change of residence requires an actual and
domicile. deliberate abandonment, and one cannot
have two legal residences at the same
For political purposes the concepts of time. 38 In the case at bench, the evidence
residence and domicile are dictated by the adduced by private respondent plainly lacks
peculiar criteria of political laws. As these the degree of persuasiveness required to
concepts have evolved in our election law, convince this court that an abandonment of
what has clearly and unequivocally emerged domicile of origin in favor of a domicile of
is the fact that residence for election purposes choice indeed occurred. To effect an
is used synonymously with domicile. abandonment requires the voluntary act of
relinquishing petitioner's former domicile
MODE OF LOSING DOMICILE OF ORIGIN with an intent to supplant the former
domicile with one of her own choosing
First, minor follows the domicile of his (domicilium voluntarium).
parents. As domicile, once acquired is
retained until a new one is gained, it follows In this connection, it cannot be correctly
that in spite of the fact of petitioner's being argued that petitioner lost her domicile of
born in Manila, Tacloban, Leyte was her origin by operation of law as a result of her
domicile of origin by operation of law. This marriage to the late President Ferdinand E.
domicile was not established only when her Marcos in 1952. For there is a clearly
father brought his family back to Leyte established distinction between the Civil Code
contrary to private respondent's averments. concepts of "domicile" and "residence." 39 The
presumption that the wife automatically gains
Second, domicile of origin is not easily lost. To the husband's domicile by operation of law
successfully effect a change of domicile, one upon marriage cannot be inferred from the
must demonstrate: 37 use of the term "residence" in Article 110 of
the Civil Code because the Civil Code is one
1. An actual removal or an area where the two concepts are well
actual change of domicile; delineated. Dr. Arturo Tolentino, writing on
this specific area explains:
2. A bona fide intention of
abandoning the former place In the Civil Code, there is an
of residence and establishing a obvious difference between
new one; and domicile and residence. Both

Page | 36
MENDIOLA, MANILA
terms imply relations between to establish residence. This part of the article
a person and a place; but in clearly contemplates only actual residence
residence, the relation is one because it refers to a positive act of fixing a
of fact while in domicile it is family home or residence. Moreover, this
legal or juridical, independent interpretation is further strengthened by the
of the necessity of physical phrase "cuando el marido translade su
presence. 40 residencia" in the same provision which
means, "when the husband shall transfer his
Article 110 of the Civil Code provides: residence," referring to another positive act of
relocating the family to another home or
Art. 110. — The husband shall place of actual residence. The article
fix the residence of the family. obviously cannot be understood to refer to
But the court may exempt the domicile which is a fixed,
wife from living with the fairly-permanent concept when it plainly
husband if he should live connotes the possibility of transferring from
abroad unless in the service of one place to another not only once, but as
the Republic. often as the husband may deem fit to move
his family, a circumstance more consistent
A survey of jurisprudence relating to Article with the concept of actual residence.
110 or to the concepts of domicile or
residence as they affect the female spouse The right of the husband to fix the actual
upon marriage yields nothing which would residence is in harmony with the intention of
suggest that the female spouse automatically the law to strengthen and unify the family,
loses her domicile of origin in favor of the recognizing the fact that the husband and the
husband's choice of residence upon marriage. wife bring into the marriage different
domiciles (of origin). This difference could,
Article 110 is a virtual restatement of Article for the sake of family unity, be reconciled only
58 of the Spanish Civil Code of 1889 which by allowing the husband to fix a single place
states: of actual residence.
La mujer esta obligada a Very significantly, Article 110 of the Civil

seguir a su marido donde Code is found under Title V under the
quiera que fije su residencia. heading: RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS
Los Tribunales, sin embargo, BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE.
podran con justa causa Immediately preceding Article 110 is Article
eximirla de esta obligacion 109 which obliges the husband and wife to
cuando el marido transende live together, thus:
su residencia a ultramar o' a
pais extranjero. Art. 109. — The husband and
wife are obligated to live
Note the use of the phrase "donde quiera su together, observe mutual
fije de residencia" in the aforequoted article, respect and fidelity and
which means wherever (the husband) wishes

Page | 37
MENDIOLA, MANILA
render mutual help and as a country residence and a

support. city residence. Residence is
acquired by living in place; on
The duty to live together can only be fulfilled the other hand, domicile can
if the husband and wife are physically exist without actually living in
together. This takes into account the the place. The important thing
situations where the couple has many for domicile is that, once
residences (as in the case of the petitioner). If residence has been
the husband has to stay in or transfer to any established in one place, there
one of their residences, the wife should be an intention to stay there
necessarily be with him in order that they permanently, even if residence
may "live together." Hence, it is illogical to is also established in some
conclude that Art. 110 refers to "domicile" other
and not to "residence." Otherwise, we shall be place.
faced with a situation where the wife is left in
the domicile while the husband, for ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS VS. COMELEC
professional or other reasons, stays in one of 248 SCRA 300, 1995
their (various) residences. As Dr. Tolentino
further explains: FACTS: Montejo then incumbent
congressman of the first district of Leyte
Residence and Domicile — petitions for the disqualification of Imelda
Whether the word "residence" Marcos as a candidate for the same position
as used with reference to because the latter supposedly lacks the
particular matters is residency requirement of one-year. Marcos
synonymous with "domicile" had only lived in Tolosa recently and have yet
is a question of some to “reside” in the first district for the required
difficulty, and the ultimate 1 year. The petitioner is contending that
decision must be made from a Imelda had set up residency in various places
consideration of the purpose throughout her lifetime from teaching in
and intent with which the Tacloban up to the time she married where
word is used. Sometimes they she stayed for years in San Juan, Metro Manila.
are used synonymously, at
other times they are ISSUE: Whether or not Imelda Marcos lacks
distinguished from one the residency requirement in her candidacy.
another.
HELD: No. The SC held that Tolosa remains as
xxx xxx xxx his “domicile of origin”. Residence is to be
synonymous with domicile particularly in
Residence in the civil law is a election law. Marcos domicile of origin was
material fact, referring to the established in Tolosa because she followed
physical presence of a person the domicile of her parents. This domicile of
in a place. A person can have origin was not lost because she got married as
two or more residences, such

Page | 38
MENDIOLA, MANILA
residence and domicile have different The Constitution requires that a person
meanings under civil law. seeking election to the House of
Representatives should be a resident of
The SC even added that considering that her thedistrict in which he seeks election for a
husband died and she went free to choose her period of not less than one (l) year prior to
domicile, her intentions were manifest in her the elections. 18 Residence, for election law
actions that Tolosa was to be her domicile. purposes, has a settled meaning in our
jurisdiction.
In Co v. Electoral Tribunal of the House of

CASE DOCTRINE: Representatives 19 this Court held that the
term "residence" has always been understood
Aquino v COMELEC as synonymous with "domicile" not only
under the previous Constitutions but also
It was held that Agapito Aquino failed to under the 1987 Constitution. The Court there
prove that he had established not just held: 20
residence but domicile of choice in Makati. In
his certificate of candidacy for the 1992 The deliberations of the
elections, he indicated that he was a resident Constitutional Commission
of San Jose, Concepcion, Tarlac for 52 years; reveal that the meaning of
he was a registered voter of the same residence vis-a-vis the
district;his birth certificate places qualifications of a candidate
Concepcion, Tarlac, as birthplace. Thus, his for Congress continues to
domicile of origin was Concepcion, Tarlac; remain the same as that
and his bare assertion of transfer of domicile of domicile, to wit:
from Tarlac of Makatiis hardly supported by
the facts of the case. [NOTE: Read the Theory Mr. Nolledo: With respect to Section 5, I
of Legal Impossibility, enunciated in Justice remember that in the 1971 Constitutional
Francisco’s concurring and dissenting Convention, there was an attempt to require
opinion] residence in the place not less than one year
immediately preceding the day of elections.
WHILE RESIDENCE IS EQUIVALENT TO So my question is: What is the Committee's
DOMICILE FOR ELECTION PURPOSES, concept of domicile or constructive
DOMICILE IS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH residence?
RESIDENCE.
Mr. Davide: Madame President, insofar as the
We agree with COMELEC's contention that in regular members of the National Assembly
order that petitioner could qualify as a are concerned, the proposed section merely
candidate for Representative of the Second provides, among others, and a resident
District of Makati City the latter "must prove thereof', that is, in the district, for a period of
that he has established not just residence not less than one year preceding the day of
but domicile of choice. 17 the election. This was in effect lifted from the
1973 Constitution, the interpretation given to

Page | 39
MENDIOLA, MANILA
it was domicile (emphasis ours) Records of deviation from the usual conceptions of
the 1987 Constitutional Convention, Vol. II, residency in law as explained in Gallego
July 22, 1986, p. 87). vs. Vera at 22 is "to exclude strangers or
newcomers unfamiliar with the conditions
xxx xxx xxx and needs of the community" from taking
advantage of favorable circumstances existing
Mrs. Rosario Braid: The next question is on in that community for electoral gain. While
section 7, page 2. I think Commissioner there is nothing wrong with the practice of
Nolledo has raised the same point that establishing residence in a given area for
"resident" has been interpreted at times as a meeting election law requirements, this
matter of intention rather than actual nonetheless defeats the essence of
residence. representation, which is to place through the
assent of voters those most cognizant and
Mr. De Los Reyes: Domicile. sensitive to the needs of a particular district,
if a candidate falls short of the period of
Ms. Rosario Braid: Yes, So, would the residency mandated by law for him to qualify.
gentlemen consider at the proper time to go That purpose could be obviously best met by
back to actual residence rather than mere individuals who have either had actual
intention to reside? residence in the area for a given period or
who have been domiciled in the same area
Mr. De los Reyes: But We might encounter either by origin or by choice. It would,
some difficulty especially considering that the therefore, be imperative for this Court to
inquire into the threshold question as to
provision in the Constitution in the Article on
Suffrage says that Filipinos living abroad may whether or not petitioner actually was a
resident for a period of one year in the area
vote as enacted by law. So, we have to stick to
now encompassed by the Second Legislative
the original concept that it should be by
domicile and not physical and actual residence. District of Makati at the time of his election or
(Records of the 1987 Constitutional whether or not he was domiciled in the same.
Commission, Vol. II, July 22, 1986, p. 110).
BEFORE PROCLAMATION AND BEFORE
TAKING THE OATH OF OFFICE, THE
The framers of the Constitution adhered to
QUALIFICATIONS OF CANDIDATES IN
the earlier definition given to the word
"residence" which regarded it as having the CONGRESS SHALL BE WITHIN THE
same meaning as domicile. JURSIDICTION OF THE COMELEC.
Clearly, the place "where a party actually or Under the above-stated provision, the
constructively has his permanent electoral tribunal clearly assumes jurisdiction
over all contests relative to the election,
home," 21 where he, no matter where he may
be found at any given time, eventually intends returns and qualifications of candidates for
to return and remain, i.e., his domicile, is that either the Senate or the House only when the
latter becomemembers of either the Senate or
to which the Constitution refers when it
speaks of residence for the purposes of the House of Representatives. A candidate
election law. The manifest purpose of this who has not been proclaimed 16 and who has

Page | 40
MENDIOLA, MANILA
not taken his oath of office cannot be said to number of votes will not result in the
be a member of the House of Representatives suspension or termination of the proceedings
subject to Section. 17 of the Constitution. against him when the evidence of guilt is
While the proclamation of a winning strong. While the phrase "when the evidence
candidate in an election is ministerial, B.P. of guilt is strong" seems to suggest that the
881 in conjunction with Sec 6 of R.A. 6646 provisions of Section 6 ought to be applicable
allows suspension of proclamation under only to disqualification cases under Section
circumstances mentioned therein. Thus, 68 of the Omnibus Election Code, Section 7 of
petitioner's contention that "after the conduct R.A. 6646 allows the application of the
of the election and (petitioner) has been provisions of Section 6 to cases involving
established the winner of the electoral disqualification based on ineligibility under
exercise from the moment of election, the Section 78 of B.P. 881. Section 7 states:
COMELEC is automatically divested of
authority to pass upon the question of Sec. 7. Petition to Deny Due Course or to Cancel
qualification" finds no basis, because a Certificate of Candidacy. — The procedure
even after the elections the COMELEC is hereinabove provided shall apply to petition
empowered by Section 6 (in relation to to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of
Section 7) of R.A. 6646 to continue to hear candidacy based on Sec. 78 of Batas
and decide questions relating to qualifications Pambansa 881.
of candidates Section 6 states:
Sec. 6. Effect of Disqualification Case. — Any

candidate, who has been declared by final
judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted
for, and the votes cast for him shall not be AQUINO VS. COMELEC
counted. If for any reason a candidate is not 248 SCRA 400, 1995
declared by final judgment before an election
to be disqualified and he is voted for and FACTS: Butz Aquino’s residence requirement
receives the winning number of votes in such is being contended as he intends to run for
election, the Court or Commission shall congress in the newly created legislative
continue with the trial and hearing of the district of Makati. Butz Aquino was
action, inquiry or protest and, upon motion of contending that his lease of a condo unit in
the complainant or any intervenor, may Makati is indicative of the fact that he has
during the pendency thereof order the chosen Makati to be his domicile and not just
suspension of the proclamation of such residence.
candidate whenever the evidence of guilt is
strong. ISSUE: Whether or not the act of Aquino in
leasing a condo unit in Makati is indicative of
Under the above-quoted provision, not only is his desire to make it his domicile.
a disqualification case against a candidate
allowed to continue after the election (and HELD: No. The Court ruled against Aquino
does not oust the COMELEC of its because his “leasing” of a condo unit is by no
jurisdiction), but his obtaining the highest means indicative of his desire to make Makati

Page | 41
MENDIOLA, MANILA
his permanent home or domicile, considering natural-born citizen is questionable along

that he was still a known resident of with not having complied with the residency
Concepcion, Tarlac for the past 52 years of requirement.
which happens to be his birthplace.
ISSUE: Whether or not Ong met the
The Supreme Court reiterated how to qualifications and the residency requirement.
successfully effect a chage of domicile:
· Actual removal/actual change of domicile
· Intention to abandon former domicile and HELD:Yes. As to the matter of citizenship the
establish a new one Court ruled in Ong’s favor citing the following
· Definite act which correspond with the reasons:
purpose
· Ong’s father was already naturalized while
he was just 9 years old
· Ong’s mother was a Filipina plus the fact
that a lot of instances transpired after he
CASE DOCTRINE: reached the age of majority than reinforces
the fact that he elected Filipino citizenship.
Co v House of Representatives Electoral · That the fact that his brother’s citizenship
Tribunal was in fact already answered favorably by the
Constitutional Commission itself.
EVEN IF A PERSON DOES NOT OWN A
PROPERTY, IT IS NOT REQUIRED IN As to the issue of residence, again the court
ESTABLISHING COMPLIANCE WITH THE ruled in Ong’s favor holding that he never had
RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT. any intention to abandon his domicile of
origin despite having stayed in Manila to
To require the private respondent to own study or pursue his personal career.
property in order to be eligible to run for
Congress would be tantamount to a property
qualification. The Constitution only requires
that the candidate meet the age, citizenship,
voting and residence requirements. Nowhere FRIVALDO vs COMELEC
is it required by the Constitution that the
candidate should also own property in order This Court will not permit the anomaly of a
to be qualified to run. person sitting as provincial governor in this
country while owing exclusive allegiance to
another country. The fact that he was elected
CO VS. HRET by the people of Sorsogon does not excuse
199 SCRA 293, 1991 this patent violation of the salutary rule
limiting public office and employment only to
FACTS: Ong, a candidate for congressional the citizens of this country. The qualifications
elections in his local district is being assailed prescribed for elective office cannot be erased
as to his qualifications that his being a by the electorate alone. The will of the people

Page | 42
MENDIOLA, MANILA
as expressed through the ballot cannot cure is a mechanism of proportional

the vice of ineligibility, especially if they representation in the election of
mistakenly believed, as in this case, that the representatives to the House of
candidate was qualified. Obviously, this rule Representatives from national, regional and
requires strict application when the sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions
deficiency is lack of citizenship. If a person thereof registered with the Commission on
seeks to serve in the Republic of the Elections.
Philippines, he must owe his total loyalty to
this country only, abjuring and renouncing all Definition of terms:
fealty and fidelity to any other state.
1. Party means either political party or
It is true as the petitioner points out that the sectoral party or a coalition of parties
status of the natural-born citizen is favored 2. Political party refers to an organized
by the Constitution and our laws, which is all group of citizens advocating an
the more reason why it should be treasured ideology or platform, principles and
like a pearl of great price. But once it is policies for the general conduct of
surrendered and renounced, the gift is gone government and which, as the most
and cannot be lightly restored. This country immediate means of securing their
of ours, for all its difficulties and limitations, adoption, regularly nominates and
is like a jealous and possessive mother. Once supports certain of its leaders and
rejected, it is not quick to welcome back with members as candidates for public
eager arms its prodigal if repentant children. office. It is a national party when its
The returning renegade must show, by an constituency is spread over the
express and unequivocal act, the renewal of geographical territory of at least a
his loyalty and love. majority of the regions. It is a regional
party when its constituency is spread
Section 7. The Members of the House of over the geographical territory of at
Representatives shall be elected for a term of least a majority of the cities and
three years which shall begin, unless otherwise provinces comprising the region.
provided by law, at noon on the thirtieth day of 3. Sectoral party refers to an organized
June next following their election. No Member group of citizens belonging to any of
of the House of Representatives shall serve for the following sectors: labor, peasant,
more than three consecutive terms. Voluntary fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous
renunciation of the office for any length of time cultural communities, elderly,
shall not be considered as an interruption in handicapped, women, youth, veterans,
the continuity of his service for the full term for overseas workers and professionals,
which he was elected. whose principal advocacy pertains to
the special interest and concerns of
Limitation: Shall not serve for more than their sector.
three consecutive terms. 4. Sectoral organization refers to a group
of citizens or a coalition of groups of
THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM [R.A. 7941 (The citizens who share similar physical
Party-List System Act)] The party-list system

Page | 43
MENDIOLA, MANILA
attributes or characteristics, party, foundation, organization,

employment, interests or concerns. whether directly or through any of its
5. Coalition refers to an aggrupation of officers or members, or indirectly
duly registered national, regional, through third parties, for partisan
sectoral parties or organizations for election purposes;
political and/or election purposes. e) it violates or fails to comply with
laws, rules or regulations relating to
Registration; Manifestation to Participate in elections;
the Party-List System. f) it declares untruthful statements in
its petition;
Any organized group of persons may g) it has ceased to exist for at least one
register as a party, organization or coalition year; and
for purposes of the party-list system by filing h) it fails to participate in the last two
with the COMELEC not later than 90 days preceding elections or fails to obtain
before the election a petition verified by its at least 2% of the votes cast under the
president or secretary stating its desire to party-list system in the two preceding
participate in the party-list system as a elections for the constituency in
national, regional or sectoral party or which it has registered.
organization or a coalition of such parties or
organizations. Any party, organization or Nomination of party-list representatives.
coalition already registered with the
COMELEC need not register anew, but shall Each registered party, organization or
file with the COMELEC not later than 90 days coalition shall submit to the COMELEC not
before the election a manifestation of its later than 45 days before the election a list of
desire to participate in the party-list system. names not less than five, from which party-
list representatives shall be chosen in case it
Refusal and/or Cancellation of Registration. obtains the required number of votes. A
person may be nominated in one list only.
The COMELEC may, motu proprio or upon a Only persons who have given their consent in
verified complaint of any interested party, writing may be named in the list. The list shall
refuse or cancel, after due notice and hearing, not include any candidate for any elective
the registration of any national, regional, or office or a person who has lost his bid for an
sectoral party, organization or coalition on elective office in the immediately preceding
any of the following grounds: election. No change shall be allowed after the
list have been submitted to the COMELEC
a) it is a religious sect or denomination, except in cases where the nominee dies or
organization or association organized withdraws in writing his nomination,
for religious purposes; becomes incapacitated, in which case the
b) it advocates violence or unlawful name of the substitute nominee shall be
means to seek its goal; placed last in the list. Incumbent sectoral
c) it is a foreign party or organization; representatives in the House of
d) it is receiving support from any Representatives who are nominated in the
foreign government, foreign political

Page | 44
MENDIOLA, MANILA
party-list system shall not be considered Number.

resigned.
The party-list representatives shall
Qualifications of Party-List Nominees. constitute 20% of the total number of the
members of the House of Representatives
Natural-born citizen of the including those under the party-list. For
Philippines, a registered voter, resident of purposes of the May, 1998, elections, the first
the Philippines for at least one year five major political parties on the basis of
immediately preceding the day of the party representation in the House of
election, able to read and write, a bona fide Representatives at the start of the Tenth
member of the party or organization which he Congress of the Philippines shall not be
seeks to represent for at least 90 days entitled to representation in the party-list
preceding the day of the election, and is at system. In determining the allocation of seats
least 25 years of age on the day of the for the second vote, the following procedure
election. For the youth sector, he must be at shall be observed:
least 25 years of age but not more than 30
years of age on the day of the election. Any a) the parties, organizations and
youth representative who attains the age of coalitions shall be ranked from the
30 during his term shall be allowed to highest to the lowest based on the
continue in office until the expiration of his number of votes they garnered during
term. the elections; and
b) the parties, organizations and
Manner of Voting coalitions receiving at least 2% of the
total votes cast for the party-list
Every voter shall be entitled to two system shall be entitled to one-seat
votes: the first is a vote for the candidate for each; provided, that those garnering
member of the House of Representatives in more than 2% of the votes shall be
his legislative district, and the second, a vote entitled to additional seats in
for the party, organization or coalition he proportion to their total number of
wants represented in the House of votes; provided, finally, that each
Representatives; provided that a vote cast for party, organization or coalitions shall
a party, sectoral organization or coalition not be entitled to not more than three (3)
entitled to be voted shall not be counted. seats.
In Bantay Republic Act v COMELEC, the In Veterans Federation Party v

Supreme Court held that the Commission on COMELEC, the Supreme Court reversed the
Elections has a constitutional duty to disclose COMELEC ruling that the 38 respondent
and release the names of the nominees of the parties, coalitions and organization were each
party-list groups, citing Sec. 7, Art. III of the entitled to a party-list seat despite their
Constitution on the right of the people to failure to obtain at least 2% each of the
information on matters of public concern as national vote in the 1998 party-list election.
complemented by the policy of full disclosure The Court said that the Constitution and RA
and transparency in the Government.

Page | 45
MENDIOLA, MANILA
7941 mandate at least four inviolable additional seats which a party-list group shall
parameters: be entitled to.
a) the 20% allocation: the combined In Ang Bagong Bayani – OFW Labor
number of all party-list congressman Party v COMELEC, the Supreme Court said
shall not exceed 20% of the total that even if major political parties are allowed
membership of the House of by the Constitution to participate in the party-
Representatives; list system, they must show, however, that
b) the 2% threshold: only those parties they represent the interests of the
garnering a minimum of 2% of the marginalized and under-represented.
total valid votes cast for the party-list
system are qualified to have a seat in The following guidelines should be
the House; followed in order that a political party
c) the three-seat limit: each qualified registered under the pary-list system may be
party, regardless of the number of entitled to a seat in the House of
votes it actually obtained, is entitled Representatives: (ANG BAGONG BAYANI
to a maximum of three seats; GUIDELINES, this was asked by Atty. G):
d) proportional representation: the
additional seats which a qualified 1. must represent marginalized and
party is entitled to shall be computed under-represented sectors;
“in proportion to their total number of 2. major political parties must comply
votes”. with this statutory policy;
3. Ang Bagong Buhay Hayaang
In Partido ng Manggagawa (PM) and Yumabong (as a party) must be
Butil Farmers Party (Butil) v COMELEC, subject to the express constitutional
petitioners party-list groups sought the prohibition against religious sects;
immediate proclamation by the COMELEC of 4. The party must not be disqualified
their respective second nomine, claiming that under RA 7941;
they were entitled to one (1) additional seat 5. The party must not be an adjunct of
in the House of Representatives based on the an entity or project funded by the
number of votes they obtained and on the government;
formula used by the Supreme Court in Ang 6. The party and its nominees must
Bagong Bayani. The Court held that the comply with the requirements of the
formula used in the landmark case of law;
Veterans Federation Party, which is: 7. The nominee must also represent a
marginalized or under-represented
Additional Seats = (Votes Cast for Qualified sector;
Party / Votes Cast for First Party) x Alloted 8. The nominee must be able to
Seats for First Party contribute to the formulation and
enactment of appropriate legislation
Shall be followed. Ang Bagong Bayani merely that will benefit the nation.
reiterated this formula for computing the
Choosing Party-List Representatives

Page | 46
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Party-list representatives are 1. Regular – Unless otherwise provided

proclaimed by the COMELEC based on the list by law, on the second Monday of May
of the names submitted by the respective (Sec. 8, Art. VI)
parties, organizations or coalitions to the 2. Special: To fill a vacancy, but elected
COMELEC according to their ranking in the member shall serve only for the
list. unexpired portion of the term. (Sec. 9,
Art. VI)
Effect of Change of Affiliation
Any elected party-list representative

who changes his political party or sectoral CASE DOCTRINES:
affiliation during his term of office shall
forfeit his seat; provided that if he changes his Dimaparo v Mitra
political party or sectoral affiliation within 6
months before an election, he shall not be Section 8. Unless otherwise provided by law,
eligible for nomination as party-list the regular election of the Senators and the
representative under his new party or Members of the House of Representatives shall
organization. be held on the second Monday of May.
Vacancy In theorizing that the provision under

consideration cuts short the term of office of a
In case of vacancy in the seats Member of Congress, petitioner seems to
reserved for party-list representatives, the confuse "term" with "tenure" of office. As
vacancy shall be automatically filled by the succinctly distinguished by the Solicitor
next representative from the list of nominees General:
in the order submitted to the COMELEC by
the same party, organization or coalition, who The term of office prescribed
shall serve for the unexpired term. If the list is by the Constitution may not be
exhausted, the party, organization or coalition extended or shortened by the
concerned shall submit additional nominees. legislature (22 R.C.L.), but the
period during which an officer
Term of office; rights. actually holds the office
(tenure) may be affected by
Party-list representatives shall be circumstances within or
elected for a term of three (3) years, and shall beyond the power of said
be entitled to the same salaries and officer. Tenure may be shorter
emoluments as regular members of the House than the term or it may not
of Representatives. exist at all. These situations
will not change the duration of
Kinds of Election: the term of office (see Topacio
Nueno vs. Angeles, 76 Phil 12).

Page | 47
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Under the questioned provision, when an grounds provided for in the Constitution? The
elective official covered thereby files a framers of our fundamental law never
certificate of candidacy for another office, he intended such absurdity.
is deemed to have voluntarily cut short his
tenure, not his term. The term remains and DIMAPORO VS. MITRA
his successor, if any, is allowed to serve its 202 SCRA 779, 1991
unexpired portion.
FACTS: Petitioner Mohammad Ali Dimaporo
That the ground cited in Section 67, Article IX was elected Representative for the Second
of B.P. Blg. 881 is not mentioned in the Legislative District of Lanao del Sur during
Constitution itself as a mode of shortening the the 1987 congressional elections and took his
tenure of office of members of Congress, does oath of office on January 9, 1987. On January
not preclude its application to present 15, 1990, petitioner filed with the COMELEC a
members of Congress. Section 2 of Article XI Certificate of Candidacy for the position of
provides that "(t)he President, the Vice- Regional Governor of the Autonomous Region
President, the Members of the Supreme in Muslim Mindanao. The election was
Court, the Members of the Constitutional scheduled for February 17, 1990.
Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be
removed from office, on impeachment for, Upon being informed of this development by
and conviction of, culpable violation of the the COMELEC, respondents Speaker and
Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and Secretary of the House of Representatives
corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of excluded petitioner’s name from the Roll of
public trust. All other public officers and Members of the House of Representatives
employees may be removed from office as pursuant to sec.67, Art.IX of the Omnibus
provided by law, but not by impeachment. Such Election Code, which states: “Any elective
constitutional expression clearly recognizes official whether national or local running for
that the four (4) grounds found in Article VI any office other than the one which he is
of the Constitution by which the tenure of a holding in a permanent capacity except for
Congressman may be shortened are not President and Vice President shall be
exclusive. As held in the case of State ex rel. considered ipso facto (by the mere act)
Berge vs. Lansing, the expression in the resigned from his office upon filing of his
constitution of the circumstances which shall certificate of candidacy.”
bring about a vacancy does not necessarily
exclude all others. Neither does it preclude Petitioner contends that he did not thereby
the legislature from prescribing other lose his seat as congressman because Sec.67,
grounds. Events so enumerated in the Art.IX of the B.P. Blg.881 is not operative
constitution or statutes are merely conditions under the present Constitution, being
the occurrence of any one of which the office contrary thereto, and therefore not applicable
shall become vacant not as a penalty but to the present members of the Congress.
simply as the legal effect of any one of the
events. And would it not be preposterous to ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner forfeited his
say that a congressman cannot die and cut his seat, upon the filing of the certificate of
tenure because death is not one of the candidacy for another office.

Page | 48
MENDIOLA, MANILA
as the case may be, shall be sufficient for such

HELD: Yes. Forfeiture is automatic and purpose. The Senator or Member of the House
permanently effective upon the filing of the of Representatives thus elected shall serve
certificate of candidacy for another office. only for the unexpired term.
Once the certificate is filed, the seat is forever
forfeited and nothing save a new election or Section 2. The Commission on Elections shall
appointment can restore the ousted official. fix the date of the special election, which shall
The wording of the law plainly indicates that not be earlier than forty-five (45) days not
only the date of filing of the certificate of later than ninety (90) days from the date of
candidacy should be taken into account. The such resolution or communication, stating
law does not make the forfeiture dependent among other things the office or offices to be
upon the future contingencies, unforeseen voted for: provided, however, that if within
and unforeseeable, since the vacating is the said period a general election is scheduled
expressly made as of the moment of the filing to be held, the special election shall be held
of the certificate of candidacy. simultaneously with such general election.
Section 3. The Commission on Elections shall

send copies of the resolution, in number
Republic Act No. 6645 December 28, sufficient for due distribution and publication,
1987 to the Provincial of City Treasurer of each
province or city concerned, who in turn shall
AN ACT PRESCRIBING THE MANNER OF publish it in their respective localities by
FILING A VACANCY IN THE CONGRESS OF posting at least three copies thereof in as
THE PHILIPPINES many conspicuous places in each of their
election precincts, and a copy in each of the
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of polling places and public markets, and in the
Representatives of the Philippines in Congress municipal buildings.
assembled::
Section 4. This Act shall take effect upon its
Section 1. In case a vacancy arises in the publication in the Official Gazette or in at least
Senate at least eighteen (18) months or in the two newspapers of general circulation.
House of Representatives at least (1) year
before the next regular election for Members Approved: December 28, 1987.
of Congress, the Commission on Elections,
upon receipt of a resolution of the Senate or
the House of Representatives, as the case may
be, certifying to the existence of such vacancy Section 9. In case of vacancy in the Senate or in
and calling for a special election, shall hold a the House of Representatives, a special election
special election to fill such vacancy.f Congress may be called to fill such vacancy in the
is in recess, an official communication on the manner prescribed by law, but the Senator or
existence of the vacancy and call for a special Member of the House of Representatives thus
election by the President of the Senate or by elected shall serve only for the unexpired term.
the Speaker of the House of Representatives,

Page | 49
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Section 10. The salaries of Senators and In People v Jalosjos, the Supreme Court denied
Members of the House of Representatives shall the motion of Congressman Jalosjos that he be
be determined by law. No increase in said allowed to fully discharged the duties of a
compensation shall take effect until after the Congressman, including attendance at
expiration of the full term of all the Members of legislative sessions and committee hearings
the Senate and the House of Representatives despite his having been convicted by the trial
approving such increase. court of a non-bailable offense.
A similar ruling was made in Trillanes IV v

Judge Pimentel, where petitioner Antonio
Section 11. A Senator or Member of the House Trillanes sought from the Makati RTC leave to
of Representatives shall, in all offenses attend Senate sessions and to convene his
punishable by not more than six years staff, resource persons and guests to attend to
imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while his official functions as Senator. He anchored
the Congress is in session. No Member shall be his motion on his right to be presumed
questioned nor be held liable in any other place innocent, and claims that the Jalosjos Ruling
for any speech or debate in the Congress or in should not be applied to him, because he is a
any committee thereof. mere detention prisoner and is not charged
with a crime involving moral turpitude. The
PRIVILEGES: Makati RTC denied the motion. Elevating the
matter, the Supreme Court denied Trillanes’
Freedom from arrest. petition on the ground that Sec.13, Art. III of
the Constitution, explicitly provides that
This is reinforced by, Art. 145, Revised Penal crimes punishable by reclusion perpetua are
Code, which provides: “The penalty of prision non-bailable. The Court further said that the
mayor shall be imposed upon any person who presumption of innocence does not
shall use force, intimidation, threats, or fraud necessarily carry with it the full enjoyment of
to prevent any member of the National civil and political rights.
Assembly (Congress of the Philippines) from
attending the meetings of the Assembly Privilege of speech and debate.
(Congress) or of any of its committees or
subcommittees, constitutional commissions
or committees or divisions thereof, from
expressing his opinions or casting his vote; CASE DOCTRINES:
and the penalty of prision correccional shall
be imposed upon any public officer or Jimenez v Cabangbang
employee who shall, while the Assembly
(Congress) is in regular or special session, MEMBER OF CONGRESS MAY BE HELD TO
arrest or search any member thereof, except ACCOUNT FOR SUCH SPEECH OR DEBATE BY
in case such member has committed a crime THE HOUSE TO WHICH HE BELONGS.
punishable under this Code by a penalty
higher than prision mayor. “ THE SPEECH OR EXPRESSION MUST BE MADE
WHILE THE CONGRESS IS IN SESSION AND IN

Page | 50
MENDIOLA, MANILA
THE PERFORMANCE OF THE MEMBER’S This is an ordinary civil action, originally

OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS. instituted in the Court of First instance of
Rizal, for the recovery, by plaintiffs Nicanor T.
Said expression refers to utterances made by Jiminez, Carlos J. Albert and Jose L. Lukban, of
Congressmen in the performance of their several sums of money, by way of damages
official functions, such as speeches delivered, for the publication of an allegedly libelous
statements made, or votes cast in the halls of letter of the defendant Bartolome
Congress, while the same is in session, as well Cabangbang. Upon being summoned, the
as bills introduced in Congress, whether the letter moved to dismiss the complaint upon
same is in session or not, and other acts the ground that the letter in question is not
performed by Congressmen, either in libelous, and that, even if were, said letter is a
Congress or outside the premises housing its privileged communication. This motion
offices, in the official discharge of their duties having been granted by the lower court,
as members of Congress and of Congressional plaintiffs interposed the present appeal from
Committees duly authorized to perform its the corresponding order of dismissal.
functions as such, at the time of the
performance of the acts in question.1 ISSUES:
a. Whether or not the publication in question
The publication involved in this case is a privileged communication?
does not belong to this category. According to b. Whether or not it is libelous?
the complaint herein, it was an open letter to
the President of the Philippines, dated HELD:
November 14, 1958, when Congress a. No. The aforementioned publication does
presumably was not in session, and defendant not fall within the purview of the phrase
caused said letter to be published in several “speech and debate therein” – that is to say in
newspapers of general circulation in the Congress – used in Art.VI, sec.15 of the
Philippines, on or about said date. It is Constitution. Said expression refers to
obvious that, in thus causing the utterances made by Congressmen in the
communication to be so published, he was not performance of their official functions, such
performing his official duty, either as a as speeches delivered, statements made, or
member of Congress or as officer or any votes cast in the halls of Congress, while the
Committee thereof. Hence, contrary to the same is in session as well as bills introduced
finding made by His Honor, the trial Judge, in Congress, whether the same is in session or
said communication is not absolutely not, and other acts performed by
privileged. Congressmen, either in Congress or outside
the premises housing its offices, in the official
discharge of their duties as members of
Congress and of Congressional Committees
JIMENEZ V. CABANGBANG duly authorized to perform its functions as
G.R. NO. L-15905, AUGUST 3, 1966 such at the time of the performance of the
acts in question.
FACTS:

Page | 51
MENDIOLA, MANILA
The publication involved in this case does not MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ENJOY ABSOLUTE
belong to this category. According to the PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY OF PRIVILEGED
complaint herein, it was an open letter to the SPEECH, BUT THEY MAY BE HELD
President of the Philippines, dated November ANSWERABLE BY THE CONGRESS ITSELF.
14, 1958, when Congress presumably was not
in session, and defendant caused said letter to Section 15, Article VI of our Constitution
be published in several newspapers of provides that "for any speech or debate" in
general circulation in the Philippines, on or Congress, the Senators or Members of the
about said date. It is obvious that, in thus House of Representative "shall not be
causing the communication to be so questioned in any other place." This section
published, he was not performing his official was taken or is a copy of sec. 6, clause 1 of
duty, either as a member of Congress or as Art. 1 of the Constitution of the United States.
officer of any Committee thereof. Hence, the In that country, the provision has always been
said communication is not absolutely understood to mean that although exempt
privileged. from prosecution or civil actions for their
words uttered in Congress, the members of
b. No. The letter in question is not sufficient to Congress may, nevertheless, be questioned in
support plaintiff’s action for damages. It is Congress itself. Observe that "they shall not be
true that the complaint alleges that an open questioned in any other place" than Congress.
letter in question was written by the
defendant, knowing that is false and with the Furthermore, the Rules of the House which
intent to impeach plaintiff’s reputation, to petitioner himself has invoked (Rule XVII, sec.
expose them to public hatred, contempt, 7), recognize the House's power to hold a
dishonor and ridicule, and to alienate them member responsible "for words spoken in
from their associates, but these allegations debate."
are mere conclusions which are inconsistent
with the contents of said letter and cannot Our Constitution enshrines parliamentary
prevail over the same, it being the very basis immunity which is a fundamental privilege
of the complaint. The very document upon cherished in every legislative assembly of the
which plaintiffs’ action is based explicitly democratic world. As old as the English
indicates that they might be absolutely Parliament, its purpose "is to enable and
unaware of the alleged operational plans, and encourage a representative of the public to
that they may be merely unwitting tools of discharge his public trust with firmness and
the planners. This statement is not success" for "it is indispensably necessary
derogatory to the plaintiffs to the point of that he should enjoy the fullest liberty of
entitling them to recover damages. speech, and that he should be protected from
the resentment of every one, however
powerful, to whom exercise of that liberty
DOCTRINE: may occasion offense."2 Such immunity has
come to this country from the practices of
Osmeña v Pendatun Parliamentary as construed and applied by
the Congress of the United States. Its extent
and application remain no longer in doubt in

Page | 52
MENDIOLA, MANILA
so far as related to the question before us. It Needless to add, the Rules of Philippine
guarantees the legislator complete freedom of House of Representatives provide that the
expression without fear of being made parliamentary practices of the Congress of the
responsible in criminal or civil actions before United States shall apply in a supplementary
the courts or any other forum outside of the manner to its proceedings.
Congressional Hall. But is does not protect
him from responsibility before the legislative
body itself whenever his words and conduct
are considered by the latter disorderly or OSMENA V. PENDATUN
unbecoming a member thereof. In the United G.R. NO. L-17144 OCTOBER 28, 1960
States Congress, Congressman Fernando
Wood of New York was censured for using FACTS: Congressman Sergio Osmena, Jr., in a
the following language on the floor of the privilege speech delivered before the House,
House: "A monstrosity, a measure the most made the serious imputations of bribery
infamous of the many infamous acts of the against the President which are quoted in
infamous Congress." (Hinds' Precedents, Vol. Resolution No. 59. Congressman Salipada K.
2,. pp. 798-799). Two other congressmen Pendatun and fourteen other congressmen in
were censured for employing insulting words their capacity as members of the Special
during debate. (2 Hinds' Precedents, 799- Committee created by House Resolution No.
801). In one case, a member of Congress was 59 found said congressman guilty of serious
summoned to testify on a statement made by disorderly behavior; and acting on such
him in debate, but invoked his parliamentary report, the House approved on the same day-
privilege. The Committee rejected his plea. (3 before closing its session-House Resolution
Hinds' Precedents 123-124.) No. 175, declaring him guilty as
recommended and suspending him from
For unparliamentary conduct, members of office for fifteen months.
Parliament or of Congress have been, or could
be censured, committed to prison 3, even ISSUES:
expelled by the votes of their colleagues. The a. Whether or not delivery of speeches
appendix to this decision amply attest to the attacking the Chief Executive constitutes
consensus of informed opinion regarding the disorderly conduct for which Osmena may be
practice and the traditional power of disciplined?
legislative assemblies to take disciplinary b. Whether or not the resolution violated his
action against its members, including constitutional absolute parliamentary
imprisonment, suspension or expulsion. It immunity for speeches delivered in the
mentions one instance of suspension of a House?
legislator in a foreign country.
HELD:
And to cite a local illustration, the Philippine a. Yes. There is no question that Congressman
Senate, in April 1949, suspended a senator for Osmena made a serious imputation of bribery
one year. against the President. The House is the judge
of what constitutes disorderly behavior, not
only because the Constitution has conferred

Page | 53
MENDIOLA, MANILA
jurisdiction upon it, but also because the conduct. It is at once apparent that her
matter depends mainly on factual statements in question were intemperate and
circumstances of which the House knows best highly improper in substance.”
but which can not be depicted in black and
white for presentation to, and adjudication by The Supreme Court also noted that the Rules
the Courts. The house has exclusive power; of the Senate contains a provision on
the courts have no jurisdiction to interfere. “Unparliamentary Acts and Language” that
The theory of separation of powers enjoins a Senator from using, under any
fastidiously observed by this Court, demands circumstance, “offensive or improper
in such situation a prudent refusal to language against another Senator or against
interfere. any public institution” (which means that
parliamentary immunity is not absolute).
b. No. The resolution does not violate the However, the Court said,
constitutional parliamentary immunity for
speeches delivered in the House. Our “…as to Senator Santiago’s unparliamentary
Constitution enshrines parliamentary remarks, the Senate President had not
immunity which is a fundamental privilege in apparently called her to order, let alone
every legislative assembly of the democratic referred the matter to the Senate Ethics
world. But it does not protect him from Committee for appropriate disciplinary action,
responsibility before the legislative body as the Rules dictates under such circumstance.
itself whenever his words and conduct are The lady senator clearly violated the rules of
considered by the latter disorderly or her own chamber. It is unfortunate that her
unbecoming of a member thereof. For peers bent backwards and avoided imposing
unparliamentary conduct, members of the their own rules on her.”
parliament or of Congress have bee, or could
be censured, committed to prison, suspended,
even expelled by the votes of their colleagues. Section 12. All Members of the Senate and the
House of Representatives shall, upon
assumption of office, make a full disclosure of
their financial and business interests. They
shall notify the House concerned of a potential
conflict of interest that may arise from the
POBRE vs DEFENSOR SANTIAGO filing of a proposed legislation of which they
are authors.
The Supreme Court dismissed the disbarment
charge against the latter because it is barred Section 13. No Senator or Member of the House
by the Constitution from doing so, it of Representatives may hold any other office or
manifested “its deep concern about the employment in the Government, or any
language Senator Santiago, a member of the subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof,
Bar, used in her speech and its effect on the including government-owned or controlled
administration of justice. To the Court, the corporations or their subsidiaries, during his
lady senator has undoubtedly crossed the term without forfeiting his seat. Neither shall
limits of decency and good professional he be appointed to any office which may have

Page | 54
MENDIOLA, MANILA
been created or the emoluments thereof sec. 55), and he can not question the
increased during the term for which he was constitutionality of the law by virtue of which
elected. he was last appointed (11 American
Jurisprudence, 166, par. 121; id., 767, par.
Forfeiture of the seat in Congress shall 123). He is excepted from said rule only when
be automatic upon the member’s assumption his non-acceptance of the new appointment
of such other office deemed incompatible may affect public interest or when he is
with his seat in Congress. However, no compelled to accept it by reason of legal
forfeiture shall take place if the member of exigencies (11 American Jurisprudence, 770,
the Congress holds the other government par. 124). lawphi1.net
office in an ex officio capacity, e.g.,
membership in the Board of Regents of the In the case under consideration, the
University of the Philippines of the Chairman, petitioner was free to accept or not the ad
Committee on Education, in the Senate. interim appointment issued by the President
of the Commonwealth in his favor, in
Forbidden Office accordance with said Commonwealth Act No.
145. Nothing or nobody compelled him to do
The ban against appointment to the so. While the office of judge of first instance of
office created or the emoluments thereof public interest, being one of the means
increased shall, hwever, last only for the employed by the Government to carry out one
duration of the term for which the member of of its purposes, which is the administration of
the Congress was elected. justice, considering the organization of the
courts of justice in the Philippines and the
creation of the positions of judges-at-large or
substitutes, the temporary disability of a
CASE DOCTRINES: judge may be immediately remedied without
detriment to the smooth running of the
judicial machinery. If the petitioner believed,
Zandueta v De la Costa
as he now seems to believe, that
Commonwealth Act No. 145 is
The rule of equity, sanctioned by
unconstitutional, he should have refused to
jurisprudence, is that when a public official
accept the appointment offered him or, at
voluntarily accepts an appointment to an
least, he should have accepted it with
office newly created or reorganized by law, —
reservation, had he believed that his duty of
which new office is incompatible with the one
obedience to the laws compelled him to do so,
formerly occupied by him — , qualifies for the
and afterwards resort to the power entrusted
discharge of the functions thereof by taking
with the final determination of the question
the necessary oath, and enters into the
whether a law is unconstitutional or not. The
performance of his duties by executing acts
petitioner, being aware of his constitutional
inherent in said newly created or reorganized
and legal rights and obligations, by implied
office and receiving the corresponding salary,
order of the law (art. 2, Civil Code), accepted
he will be considered to have abandoned the
the office of judge of first instance of the
office he was occupying by virtue of his
Fourth Judicial District, with authority to
former appointment (46 Corpus Juris, 947,

Page | 55
MENDIOLA, MANILA
preside over the Fifth Branch of the Court of with authority to preside over the CFI of
First Instance of Manila and the Court of First Manila and Palawan, and his appointment
Instance of Palawan and entered into the was approved by the Commission on
performance of the duties inherent therein, Appointments of the National Assembly.
after taking the necessary oath, thereby
acting with full knowledge that if he Petitioner instituted quo warranto
voluntarily accepted the office to which he proceedings against respondent and also
was appointed, he would later be estopped questioned the validity of the appointment
from questioning the validity of said alleging that C.A. No. 145 is unconstitutional.
appointment by alleging that the law, by
virtue of which his appointment was issued, is ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner may
unconstitutional. He likewise knew, or at least proceed to question the constitutionality of
he should know, that his ad C.A. No. 145 by virtue of which the new ad
interim appointment was subject to the interim appointment of judge of first instance
approval of the Commission on Appointments of the 4th Judicial District, to preside over the
of the National Assembly and that if said CFI of Manila and Palawan, was issued in his
commission were to disapprove the same, it favor?
would become ineffective and he would cease
discharging the office. HELD:
No. Petitioner is estopped by his own act form
ZANDUETA VS. DELA COSTA proceeding to question the constitutionality
G.R. NO. L-46267, NOVEMBER 28, 1938 of C.A. No. 145. He likewise knew, or at least
he should know, that his ad interim
FACTS: appointment was subject to the approval of
While petitioner Francis Zandueta was the Commission on Appointments of the
presiding over the 5th Branch of Courts of National Assembly and that if said
First Instance of Manila, he received a new ad Commission were to disapprove the same, it
interim appointment, issued in accordance would become ineffective and he would cease
with Commonwealth Act No. 145, to discharging the office. The petitioner was free
discharge the Office of Judge in the Court of to accept or not the ad interim appointment
First Instance of the 4th Judicial District with issued by the President of the Commonwealth
authority to preside over the CFI of Manila in his favor, in accordance with said C.A. No.
and Palawan. The National Assembly 145. Nothing or nobody compelled him to do
adjourned without its Commission on so.
Appointments having acted on said ad interim
appointment. When a public official voluntarily accepts an
appointment to an office newly created or
The Commission on Appointments of the reorganized by law – which new office is
National Assembly disapproved the ad incompatible with the one formerly occupied
interim appointment of petitioner. by him – qualifies for the discharge of the
Subsequently, the President of the Philippines functions thereof by taking the necessary
appointed respondent Sixto de la Costa, judge oath, and enters in the performance of his
of first instance of the 4th Judicial District, duties by executing acts inherent in said

Page | 56
MENDIOLA, MANILA
newly created or reorganized office and interest that may arise from the filing
receiving the corresponding salary, he will be of a proposed legislation of which
considered to have abandoned the office he they are authors. (Sec. 12, Art. VI)
was occupying by virtue of his former
appointment, and he cannot question the
constitutionality of the law by which he was
last appointed. CASE DOCTRINES:
He was estopped form questioning the Puyat v De Guzman

validity of said appointment by alleging that
the law, by virtue of which his appointment THE DISQUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS OF
was issued, is unconstitutional. He is CONGRESS CANNOT BE CIRCUMVENTED BY
exempted from said rule only when his non- INTERVENING IN THEIR PERSONAL CAPACITY
acceptance of the new appointment may
affect public interest or when he is compelled The Court en banc ruled that ordinarily, by
to accept it by reason of legal exigencies.
virtue of the Motion for Intervention,
Assemblyman Fernandez cannot be said to be
appearing as counsel. His appearance could
theoretically be for the protection of his
Section 14. No Senator or Member of the House ownership of ten (10) IPI shares.
of Representatives may personally appear as
counsel before any court of justice or before the However, certain salient circumstances
Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other militate against the intervention of
administrative bodies. Neither shall he, directly Assemblyman Fernandez. He had acquired a
or indirectly, be interested financially in any mere Php200.00 worth of stock in IPI. He
contract with, or in any franchise or special acquired them "after the fact", that is, on 30
privilege granted by the Government, or any May 1979, after the contested election of
subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, Directors, after the quo warranto suit had
including any government-owned or controlled been filed, and one day before the scheduled
corporation, or its subsidiary, during his term hearing of the case before the SEC. And what
of office. He shall not intervene in any matter is more, before he moved to intervene, he had
before any office of the Government for his signified his intention to appear as counsel
pecuniary benefit or where he may be called for the Acero group, but which was objected
upon to act on account of his office. to by petitioners Puyat group. Realizing,
perhaps, the validity of the objection, he
Other Inhibitions decided, instead, to "intervene" on the ground
of legal interest in the matter under litigation.
1. Prohibited from “personally”
appearing as a counsel Under those facts and circumstances, there
2. Upon assumption of office, must make has been an indirect appearance as counsel
a full disclosure of financial and before an administrative body, which is a
business interests. Shall notify House circumvention of the Constitutional
concerned of a potential conflict of prohibition. The "intervention" was an

Page | 57
MENDIOLA, MANILA
afterthought to enable him to appear actively were not properly counted. Justice Estanislao
in the proceedings in some other capacity. A. Fernandez, then member of the Interim
Batasang Pambansa, orally entered his
A ruling upholding the "intervention" would appearance as counsel for respondent Acero
make the constitutional provision ineffective. to which petitioner Eugenio Puyat objected
All an Assemblyman need do, if he wants to on Constitutional grounds Sec.11, Art.VIII, of
influence an administrative body is to acquire the 1973 Constitution, then in force, provided
a minimal participation in the "interest" of the that “no Assemblyman could appear as
client and then "intervene" in the counsel before… any administrative body,”
proceedings. That which the Constitution and SEC was an administrative body. The
directly prohibits may not be done by cited constitutional prohibition being clear,
indirection or by a general legislative act Assemblyman Fernandez did not continue his
which is intended to accomplish the objects appearance for respondent Acero.
specifically or impliedly prohibited.
ISSUE: Whether or not, in intervening in the
Thus, the intervention of Assemblyman
SEC Case, Assemblyman Fernandez is, in
Fernandez in the SEC Case falls within the
effect, appearing as counsel, albeit indirectly,
ambit of the prohibition contained in the
before an administrative body in
1973 Constitution. Respondent
contravention of the Constitutional provision.
Commissioner's Order granting Assemblyman
Fernandez leave to intervene in the SEC Case
HELD: Yes. Ordinarily, by virtue of the Motion
was reversed and set aside.
for Intervention, Assemblyman Fernandez
cannot be said to be appearing as counsel.
Ostensibly, he is not appearing on behalf of
another, although he is joining the cause of
PUYAT VS. DE GUZMAN, JR. (G.R. NO. L- the private respondents. His appearance
51122, MARCH 25, 1982) could theoretically be for the protection of his
ownership of ten (10) shares of IPI in respect
FACTS: of the matter in litigation and not for the
This suit for certiorari and Prohibition with protection of the petitioners nor respondents
Preliminary Injunction is poised against the who have their respective capable and
Order of respondent Associate Commissioner respected counsel.
of the SEC granting Assemblyman Estanislao
A. Fernandez leave to intervene in SEC Case However, he later had acquired a mere
No. 1747. Before he moved to intervene he P200.00 worth of stock in IPI, representing
had signified his intention to appear as ten shares out of 262,843 outstanding shares.
counsel for the respondent T.C. Acero, but He acquired them "after the fact" that is, on
which was objected to by petitioners. Acero May 30, 1979, after the contested election of
instituted at the SEC quo warranto Directors on May 14, 1979, after the quo
proceedings, questioning the election for the warranto suit had been filed on May 25, 1979
11 Directors of the International Pipe before SEC and one day before the scheduled
Industries Corporation, a private corporation. hearing of the case before the SEC on May 31,
Acero claimed that the stockholder’s votes 1979. And what is more, before he moved to

Page | 58
MENDIOLA, MANILA
intervene, he had signified his intention to SESSIONS

appear as counsel for respondent Eustaquio T.
C. Acero, but which was objected to by 1. Regular. The Congress shall convene
petitioners. Realizing, perhaps, the validity of once every year on the fourth Monday
the objection, he decided, instead, to of July for its regular session, unless a
"intervene" on the ground of legal interest in different date is fixed by law, and shall
the matter under litigation. And it maybe continue to be in session for such
noted that in the case filed before the Rizal number of days as it may determine
Court of First Instance (L-51928), he until thirty days before the opening of
appeared as counsel for defendant Excelsior, its next regular session, exclusive of
co-defendant of respondent Acero therein. Saturdays, Sundays, and legal
holidays.
Under those facts and circumstances, there 2. Special. The President may call a
has been an indirect circumvention of the special session at any time.
constitutional prohibition. An assemblyman A special session may be
cannot indirectly follow the constitutional called by the President at any time,
prohibition not to appear as counsel before usually to consider legislative
an administrative tribunal like the SEC by measures which the President may
buying nominal amount of share of one of the designate in his call.
stockholders after his appearance as counsel 3. Joint Sessions
therein was contested. A ruling upholding the
“intervention” would make the constitutional  Voting Seperately
provision ineffective. All an Assemblymen  EXAMPLES:
need to do, if he wants to influence an  1. Choosing the President (Sec. 4, Art.
administrative body is to acquire a minimal VII)
participation in the “interest” of the client and  2. Determine President’s disability
then “intervene” in the proceedings. That (Sec. 11, Art. VII)
which the Constitution prohibits may not be  3. Confirming nomination of the Vice
done by indirection or by a general legislative President (Sec. 9, Art. VII)
act which is intended to accomplish the
 4. Declaring the existence of a state of
objects specifically or impliedly prohibited
war (Sec.23, Art. VI)
 5. Proposing constitutional
amendments (Sec.1, Art. XVII)
Section 15. The Congress shall convene once

every year on the fourth Monday of July for its
 Voting Jointly. To revoke or extend
regular session, unless a different date is fixed
proclamation suspending the
by law, and shall continue to be in session for
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
such number of days as it may determine until
or placing the Philippines under
thirty days before the opening of its next
martial law. (Sec. 18, Art. VII)
regular session, exclusive of Saturdays,
Sundays, and legal holidays. The President may
call a special session at any time. 4. Adjournment. Neither House during
the sessions of the Congress shall,
without the consent of the other,

Page | 59
MENDIOLA, MANILA
adjourn for more than three days, nor review such determination, the same being a
to any other place than that in which political question.
the two Houses shall be sitting. [Sec.
16(5), Art. VI] The suspension contemplated in the
Constitution is different from the suspension
prescribed in the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act. The latter is not a penalty but a
SECTION 16. (1) The Senate shall elect its preliminary preventive measure and is not
President and the House of Representatives its imposed upon the petitioner for misbehavior
Speaker, by a majority vote of all its respective as a member of Congress.
Members.
(4) Each House shall keep a Journal of its
Each House shall choose such other officers as proceedings, and from time to time publish
it may deem necessary. the same, excepting such parts as may, in its
judgment, affect national security; and the
(2) A majority of each House shall constitute a yeas and nays on any question shall, at the
quorum to do business, but a smaller number request of one-fifth of the Members present,
may adjourn from day to day and may compel be entered in the Journal.
the attendance of absent Members in such
manner, and under such penalties, as such Each House shall also keep a Record of its
House may provide. proceedings.
In Avelino v Cuenca, which is the Matters which are to be entered in the

authority for the principle that the basis in Journal:
determining the existence of a quorum shall
be the total number of Senators who are in 1. yeas and nays on third and final
the country and within the coercive reading of a bill;
jurisdiction of the Senate. 2. veto message of the President;
3. yeas and nays on the repassing of a
(3) Each House may determine the rules of its bill vetoed by the President; and
proceedings, punish its Members for 4. yeas and nays on any question at the
disorderly behavior, and, with the request of 1/5 of members present.
concurrence of two-thirds of all its Members,
suspend or expel a Member. A penalty of Enrolled Bill Thoery. An enrolled bill is ne
suspension, when imposed, shall not exceed duly introduced and finally passed by both
sixty days. Houses, authenticated by the proper officers
of each, and approved by the President. The
In Osmeña v Pendatun, the Supreme enrolled bill is conclusive upon the courts as
Court said that the determination of the acts regards the tenor of the measure passed by
which constitute disorderly behavior is Congress and approved by the President.
within the full discretionary authority of the Court is bound under the doctrine of
House concerned, and the Court will not separation of powers by the contents of a
duly authenticated measure of the legislature.

Page | 60
MENDIOLA, MANILA
If a mistake was made in the printing of the leader belongs. As a result, petitioners assert,
bill before it was certified by Congress and Respondent Guingona cannot be the
approved by the President, the remedy is legitimate minority leader, since he voted for
amendment or corrective legislation and not Respondent Fernan as Senate
a judicial decree. President. Furthermore,
the members of the Lakas-NUCD-UMDP
Journal Entry v Enrolled Bill: Enrolled bill cannot choose the minority leader, because
prevails, except as to matters which, under they did not belong to the minority, having
the Constitution, must be entered in the voted for Fernan and accepted committee
Journal. chairmanships.
We believe, however, that the interpretation
The Congressional Record: Each House shall proposed by petitioners finds no clear
also keep a Record of its proceedings. support from the Constitution, the laws, the
Rules of the Senate or even from practices of
(5) Neither House during the sessions of the the Upper House.
Congress shall, without the consent of the
other, adjourn for more than three days, nor The term majority has been judicially defined
to any other place than that in which the two a number of times. When referring to a
Houses shall be sitting. certain number out of a total or aggregate, it
simply means the number greater than half or
more than half of any total.[36] The plain and
unambiguous words of the subject
CASE DOCTRINES: constitutional clause simply mean that the
Senate President must obtain the votes of
Santiago v Guingona, Jr more than one half of all the senators. Not by
any construal does it thereby
DEFINITION OF MAJORITY AND MINORITY. delineate who comprise the majority, much
less the minority, in the said body. And there
Petitioners answer the above question in the is no showing that the framers of our
affirmative. They contend that the Constitution had in mind other than the usual
constitutional provision requiring the meanings of these terms.
election of the Senate President by majority
vote of all its members carries with it a In effect, while the Constitution
judicial duty to determine the concepts of mandates that the President of the Senate
majority and minority, as well as who may must be elected by a number constituting
elect a minority leader. They argue that more than one half of all the members
majority in the aforequoted constitutional thereof, it does not provide that the members
provision refers to that group of senators who who will not vote for him shall ipso
(1) voted for the winning Senate President facto constitute the minority, who could
and (2) accepted committee thereby elect the minority leader. Verily, no
chairmanships. Accordingly, those who voted law or regulation states that the defeated
for the losing nominee and accepted no such candidate shall automatically become the
chairmanships comprise the minority, to minority leader.
whom the right to determine the minority
Page | 61
MENDIOLA, MANILA
The Comment of Respondent Guingona minority party for purposes of the general
furnishes some relevant precedents, which elections. In the prevailing composition of the
were not contested in petitioners present Senate, members either belong to
Reply. During the eighth Congress, which was different political parties or are
the first to convene after the ratification of independent. No constitutional or statutory
the 1987 Constitution, the nomination of Sen. provision prescribe which of the many
Jovito R. Salonga as Senate President was minority groups or the independents or a
seconded by a member of the minority, then combination thereof has the right to select the
Sen. Joseph E. Estrada.[38] During the ninth minority leader.
regular session, when Sen. Edgardo J. Angara
While the Constitution is explicit on the
assumed the Senate presidency in 1993, a
manner of electing a Senate President and a
consensus was reached to assign committee
House Speaker, it is, however, dead silent on
chairmanships to all senators, including those
the manner of selecting the other officers in
belonging to the minority.[39] This practice
both chambers of Congress. All that the
continued during the tenth Congress, where
even the minority leader was allowed to chair Charter says is that [e]ach House shall choose
such other officers as it may deem necessary.
a committee.[40] History would also show that
To our mind, the method of choosing who
the majority in either house of Congress has
will be such other officers is merely a
referred to the political party to which the
most number of lawmakers belonged, while derivative of the exercise of the
prerogative conferred by the aforequoted
the minority normally referred to a party
constitutional provision. Therefore, such
with a lesser number of members.
method must be prescribed by the Senate
Let us go back to the definitions of the itself, not by this Court.
terms majority and minority. Majority may
also refer to the group, party, or faction with
the larger number of votes, not necessarily SANTIAGO VS. GUINGONA, JR.
more than one half. This is sometimes (G.R. NO. 134577, NOVEMBER 18, 1998)
referred to as plurality. In contrast, minority
is a group, party, or faction with a smaller FACTS:
number of votes or adherents than the The Senate of the Philippines, with Sen. John
majority. Between two unequal parts or Henry R. Osmeña as presiding officer,
numbers comprising a whole or totality, the convened on July 27, 1998 the first regular
greater number would obviously be the session of the eleventh Congress. Senator
majority, while the lesser would be the Tatad thereafter manifested that, with the
minority. But where there are more than two agreement of Senator Santiago, allegedly the
unequal groupings, it is not as easy to say only other member of the minority, he was
which is the minority entitled to select the assuming the position of minority leader. He
leader representing all the minorities. In a explained that those who had voted for
government with a multi-party system such Senator Fernan, as Senate President,
as in the Philippines (as pointed out by comprised the "majority," while only those
petitioners themselves), there could be who had voted for him, the losing nominee,
several minority parties, one of which has to belonged to the "minority."
be identified by the Comelec as the dominant

Page | 62
MENDIOLA, MANILA
During the discussion on who should no law or regulation states that the defeated
constitute the Senate "minority," Sen. Juan M. candidate shall automatically become the
Flavier manifested that the senators minority leader.
belonging to the Lakas-NUCD-UMDP Party —
numbering seven (7) and, thus, also a While the Constitution is explicit on the
minority — had chosen Senator Guingona as manner of electing a Senate President and a
the minority leader. No consensus on the House Speaker, it is, however, dead silent on
matter was arrived at. The following session the manner of selecting the other officers in
day, the debate on the question continued, both chambers of Congress. All that the
with Senators Santiago and Tatad delivering Charter says is that "[e]ach House shall
privilege speeches. Miriam Defensor Santiago choose such other officers as it may deem
and Francisco S. Tatad later instituted an necessary." The method of choosing who will
original petition for quo warranto under Rule be such other officers is merely a derivative of
66, Section 5, Rules of Court, seeking the the exercise of the prerogative conferred by
ouster of Senator Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr. as the aforequoted constitutional provision.
minority leader of the Senate and the Therefore, such method must be prescribed
declaration of Senator Tatad as the rightful by the Senate itself, not by this Court.
minority leader.
ISSUES:
1. Does the Court have jurisdiction to settle
DOCTRINE:
the controversy?
2. In recognizing Respondent Guingona as the Avelino v Cuenco
Senate minority leader, did the Senate or its
officials, particularly Senate President Fernan, DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MAJORITY OF THE
violate the Constitution or the laws? HOUSE AND MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS OF
THE HOUSE.
HELD:
1. Yes. This Court has jurisdiction over the If the rump session was not a continuation of
petition. It is well within the power and the morning session, was it validly
jurisdiction of the Court to inquire whether constituted? In other words, was there the
indeed the Senate or its officials committed a majority required by the Constitution for the
violation of the Constitution or gravely transaction of the business of the Senate?
abused their discretion in the exercise of their Justice Paras, Feria, Pablo and Bengzon say
functions and prerogatives. there was, firstly because the minute say so,
secondly, because at the beginning of such
2. No. While the Constitution mandates that session there were at least fourteen senators
the President of the Senate must be elected by including Senators Pendatun and Lopez, and
a number constituting more than one half of thirdly because in view of the absence from
all the members thereof, it does not provide the country of Senator Tomas Confesor
that the members who will not vote for him twelve senators constitute a majority of the
shall ipso facto constitute the "minority," who Senate of twelve three senators. When the
could thereby elect the minority leader. Verily, Constitution declares that a majority of "each

Page | 63
MENDIOLA, MANILA
House" shall constitute a quorum, "the House:

does not mean "all" the members. Even a
majority of all the members constitute "the AVELINO VS. CUENCO
House". (Missouri Pac. vs. Kansas, 63 Law ed. (G.R. NO. L-2821, MARCH 4, 1949)
[U. S.], p. 239). There is a difference between
a majority of "the House", the latter requiring FACTS: Senator Prospero Sanidad filed with
less number than the first. Therefore an the Secretary of the Senate a resolution
absolute majority (12) of all the members of enumerating charges against the then Senate
the Senate less one (23), constitutes President and ordering the investigation
constitutional majority of the Senate for the thereof. When the meeting was called to
purpose of a quorum. Mr. Justice Pablo order, Senator Sanidad moved that the roll
believes furthermore than even if the twelve call be dispensed with but Senator Tirona
did not constitute a quorum, they could have opposed said motion. The roll was called.
ordered the arrest of one, at least, of the Senator Sanidad next moved to dispense with
absent members; if one had been so arrested, the reading of the minutes, but this motion
there would be no doubt Quorum then, and was likewise opposed by Senator Tirona and
Senator Cuenco would have been elected just David.
the same inasmuch as there would be eleven
for Cuenco, one against and one abstained. Before and after the roll call and before and
after the reading of the minutes, Senator
In fine, all the four justice agree that the Court Tañada repeatedly stood up to claim his right
being confronted with the practical situation to deliver his one-hour privilege speech but
that of the twenty three senators who may the petitioner, then presiding, continuously
participate in the Senate deliberations in the ignored him; and when after the reading of
days immediately after this decision, twelve the minutes, Senator Tañada instead on being
senators will support Senator Cuenco and, at recognized by the Chair, the petitioner
most, eleven will side with Senator Avelino, it announced that he would order the arrest of
would be most injudicious to declare the any senator who would speak without being
latter as the rightful President of the Senate, previously recognized by him, but all the
that office being essentially one that depends while, tolerating the actions of his follower,
exclusively upon the will of the majority of Senator Tirona, who was continuously
the senators, the rule of the Senate about shouting at Senator Sanidad "Out of order!"
tenure of the President of that body being everytime the latter would ask for recognition
amenable at any time by that majority. And at of Senator Tañada.
any session hereafter held with thirteen or
more senators, in order to avoid all At this juncture, some disorderly conduct
controversy arising from the divergence of broke out in the Senate gallery. Senator Pablo
opinion here about quorum and for the Angeles David, one of the petitioner's
benefit of all concerned,the said twelve followers, moved for adjournment of session.
senators who approved the resolutions Senator Sanidad registered his opposition to
herein involved could ratify all their acts and the adjournment of the session and this
thereby place them beyond the shadow of a opposition was seconded by herein
doubt. respondent who moved that the motion of

Page | 64
MENDIOLA, MANILA
adjournment be submitted to a vote. Another Sanidad introduced Resolution No. 67,

commotion ensued. Senator David reiterated entitled "Resolution declaring vacant the
his motion for adjournment and herein position of the President of the Senate and
respondent also reiterated his opposition to designated the Honorable Mariano Jesus
the adjournment and again moved that the Cuenco Acting President of the Senate." Put to
motion of Senator David be submitted to a a vote, the said resolution was unanimously
vote. approved. Senator Cuenco took the oath.
Suddenly, the petitioner banged the gavel and The next day the President of the Philippines
abandoning the Chair hurriedly walked out of recognized the respondent as acting
the session hall followed by Senator David, president of the Philippines Senate. By his
Tirona, Francisco, Torres, Magalona and petition in this quo warranto proceeding
Clarin, while the rest of the senators petitioners asked the Court to declare him the
remained. Whereupon Senator Melencio rightful President of the Philippines senate
Arranz, Senate President Pro-tempore, urged and oust respondent.
by those senators present took the Chair and
proceeded with the session. Senator Cabili ISSUE: Does the Court have jurisdiction over
stood up, and asked that it be made of record the petition?
— it was so made — that the deliberate
abandonment of the Chair by the petitioner, HELD: None. The constitutional grant to the
made it incumbent upon Senate President Senate of the power to elect its own president,
Pro-tempore Arranz and the remaining which power should not be interfered with,
members of the Senate to continue the nor taken over, by the judiciary. The Court
session in order not to paralyze the functions will not sally into the legitimate domain of the
of the Senate. Senate on the plea that our refusal to
intercede might lead into a crisis, even a
Senate President Pro-tempore Arranz then resolution. No state of things has been proved
suggested that respondent be designated to that might change the temper of the Filipino
preside over the session which suggestion people as peaceful and law-abiding citizens.
was carried unanimously. The respondent And we should not allow ourselves to be
thereupon took the Chair. Upon motion of stampeded into a rash action inconsistent
Senator Arranz which was approved, with the calm that should characterized
Gregorio Abad was appointed Acting judicial deliberations. Supposing that the
Secretary. Senator Tañada, after being Court has jurisdiction, there is unanimity in
recognized by the Chair, was then finally able the view that the session under Senator
to deliver his privilege speech. Thereafter Arranz was a continuation of the morning
Senator Sanidad read aloud the complete text session and that a minority of ten senators
of said Resolution (No. 68), and submitted his may not, by leaving the Hall, prevent the
motion for approval thereof and the same other twelve senators from passing a
was unanimously approved. resolution that met with their unanimous
With Senate President Pro-tempore Arranz endorsement. The answer might be different
again occupying the Chair, after the had the resolution been approved only by ten
respondent had yielded it to him, Senator or less.

Page | 65
MENDIOLA, MANILA
absence of showing that there was a violation

of a constitutional provision or the rights of
DOCTRINES private individuals. In Osmea v.
Pendatun,[11] it was held: At any rate, courts
Arroyo v De Venecia have declared that the rules adopted by
deliberative bodies are subject to revocation,
RULES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY modification or waiver at the pleasure of the
CONGRESS MAY BE DISREGARDED BY THE body adopting them. And it has been said that
CONGRESS ITSELF WITHOUR VIOLATING THE Parliamentary rules are merely procedural,
CONSTITUTION. and with their observance, the courts have no
It is clear from the foregoing facts that what is concern. They may be waived or disregarded
alleged to have been violated in the by the legislative body. Consequently, mere
enactment of R.A. No. 8240 are merely failure to conform to parliamentary usage will
internal rules of procedure of the House not invalidate the action (taken by a
rather than constitutional requirements for deliberative body) when the requisite
number of members have agreed to a
the enactment of a law, i.e., Art. VI, 26-
27. Petitioners do not claim that there was no particular measure.
quorum but only that, by some maneuver We conclude this survey with the useful
allegedly in violation of the rules of the summary of the rulings by former Chief
House, Rep. Arroyo was effectively prevented Justice Fernando, commenting on the power
from questioning the presence of a quorum. of each House of Congress to determine its
Petitioners contend that the House rules rules of proceedings. He wrote:
were adopted pursuant to the constitutional
provision that each House may determine the Rules are hardly permanent in character. The
rules of its proceedings[9] and that for this prevailing view is that they are subject to
reason they are judicially enforceable. To revocation, modification or waiver at the
begin with, this contention stands the pleasure of the body adopting them as they
principle on its head. In the decided are primarily procedural. Courts ordinarily
cases,[10] the constitutional provision that have no concern with their observance. They
each House may determine the rules of its may be waived or disregarded by the
proceedings was invoked by parties, although legislative body. Consequently, mere failure
not successfully, precisely to support claims to conform to them does not have the effect of
of autonomy of the legislative branch to nullifying the act taken if the requisite
conduct its business free from interference by number of members have agreed to a
courts. Here petitioners cite the provision for particular measure. The above principle is
the opposite purpose of invoking judicial subject, however, to this qualification. Where
review. the construction to be given to a rule affects
persons other than members of the legislative
But the cases, both here and abroad, in body the question presented is necessarily
varying forms of expression, all deny to the judicial in character. Even its validity is open
courts the power to inquire into allegations to question in a case where private rights are
that, in enacting a law, a House of Congress involved.
failed to comply with its own rules, in the

Page | 66
MENDIOLA, MANILA
his motion was defeated when put to a vote.

The interpellation of the sponsor thereafter
ARROYO VS. DE VENECIA proceeded. Petitioner Rep. Joker Arroyo
(G.R. NO. 127255. AUGUST 14, 1997) registered to interpellate. He was fourth in
the order. In the course of his interpellation,
FACTS: Petitioners are members of the House Rep. Arroyo announced that he was going to
of Representatives. They brought this suit raise a question on the quorum, although
against the respondents charging them until the end of his interpellation he never did.
violation of the rules of the House which
petitioners claim are "constitutionally On the same day, the bill was signed by the
mandated" so that their violation is Speaker of the House of Representatives and
tantamount to a violation of the Constitution. the President of the Senate and certified by
The present petition also challenges the the respective secretaries of both Houses of
validity of RA No. 8240, which amends certain Congress as having been finally passed by the
provisions of the National Internal Revenue House of Representatives and by the Senate
Code by imposing so-called *sin taxes” on November 21, 1996. The enrolled bill was
(actually specific taxes) on the manufacture signed into law by President Fidel V. Ramos
and sale of beer and cigarettes. on November 22, 1996.
The law originated in the House of ISSUE: Whether or not the passage of RA No.
Representatives as H. No. 7198. This bill was 8240 is in violation of the rules of the House,
approved on third reading on September 12, hence making it null and void.
1996 and transmitted on September 16, 1996
to the Senate which approved it with certain HELD: NO. First, it is clear from the foregoing
amendments on third reading on November facts that what is alleged to have been
17, 1996. A bicameral conference committee violated in the enactment of R.A. No 8240 are
was formed to reconcile the disagreeing merely internal rules of procedure of the
provisions of the House and Senate versions House rather than constitutional
of the bill. requirements for the enactment of a law, i.e.
Article VI, Secs. 26-27. The Constitution
The bicameral conference committee provides that “each House may determine the
submitted its report to the House at 8 a.m. on rules of its proceedings. The prevailing view
November 21, 1996. At 11:48 a.m., after a is that they are subject to revocation,
recess, Rep. Exequiel Javier proceeded to modification or waiver at the pleasure of the
deliver his sponsorship speech, after which body adopting them as they are primarily
he was interpellate. Rep. Rogelio Sarmiento procedural. Courts ordinary have no concern
was first to interpellate. He was interrupted with their observance. They may be waived
when Rep. Arroyo moved to adjourn for lack or disregarded by the legislative body.
of quorum. Rep. Antonio Cuenco objected to
the motion and asked for a head count. After a Consequently, mere failure to conform to
roll call, the Chair (Deputy Speaker Raul them does not have the effect of nullifying the
Daza) declared the presence of a quorum. Rep. act taken if the requisite number of members
Arroyo appealed the ruling of the Chair, but have agreed to a particular measure. The

Page | 67
MENDIOLA, MANILA
above principle is subject, however, to this Osmeña v Pendatun

qualification. We have no more power to look
into the internal proceedings of a House than WHAT CONSTITUTES DISORDERLY BEHAVIOR
members of that House have to look over our IS A PURELY POLITICAL QUESTION.
shoulders, as long as no violation of
constitutional provisions is shown. On the question whether delivery of speeches
attacking the Chief Executive constitutes
Second, under the enrolled bill doctrine, the disorderly conduct for which Osmeña may be
signing of H. No. 7198 by the Speaker of the discipline, many arguments pro and con have
House and the President of the Senate and the been advanced. We believe, however, that the
certification by the secretaries of both Houses House is the judge of what constitutes
of Congress that it was passed on November disorderly behaviour, not only because the
21, 1996 are conclusive of its due enactment. Constitution has conferred jurisdiction upon
Where there is no evidence to the contrary, it, but also because the matter depends
the Court will respect the certification of the mainly on factual circumstances of which the
presiding officers of both Houses that a bill House knows best but which can not be
has been duly passed. Under this rule, this depicted in black and white for presentation
Court has refused to determine claims that to, and adjudication by the Courts. For one
the three-fourths vote needed to pass a thing, if this Court assumed the power to
proposed amendment to the Constitution had determine whether Osmeña conduct
not been obtained, because "a duly constituted disorderly behaviour, it would
authenticated bill or resolution imports thereby have assumed appellate jurisdiction,
absolute verify and is binding on the courts." which the Constitution never intended to
confer upon a coordinate branch of the
Moreover, as already noted, the due Government. The theory of separation of
enactment of the law in question is confirmed powers fastidiously observed by this Court,
by the Journal of the House of November 21, demands in such situation a prudent refusal
1996 which shows that the conference to interfere. Each department, it has been
committee report on H. No. 7198, which said, had exclusive cognizance of matters
became R.A. No. 8740, was approved on that within its jurisdiction and is supreme within
day. The keeping of the Journal is required by its own sphere. (Angara vs. Electoral
the Constitution, Art. VI, §16(4). The Journal Commission, 63 Phil., 139.)
is regarded as conclusive with respect to
matters that are required by the Constitution SEC. 200. Judicial Interference with
to be recorded therein. As already noted, the Legislature. — The principle is well
bill which became R.A. No. 8240 is shown in established that the courts will not
the Journal. Hence its due enactment has been assume a jurisdiction in any case
duly proven. WHEREFORE, the petition for amount to an interference by the
certiorari and prohibition is DISMISSED. judicial department with the
legislature since each department is
equally independent within the power
conferred upon it by the Constitution.
DOCTRINE: ....

Page | 68
MENDIOLA, MANILA
The general rule has been applied in necessary to the to enable the body 'to
other cases to cause the courts to perform its high functions, and is
refuse to intervene in what are necessary to the safety of the state;'
exclusively legislative functions. Thus, 'That it is a power of self-protection,
where the stated Senate is given the and that the legislative body must
power to example a member, the necessarily be the sole judge of the
court will not review its action or exigency which may justify and require
revise even a most arbitrary or unfair its exercise. '. . . There is no provision
decision. (11 Am. Jur., Const. Law, sec. authority courts to control, direct,
p. 902.) [Emphasis Ours.]. supervise, or forbid the exercise by
either house of the power to expel a
The above statement of American law merely member. These powers are functions of
abridged the landmark case of Clifford vs. the legislative department and
French.7 In 1905, several senators who had therefore, in the exercise of the power
been expelled by the State Senate of California this committed to it, the senate is
for having taken a bribe, filed mandamus supreme. An attempt by this court to
proceeding to compel reinstatement, alleging direct or control the legislature, or
the Senate had given them no hearing, nor a either house thereof, in the exercise of
chance to make defense, besides falsity of the the power, would be an attempt to
charges of bribery. The Supreme Court of exercise legislative functions, which it
California declined to interfere , explaining in is expressly forbidden to do.
orthodox juristic language:
We have underscored in the above quotation
Under our form of government, the those lines which in our opinion emphasize
judicial department has no power to the principles controlling this litigation.
revise even the most arbitrary and Although referring to expulsion, they may as
unfair action of the legislative well be applied to other disciplinary action.
department, or of either house thereof, Their gist as applied to the case at bar: the
taking in pursuance of the power House has exclusive power; the courts have no
committed exclusively to that jurisdiction to interfere.
department by the Constitution. It has
been held by high authority that, even
in the absence of an express provision
conferring the power, every OSMEÑA VS. PENDATUN
legislative body in which is vested the (G.R. NO. L-17144, OCTOBER 28, 1960)
general legislative power of the state
has the implied power to expel a FACTS: Congressman Sergio Osmeña, Jr.,
member for any cause which it may submitted to this Court a verified petition for
deem sufficient. In Hiss. vs. Barlett, 3 "declaratory relief, certiorari and prohibition
Gray 473, 63 Am. Dec. 768, the with preliminary injunction" against
supreme court of Mass. says, in Congressman Salapida K. Pendatun and
substance, that this power is inherent fourteen other congressmen in their capacity
in every legislative body; that it is as members of the Special Committee created

Page | 69
MENDIOLA, MANILA
by House Resolution No. 59. He asked for assumed the power to determine whether
annulment of such Resolution on the ground Osmeña conduct constituted disorderly
of infringement of his parliamentary behaviour, it would thereby have assumed
immunity. He also asked, principally, that said appellate jurisdiction, which the Constitution
members of the special committee be never intended to confer upon a coordinate
enjoined from proceeding in accordance with branch of the Government. The theory of
it, particularly the portion authorizing them separation of powers fastidiously observed by
to require him to substantiate his charges of this Court, demands in such situation a
bribery against then President Garcia with prudent refusal to interfere. Each department,
the admonition that if he failed to do so, he it has been said, had exclusive cognizance of
must show cause why the House should not matters within its jurisdiction and is supreme
punish him. Congressman Osmeña alleged; within its own sphere. (Angara vs. Electoral
first, the Resolution violated his Commission, 63 Phil., 139.)
constitutional absolute parliamentary
immunity for speeches delivered in the Under our form of government, the judicial
House; second, his words constituted no department has no power to revise even the
actionable conduct; and third, after his most arbitrary and unfair action of the
allegedly objectionable speech and words, the legislative department, or of either house
House took up other business, and Rule XVII, thereof, taking in pursuance of the power
sec. 7 of the Rules of House provides that if committed exclusively to that department by
other business has intervened after the the Constitution. It has been held by high
member had uttered obnoxious words in authority that, even in the absence of an
debate, he shall not be held to answer express provision conferring the power,
therefor nor be subject to censure by the every legislative body in which is vested the
House. general legislative power of the state has the
The Special Committee during the pendency implied power to expel a member for any
of his petition, found said congressman guilty cause which it may deem sufficient.
of serious disorderly behavior. The House
approved House Resolution No. 175 declaring The Congress has the inherent legislative
him suspended from office for 15 months. prerogative of suspension which the
Constitution did not impair. In any event,
ISSUE: Can the House of Representatives petitioner's argument as to the deprivation of
discipline its members as in the case at bar? the district's representation can not be more
weightly in the matter of suspension than in
HELD: Yes. The House is the judge of what the case of imprisonment of a legislator; yet
constitutes disorderly behaviour, not only deliberative bodies have the power in proper
because the Constitution has conferred cases, to commit one of their members to jail.
jurisdiction upon it, but also because the
matter depends mainly on factual
circumstances of which the House knows best
but which can not be depicted in black and DOCTRINE:
white for presentation to, and adjudication by
the Courts. For one thing, if this Court Santiago v Sandiganbayan

Page | 70
MENDIOLA, MANILA
The order of suspension prescribed by The doctrine of separation of powers by

Republic Act No. 3019 is distinct from the itself may not be deemed to have effectively
power of Congress to discipline its own ranks excluded members of Congress from Republic
under the Constitution which provides that Act No. 3019 nor from its sanctions. The
each- maxim simply recognizes each of the three
co-equal and independent, albeit coordinate,
x x x house may determine the rules of its branches of the government the Legislative,
proceedings, punish its Members for the Executive and the Judiciary has exclusive
disorderly behavior, and, with the prerogatives and cognizance within its own
concurrence of two-thirds of all its sphere of influence and effectively prevents
Members, suspend or expel a Member. A one branch from unduly intruding into the
penalty of suspension, when imposed, internal affairs of either branch.
shall not exceed sixty days.[17]
Parenthetically, it might be well to
elaborate a bit. Section 1, Article VIII, of the
The suspension contemplated in the above 1987 Constitution, empowers the Court to act
constitutional provision is a punitive measure not only in the settlement of actual
that is imposed upon determination by the controversies involving rights which are
Senate or the house of Representatives, as the legally demandable and enforceable, but also
case may be, upon an erring member. Thus, in in the determination of whether or not there
its resolution in the case of Ceferino Paredes, has been a grave abuse of discretion
Jr., vs. Sandiganbayan, et al.,[18] the Court amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on
affirmed the order of suspension of the part of any branch or instrumentality
Congressman Paredes by the Sandiganbayan, of the Government. The provision allowing
despite his protestations on the the Court to look into any possible grave
encroachment by the court on the abuse of discretion committed by any
prerogatives of congress. The Court ruled: government instrumentality has evidently
been couched in general terms in order to
x x x. Petitioners invocation of Section 16 (3), make it malleable to judicial interpretation in
Article VI of the Constitution which deals with the light of any emerging milieu. In its normal
the power of each House of Congress inter concept, the term has been said to imply an
alia to punish its Members for disorderly arbitrary, despotic, capricious or whimsical
behavior, and suspend or expel a Member by exercise of judgment amounting to lack or
a vote of two-thirds of all its Members subject excess of jurisdiction. When the question,
to the qualification that the penalty of however, pertains to an affair internal to
suspension, when imposed, should not exceed either of Congress or the Executive, the Court
sixty days is unavailing, as it appears to be subscribes to the view[19] that unless an
quite distinct from the suspension spoken of infringement of any specific Constitutional
in Section 13 of RA 3019, which is not a proscription thereby inheres the Court
penalty but a preliminary, preventive should not deign substitute its own
measure, prescinding from the fact that the judgment over that of any of the other two
latter is not being imposed on petitioner for branches of government. It is an
misbehavior as a Member of the House of impairment or a clear disregard of a
Representatives. specific constitutional precept or

Page | 71
MENDIOLA, MANILA
provision that can unbolt the steel door qualification that the penalty of the
for judicial intervention. If any part of the suspension spoken of in Sec. 13 of RA 3019
Constitution is not, or ceases to be, which is not penalty by a preliminary
responsive to contemporary needs, it is the preventive measure presenting from the fact
people, not the Court, who must promptly that the latter is not being imposed on the
react in the manner prescribed by the Charter petitioner for misbehavior as a Member of the
itself. House of Representative.
Republic Act No. 3019 does not
exclude from its coverage the members of
Congress and that, therefore, the
DOCTRINE:
Sandiganbayan did not err in thus
decreeing the assailed preventive U.S. v Pons
suspension order.
THE CONTENTS OF THE LEGISLATIVE

JOURNALS ARE CONCLUSIVE UPON
THE COURTS OF JUSTICE, AND THE
PAREDES, JR. VS. SANDIGANBAYAN LATTER MAY NOT GO BEYOND THESE
GR NO. 118364. JANUARY 28, 1997 JOURNALS IN VERIFYING THE FACTS
CONTAINED THEREIN.
FACTS: While Congressman was still
Provincial Governor, charges of violations of Passing over the question whether the
the Anti-Graft Law were filed against him printed Act (No. 2381), published by
before the Sandiganbayan. Subsequently, he authority of law, is conclusive evidence as to
was elected to Congress. During his second the date when it was passed, we will inquire
term in Congress, the Sandiganbayan whether the courts may go behind the
imposed a preventive suspension on him legislative journals for the purpose of
pursuant to the Anti-Graft Law. Paredes determining the date of adjournment when
challenged the authority of the such journals are clear and explicit. From the
Sandiganbayan to suspend a district foregoing it is clear that this investigation
representative. belongs entirely to that branch of legal
science which embraces and illustrates the
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner can be laws of evidence. On the one hand, it is
suspended. maintained that the Legislature did not, as we
have indicated, adjourn at midnight on
HELD: YES. Petitioner’s invocation of Section February 28, 1914, but on March 1st, and that
16(3), Article VI of the Constitution which this allegation or alleged fact may be
deals with the power of each House of established by extraneous evidence; while, on
Congress inter alias to ‘punish its members of the other hand, it is urged that the contents of
Congress for disorderly behavior ‘ and the legislative journals are conclusive
suspend or expel a member’ by a vote of evidence as to the date of adjournment. In
two0thirds of the members subject to the order to understand these opposing
positions, it is necessary to consider the

Page | 72
MENDIOLA, MANILA
nature and character of the evidence thus account of the treachery of memory. Long,
involved. Evidence is understood to be that long centuries ago, these considerations of
which proves or disproves "any matter in public policy led to the adoption of the rule
question or to influence the belief respecting giving verity and unimpeachability to
it," and "conclusive evidence is that which legislative records. If that character is to be
establishes the fact, as in the instance of taken away for one purpose, it must be taken
conclusive presumptions." (Bouvier's Law away for all, and the evidence of the laws of
Dictionary, vol. 1, p. 701 et seq.) Counsel for the state must rest upon a foundation less
the appellant, in order to establish his certain and durable than that afforded by the
contention, must necessarily depend upon the law to many contracts between private
memory or recollection of witnesses, while individuals concerning comparatively trifling
the legislative journals are the acts of the matters." (Capito vs. Topping, W. Va., 22 L. R.
Government or sovereign itself. From their A. [N. S.], 1089.) Upon the same point the
very nature and object the records of the court, in the State ex rel. Herron vs. Smith (44
Legislature are as important as those of the Ohio, 348), decided in 1886, said:
judiciary, and to inquiry into the veracity of
the journals of the Philippine Legislature, Counsel have exhibited unusual
when they are, as we have said, clear and industry in looking up the various
explicit, would be to violate both the letter cases upon this question; and, out of a
and the spirit of the organic laws by which the multitude of citations, not one is
Philippine Government was brought into found in which any court has assumed
existence, to invade a coordinate and to go beyond the proceedings of the
independent department of the Government, legislature, as recorded in the journals
and to interfere with the legitimate powers required to be kept in each of its
and functions of the Legislature. But counsel branches, on the question whether a
in his argument says that the public knows law has been adopted. And if reasons
that the Assembly's clock was stopped on for the limitation upon judicial inquiry
February 28, 1914, at midnight and left so in such matters have not generally
until the determination of the discussion of all been stated, in doubtless arises from
pending matters. Or, in other words, the the fact that they are apparent.
hands of the clock were stayed in order to Imperative reasons of public policy
enable the Assembly to effect an adjournment require that the authenticity of laws
apparently within the time fixed by the should rest upon public memorials of
Governor's proclamation for the expiration of the most permanent character. They
the special session, in direct violation of the should be public, because all are
Act of Congress of July 1, 1902. If the clock required to conform to them; they
was, in fact, stopped, as here suggested, "the should be permanent, that right
resultant evil might be slight as compared acquired to-day upon the faith of what
with that of altering the probative force and has been declared to be law shall not
character of legislative records, and making be destroyed to-morrow, or at some
the proof of legislative action depend upon remote period of time, by facts resting
uncertain oral evidence, liable to loss by only in the memory of individuals.
death or absence, and so imperfect on

Page | 73
MENDIOLA, MANILA
In the case from which this last quotation is 2381. to prove aid allegations, counsel argued
taken, the court cited numerous decisions of the court to go beyond the proceedings of the
the various states in the American Union in Legislature as recorded in the journals.
support of the rule therein laid down, and we
have been unable to find a single case of a ISSUE: Whether or not the court may go
later date where the rule has been in the least beyond the recitals of legislature journals or
changed or modified when the legislative just take judicial notice of said journals for
journals cover the point. As the Constitution the purpose of determining the date of
of the Philippine Government is modeled adjournment when such journal are clear and
after those of the Federal Government and the explicitly.
various states, we do not hesitate to follow
the courts in that country in the matter now HELD:
before us. The journals say that the YES. From their very nature and object the
Legislature adjourned at 12 midnight on records of the Legislature are as important as
February 28, 1914. This settles the question, those of the judiciary. And to inquire into the
and the court did not err in declining to go veracity of the journals of the Philippine
behind these journals. Legislature when they are, as we have said,
clear and explicit, would be to violate both the
letter and the spirit of the organic laws by
which the Philippine government was
US VS. PONS brought
34 PHIL 729. 1916 into existence, to invade and coordinate and
independent department of the Government
FACTS: The respondent, together with Beliso and to interfere with the legitimate powers
and Lasarte were charged with illegal and functions of the Legislature.
importation of opium. Pons and Beliso were
tried separately on motion of counsel. Lasarte
had not yet been arrested. Each was found DOCTRINE:
guilty of the crime, charged and sentenced Casco Philippine Chemical Co. v Gimenez
accordingly. Both appealed. Beliso later
withdrew his appeal and the judgment as to
him has become final. Respondent’s motion
alleged to prove that the last day of the THE TERMS OF THE ENROLLED BILL ARE
special session of the Philippine Legislature CONCLUSIVE UPON THE COURTS ON THE
for 1914 was the 28th day of February, that TENOR THEREOF.
Act No.2381 under which Pons must be
punished if found guilty, was not passed nor Hence, "urea formaldehyde" is clearly a
approved on the 28th of February but on finished product, which is patently distinct
March 1 of that year. Also, counsel for Pons and different from urea" and "formaldehyde",
alleged that the Assembly’s clock was stopped as separate articles used in the manufacture
on February 18, 1914 at midnight and left so of the synthetic resin known as "urea
until the determination of the discussion of all formaldehyde". Petitioner contends, however,
pending matters among which was Act NO. that the bill approved in Congress contained

Page | 74
MENDIOLA, MANILA
the copulative conjunction "and" between the

terms "urea" and "formaldehyde", and that FACTS: Pursuant to the provisions of RA
the members of Congress intended to exempt 7609 known as the Foreign Exchange Margin
"urea" and "formaldehyde" separately as Fee Law, the Central Bank issued Circular NO.
essential elements in the manufacture of the 95 fixing a unified margin fee of 25% on
synthetic resin glue called "urea" foreign exchange transaction and a
formaldehyde", not the latter as a finished memorandum establishing the procedure for
product, citing in support of this view the application for exemption from payment of
statements made on the floor of the Senate, said fee. In November and December 1959,
during the consideration of the bill before and in May 1960, Casco Philippine Chemical
said House, by members thereof. But, said Co. Inc., brought foreign exchange for
individual statements do not necessarily therefore. Then as petitioner, the Central
reflect the view of the Senate. Much less do Bank declaring that separate importation of
they indicate the intent of the House of urea and formaldehyde is exempt from said
Representatives (see Song Kiat Chocolate fee. When the back issue corresponding
Factory vs. Central Bank, 54 Off. Gaz., 615; margin fee vouchers for the refund, the
Mayon Motors Inc. vs. Acting Commissioner auditor of the back issue the said vouchers
of Internal Revenue, L-15000 [March 29, upon the ground that the exemption granted
1961]; Manila Jockey Club, Inc. vs. Games & by the Monetary Board is in violation of Sec.
Amusement Board, L-12727 [February 29, 2(18_ of RA 2609, according to the pertinent
1960]). Furthermore, it is well settled that the portion of the Act, “urea formaldehyde” is
enrolled bill — which uses the term "urea exempted from the margin fee. The National
formaldehyde" instead of "urea and Institute of Science and Technology further
formaldehyde" — is conclusive upon the affirms that “urea formaldehyde” is different
courts as regards the tenor of the measure from urea and formaldehyde. Hence, the
passed by Congress and approved by the separate importations of these two raw
President (Primicias vs. Paredes, 61 Phil. 118, materials are not excluded from margin fee.
120; Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito, 78 Phil. 1;
Macias vs. Comm. on Elections, L-18684, ISSUE: Whether or not the phrase “urea
September 14, 1961). If there has been any formaldehyde” as used in the statute should
mistake in the printing ofthe bill before it was be read as “urea” and “formaldehyde.”
certified by the officers of Congress and
approved by the Executive — on which we HELD:
cannot speculate, without jeopardizing the NO. Hence, “urea formaldehyde” is clearly a
principle of separation of powers and finished product which is patently distinct
undermining one of the cornerstones of our and different from “urea” and “formaldehyde”
democratic system — the remedy is by as used in the manufacture of the synthetic
amendment or curative legislation, not by resin known as “urea formaldehyde.”
judicial decree. Petitioner contends, however, that the bill
approved in Congress contained the
copulative conjunction “and” between the
term “urea” and “formaldehyde”, not the
CASCO PHILIPPINE CHEMICAL CO., VS.
latter as a finished product, citing in support
GIMENEZ 7 SCRA 347 (1963)

Page | 75
MENDIOLA, MANILA
of this view the statements made on the floor the old (but still valid) case of U.S. vs.
of Senate, during the consideration of the bill Pons, 9 where we explained the reason thus:
before said House, by members thereof.
To inquire into the veracity of
Furthermore, it is well settled that the the journals of the Philippine
enrolled bill which uses the term “urea legislature when they are, as
formaldehyde” is a conclusive upon the courts we have said, clear and
as regards the tenor of the measure passed by explicit, would be to violate
the Congress and approved by the President. both the, letter and spirit of
the organic laws by which the
Philippine Government was
brought into existence, to
invade a coordinate and
independent department of
DOCTRINE:
the Government, and to
Philippine Judges Association v Prado interfere with the legitimate
powers and functions, of the
CONCLUSIVENESS OF THE ENROLLED BILL Legislature.
AND THE CERTIFICATION OF THE CONGRESS
Applying these principles, we shall decline to
It is a matter of record that the conference look into the petitioners' charges that an
Committee Report on the bill in question was amendment was made upon the last reading
returned to and duly approved by both the of the bill that eventually became R.A. No.
Senate and the House of Representatives. 7354 and that copies thereof in its final form
Thereafter, the bill was enrolled with its were not distributed among the members of
certification by Senate President Neptali A. each House. Both the enrolled bill and the
Gonzales and Speaker Ramon V. Mitra of the legislative journals certify that the measure
House of Representatives as having been duly was duly enacted i.e., in accordance with
passed by both Houses of Congress. It was Article VI, Sec. 26(2) of the Constitution. We
then presented to and approved by President are bound by such official assurances from a
Corazon C. Aquino on April 3, 1992. coordinate department of the government, to
which we owe, at the very least, a becoming
Under the doctrine of separation powers, the courtesy.
Court may not inquire beyond the
certification of the approval of a bill from the
presiding officers of Congress. Casco PHILIPPINE JUDGES ASSOCIATION VS.
Philippine Chemical Co. v. Gimenez 7 laid down PRADO 227 SCRA 703. 1993
the rule that the enrolled bill, is conclusive
upon the Judiciary (except in matters that FACTS: The Philippine Postal Corporation
have to be entered in the journals like implemented RA 7534, a measure
the yeas and nayson the final reading of the withdrawing the franking privilege from the
bill). 8 The journals are themselves also SC, CA, RTC and MTC along with certain other
binding on the Supreme Court, as we held in government offices. The petitioners are

Page | 76
MENDIOLA, MANILA
members of the lower courts who feel that partakes of an unwarranted partiality or
their official functions as judges will be prejudice the sharper weapon to cut it down
prejudiced by the aforementioned measure. is the equal protection clause.
The petitioners assail the constitutionality of
the measure on the ground inter alia that it is
discriminatory and encroached on the
independence of the judiciary. SECTION 17. The Senate and the House of
Representatives shall each have an Electoral
ISSUE: Whether or not the contention of the Tribunal, which shall be the sole judge of all
petitioner is tenable. contests relating to the election, returns, and
qualifications of their respective Members.
HELD: YES. Under the doctrine of separation Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of
of powers, the Court may not inquire beyond nine Members, three of whom shall be Justices
the certification of the approval of a bill from of the Supreme Court to be designated by the
the presiding officers of Congress. The Chief Justice, and the remaining six shall be
aforementioned measure is declared Members of the Senate or the House of
unconstitutional insofar as it withdraws the Representatives, as the case may be, who shall
franking privilege from the SC, CA, RTC and be chosen on the basis of proportional
MTC and other government offices. It is representation from the political parties and
alleged that RA No. 7354 is discriminatory the parties or organizations registered under
because while withdrawing the franking the party-list system represented therein. The
privilege of the Judiciary, it retains the same senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be
for the President of the Philippines, the Vice- its Chairman.
President of the Philippines, Senators and
members of the House of Representatives, the
Commission on Elections, former president of
he Philippines, widows of former presidents ROBLES vs. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
of the Philippines, the national census and ELECTORAL
statistics Office and the general public in the TRIBUNAL (HRET) (G.R. NO. 86647.
filing of complaints against public offices or FEBRUARY 5, 1990)
officers.
The equal protection of the laws is embraced FACTS: Petitioner Virgilio Robles and private
in the concept of the due process, as unfair respondent Romeo Santos were candidates
discrimination offends the requirement of for the position of Congressman of the 1st
justice and fair play. It has nonetheless been district of Caloocan City in the May 1987
embodied in a separate clause in Article III, elections. Petitioner Robles was proclaimed
Section I of the Constitution to provide for a the winner. Santos filed an election protest
more specific guaranty against any form of with respondent HRET, alleging that the
undue favoritism or hostility from the elections were characterized by the
government. Arbitrariness in general may be commission of electoral frauds and
challenged on the basis of the due process irregularities. He likewise prayed for the
clause .but if the particular act assailed recounting of the genuine ballots in all the

Page | 77
MENDIOLA, MANILA
320 contested precincts. Petitioner alleged mere filing of the motion to withdraw protest
the late filing of the protest. on the remaining uncontested precincts,
without any action on the part of respondent
The HRET issued an order setting the tribunal, does not by itself divest the tribunal
commencement of the revision of contested of its jurisdiction over the case. Jurisdiction,
ballots on September 1, 1988 and directed once acquired, is not lost upon the instance of
protestant Santos to identify 25% of the total the parties but continues until the case is
contested precincts which he desires to be terminated.
revised first in accordance with Section 18 of
the Rules of the HRET. On September 7, 1988, The Court agrees with the HRET when it held
the revision of the ballots for 75 precincts, that “the Tribunal retains the authority to
representing the initial 25% of all the grant or deny the Motion, and the withdrawal
contested precincts, was terminated. becomes effective only when the motion is
granted. To hold otherwise would permit a
Robles filed an Urgent Motion to Suspend party to deprive the Tribunal of jurisdiction
Revision while Santos filed a Motion to already acquired.” The Court therefore holds
Withdraw Protest on the unrevised precincts. that this Tribunal retains the power and the
But the HRET did not act on the said motions. authority to grant or deny Protestant’s
Santos then filed an Urgent Motion to Recall Motion to Withdraw, if only to insure that the
and Disregard Withdrawal of Protest which Tribunal retains sufficient authority to see to
was granted by the HRET. Hence the it that the will of the electorate is ascertained.
resumption of the revision of the ballots was Since Protestant's "Motion to Withdraw
ordered. Robles filed a Motion for Protest on the Unrevised Precincts" had not
Reconsideration, which was denied. Hence, been acted upon by this Tribunal before it
the instant petition. Petitioner contends in the was recalled by the Protestant, it did not have
present petition that when private the effect of removing the precincts covered
respondent filed the Motion to Withdraw thereby from the protest. If these precincts
Protest on Unrevised Precincts and Motion to were not withdrawn from the protest, then
Set Case for Hearing, respondent HRET lost the granting of Protestant's "Urgent Motion to
its jurisdiction over the case, hence when Recall and Disregard Withdrawal of Protest"
respondent HRET subsequently ordered the did not amount to allowing the refiling of
revision of the unrevised protested ballots, protest beyond the reglementary period.
notwithstanding the withdrawal of the
protest, it acted without jurisdiction or with In the absence of any clear showing of abuse
grave abuse of discretion. of discretion on the part of respondent
tribunal in promulgating the assailed
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent HRET has resolutions, a writ of certiorari will not issue.
lost its jurisdiction over the case. Where the court has jurisdiction over the
subject matter, its orders upon all questions
HELD: NO. It is noted that upon Santos’ filing pertaining to the cause are orders within its
of his Motion to Withdraw on Unrevised jurisdiction, and however erroneous they
Precincts on September 12, 1988, no action may be, they cannot be corrected by
thereon was taken by respondent HRET. The certiorari. This rule more appropriately

Page | 78
MENDIOLA, MANILA
applies to respondent HRET whose then filed a petition praying for the dismissal
independence as a constitutional body has of Ynsua’s protest. He alleged that Resolution
time and again been upheld by the Court in no. 8 was passed by the National Assembly in
many cases. Thus, “judicial review of the exercise of its constitutional prerogative
decisions or final resolutions of the HRET is to prescribe the period during which protests
(thus) possible only in the exercise of this against the election of its members should be
Court’s so-called extraordinary jurisdiction, presented. But said Motion to Dismiss was
upon a determination that the tribunal’s denied by the Electoral Commission. Hence
decision or resolution was rendered without the present petition filed by petitioner
or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave seeking to restrain and prohibit the Electoral
abuse of discretion. Commission from taking further cognizance
of the protest made by Ynsua against the
ACCORDINGLY, finding no grave abuse of election of said petitioner.
discretion on the part of respondent House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal in issuing ISSUES:
the assailed resolutions, the instant petition is (1) Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction
DISMISSED. over the Electoral Commission and the
subject matter of the controversy.
(2) Whether or not the Electoral Commission
acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction in
ANGARA V. ELECTORAL COMMISSION assuming to the cognizance of the protest
(G.R. NO. L-45081. JULY 15, 1936) filed the election of the herein petitioner
notwithstanding the previous confirmation of
FACTS: such election by resolution of the National
Petitioner Jose Angara and the respondents, Assembly.
Pedro Ynsua, Miguel Castillo and Dionisio
Mayor, were candidates for the position of HELD:
member of the National Assembly for the first (1) YES. The separation of powers is a
district of the Province of Tayabas in the fundamental principle in our system of
September 17, 1935 elections. Petitioner was government. It obtains not through express
proclaimed winner. provision but by actual division in our
Constitution. Each department of the
The National Assembly passed Resolution No. government has exclusive cognizance of
8 which effectively confirmed the election of matters within its jurisdiction, and is
petitioner to the said body. Ynsua filed before supreme within its own sphere.
the Electoral Commission a “Motion of Protest”
against the election of petitioner. Meanwhile, In the case at bar, here then is presented an
on December 9, 1935, the National Assembly, actual controversy involving as it does a
in a resolution, fixed said date as the last day conflict of a grave constitutional nature
for the filing of protests against the election, between the National Assembly on the one
returns and qualifications of members of the hand, and the Electoral Commission on the
National Assembly, notwithstanding the other. The Electoral Commission is a
previous confirmation made by them. Angara constitutional organ created for a specific

Page | 79
MENDIOLA, MANILA
purpose, namely to determine all contests Electoral Commission shall be the sole judge of
relating to the election, returns and all contests relating to the election, returns and
qualifications of the members of the National qualifications of the members of the National
Assembly. Although the Electoral Commission Assembly."
may not be interfered with, when and while
acting within the limits of its authority, it does It is imperative, therefore, that we delve into
not follow that it is beyond the reach of the the origin and history of this constitutional
constitutional mechanism adopted by the provision and inquire into the intention of its
people and that it is not subject to framers and the people who adopted it so that
constitutional restrictions. we may properly appreciate its full meaning,
import and significance. The Electoral
The Electoral Commission is not a separate Commission is a constitutional creation,
department of the government, and even if it invested with the necessary authority in the
were, conflicting claims of authority under performance and execution of the limited and
the fundamental law between department specific function assigned to it by the
powers and agencies of the government are Constitution. The grant of power to the
necessarily determined by the judiciary in Electoral Commission to judge all contests
justifiable and appropriate cases. Upon relating to the election, returns and
principle, reason and authority, we are clearly qualifications of members of the National
of the opinion that upon the admitted facts of Assembly, is intended to be as complete and
the present case, this court has jurisdiction unimpaired as if it had remained originally in
over the Electoral Commission and the the legislature. The express lodging of that
subject matter of the present controversy for power in the Electoral Commission is an
the purpose of determining the character, implied denial of the exercise of that power
scope and extent of the constitutional grant to by the National Assembly.
the Electoral Commission as "the sole judge of
all contests relating to the election, returns Resolution No. 8 of the National Assembly
and qualifications of the members of the confirming the election of members against
National Assembly." whom no protests had been filed at the time
of its passage on December 3, 1935, cannot be
(2) NO. The issue hinges on the interpretation construed as a limitation upon the time for
of section 4 of Article VI of the Constitution the initiation of election contests. While there
which provides: might have been good reason for the
legislative practice of confirmation of the
"SEC. 4. There shall be an Electoral Commission election of members of the legislature at the
composed of three Justice of the Supreme Court time when the power to decide election
designated by the Chief Justice, and of six contests was still lodged in the legislature,
Members chosen by the National Assembly, confirmation alone by the legislature cannot
three of whom shall be nominated by the party be construed as depriving the Electoral
having the largest number of votes, and three Commission of the authority incidental to its
by the party having the second largest number constitutional power to be "the sole judge of
of votes therein. The senior Justice in the all contest relating to the election, returns,
Commission shall be its Chairman. The and qualifications of the members of the

Page | 80
MENDIOLA, MANILA
National Assembly", to fix the time for the election returns. Since the Municipal Board of
filing of said election protests. Confirmation Canvassers did not rule on his objections,
by the National Assembly of the returns of its Timbol brought the matter to the COMELEC,
members against whose election no protests which initially ruled the suspension of the
have been filed is, to all legal purposes, proclamation of the winning candidate. It
unnecessary. As contended by the Electoral later ordered the Provincial Board of
Commission in its resolution of January 23, Canvassers to proceed with the canvassing of
1936, overruling the motion of the herein votes and to proclaim the winner.
petitioner to dismiss the protest filed by the
respondent Pedro Ynsua, confirmation of the Petitioner was proclaimed as Congressman-
election of any member is not required by the elect. Private respondent thus filed in the
Constitution before he can discharge his COMELEC a petition to declare petitioner’s
duties as such member. proclamation void ab initio and another
petition to prohibit petitioner from assuming
We hold, therefore, that the Electoral office. The COMELEC failed to act on the
Commission was acting within the legitimate second petition so petitioner was able to
exercise of its constitutional prerogative in assume office. Later, the COMELEC declared
assuming to take cognizance of the protest petitioner’s proclamation void ab initio.
filed by the respondent Pedro Ynsua against Petitioner challenged this resolution before
the election of the herein petitioner Jose A. the Court, which sustained the petitioner.
Angara, and that the resolution of the Thus, private respondent filed in the HRET an
National Assembly of December 3, 1935 can election protest against petitioner.
not in any manner toll the time for filing
protests against the elections, returns and Petitioner moved to dismiss the protest on
qualifications of members of the National the ground that it had been filed late.
Assembly, nor prevent the filing of a protest However, the HRET ruled that the protest had
within such time as the rules of the Electoral been filed on time. Petitioner’s motion for
Commission might prescribe. reconsideration was also denied.
The petition for a writ of prohibition against Hence, this petition challenging the
the Electoral Commission is hereby denied. jurisdiction of the HRET over the protest filed
by private respondent. To support his
contention, he cited Section 250 of the
LAZATIN V. HRET Omnibus Election Code which provides:
(G.R. NO. 84297. DECEMBER 8, 1988)
Sec. 250. Election contests for Batasang
Pambansa, regional, provincial and city
FACTS: Petitioner Carmelo Lazatin and offices . — A sworn petition contesting the
private respondent Lorenzo Timbol were election of any Member of the Batasang
candidates for Representative of the first Pambansa or any regional, provincial or city
district of Pampanga during the May 11, 1987 official shall be filed with the Commission by
elections. During the canvassing of the votes, any candidate who has duly filed a certificate
Timbol objected to the inclusion of certain of candidacy and has been voted for the same

Page | 81
MENDIOLA, MANILA
office, within ten days after the proclamation reglementary period provided by the Rules of
of the results of the election. the HRET.
On the other hand, in finding that the protest Petitioner's reliance on Sec. 250 of the
was filed on time, the HRET relied on Sec. 9 of Omnibus Election Code is misplaced. Sec. 250
its Rules, to wit: is couched in unambiguous terms and needs
no interpretation. It applies only to petitions
Election contests arising from the 1987 filed before the COMELEC contesting the
Congressional elections shall be filed with the election of any Member of the Batasang
Office of the Secretary of the Tribunal or Pambansa, or any regional, provincial or city
mailed at the post office as registered matter official. Furthermore, Sec. 250 should be read
addressed to the Secretary of the Tribunal, together with Sec. 249 of the same code
together with twelve (12) legible copies which provides that the COMELEC "shall be
thereof plus one (1) copy for each protestee, the sole judge of all contests relating to the
within fifteen (15) days from the effectivity of elections, returns and qualifications of all
these Rules on November 22, 1987 where the Members of the Batasang Pambansa, elective
proclamation has been made prior to the regional, provincial and city officials,"
effectivity of these Rules, otherwise, the same reiterating Art. XII-C, Sec. 2(2) of the 1973
may be filed within fifteen (15) days from the Constitution. It must be emphasized that
date of the proclamation . Election contests under the 1973 Constitution there was no
arising from the 1987 Congressional elections provision for an Electoral Tribunal, the
filed with the Secretary of the House of jurisdiction over election contests involving
Representatives and transmitted by him to Members of the Batasang Pambansa having
the Chairman of the Tribunal shall be deemed been vested in the COMELEC.
filed with the tribunal as of the date of
effectivity of these Rules, subject to payment That Sec. 250 of the Omnibus Election Code,
of filing fees as prescribed in Section 15 as far as contests regarding the election,
hereof. returns and qualifications of Members of the
Batasang Pambansa is concerned, had ceased
ISSUES: to be effective under the 1987 Constitution is
1. Whether or not the HRET has jurisdiction readily apparent. The Constitution now vests
over the protest filed by private respondent. exclusive jurisdiction over all contests
2. What provision of law governs the period relating to the election, returns and
for filing protests in the HRET. qualifications of the Members of the Senate
3. Whether or not private respondent’s and the House of Representatives in the
protest had been seasonably filed. respective Electoral Tribunals [Art. VI, Sec.
171. The exclusive original jurisdiction of the
HELD: The Court is of the view that the COMELEC is limited by constitutional fiat to
protest had been filed on time and, hence, the election contests pertaining to election
HRET acquired jurisdiction over it. Protestant regional, provincial and city offices and its
filed his protest on February 8, 1988, or appellate jurisdiction to those involving
eleven (11) days after January 28. The protest, municipal and barangay offices [Art. IX-C, Sec.
therefore, was filed well within the 2(2)].

Page | 82
MENDIOLA, MANILA
The power of the HRET, as the sole judge of WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is hereby
all contests relating to the election, returns DISMISSED. Private respondent's
and qualifications of the Members of the Counter/Cross Petition is likewise DISMISSED.
House of Representatives, to promulgate
rules and regulations relative to matters
within its jurisdiction, including the period
for filing election protests before it, is beyond ABBAS VS. SENATE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL
dispute. Its rule-making power necessarily 166 SCRA 651. 1988
flows from the general power granted it by
the Constitution. The inescapable conclusion FACTS:
from the foregoing is that it is well within the On October 1987, the petitioners filed before
power of the HRET to prescribe the period the respondent Senate Electoral Tribunal an
within which protests may be filed before it. election protest against 22 candidates of the
Consequently, private respondent's election LABAN coalition who were proclaimed
protest having been filed within the period senators-elect. Subsequently, the petitioners
prescribed by the HRET, the latter cannot be filed with the respondent Tribunal a Motion
charged with lack of jurisdiction to hear the for Disqualification or Inhibition of the
case. The alleged invalidity of the Senators-Members thereof from the hearing
proclamation (which had been previously and resolution of the aforementioned case, as
ordered by the COMELEC itself) despite respondents therein. The petitioners urged
alleged irregularities in connection therewith, the contest to be decided by only 3 members
and despite the pendency of the protests of of the Tribunal.
the rival candidates, is a matter that is also
addressed, considering the premises, to the ISSUE: Whether or not the Senators-Members
sound judgment of the Electoral Tribunal. of the Electoral Tribunal may be compelled to
inhibit themselves from hearing the contest.
But then again, so long as the Constitution
grants the HRET the power to be the sole HELD: NO. It seems quite clear to us that in
judge of all contests relating to the election, thus providing for a Tribunal to be staffed by
returns and qualifications of Members of the both Justices of the SC and Members of the
House of Representatives, any final action Senate, the Constitution intended that both
taken by the HRET on a matter within its those “Judicial” and “Legislative” components
jurisdiction shall, as a rule, not be reviewed commonly share the duty and authority of
by this Court. Thus, only where such grave deciding all contests relating to the election,
abuse of discretion is clearly shown shall the returns and qualifications of Senators. Every
Court interfere with the HRET's judgment. In member of the tribunal may, as his conscience
the instant case, there is no occasion for the dictates, refrain from participating in the
exercise of the Court's collective power, since resolution of a case where he sincerely feels
no grave abuse of discretion that would that his personal interests or biases would
amount to lack or excess of jurisdiction and stand in the way of an objective and impartial
would warrant the issuance of the writs judgment. What we are merely saying is that
prayed for has been clearly shown. in the light of the Constitution, the Senate

Page | 83
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Electoral Tribunal cannot legally function as LDP, because he cast his vote in the favor of
such, absent its entire membership of NP’s candidate, is a clear impairment of the
Senators and that no amendment of its rules constitutional prerogative of the HRET to the
can confer on the 3 Justice-Members along sole judge of the election contest between
the power of valid adjudication of a senatorial Pineda and Bondoc.
election protest.
To sanction such interference by the House of
Representatives in the work of the HRET
would reduce the Tribunal to a mere tool for
BONDOC VS. PINEDA the aggrandizement of the party in power
201 SCRA 792. 1991 (LDP) which the 3 Justices of the SC and the
lone NP member would be powerless to stop.
FACTS: Marciano Pineda of LDP won against A minority party candidate may as well
his rival Dr. Emigdio Bondoc of NP causing abandon all hope at the threshold of the
the latter to file a protest in the HRET. A tribunal. As judges, the members of the
decision had been reached in which Bondoc Tribunal must be nonpartisan. They must
won over Pineda by a margin of 23 votes. discharge their functions with complete
Hence, the LDP members in the tribunal detachment, impartiality and independence –
insisted on a reappreciation and recount of even independence from the political party to
the ballots cast in some precincts resulting to which they belong. Hence, “disloyalty to a
the increase of Bondoc’s lead over Pineda to party” and “breach of party discipline” are not
107 votes. Congressman Camasura coted with valid grounds for the expulsion of a member
the SC Justices and Congressman Cerilles to of the Tribunal. In expelling Congressman
proclaim Bondoc as the winner of the contest. Camasura from the HRET for having cast a
Camasura later on revealed to his chief, “conscience vote” in favor of Bondoc, based
notified the Chairman of the Tribunal to strictly on the result of the examination and
withdraw the nomination and to rescind the appreciation of the ballots and the recount of
election of Camasura to the HRET and seeks the votes by the Tribunal, the House of
to cancel the promulgation of the tribunal’s Representatives committed a grave abuse of
decision in Bondoc v. Pineda. discretion, an injustice, and a violation of the
Constitution. Its resolution of expulsion
ISSUE: Whether or not the House of against Congressman Camasura is therefore
Representatives could change its null and void.
representatives in the HRET at the request of
the dominant party.
HELD: NO. If the HRET would reserve the CHAVEZ V. COMELEC (211 SCRA 315
interest of the party in power, the [1992]) G.R. NO. 105323 JULY 3, 1992
independence of the Electoral Tribunal, as
embodied in the Constitution, will no longer
be protected. The resolution of the House of FACTS: Petitioner Francisco Chavez prays in
Representatives removing Congressman to this Court for the issuance of a temporary
Camasura from the HRET for disloyalty to the restraining order enjoining respondent

Page | 84
MENDIOLA, MANILA
COMELEC from proclaiming the 24th highest REGINA ONGSIAKO REYES, Petitioner, v.
senatorial candidate. And he also prays that COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and JOSEPH
judgment be rendered requiring the SOCORRO B. TAN, Respondents.
COMELEC to re-open the ballot boxes in
80,348 precincts in 13 provinces therein FACTS: This is a Motion for Reconsideration
enumerated including Metro Manila, scan the of the En Banc Resolution of June 25, 2013
ballots for “Chavez” votes which were which found no grave abuse of discretion on
invalidated or declared stray and credit said the part of the Commission on Elections and
scanned “Chavez” votes in favor of petitioner. affirmed the March 27, 2013 Resolution of the
COMELEC First Division.
ISSUE: Whether or not, in the case at bar, this
Court has jurisdiction to resolve issue Petitioner raised the issue in the petition
regarding the instant regular election which is: Whether or not Respondent
protest? COMELEC is without jurisdiction over
Petitioner who is duly proclaimed winner and
HELD: No. The petitioner’s proper recourse is who has already taken her oath of office for
to file a regular election protest which under the position of Member of the House of
the Constitution and the Omnibus Election Representatives for the lone congressional
Code, exclusively pertains to the Senate district of Marinduque. Petitioner is a duly
Electoral Tribunal. Thus, sec.17, Art.VI of the proclaimed winner and having taken her oath
Constitution provides that “the Senate and of office as member of the House of
the House of Representatives shall each have Representatives, all questions regarding her
an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole qualifications are outside the jurisdiction of
judge of all contests relating to their the COMELEC and are within the HRET
respective Members.” The word “sole” exclusive jurisdiction.
underscores the exclusivity of the Tribunals’
jurisdiction over the election contests relating The averred proclamation is the critical
to their respective Members. This Court has pointer to the correctness of petitioner
no jurisdiction to entertain the instant submission. The crucial question is whether
petition. It is the Senate Electoral Tribunal or not petitioner could be proclaimed on May
which has exclusive jurisdiction to act on the 18, 2013. Differently stated, was there basis
complaint of petitioner involving as it does, for the proclamation of petitioner on May 18 ,
contest relating to the election of a member of 2013.
the Senate. As aforesaid, petitioner’s proper
recourse is to file a regular election protest The June 25, 2013 resolution held that before
before the Senate Electoral Tribunal after the May 18, 2013, the COMELEC En Banc had
winning senatorial candidates have been already finally disposed of the issue of
proclaimed. The proper recourse is for petitioner lack of Filipino citizenship and
petitioner to ask not this Court but the residency via its resolution dated May 14,
Legislature to enact remedial measures. 2013, cancelling petitioner certificate of
candidacy. The proclamation which petitioner
secured on May 18, 2013 was without any
basis. On June 10, 2013, petitioner went to the

Page | 85
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Supreme Court questioning the COMELEC COMELEC.

First Division ruling and the May 14, 2013
COMELEC En Banc decision, baseless Furthermore, there was no denial of due
proclamation on 18 May 2013 did not by that process in the case at bar as petitioner was
fact of promulgation alone become valid and given every opportunity to argue her case
legal. before the COMELEC. From 10 October 2012
when Tan's petition was filed up to 27 March
ISSUE: Whether or not Petitioner was denied 2013 when the First Division rendered its
of due process? resolution, petitioner had a period of five (5)
months to adduce evidence. Unfortunately,
HELD: Petitioner was denied of due she did not avail herself of the opportunity
process. given her.
POLITICAL LAW: administrative due In administrative proceedings, procedural

process due process only requires that the party be
given the opportunity or right to be heard. As
Petitioner alleges that the COMELEC gravely held in the case of Sahali v. COMELEC: The
abused its discretion when it took cognizance petitioners should be reminded that due
of "newly-discovered evidence" without the process does not necessarily mean or require
same having been testified on and offered and a hearing, but simply an opportunity or right
admitted in evidence. She assails the to be heard. One may be heard, not solely by
admission of the blog article of Eli Obligacion verbal presentation but also, and perhaps
as hearsay and the photocopy of the many times more creditably and predictable
Certification from the Bureau of Immigration. than oral argument, through pleadings. In
She likewise contends that there was a administrative proceedings moreover,
violation of her right to due process of law technical rules of procedure and evidence are
because she was not given the opportunity to not strictly applied; administrative process
question and present controverting evidence. cannot be fully equated with due process in
its strict judicial sense. Indeed, deprivation of
It must be emphasized that the COMELEC is due process cannot be successfully invoked
not bound to strictly adhere to the technical where a party was given the chance to be
rules of procedure in the presentation of heard on his motion for reconsideration.
evidence. Under Section 2 of Rule I, the
COMELEC Rules of Procedure "shall be In moving for the cancellation of petitioner's
liberally construed in order to achieve just, COC, respondent submitted records of the
expeditious and inexpensive determination Bureau of Immigration showing that
and disposition of every action and petitioner is a holder of a US passport, and
proceeding brought before the Commission." that her status is that of a "balikbayan." At
In view of the fact that the proceedings in a this point, the burden of proof shifted to
petition to deny due course or to cancel petitioner, imposing upon her the duty to
certificate of candidacy are summary in prove that she is a natural-born Filipino
nature, then the "newly discovered evidence" citizen and has not lost the same, or that she
was properly admitted by respondent has re-acquired such status in accordance

Page | 86
MENDIOLA, MANILA
with the provisions of R.A. No. 9225. Aside

from the bare allegation that she is a natural- The petitioner argued that he cannot be
born citizen, however, petitioner submitted removed from CA because his election thereto
no proof to support such contention. Neither is permanent. He further contended that LDP
did she submit any proof as to the is not a duly registered political party and has
inapplicability of R.A. No. 9225 to her. not yet attained political stability because it
was just established recently.
The Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the question raised by the
petitioner is political in nature.
SECTION 18. There shall be a Commission on 2. Whether or not the LDP is not entitled to a
Appointments consisting of the President of the seat in the Commission on Appointments
Senate, as ex officio Chairman, twelve Senators because it does not suffice the qualification of
and twelve Members of the House of being a political party.
Representatives, elected by each House on the
basis of proportional representation from the HELD:
political parties and parties or organizations 1. No. It is because what is involved in the
registered under the party-list system case at bar is the legality, not the wisdom of
represented therein. The Chairman of the the act of the House of Representative in
Commission shall not vote, except in case of a removing the petitioner from the CA. Even if
tie. The Commission shall act on all the question were political in nature, it would
appointments submitted to it within thirty still come within the Courts power of review
session days of the Congress from their under the expanded jurisdiction conferred by
submission. The Commission shall rule by a Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution
majority vote of all the Members. which includes the authority to determine
whether grave abuse of discretion amounting
to excess or lack of jurisdiction has been
DAZA V. SINGSON committed by any branch or instrumentality
180 SCRA 497, DECEMBER 21, 1989 of the government.
FACTS: Herein petitioner Raul A. Daza was 2. No. In the first place, the Commission on
chosen and listed as representative of the Election has already approved the petition of
Liberal Party in the Commission on the LDP for registration as political party.
Appointments (CA). On September 16, 1988, Furthermore, the petitioner’s contention that
the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) LDP must prove its permanence and must
was reorganized. Twenty four (24) members exist in a longer period of time in not tenable.
of the Liberal Party resigned and joined the It is because even the Liberal Party in 1946
LDP. Based on this, the House of election is only four (4) months old, yet no
Representative revised its representation in question was raised as to its right to be
the CA by withdrawing the seat occupied by represented in the Commission.
the petitioner and giving this to the LDP
member Luis C. Singson.

Page | 87
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Appointments is based on proportional

COSETENG VS. MITRA representation of the political parties therein
187 SCRA 377. 1990 as
provided in Section 18, Article VI of the 1987
FACTS: Constitution.
Ablan was elected as the 12th member of the
Commission on Appointments on September The composition of the House membership in
22, 1987. A year later, the LDP was organized the Commission on Appointments was based
as a political party. The House Committee, on a proportional representation of the
including the House representation in the political parties in the House. There are 160
Commission on Appointments had to be members of the LDP in the House. They
reorganized because 158 out of 202 members represent 79% of the House membership.
of the House of Representatives are affiliated 88% of 12 members in the Commission
with the LDP. Petitioner Coseteng of KAIBA would equal to 9 members, which may be
then wrote a letter to Speaker Mitra rounded off to 10 members from the LDP.
requesting that she be appointed as a Even if KAIBA were to be considered as an
member of the Commission and the House opposition party, its lone member represents
Electoral Tribunal. On December 1988, the only 4% of less than 1% of the House
House of Representatives on motion of the membership. Hence she is not entitled to one
Majority Floor Leader and over the objection of the 12 House seats in the Commission on
of Congressman Daza, LP, revised the House Appointments.
Majority membership in the Commission on
Appointments to conform with the new
political alignments. On February 1989,
Coseteng filed a petition for quo warranto and GUINGONA VS. GONZALES
injunction praying the Court to declare as null 214 SCRA 789. 1992
and void the election of the respondent as
members of the Commission on
Appointments. FACTS:
As a result of the national elections held last
ISSUE: Whether or not the election of the May 1992, the Senate is composed of the
respondents as members of the Commission following members representing the political
on Appointments should be enjoined for affiliation: LDP – 15 Senators, NPC -5 senators,
having violated the constitutional mandate of LAKAS-NUCD – 3 senators, LP-PDP-LABAN –
proportional representation. 1 senator.
HELD: The resulting composition of the Senate based

NO. After deliberating on the petition and the on the rule of proportional representation of
comments of the respondents, we hold that each party is as follows.
the petition should be dismissed not because
it raises a political question which does not, POLITICAL PARTY MEMBERSHIP
but because the revision of the House PROPORTION
representation in the Commission on MEMBERSHIP

Page | 88
MENDIOLA, MANILA
LDP 15 7.5 members party in the Senate to disobey the rule on

NPC 5 2.5 members proportional representation.
LAKAS 3 1.5 members
LP-PDP-LABAN 1 .5 members Otherwise, the party with a majority
representation in the Senate or House of
On September 23, 1992, Senator Guingona Representatives can be sheen force of
filed a petition to prohibit respondents members impose its will on the hapless
Alberto Romulo and Wigberto Tanada from minority. The SC laid down the following
sitting and assuming the position of members guidelines accordingly:
of the Commission on Appointments and to
prohibit Senator Neptali Gonzales from 1. In the Senate, a political party or coalition
allowing respondents to sit as members must have at least 2 duly elected senators for
thereof on the ground that the proposed every seat in the Senate.
compromise of Senator Tolentino was 2. Where there are more than 2 political
violative of the rule of proportional parties represent in the Senate, a political
representation as enunciated in Sec. 18, Art. party or coalition with a single senator in the
VI of the 1987 Constitution. Senate cannot constitutionally claim a seat in
the commission.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Senate acted with
or in excess of jurisdiction when it designated Furthermore, the SC said it is not mandatory
Senator Romulo as the 8th member of the CA to elect 12 senators and 12 members of the
upon nomination by the LDP and respondent House of Representatives to the Commission
Senator Tanada as LP nominee even if LDP on Appointments. What the Constitution
and LP are entitled only to half a member. requires is that there be at least a majority of
the entire membership.
HELD:
The problem is what to do with the fraction
of .5 or ½ to which each of the parties is
entitled. The LDP majority in the Senate SECTION 19. The Electoral Tribunals and the
converted fractional half membership into a Commission on Appointments shall be
whole membership of one senator by adding constituted within thirty days after the Senate
one-half to be able to elect Senator Romulo as and the House of Representatives shall have
the 8th member. In so doing, the election of been organized with the election of the
Senator Romulo gave more representation to President and the Speaker. The Commission on
the LDP and reduced the representation of Appointments shall meet only while the
one political party – either the LAKAS-NUCD Congress is in session, at the call of its
or the NPC. This is clearly a violation of Chairman or a majority of all its Members, to
Section 18 because it is no longer in discharge such powers and functions as are
compliance with the proportional herein conferred upon it.
representation of the political parties. This
provision of Section 18 on proportional SECTION 20. The records and books of
representation is mandatory in character and accounts of the Congress shall be preserved
does not leave any discretion to the majority and be open to the public in accordance with

Page | 89
MENDIOLA, MANILA
law, and such books shall be audited by the the lawmakers in conducting legislative
Commission on Audit which shall publish investigations in aid of legislation under this
annually an itemized list of amounts paid to doctrine of separation of power. Petitioners
and expenses incurred for each Member. contend that the Senate Blue Ribbon
Committee's inquiry has no valid legislative
SECTION 21. The Senate or the House of purpose, i.e., it is not done in aid of legislation
Representatives or any of its respective
committees may conduct inquiries in aid of ISSUES:
legislation in accordance with its duly 1. Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction
published rules of procedure. The rights of to inquire into the motives of the lawmakers
persons appearing in or affected by such in conducting legislative investigations in aid
inquiries shall be respected. of legislation under the doctrine of separation
of power.
2. Whether or not such inquiry is within the

BENGZON VS. SENATE BLUE RIBBON power of the Congress to conduct
COMMITTEE 203 SCRA 767, 1991 investigation.
FACTS: The PCGG filed with the HELD:

Sandiganbayan a civil case against Kokoy 1. YES, the Court has jurisdiction over the
Romualdez, et al., in connection with ill- present controversy for the purpose of
gotten wealth. During the pendency of the determining the scope and extent of the
case, there were rumors that the properties power of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee
involve in the case were already being to conduct inquiries into private affairs in
disposed of by Romualdez. Senator Enrile in purported aid of legislation. The separation of
his privilege speech before the Senate called powers is a fundamental principle in our
the attention of the Senate regarding the system of government. Each department of
matter. the government has exclusive cognizance of
matters within its jurisdiction, and is
On motion of Senator Mecado, the matter was supreme within its own sphere. But it does
referred to the Committee on Acountability of not follow from the fact that the three powers
Public Officers (Blue Ribbon Committee). The are to be kept separate and distinct that the
committee subpoenaed petitioner who was Constitution intended them to be absolutely
also one of the defendants in said case. unrestrained and independent of each other.
Petitioner declined to testify on the ground The Constitution has provided for an
that his testimony might unduly prejudice the elaborate system of checks and balances to
defendants. The committee continued in its secure coordination in the workings of the
inquiry, thus the present petition for various departments of the government.
prohibition to restrain respondent from
investigating. The overlapping and interlacing of functions
and duties between the several departments,
The committee commented that the Court however, sometimes makes it hard to say just
cannot properly inquire into the motives of where the one leaves off and the other begins.

Page | 90
MENDIOLA, MANILA
In cases of conflict, the judicial department is and the judicial departments of government,
the only constitutional organ which can be ordained by the Constitution.
called upon to determine the proper
allocation of powers between the several DISSENTING OPINION OF JUSTICE CRUZ:
departments and among the integral or
constituent units thereof. The inquiry deals with alleged manipulations
When the judiciary mediates to allocate of public funds and illicit acquisitions of
constitutional boundaries; it does not assert properties now being claimed by the PCGG for
any superiority over the other departments; it the Republic of the Philippines. The purpose
does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the Committee is to ascertain if and how
of the legislature, but only asserts the solemn such anomalies have been committed. It is
and sacred obligation assigned to it by the settled that the legislature has a right to
Constitution to determine conflicting claims investigate the disposition of the public funds
of authority under the Constitution and to it has appropriated; indeed, "an inquiry into
establish for the parties in an actual the expenditure of all public money is an
controversy the rights which that instrument indispensable duty of the legislature."
secures and guarantees to them.
Moreover, an investigation of a possible
2. NO, the 1987 Constitution expressly violation of a law may be useful in the
recognizes the power of both houses of drafting of amendatory legislation to correct
Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of or strengthen that law.
legislation; but in the present case, no
legislation was apparently being
contemplated in connection with the said
investigation. The contemplated inquiry by
respondent Committee is not really "in aid of SCB PHILIPPINES VS SENATE COMMITTEE
legislation" because it is not related to a ON BANKS, FINANCIAL INSTITUTION AND
purpose within the jurisdiction of Congress, CURRENCIES EN BANC
since the aim of the investigation is to find out
whether or not the relatives of the President FACTS:
or Mr. Ricardo Lopa had violated the "Anti- SCB Phil Branch had criminal and civil
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act", a matter that charges against them before the courts in
appears more within the province of the Metro Manila for selling unregistered foreign
courts rather than of the legislature. securities in violation of Securities Regulation
Code (RA 8799). Enrile, in his privileged
The Court ruled that petitioners may not be speech, urged the Senate to immediately
compelled by the respondent Committee to conduct an inquiry in aid of legislation, to
appear, testify and produce evidence before it, prevent the occurrences of a similar
it is only because SC hold that the questioned fraudulent in the future. The respondent
inquiry is not in aid of legislation and, if Committee then set an initial hearing to
pursued, would be violative of the principle of investigate, in aid of legislation thereto. SCB
separation of powers between the legislative stressed that there were cases allegedly
involving the same issues subject of

Page | 91
MENDIOLA, MANILA
legislative inquiry, thus posting a challenge to investigation, although it may include in its
the jurisdiction of respondent Committee to Report a recommendation for criminal
continue with the inquiry. indictment of persons who may appear liable.
At best, the recommendation, along with the
ISSUE: evidence, contained in such Report would
Whether or not the respondent Committee, only be persuasive, but it is still up to the
by aid of legislation, would encroach upon the prosecutorial agencies and the courts to
judicial powers vested solely in the courts determine the liabilities of the offender.
who took cognizance of the foregoing cases. Categories: Constitutional Law 1
RULING:
Yes. The unmistakable objective of the ARNAULT VS. NAZARENO
investigation, as set forth in the resolution, as 87 PHIL. 29, 1950
initiated in the privileged speech of Senate
President Enrile, was simply "to denounce the FACTS: On February 27, 1950, the Senate
illegal practices committed by a foreign bank adopted a resolution creating a special
in selling unregistered foreign securities xxx", committee to investigate on the purchase by
and at the conclusion of the said speech "to the government of the Buenavista and
immediately conduct an inquiry, in aid of Tambobong Estates owned by Ernest Burt as
legislation, so as to prevent the occurrence of represented by Jean Arnault. The committee
a similar fraudulent in the future." sought to determine who were responsible
for and who benefited from the transaction at
The mere filing of a criminal or the expense of the government.
administrative complaint before a court or a
quasi-judicial body should not automatically The special committee called and examined
bar the conduct of legislation. The exercise of among other witness, Jean Arnault. However,
sovereign legislative authority, of which the for the latter’s refusal to answer some of the
power of legislative inquiry is an essential questions propounded on him, the name of
component, cannot be made subordinate to a the person to whom he gave the money as
criminal or an administrative investigation. well as answer to other pertinent questions in
connection therewith, the Senate resolved to
The intent of legislative inquiries is to arrive imprison him until such time as he decided to
at a policy determination, which may or may answer relevant questions put to him in
not be enacted into law. Except only when it connection with the investigation of a
exercises the power to punish for contempt, government transaction.
the committees of the Senate or the House of
Representatives cannot penalize violators ISSUE: Whether or not the Senate has
even there is overwhelmingly evidence of authority to punish petitioner for contempt.
criminal culpability. Other than proposing or
initiating amendatory or remedial legislation, HELD: The Supreme Court said yes
respondent Committee can only recommend considering that he questions were pertinent
measures to address or remedy whatever to the pursuance of the Senate Resolution.
irregularities may be unearthed during the The Supreme Court also held that the

Page | 92
MENDIOLA, MANILA
offender could be imprisoned indefinitely by requires all the public officials enumerated in
the State, it being a continuing body, provided Section 2(b) to secure the consent of the
that the punishment did not become so long President prior to appearing before either
as to violate due process. house of Congress.
ISSUE: Is Section 3 of E.O. 464, which requires

all the public officials, enumerated in Section
SENATE VS ERMITA 2(b) to secure the consent of the President
GR 169777, April 20, 2006 prior to appearing before either house of
Congress, valid and constitutional?
FACTS: This is a petition for certiorari and
prohibition proffer that the President has RULING: No. The enumeration in Section 2
abused power by issuing E.O. 464 “Ensuring (b) of E.O. 464 is broad and is covered by the
Observance of the Principles of Separation of executive privilege. The doctrine of executive
Powers, Adherence to the Rule on Executive privilege is premised on the fact that certain
Privilege and Respect for the Rights of Public information must, as a matter of necessity, be
Officials Appearing in Legislative Inquiries in kept confidential in pursuit of the public
Aid of Legislation Under the Constitution, and interest. The privilege being, by definition, an
for Other Purposes”. Petitioners pray for its exemption from the obligation to disclose
declaration as null and void for being information, in this case to Congress, the
unconstitutional. necessity must be of such high degree as to
In the exercise of its legislative power, the outweigh the public interest in enforcing that
Senate of the Philippines, through its various obligation in a particular case.
Senate Committees, conducts inquiries or Congress undoubtedly has a right to
investigations in aid of legislation which call information from the executive branch
for, inter alia, the attendance of officials and whenever it is sought in aid of legislation. If
employees of the executive department, the executive branch withholds such
bureaus, and offices including those information on the ground that it is privileged,
employed in Government Owned and it must so assert it and state the reason
Controlled Corporations, the Armed Forces of therefor and why it must be respected.
the Philippines (AFP), and the Philippine
National Police (PNP). The infirm provisions of E.O. 464, however,
The Committee of the Senate issued allow the executive branch to evade
invitations to various officials of the Executive congressional requests for information
Department for them to appear as resource without need of clearly asserting a right to do
speakers in a public hearing on the railway so and/or proffering its reasons therefor. By
project, others on the issues of massive the mere expedient of invoking said
election fraud in the Philippine elections, wire provisions, the power of Congress to conduct
tapping, and the role of military in the so- inquiries in aid of legislation is frustrated.
called “Gloriagate Scandal”.
Said officials were not able to attend due to
lack of consent from the President as
provided by E.O. 464, Section 3 which GUDANI VS SENGA G.R. 170165

Page | 93
MENDIOLA, MANILA
FACTS: Senator Biazon invited senior officers FACTS: Pursuant to Senate Resolution No.
of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) 455, Senator Gordon requested PCGG
including General Gudani to appear before a Chairman Sabio and his Commissioners to
public hearing in the Senate Committee on appear as resource persons in the public
National Defense and Security wherein Hello meeting jointly conducted by the Committee
Garci controversy of President Gloria on Government Corporations and Public
Macapagal Arroyo emerged. Upon the Enterprises and Committee on Public Services.
discretion of the President, AFP Chief of Staff Chairman Sabio declined the invitation
Senga issued a memorandum prohibiting because of prior commitment, and at the
General Gudani and company from appearing same time invoked Section 4(b) of EO No. 1:
before the Senate Committee without “No member or staff of the Commission
Presidential approval. However, General shall be required to testify or produce
Gudani and Colonel Batulan still attended the evidence in any judicial, legislative or
said committee in compliance with Senator administrative proceeding concerning
Biazon. matters within its official cognizance.”
ISSUE: Can the President can prevent military ISSUE: Whether or not Section 4(b) of E.O.
officers from testifying a legislative inquiry? No.1 limits power of legislative inquiry by
exempting all PCGG members or staff from
HELD: YES. By virtue of her power as a
testifying in any judicial, legislative or
commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of
administrative proceeding.
the Philippines, President Gloria Macapagal
Arroyo has the constitutional authority to
RULING: No. Article VI, Section 21 of the
prohibit members of the AFP from attending
1987 Constitution grants the power of inquiry
a Senate hearing.
not only to the Senate and the House of
Representatives, but also to any of their
This is also under her prerogative as the
respective committees. Clearly, there is
highest official of the AFP. Note that it is not
a direct conferral of investigatory power to
an invocation of her executive privilege, but
the committees and it means that the
on the Chief Executive's power to control the
mechanism which the Houses can take in
actions and speech of the members of the
order to effectively perform its investigative
AFP. Non-compliance of the military
functions are also available to the committees.
subordinates would violate the principle that
It can be said that the Congress’ power of
'the civilian authority is supreme over the
inquiry has gained more solid existence and
military authority'.
expansive construal. The Court’s
high regard to such power is rendered more
evident in Senate v. Ermita, where it
categorically ruled that “the power of
In the Matter of the Petition for Issuance of inquiry is broad enough to cover officials
Writ of Habeas Corpus of CAMILO L. SABIO of the executive branch.” Verily, the Court
v. HON. SENATOR RICHARD J. GORDON, et reinforced the doctrine in Arnault that “the
al. G.R. No. 174340 17 October 2006, operation of government, being a
legitimate subject for legislation, is a

Page | 94
MENDIOLA, MANILA
proper subject for investigation” and that ROMULO L. NERI, petitioner vs. SENATE
“the power of inquiry is co-extensive with COMMITTEE ON ACCOUNTABILITY OF
the power to legislate.” PUBLIC OFFICERS AND INVESTIGATIONS,
Considering these jurisprudential SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND
instructions, Section 4(b) is directly COMMERCE, AND SENATE COMMITTEE ON
repugnant with Article VI, Section 21. Section NATIONAL DEFENSE AND SECURITY
4(b) exempts the PCGG members and staff G.R. No. 180643, March 25, 2008
from the Congress’ power of inquiry. This
cannot be countenanced. Nowhere in the FACTS: On April 21, 2007, the Department of
Constitution is any provision granting such Transportation and Communication (DOTC)
exemption. The Congress’ power of inquiry, entered into a contract with Zhong Xing
being broad, encompasses everything that Telecommunications Equipment (ZTE) for the
concerns the administration of existing laws supply of equipment and services for the
as well as proposed or possibly needed National Broadband Network (NBN) Project
statutes. It even extends “to government in the amount of U.S. $ 329,481,290
agencies created by Congress and officers (approximately P16 Billion Pesos). The
whose positions are within the power of Project was to be financed by the People’s
Congress to regulate or even abolish.” Republic of China.
PCGG belongs to this class. The Senate passed various resolutions
A statute may be declared unconstitutional relative to the NBN deal. In the September 18,
because it is not within the legislative 2007 hearing Jose de Venecia III testified that
power to enact; or it creates or establishes several high executive officials and power
methods or forms that infringe constitutional brokers were using their influence to push
principles; or its purpose or effect violates the approval of the NBN Project by the NEDA.
the Constitution or its basic principles. Neri, the head of NEDA, was then invited to
testify before the Senate Blue Ribbon. He
Moreover, Sec. 4(b) of E.O. No. 1 has been appeared in one hearing wherein he was
repealed by the Constitution because it is interrogated for 11 hrs and during which he
inconsistent with the constitutional admitted that Abalos of COMELEC tried to
provisions on the Congress’ power of inquiry bribe him with P200M in exchange for his
(Art. VI, Sec. 21), the principle of public approval of the NBN project. He further
accountability (Art. XI, Sec. 1), the policy of narrated that he informed President Arroyo
full disclosure (Art. II, Sec. 28), and the right about the bribery attempt and that she
of access to public information (Art. III, Sec. instructed him not to accept the bribe.
7). However, when probed further on what they
discussed about the NBN Project, petitioner
Certainly, a mere provision of law cannot refused to answer, invoking “executive
pose a limitation to the broad power of privilege”. In particular, he refused to answer
Congress, in the absence of any constitutional the questions on:
basis. (a) whether or not President Arroyo followed
up the NBN Project,
(b) whether or not she directed him to
prioritize it, and

Page | 95
MENDIOLA, MANILA
(c) whether or not she directed him to privilege:

approve. 1) The protected communication must relate
He later refused to attend the other hearings to a “quintessential and non-delegable
and Ermita sent a letter to the senate averring presidential power.”
that the communications between GMA and 2) The communication must be authored or
Neri are privileged and that the jurisprudence “solicited and received” by a close advisor of
laid down in Senate vs Ermita be applied. He the President or the President himself. The
was cited in contempt of respondent judicial test is that an advisor must be in
committees and an order for his arrest and “operational proximity” with the President.
detention until such time that he would
appear and give his testimony.
3) The presidential communications privilege
remains a qualified privilege that may be
ISSUE: Are the communications elicited by overcome by a showing of adequate need,
the subject three (3) questions covered by such that the information sought “likely
executive privilege? contains important evidence” and by the
unavailability of the information elsewhere
HELD: The communications are covered by by an appropriate investigating authority.
executive privilege
The revocation of EO 464 (advised executive
officials and employees to follow and abide by In the case at bar, Executive Secretary Ermita
the Constitution, existing laws and premised his claim of executive privilege on
jurisprudence, including, among others, the the ground that the communications elicited
case of Senate v. Ermita when they are invited by the three (3) questions “fall under
to legislative inquiries in aid of legislation.), conversation and correspondence between
does not in any way diminish the concept of the President and public officials” necessary
executive privilege. This is because this in “her executive and policy decision-making
concept has Constitutional underpinnings. process” and, that “the information sought to
be disclosed might impair our diplomatic as
well as economic relations with the People’s
The claim of executive privilege is highly Republic of China.” Simply put, the bases are
recognized in cases where the subject of presidential communications privilege and
inquiry relates to a power textually executive privilege on matters relating to
committed by the Constitution to the diplomacy or foreign relations.
President, such as the area of military and
foreign relations. Under our Constitution, the
President is the repository of the Using the above elements, we are convinced
commander-in-chief, appointing, pardoning, that, indeed, the communications elicited by
and diplomatic powers. Consistent with the the three (3) questions are covered by the
doctrine of separation of powers, the presidential communications privilege. First,
information relating to these powers may the communications relate to a
enjoy greater confidentiality than others. “quintessential and non-delegable power” of
Several jurisprudence cited provide the the President, i.e. the power to enter into an
elements of presidential communications executive agreement with other countries.

Page | 96
MENDIOLA, MANILA
This authority of the President to enter into

executive agreements without the
concurrence of the Legislature has GARCILLANO VS. HOUSE OF
traditionally been recognized in Philippine REPRESENTATIVES
jurisprudence. Second, the communications GR 170338 December 23, 2008
are “received” by a close advisor of the
President. Under the “operational proximity” Not effective Publication of Laws
test, petitioner can be considered a close
advisor, being a member of President FACTS:
Arroyo’s cabinet. And third, there is no
adequate showing of a compelling need that In 2005, tapes which allegedly contained a
would justify the limitation of the privilege conversation between GMA and COMELEC
and of the unavailability of the information Commissioner Garcillano surfaced. The said
elsewhere by an appropriate investigating conversation contained a plan to rig the
authority. elections to favor GMA. The recordings then
became subject to legislative hearings
conducted separately by each House. In his
Respondent Committees further contend that privilege speech, Sen. Escudero motioned a
the grant of petitioner’s claim of executive congressional investigation jointly conducted
privilege violates the constitutional by the Committees on Public Information,
provisions on the right of the people to Public Order and Safety, National Defense and
information on matters of Security, Information and Communications
public concern.50 We might have agreed with Technology, and Suffrage and Electoral
such contention if petitioner did not appear Reforms (respondent House Committees).
before them at all. But petitioner made During the inquiry, several versions of the
himself available to them during the wiretapped conversation emerged. Lacson’s
September 26 hearing, where he was motion for a senate inquiry was referred to
questioned for eleven (11) hours. Not only the Committee on National Defense and
that, he expressly manifested his willingness Security headed by Biazon. Garci
to answer more questions from the Senators, subsequently filed to petitions. One to
with the exception only of those covered by prevent the playing of the tapes in the each
his claim of executive privilege. house for they are alleged to be inadmissible
The right to public information, like any other and the other to prohibit and stop the
right, is subject to limitation. Section 7 of conduct of the Senate inquiry on the
Article III provides: wiretapped conversation.
The right of the people to information on
matters of public concern shall be recognized. ISSUE: Whether or not publication is
Access to official records, and to documents, indispensable.
and papers pertaining to official acts,
transactions, or decisions, as well as to HELD: Yes. Garci’s petition to strike the
government research data used as basis for tapes off the record cannot be granted. The
policy development, shall be afforded the tapes were already played in Congress and
citizen, subject to such limitations as may be those tapes were already highly publicized.
provided by law.
Page | 97
MENDIOLA, MANILA
The issue is already overtaken by these the President, or upon the request of either
incidents hence it has become moot and House, as the rules of each House shall provide,
academic. The second petition must be appear before and be heard by such House on
granted however. The Senate cannot be any matter pertaining to their departments.
allowed to continue with the conduct of the Written questions shall be submitted to the
questioned legislative inquiry without duly President of the Senate or the Speaker of the
published rules of procedure, in clear House of Representatives at least three days
derogation of the constitutional requirement. before their scheduled appearance.
Section 21, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution Interpellations shall not be limited to written
explicitly provides that “[t]he Senate or the questions, but may cover matters related
House of Representatives, or any of its thereto. When the security of the State or the
respective committees may conduct inquiries public interest so requires and the President so
in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly states in writing, the appearance shall be
published rules of procedure.” The requisite of conducted in executive session.
publication of the rules is intended to satisfy
the basic requirements of due process. SECTION 23. (1) The Congress, by a vote of
Publication is indeed imperative, for it will be two-thirds of both Houses in joint session
the height of injustice to punish or otherwise assembled, voting separately, shall have the
burden a citizen for the transgression of a law sole power to declare the existence of a state of
or rule of which he had no notice whatsoever, war.
not even a constructive one. What constitutes
publication is set forth in Article 2 of the Civil (2) In times of war or other national
Code, which provides that “laws shall take emergency, the Congress may, by law,
effect after 15 days following the completion authorize the President, for a limited period
of their publication either in the Official and subject to such restrictions as it may
Gazette, or in a newspaper of general prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and
circulation in the Philippines.” proper to carry out a declared national policy.
The Senate admits in their pleadings and even Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the
on oral argument that the Senate Rules of Congress, such powers shall cease upon the
Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of next adjournment thereof.
Legislation had been published in
newspapers of general circulation only in SECTION 24. All appropriation, revenue or
1995 and in 2006. With respect to the present tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of the
Senate of the 14th Congress, however, of public debt, bills of local application, and
which the term of half of its members private bills shall originate exclusively in the
commenced on June 30, 2007, no effort was House of Representatives, but the Senate may
undertaken for the publication of these rules propose or concur with amendments.
when they first opened their session.
SECTION 24 – SHALL ORIGINATE
EXCLUSIVELY IN HOR
SECTION 22. The heads of departments may

upon their own initiative, with the consent of TOLENTINO VS. SECRETARY OF FINANCE

Page | 98
MENDIOLA, MANILA
FACTS:
The value-added tax (VAT) is levied on the
sale, barter or exchange of goods and
properties as well as on the sale or exchange ALVAREZ, ET AL. VS. GUINGONA, ET AL.
of services. It is equivalent to 10% of the 252 SCRA 695, 1996
gross selling price or gross value in money of
goods or properties sold, bartered or FACTS:
exchanged or of the gross receipts from the Law converting municipality of Santiago,
sale or exchange of services. Republic Act No. Isabela into a city is being assailed that the
7716 seeks to widen the tax base of the Bill did not originate exclusively from HOR as
existing VAT system and enhance its mandated by Section 24, Article VI of the
administration by amending the National 1987 Constitution since it had a counterpart
Internal Revenue Code. It was challenged for in the Senate.
alleged constitutional infirmities (defects),
among others: ISSUE: Whether or not, considering that the
Senate passed SB No. 1243, its own version of
Law did not originate exclusively in the House HB No. 8817, Republic Act No. 7720 can be
of Representative as required by Section 24, said to have originated in the House of
Article VI – they contended that to be Representatives.
considered as having originated in the HOR, it
should retain the essence of the House Bill. HELD: A bill of local application, such as one
asking for the conversion of a municipality
ISSUE: Whether or not there are into a city, is deemed to have originated from
constitutional defects in RA 7716, since it did the House provided that the bill of the House
not originate exclusively in the House of was filed prior to the filing of the bill in the
Representative as required by Sec. 24, Article Senate even if, in the end, the Senate
VI. approved its own version.
HELD: The filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in

No. The Supreme Court held that the Senate is anticipation of its receipt of the bill from the
empowered by the Constitution to concur House, does not contravene the constitutional
with amendments and propose amendments, requirement that a bill of local application
even substitute the entire bill as a whole. A should originate in the House of
bill originating in the HOR may undergo such Representatives, for as long as the Senate
extensive changes in the Senate that the does not act thereupon until it receives the
result maybe rewriting of the whole; As a House bill.
result of the Senate action, a distinct bill may
be produced AND to insist that a revenue
statute must substantially be the same as the
House bill would be to deny the Senate’s SECTION 25. (1) The Congress may not
power not only to “concur with amendments” increase the appropriations recommended by
but also to “propose amendments.” the President for the operation of the

Page | 99
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Government as specified in the budget. The the general appropriations law for the
form, content, and manner of preparation of preceding fiscal year shall be deemed
the budget shall be prescribed by law. reenacted and shall remain in force and effect
until the general appropriations bill is passed
(2) No provision or enactment shall be by the Congress.
embraced in the general appropriations bill
unless it relates specifically to some particular
appropriation therein. Any such provision or
enactment shall be limited in its operation to SECTION 25 – APPROPRIATIONS
the appropriation to which it relates.
(3) The procedure in approving appropriations LAWYERS AGAINST MONOPOLY AND

for the Congress shall strictly follow the POVERTY VS. DBM
procedure for approving appropriations for
other departments and agencies. FACTS: For consideration of the Court is an
original action for certiorari assailing the
(4) A special appropriations bill shall specify constitutionality and legality of the
the purpose for which it is intended, and shall implementation of the Priority Development
be supported by funds actually available as Assistance Fund (PDAF) as provided for in
certified by the National Treasurer, or to be Republic Act (R.A.) 9206 or the General
raised by a corresponding revenue proposed Appropriations Act for 2004 (GAA of 2004).
therein. Petitioner Lawyers Against Monopoly and
Poverty(LAMP), a group of lawyers who have
(5) No law shall be passed authorizing any banded together with a mission of
transfer of appropriations; however, the dismantling all forms of political, economic or
President, the President of the Senate, the social monopoly in the country. According to
Speaker of the House of Representatives, the LAMP, the above provision is silent and,
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the therefore, prohibits an automatic or direct
heads of Constitutional Commissions may, by allocation of lump sums to individual
law, be authorized to augment any item in the senators and congressmen for the funding of
general appropriations law for their respective projects. It does not empower individual
offices from savings in other items of their Members of Congress to propose, select and
respective appropriations. identify programs and projects to be funded
out of PDAF.
(6) Discretionary funds appropriated for
particular officials shall be disbursed only for
For LAMP, this situation runs afoul against
public purposes to be supported by appropriate
the principle of separation of powers because
vouchers and subject to such guidelines as may
in receiving and, thereafter, spending funds
be prescribed by law.
for their chosen projects, the Members of
Congress in effect intrude into an executive
(7) If, by the end of any fiscal year, the function. Further, the authority to propose
Congress shall have failed to pass the general and select projects does not pertain to
appropriations bill for the ensuing fiscal year,

Page | 100
MENDIOLA, MANILA
legislation. “It is, in fact, a non-legislative taxpayers’ suits is established. Thus, in the
function devoid of constitutional sanction,”8 claim that PDAF funds have been illegally
and, therefore, impermissible and must be disbursed and wasted through the
considered nothing less than malfeasance. enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional
law, LAMP should be allowed to sue.
RESPONDENT’S POSITION: the perceptions of

LAMP on the implementation of PDAF must Lastly, the Court is of the view that the
not be based on mere speculations circulated petition poses issues impressed with
in the news media preaching the evils of pork paramount public interest. The ramification
barrel. of issues involving the unconstitutional
spending of PDAF deserves the consideration
of the Court, warranting the assumption of
ISSUES: 1) whether or not the mandatory jurisdiction over the petition.
requisites for the exercise of judicial review
are met in this case; and 2) whether or not
the implementation of PDAF by the Members II.
of Congress is unconstitutional and illegal.
HELD: The Court rules in the negative.

I .A question is ripe for adjudication when the
act being challenged has had a direct adverse
In determining whether or not a statute is
effect on the individual challenging it. In this
unconstitutional, the Court does not lose sight
case, the petitioner contested the
of the presumption of validity accorded to
implementation of an alleged
statutory acts of Congress. To justify the
unconstitutional statute, as citizens and
nullification of the law or its implementation,
taxpayers. The petition complains of illegal
there must be a clear and unequivocal, not a
disbursement of public funds derived from
doubtful, breach of the Constitution. In case of
taxation and this is sufficient reason to say
doubt in the sufficiency of proof establishing
that there indeed exists a definite, concrete,
unconstitutionality, the Court must sustain
real or substantial controversy before the
legislation because “to invalidate [a law]
Court.
based on x x x baseless supposition is an
affront to the wisdom not only of the
LOCUS STANDI: The gist of the question of legislature that passed it but also of the
standing is whether a party alleges “such a executive which approved it.”
personal stake in the outcome of the
controversy as to assure that concrete
The petition is miserably wanting in this
adverseness which sharpens the presentation
regard. No convincing proof was presented
of issues upon which the court so largely
showing that, indeed, there were direct
depends for illumination of difficult
releases of funds to the Members of Congress,
constitutional questions. Here, the sufficient
who actually spend them according to their
interest preventing the illegal expenditure of
sole discretion. Devoid of any pertinent
money raised by taxation required in
evidentiary support that illegal misuse of
Page | 101
MENDIOLA, MANILA
PDAF in the form of kickbacks has become a (2) (2) the person challenging the act must
common exercise of unscrupulous Members have the standing to question the validity of
of Congress, the Court cannot indulge the the subject act or issuance; otherwise stated,
petitioner’s request for rejection of a law he must have a personal and substantial
which is outwardly legal and capable of lawful interest in the case such that he has
enforcement. sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a
result of its enforcement;
(3) (3) the question of constitutionality must
PORK BARREL: be raised at the earliest opportunity; and
(4) (4) the issue of constitutionality must be
the very lis mota of the case.
The Members of Congress are then requested
by the President to recommend projects and
programs which may be funded from the
PDAF. The list submitted by the Members of GARCIA VS. MATA
Congress is endorsed by the Speaker of the 65 SCRA 517, 1975
House of Representatives to the DBM, which
reviews and determines whether such list of FACTS:
projects submitted are consistent with the Petitioner was a reserve officer on active duty
guidelines and the priorities set by the with the AFP until his reversion to inactive
Executive.”33 This demonstrates the power status pursuant to the provisions of RA No.
given to the President to execute 2332. Petitioner filed a complaint for
appropriation laws and therefore, to exercise mandamus and recovery of a sum of money,
the spending per se of the budget. to compel the former to reinstate him in the
active commissioned service of the AFP, to
readjust his rank, and to pay all the
As applied to this case, the petition is
emoluments and allowances due to him from
seriously wanting in establishing that
the time of his reversion to inactive status.
individual Members of Congress receive and
thereafter spend funds out of PDAF. So long
Petitioner anchored his claim to
as there is no showing of a direct
reinstatement at paragraph 11 of the Special
participation of legislators in the actual
Provisions for the AFP in RA 1600 which was
spending of the budget, the constitutional
the Appropriation Act for the fiscal year
boundaries between the Executive and the
1956-57 as reads:
Legislative in the budgetary process remain
intact.
THAT RESERVE OFFICERS WITH AT LEAST
_______________
10 YEARS OF ACCUMULATED
COMMISSIONED SERVICE WHO ARE STILL
NOTES: ON ACTIVE DUTY AT THE TIME OF THE
POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW: APPROVAL OF THIS ACT SHALL NOT BE
(1) there must be an actual case or REVERTED TO INACTIVE STATUS EXCEPT
controversy calling for the exercise of judicial FOR CAUSE AFTER PROPER COURT-
power; MARTIAL PROCEEDINGS OR UPON THEIR
REQUEST.
Page | 102
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Respondent, Judge Mata, declared paragraph ISSUE: Is the provision valid?

11 of the Special Provisions for the AFP in RA
No. 1600 which was the Appropriation Act for HELD: No. The court said that such was
the fiscal year 1956-57 unconstitutional and unconstitutional as it empowers the
therefore invalid and inoperative. Hence, this President to indiscriminately transfer funds
petition for certiorari to review the decision from one department to any program, project,
of the CFI. or activity of any departments without regard
as to whether or not the funds to be
ISSUE: Is the provision valid? transferred are actually savings in the item
from which the same are to be taken.
HELD: The SC held that the said provision
used by the petitioner as a basis was a RIDER
because the Constitution provides that no PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION
provision or enactment shall be embraced in VS. ENRIQUEZ 235 SCRA 506. 1994
the general appropriations bill UNLESS it
relates specifically to some particular FACTS:
appropriation therein (Art. VI, Section 25(2)). The General Appropriation Bill of 1994 was
passed and approved by both Houses of
RA 1600 appropriated money for the Congress. It presented the bill to the
operation of the Government for the fiscal president for the exercise of his veto power.
year 1956-1957, the said paragraph 11 refers One of the special provisions vetoed by the
to the fundamental governmental policy President is with respect to the realignment
matters of the calling to active duty and the of operating expenses. Whereas each member
reversion to inactive status of reserve officers of Congress is allotted for his own operating
in the AFP. It clearly shows that the expenditures, a proportionate share of the
paragraph in question does not relate to the appropriation for the house which he belongs.
appropriation. If he does not spend for one item of expense,
the questioned provision allows him to
transfer his allocation in said item of expense.
DEMETRIA VS. ALBA Petitioners assail the special provision
148 SCRA 208, 1987 allowing a member of Congress to realign his
allocations for operational expenses to any
FACTS: Paragraph 1 of Section 44 of PD No. other expense categorically claiming that this
1177 states that the President shall have the practice is prohibited by Section 25 (5),
authority to transfer any fund, appropriated Article VI of the Constitution.
for the different departments, bureaus, offices
and agencies of the Executive department, They argue that the Senate President and
which are included in the General Speaker of the House, not the individual
Appropriations Act, to any program, project member of Congress, are the ones authorized
or activity of any department, bureau or office to realign the savings as appropriated.
in the General Appropriations Act or Another special provision vetoed by the
approved after its enactment. President is on the appropriation for debt

Page | 103
MENDIOLA, MANILA
service. It provides “Use of funds. The the allotment for their operating expenses.
appropriation authorized therein shall be They are in the best position to do so because
used for payment of principal and interest of they are the one who know whether there are
foregoing and domestic indebtedness; savings available in some items and whether
provided, that any payment in excess of the there are deficiencies in other items of their
amount therein appropriated shall be subject operating expenses that need augmentation.
to the approval of the President with the However, it is the Senate President and the
concurrence of the Congress of the Speaker of the House as the case may be who
Philippines; provided further, that in no case shall approve the realignment. Before giving
shall this fund be used to pay for the liabilities their stamp of approval, those two officials
of the Central Bank of Liquidators.” will have to see to it that: (1) the funds to be
aligned or transferred are actually savings in
Petitioners claim that the President cannot the items of expenditures from which the
veto the special provision on the same are to be taken and to the transfer on
appropriations for debt service without realignment is for the purpose of augmenting
vetoing the entire amount of P86B for said the items of expenditure to which said
purpose. In the appropriation for the AFP transfer or realignment is to be made.
Pension and Gratuity Fund, the President
vetoed the new provision authorizing the It is readily apparent that the special
Chief of Staff to use savings in the AFP to provision applicable to the appropriation for
augment pension and gratuity funds. debt service in so far as it refers to funds in
According to the President, the grant excess of the appropriation for debt service in
retirement and separation benefits should be so far as it refers to funds in excess of the
covered by direct appropriation specially amount appropriated in the bill, is an
approved for the purpose pursuant to Section “inappropriate provision” referring to the
29 (1) of Article VI of the Constitution. funds other than P68B appropriated in the
GAAA of 1994. The veto power while
Moreover, he stated that the authority to use exercised by the President is actually a part of
savings is lodged in the officials enumerated the legislative process. Hence, found in Article
in Section 25 of Article VI of the Constitution. VI rather than Article VII.
On the contrary, petitioners claim that said
provision is a condition or limitation, which is As the constitution is explicit that the
intertwined with the item of appropriation provision with the Congress can include in an
that it could not be separated therefrom. appropriate to which it relates, “it follows
that any provision which does not relate to
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner’s any particular item or which it extends in its
contentions are tenable. operation beyond an item of appropriation is
considered an inappropriate provision which
HELD: Petitioner’s contentions are without be vetoed separately from an item. Also to be
merit. Under the special provisions applicable included in the category of inappropriate
to the Congress of the Philippines, the provision are unconstitutional provisions and
members of the Congress only determine the provisions which are intended to amend
necessity of the realignment of the savings in other laws because clearly those kinds of laws

Page | 104
MENDIOLA, MANILA
have no place in an appropriation bill. The  The term “pork barrel”, a political
President vetoed the entire paragraph, one of parlance of American-English origin, refers to
the special provision of the item on debt an appropriation of government spending
services including the provisos that the meant for localized projects and secured
appropriation authorized in said item shall be solely or primarily to bring money to a
used for the payment of one principal and representative’s district.
interest of foreign and domestic indebtedness  The earliest form of the pork barrel
and that in no case shall this fund be used to system is found in Section 3 of Act 3044,
pay for the liabilities of the Central Bank otherwise known as the Public Works Act of
Board of Liquidators. These provisos are 1922. Under this provision, release of funds
germane to and have direct connection with and realignment of unexpended portions of
the item of debt service. Inherent in the an item or appropriation were subject to the
power of the appropriation is the power to approval of a joint committee elected by the
specify how the money shall be spent. Said Senate and the House of Representatives.
provisos are appropriate provisions hence,
 In 1950, members of Congress, by
cannot be vetoed separately. The SC is
virtue of being representatives of the people,
sustaining the veto of the Special Provision of
also became involved in project identification.
the item on debt service can only be with
respect to the proviso therein requiring that  The pork barrel system was
any payment in excess of the amount therein, temporarily discontinued when martial law
appropriated shall be the subject to the was declared.
approval of the President of the Philippines  It reappeared in 1982 through an item
with the concurrence of the Congress of the in the General Appropriations Act (“GAA”)
Philippines. The special provision which called “Support for Local Development
allows the Chief of Staff to use savings to Projects” (“SLDP”). SLDP started the giving of
augment the pension fund for the AFP being lump-sum allocations to individual
managed by the AFP Retirement and legislators. The SLDP also began to cover not
Separation Benefits System is violative of only public works project or “hard projects”
Section 25 and Section 29 of Article VI of the but also covered “soft projects” such as those
Constitution. which would fall under education, health and
livelihood.
 After the EDSA People Power
Revolution and the restoration of democracy,
BELGICA, ET AL. VS. EXECUTIVE the pork barrel was revived through the
SECRETARY, ET AL. (G.R. NO. 208566; “Mindanao Development Fund” and the
SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY VS. HON. “Visayas Development Fund”.
FRANKLIN DRILON, ET AL. (G.R. NO.  In 1990, the pork barrel was renamed
208493); NEPOMUCENO VS. PRES. AQUINO “Countrywide Development Fund” (“CDF”).
(G.R. NO. 209251) NOVEMBER 19, 2013 The CDF was meant to cover small local
infrastructure and other priority community
projects.
FACTS: HISTORY of CONGRESSIONAL PORK  CDF Funds were, with the approval of
BARREL the President, released directly to

Page | 105
MENDIOLA, MANILA
implementing agencies subject to the  In 2000, the Priority Development

submission of the required list of projects and Assistance Fund (“PDAF”) appeared in the
activities. Senators and congressmen could GAA. PDAF required prior consultation with
identify any kind of project from “hard the representative of the district before the
projects” such as roads, buildings and bridges release of funds. PDAF also allowed
to “soft projects” such as textbooks, medicines, realignment of funds to any expense category
and scholarships. except personal services and other personnel
 In 1993, the CDF was further benefits.
modified such that the release of funds was to  In 2005, the PDAF introduced the
be made upon the submission of the list of program menu concept which is essentially a
projects and activities identified by individual list of general programs and implementing
legislators. This was also the first time when agencies from which a particular PDAF
the Vice-President was given an allocation. project may be subsequently chosen by the
 The CDF contained the same identifying authority. This was retained in
provisions from 1994-1996 except that the the GAAs from 2006-2010.
Department of Budget and Management was  It was during the Arroyo
required to submit reports to the Senate administration when the formal participation
Committee on Finance and the House of non-governmental organizations in the
Committee on Appropriations regarding the implementation of PDAF projects was
releases made from the funds. introduced.
 Congressional insertions (“CIs”) were  The PDAF articles from 2002-2010
another form of congressional pork barrel were silent with respect to specific amounts
aside from the CDF. Examples of the CIs for individual legislators.
include the DepEd School Building Fund, the  In 2011, the PDAF Article in the GAA
Congressional Initiative Allocations, and the contained an express statement on lump-sum
Public Works Fund, among others. amounts allocated for individual legislators
 The allocations for the School and the Vice-President. It also contained a
Building Fund were made upon prior provision on realignment of funds but with
consultation with the representative of the the qualification that it may be allowed only
legislative district concerned and the once.
legislators had the power to direct how,  The 2013 PDAF Article allowed LGUs
where and when these appropriations were to be identified as implementing
to be spent. agencies. Legislators were also allowed
 In 1999, the CDF was removed from identify programs/projects outside of his
the GAA and replaced by three separate forms legislative district. Realignment of funds and
of CIs: (i) Food Security Program Fund, (ii) release of funds were required to be
Lingap Para sa Mahihirap Fund, and (iii) favorably endorsed by the House Committee
Rural/Urban Development Infrastructure on Appropriations and the Senate Committee
Program Fund. All three contained a on Finance, as the case may be.
provision requiring prior consultation with
members of Congress for the release of funds. MALAMPAYA FUNDS AND
PRESIDENTIAL SOCIAL FUND

Page | 106
MENDIOLA, MANILA
 Whistle-blowers also alleged that at

least P900 million from the Malampaya Funds
 The use of the term pork barrel was had gone into a dummy NGO.
expanded to include certain funds of the
President such as the Malampaya Fund and
the Presidential Social Fund (“PSF”). ISSUE/S
 The Malampaya Fund was created as
a special fund under Section 8 of Presidential PROCEDURAL ISSUES
Decree (“PD”) No. 910 issued by President
 Whether or not (a) the issues raised
Ferdinand Marcos on March 22, 1976.
in the consolidated petitions involve an actual
 The PSF was created under Section 12, and justiciable controversy, (b) the issues
Title IV of PD No. 1869, or the Charter of the raised are matters of policy not subject to
Philippine Amusement and Gaming judicial review, (c) petitioners have legal
Corporation (“PAGCOR”), as amended by PD standing to sue, (d) previous decisions of the
No. 1993. The PSF is managed and Court bar the re-litigation of the
administered by the Presidential constitutionality of the Pork Barrel system.
Management Staff and is sourced from the
share of the government in the aggregate
gross earnings of PAGCOR.
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
PORK BARREL MISUSE
 Whether or not the 2013 PDAF
 In 1996, Marikina City Representative Article and all other Congressional Pork
Romeo Candozo revealed that huge sums of Barrel laws are unconstitutional for violating
money regularly went into the pockets of the constitutional provisions on (a)separation
legislators in the form of kickbacks. of powers, (b) non-delegability of legislative
 In 2004, several concerned citizens power, (c) checks and
sought the nullification of the PDAF but the balances, (d) accountability, (e) political
Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack dynasties, (f) local autonomy.
of evidentiary basis regarding illegal misuse
of PDAF in the form of kickbacks.
 In July 2013, the National Bureau of
Investigation probed the allegation that a RULING
syndicate defrauded the government of P10 PROCEDURAL ISSUES
billion using funds from the pork barrel of
lawmakers and various government agencies (a) There is an actual and justiciable
for scores of ghost projects. controversy
 In August 2013, the Commission on
Audit released the results of a three-year  There exists an actual and justiciable
audit investigation detailing the irregularities controversy in the cases. The requirement of
in the release of the PDAF from 2007 to 2009. contrariety of legal rights is satisfied by the
antagonistic positions of the parties regarding
the constitutionality of the pork barrel system.

Page | 107
MENDIOLA, MANILA
 The case is ripe for adjudication since

the challenged funds and the laws allowing
for their utilization are currently existing and (c) Petitioners have legal standing to
operational and thereby posing an immediate Sue
or threatened injury to petitioners.
 Petitioners have legal standing by
 The case is not moot as the proposed virtue of being taxpayers and citizens of the
reforms on the PDAF and the abolition Philippines.
thereof does not actually terminate the
 As taxpayers, they are bound to suffer
controversy on the matter. The President
from the unconstitutional usage of public
does not have constitutional authority to
funds.
nullify or annul the legal existence of the
PDAF.  As citizens, the issues they have
raised are matters of transcendental
 The “moot and academic principle”
importance, of overreaching significance to
cannot stop the Court from deciding the case
society, or of paramount public interest.
considering that: (a) petitioners allege grave
violation of the constitution, (b) the
constitutionality of the pork barrel system
presents a situation of exceptional character
(d) The Petition is not barred by
and is a matter of paramount public
interest, (c) there is a practical need for a previous cases
definitive ruling on the system’s  The present case is not barred by the
constitutionality to guide the bench, the bar ruling in Philconsa vs. Enriquez [1] because
and the public, and (d) the preparation and the Philconsa case was a limited response to a
passage of the national budget is an annual separation of powers problem, specifically on
occurrence. the propriety of conferring post-enactment
identification authority to Members of
(b) Political Question Doctrine is Congress.
Inapplicable  On the contrary, the present cases
involve a more holistic examination of (a) the
 The intrinsic constitutionality of the
inter-relation between the CDF and the PDAF
“Pork Barrel System” is not an issue
Articles with each other, and (b) the inter-
dependent upon the wisdom of the political
relation of post-enactment measures
branches of the government but rather a legal
contained within a particular CDF or PDAF
one which the Constitution itself has
article, including not only those related to the
commanded the Court to act upon.
area of project identification but also to the
 The 1987 Constitution expanded the areas of fund release and realignment.
concept of judicial power such that the
 Moreover, the Philconsa case was
Supreme Court has the power to determine
whether there has been grave abuse of riddled with inherent constitutional
inconsistencies considering that the authority
discretion amounting to lack or excess of
to identify projects is an aspect of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
appropriation and the power of appropriation
instrumentality on the part of the
is a form of legislative power thereby lodged
government.

Page | 108
MENDIOLA, MANILA
in Congress. This power cannot be exercised unconstitutional tenor since the prohibition
by individual members of Congress and the covers any role in the implementation or
authority to appropriate cannot be exercised enforcement of the law.
after the GAA has already been passed.  Respondents also failed to prove that
 The case of Lawyers Against Monopoly the role of the legislators is only
and Poverty vs. Secretary of Budget and recommendatory in nature. They even
Management[2] does not also bar judgment admitted that the identification of the
on the present case because it was dismissed legislator constitutes a mandatory
on a procedural technicality and hence no requirement before the PDAF can be tapped
controlling doctrine was rendered. as a funding source.
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES ON
CONGRESSIONAL PORK BARREL (b)The principle of non-delegability
of legislative powers has been violated
(a) The separation of powers between
the Executive and the Legislative  The 2013 PDAF Article, insofar as it
Departments has been violated. confers post-enactment identification
authority to individual legislators, violates the
 The post-enactment measures principle of non-delegability since said
including project identification, fund release, legislators are effectively allowed to
and fund realignment are not related to individually exercise the power of
functions of congressional oversight and, appropriation, which – as settled
hence, allow legislators to intervene and/or in Philconsa – is lodged in Congress.
assume duties that properly belong to the
 That the power to appropriate must
sphere of budget execution, which belongs to
be exercised only through legislation is clear
the executive department.
from Section 29(1), Article VI of the 1987
 Legislators have been, in one form or Constitution which states that: ― No money
another, authorized to participate in the shall be paid out of the Treasury except in
various operational aspects of budgeting, pursuance of an appropriation made by law.
including ―the evaluation of work and
 The legislators are individually
financial plans for individual activities and
exercising the power of appropriation
the ― regulation and release of funds in
because each of them determines (a) how
violation of the separation of powers
much of their PDAF fund would go to and (b)
principle.
a specific project or beneficiary that they
 Any provision of law that empowers themselves also determine.
Congress or any of its members to play any
role in the implementation or enforcement of
(c) Checks and balances
the law violates the principle of separation of
powers and is thus unconstitutional.  Under the 2013 PDAF Article, the
 That the said authority to identify amount of P24.79 Billion only appears as a
projects is treated as merely collective allocation limit since the said
recommendatory in nature does not alter its amount would be further divided among

Page | 109
MENDIOLA, MANILA
individual legislators who would then receive monitoring the implementation of the
personal lump-sum allocations and could, appropriation law.
after the GAA is passed, effectively  The conduct of oversight would be
appropriate PDAF funds based on their own tainted as said legislators, who are vested
discretion. with post-enactment authority, would, in
 This kind of lump-sum/post- effect, be checking on activities in which they
enactment legislative identification budgeting themselves participate.
system fosters the creation of a ―budget  The concept of post-enactment
within a budget which subverts the authorization violates Section 14, Article VI of
prescribed procedure of presentment and the 1987 Constitution, which prohibits
consequently impairs the President‘s power members of Congress to intervene in any
of item veto. matter before any office of the Government,
 It forces the President to decide because it renders them susceptible to taking
between (a) accepting the entire PDAF undue advantage of their own office.
allocation without knowing the specific  The Court, however, cannot
projects of the legislators, which may or may completely agree that the same post-
not be consistent with his national agenda enactment authority and/or the individual
and (b) rejecting the whole PDAF to the legislator‘s control of his PDAF per se would
detriment of all other legislators with allow him to perpetuate himself in office.
legitimate projects.
 The use of his PDAF for re-election
 In fact, even without its post- purposes is a matter which must be analyzed
enactment legislative identification feature, based on particular facts and on a case-to-
the 2013 PDAF Article would remain case basis.
constitutionally flawed since it would then
operate as a prohibited form of lump-sum
appropriation. This is because the
appropriation law leaves the actual amounts (e) The constitutional provision
and purposes of the appropriation for further regarding political dynasties is not self-
determination and, therefore, does not executing.
readily indicate a discernible item which may
be subject to the President‘s power of item  Section 26, Article II of the 1987
veto. Constitution, which provides that the state
shall prohibit political dynasties as may be
(d) The Congressional Pork Barrel defined by law, is not a self-executing
partially prevents accountability as provision.
Congress is incapable of checking itself or  Since there appears to be no standing
its members. law which crystallizes the policy on political
dynasties for enforcement, the Court must
 The fact that individual legislators are defer from ruling on this issue.
given post-enactment roles in the
implementation of the budget makes it
difficult for them to become disinterested
observers when scrutinizing, investigating or

Page | 110
MENDIOLA, MANILA
(f) The Congressional Pork Barrel (a) Section 8 of PD No. 910 and
violates constitutional principles on local Section 12 of PD No. 1869 are valid
autonomy appropriation laws.
 The Congressional Pork Barrel goes  For an appropriation law to be valid

against the constitutional principles on local under Section 29 (1), Article VI of the 1987
autonomy since it allows district Constitution, which provides that “No money
representatives, who are national officers, to shall be paid out of the Treasury except in
substitute their judgments in utilizing public pursuance of an appropriation made by law”,
funds for local development. it is enough that (a) the provision of law sets
 The gauge of PDAF and CDF apart a determinate or determinable amount
allocation/division is based solely on the fact of money and(b) allocates the same for a
of office, without taking into account the particular public purpose.
specific interests and peculiarities of the  Section 8 of PD 910 is a valid
district the legislator represents. appropriation law because it set apart a
 The allocation/division limits are determinable amount: a Special Fund
clearly not based on genuine parameters of comprised of ― all fees, revenues, and
equality, wherein economic or geographic receipts of the [Energy Development] Board
indicators have been taken into consideration. from any and all sources.
 This concept of legislator control  It also specified a public purpose:
underlying the CDF and PDAF conflicts with energy resource development and
the functions of the various Local exploitation programs and projects of the
Development Councils (“LDCs”) which are government and for such other purposes as
already legally mandated to―assist the may be hereafter directed by the President.
corresponding sanggunian in setting the  Section 12 of PD No. 1869 is also a
direction of economic and social development, valid appropriation law because it set apart a
and coordinating development efforts within determinable amount: [a]fter deducting five
its territorial jurisdiction. (5%) percent as Franchise Tax, the Fifty
 Considering that LDCs are (50%) percent share of the Government in
instrumentalities whose functions are the aggregate gross earnings of [PAGCOR], or
essentially geared towards managing local 60%[,] if the aggregate gross earnings be less
affairs, their programs, policies and thanP150,000,000.00.
resolutions should not be overridden nor  It also specified a public purpose:
duplicated by individual legislators, who are priority infrastructure development projects
national officers that have no law-making and x x x the restoration of damaged or
authority except only when acting as a body. destroyed facilities due to calamities, as may
be directed and authorized by the Office of
the President of the Philippines.
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES ON
PRESIDENTIAL PORK BARREL

Page | 111
MENDIOLA, MANILA
(b) Section 8 of PD No. 910 and SECTION 26. (1) Every bill passed by the
Section 12 of PD No. 1869 constitutes Congress shall embrace only one subject which
undue delegation of legislation powers. shall be expressed in the title thereof.
 The phrase “and for such other (2) No bill passed by either House shall become
purposes as may be hereafter directed by the a law unless it has passed three readings on
President” under Section 8 of PD 910 separate days, and printed copies thereof in its
constitutes an undue delegation of legislative final form have been distributed to its Members
power insofar as it does not lay down a three days before its passage, except when the
sufficient standard to adequately determine President certifies to the necessity of its
the limits of the President‘s authority with immediate enactment to meet a public
respect to the purpose for which the calamity or emergency. Upon the last reading
Malampaya Funds may be used. of a bill, no amendment thereto shall be
 This phrase gives the President wide allowed, and the vote thereon shall be taken
latitude to use the Malampaya Funds for any immediately thereafter, and the yeas and nays
other purpose he may direct and, in effect, entered in the Journal.
allows him to unilaterally appropriate public
funds beyond the purview of the law.
 This notwithstanding, it must be
underscored that the rest of Section 8, insofar
as it allows for the use of the Malampaya
Funds ―to finance energy resource PHILCONSA VS. GIMENEZ
development and exploitation programs and 15 SCRA 489, 1965
projects of the government, remains legally
effective and subsisting. FACTS: The Supreme Court was called upon
 Section 12 of PD No. 1869 constitutes in to decide the grave and fundamental
an undue delegation of legislative powers problem of the constitutionality of RA 3836
because it lies independently unfettered by “insofar as the same allows retirement
any sufficient standard of the delegating law. gratuity and commutation of vacation and
 The law does not supply a definition sick leave to Senators and Representatives
of “priority infrastructure development and to the elective officials of both houses (of
projects” and hence, leaves the President Congress).
without any guideline to construe the same.
The constitutionality of the law is assailed on
 The delimitation of a project as one of the ground that the provision for the
“infrastructure” is too broad of a classification retirement of the members and certain
since the said term could pertain to any kind officers of Congress is not expressed in the
of facility. title of the bill, in violation of the Constitution.
ISSUE: W/N RA 3836 violates the

Constitutional provision that every bill passed
by the Congress shall embrace only one

Page | 112
MENDIOLA, MANILA
subject which shall be expressed in the title video industry. The provision is allied and
thereof. germane to, and is reasonably necessary for
the accomplishment of, the general object of
HELD: the DECREE, which is the regulation of the
YES. Under RA 3836, amending CA 186, as video industry through the Videogram
amended by RA Nos. 660 and 3096, the Regulatory Board as expressed in its title. The
retirement benefits are granted to members Supreme Court thus provided the following
of the GSIS who have rendered at least twenty standards whether or not a provision is
years of service regardless of age. This embraced in the title:
provision is related and germane to the
subject of CA 186. On the other hand, the · Title be comprehensive enough to include
succeeding paragraph of RA 3836 refers to the general purpose which a statute seeks to
members of Congress and to elective officers achieve.
thereof who are not members of the GSIS. To · If all the parts of the statute are related and
provide retirement benefits, therefore, for germane to the subject matter expressed in
these officials would relate to subject matter, the title.
not germane to CA 186. · So long as they are not inconsistent or
foreign to the general subject to the title.
· Regardless of how diverse it is so long as it
maybe considered in furtherance of such
subject by providing for the method and
means of carrying out the general object.
TIO VS. VIDEOGRAM REGULATORY BOARD · Should not be construed as to cripple
151 SCRA 204, 1987 legislative power
· Given a PRACTICAL rather than a technical
construction
FACTS: PD NO 1987 is entitled “An Act
Creating the Videogram Regulatory Board.”
Section 10 thereof imposes a 30% tax on
gross receipts on video transactions. The PHILIPPINE JUDGES ASSOCIATION VS.
petitioner argued that such tax impose is a PRADO 227 SCRA 703, 1993
RIDER and the same is not germane to the
subject matter thereof. FACTS: The main target of this petition is
Section 35 of R.A. No. 7354 as implemented
ISSUE: Is section 10 a RIDER? by the Philippine Postal Corporation through
its Circular No. 9228. These measures
HELD: NO. The requirement that every bill withdraw the franking privilege from the
must only have one subject expressed in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, the
title is satisfied if the title is comprehensive Regional Trial Courts, the Metropolitan Trial
enough to include subjects related to the Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts, and the
general purpose which the statute seeks to Land Registration Commission and its
achieve. Such is the case here. Taxation is Register of Deeds, along with certain other
sufficiently related to the regulation of the government offices.

Page | 113
MENDIOLA, MANILA
title would not only be unreasonable but

The petitioners are members of the lower would actually render legislation impossible.
courts who feel that their official functions as
judges will be prejudiced by the above-named SECTION 27 – METHODS BY WHICH A BILL
measures. The National Land Registration MAY BECOME A LAW
Authority has taken common cause with them
insofar as its own activities, such as the TOLENTINO VS. SECRETARY OF FINANCE
sending of requisite notices in registration 235 SCRA 630, 1994
cases, affect judicial proceedings. On its
motion, it has been allowed to intervene. The FACTS: The value-added tax (VAT) is levied
petition assails the constitutionality of R.A. No. on the sale, barter or exchange of goods and
7354 on the ground that its title embraces properties as well as on the sale or exchange
more than one subject and does not express of services. It is equivalent to 10% of the
its purposes. gross selling price or gross value in money of
goods or properties sold, bartered or
ISSUE: Whether or not RA 7354 violates the exchanged or of the gross receipts from the
Constitution for it was alleged to embraces sale or exchange of services. Republic Act No.
more than one subject and does not express 7716 seeks to widen the tax base of the
its purpose. existing VAT system and enhance its
administration by amending the National
HELD: NO. The franking privilege from some Internal Revenue Code. It was challenged for
agencies is germane to the accomplishment of alleged constitutional infirmities (defects),
the principal objective of R.A. No. 7354, which among others: It is claimed that the
is the creation of a more efficient and conference committee included provisions
effective postal service system. Court ruled not found in either the House Bill or the
that, by virtue of its nature as a repealing Senate Bill – that these provisions were
clause, Section 35 did not have to be stealthily inserted by the conference
expressly included in the title of the said law. committee.
The title of the bill is not required to be an
index to the body of the act, or to be as ISSUE: Whether or not there are
comprehensive as to cover every single detail constitutional defects in RA 7716, since the
of the measure. It has been held that if the conference committee included provisions
title fairly indicates the general subject, and not found in either the House Bill or the
reasonably covers all the provisions of the act, Senate Bill.
and is not calculated to mislead the
legislature or the people, there is sufficient HELD:
compliance with the constitutional A third version of the bill may result from the
requirement. conference committee, which is considered
may result from the conference committee,
To require every end and means necessary which is considered an “amendment in the
for the accomplishment of the general nature of a substitute” the only requirement
objectives of the statute to be expressed in its being that the third version be germane to
the subject of the House and Senate bills.

Page | 114
MENDIOLA, MANILA
proprietorship and professional were taxed

As to the possibility of an entirely new bill differently from corporations and
emergency out of a Conference Committee, it partnerships.
has been explained: Under congressional
rules of procedure, conference committees ISSUE: WON RA No. 7496 is in violation of Art.
are not expected to make any material change VI Sec. 26 and 28 of the 1987 Constitution.
in the measure at issue, either by deleting
provisions to which both houses have already HELD: On the basis of the language of the said
agreed or by inserting new provisions. But questioned law, it would be difficult to accept
this is a difficult provision to enforce. Note the petitioner's view that the amendatory
the problem when one house amends a should be considered as now having adopted
proposal originating in either house by a gross income, instead of as having still
striking out everything following the enacting retained the net income, taxation scheme. The
clause and substituting provisions which allowance of deductible items may have been
make it an entirely new bill. The versions are significantly reduced by the questioned law in
now altogether different, permitting a comparison with that which has prevailed
conference committee to draft essentially a prior to the amendment, limiting, however,
new bill. allowable deductions from gross income is
neither discordant with nor opposed to, the
The result is a third version, which is net income tax concept. Art. VI Sec. 26 (I) of
considered an "amendment in the nature of a the Constitution has been envisioned so as
substitute," the only requirement for which (a) to prevent logrolling legislation intended
being that the third version be germane to the to unite the members of the legislature who
subject of the House and Senate bills. favor anyone of the unrelated subjects in
support of the whole act;
(b) to avoid surprise or even fraud upon the
TAN VS. DEL ROSARIO legislature and
(237 SCRA 324 [1994]) (c) to fairly apprise the people, through such
publications of its proceedings are as usually
FACTS: Petitioner contends that Republic Act made, of the subjects of legislations. The
No. 7496 is a misnomer or, at least deficient above objective of the fundamental law
f0r being merely entitled "Simplified Net appears to have sufficiently met.
Income Taxation Scheme For Self Employed
and Professionals Engaged in the practice of Anything else would be to require a virtual
their Profession". It is the petitioner's view compendium of the law which could have
that the said law should be considered as been the intendment of the constitutional
having now adopted a gross income scheme, mandate. The contention of the petitioner
instead of having still deductions from gross that RA No. 7496 desecrates the
income of single proprietorships and constitutional requirement that taxation shall
professionals in the computation of their, be uniform and equitable is of no merit. The
taxable net income, petitioner argued that contention clearly forgets that such a system
this violated the requirement for uniformity of taxation has long been the prevailing rule
in taxation and due process because single even prior to RA 7496. Uniformity of Taxation

Page | 115
MENDIOLA, MANILA
merely requires that all subjects or objects of Petitioners now come before this Court,
taxation similarly situated are to be treated contending that R.A. No. 7675, specifically
both in privileges and liabilities. Uniform does Article VIII, Section 49 thereof, is
nor forefend classification as long as unconstitutional for being violative of three
1.) The standards that are used therefore are specific provisions of the Constitution. First,
substantial and not arbitrary. that it contravenes the "one subject-one bill"
2.) The categorization is germane to achieve rule, as enunciated in Article VI, Section 26(1)
legislative purpose. of the Constitution, to wit:
3.) The law applies all things being equal, to
both present and future conditions, and Sec. 26(1). Every bill passed by the Congress
4.) The classification applies equally well to shall embrace only one subject which shall be
all those belonging to the same class. Shifting expressed in the title thereof. Petitioners
the income taxation of individuals to the allege that the inclusion of the assailed
schedules system, this makes the income tax Section 49 in the subject law resulted in the
depend on the kind of taxable income, and latter embracing two principal subjects,
maintaining for corporations the global namely: (1) the conversion of Mandaluyong
treatment which treats in common all kinds into a highly urbanized city; and (2) the
of taxable income of the taxpayer. division of the congressional district of San
Juan/Mandaluyong into two separate districts.
Petitioners' second and third objections
involve Article VI, Sections 5(1) and (4) of the
TOBIAS VS. ABALOS Constitution. Petitioners argue that the
(G.R. NO. L-114783 DECEMBER 8, 1994) division of San Juan and Mandaluyong into
separate congressional districts under
FACTS: Prior to the enactment of the assailed Section 49 of the assailed law has resulted in
statute Republic Act No. 7675, the an increase in the composition of the House of
municipalities of Mandaluyong and San Juan Representatives beyond that provided in
belonged to only one legislative district. Hon. Article VI, Sec. 5(1) of the Constitution.
Ronaldo Zamora, the incumbent
congressional representative of this Furthermore, petitioners contend that said
legislative district, sponsored the bill which division was not made pursuant to any census
eventually became R.A. No. 7675. Pursuant to showing that the subject municipalities have
the Local Government Code of 1991, a attained the minimum population
plebiscite was held to asked the people requirements. And finally, petitioners assert
whether they approved of the conversion of that Section 49 has the effect of preempting
the Municipality of Mandaluyong into a highly the right of Congress to reapportion
urbanized city as provided in the statute. The legislative districts pursuant to Sec. 5(4) as
turnout at the plebiscite was only 14.41% of aforecited.
the voting population where 18,621 voted
"yes" whereas 7,911 voted "no." By virtue of ISSUE: Whether or not R.A. No. 7675 is
these results, R.A. No. 7675 was deemed unconstitutional.
ratified and in effect.

Page | 116
MENDIOLA, MANILA
HELD: No. Contrary to petitioners' assertion, scope and consequences of the proposed law
the creation of a separate congressional and its operation" (emphasis supplied).
district for Mandaluyong is not a subject
separate and distinct from the subject of its Proceeding now to the other constitutional
conversion into a highly urbanized city but is issues, alleging that there is no mention in the
a natural and logical consequence of its assailed law of any census to show that
conversion into a highly urbanized city. Verily, Mandaluyong and San Juan had each attained
the title of R.A. No. 7675, "An Act Converting the minimum requirement of 250,000
the Municipality of Mandaluyong Into a inhabitants to justify their separation into
Highly Urbanized City of Mandaluyong" two legislative districts, the same does not
necessarily includes and contemplates the suffice to strike down the validity of R.A. No.
subject treated under Section 49 regarding 7675. The said Act enjoys the presumption of
the creation of a separate congressional having passed through the regular
district for Mandaluyong. congressional processes, including due
consideration by the members of Congress of
Moreover, a liberal construction of the "one the minimum requirements for the
title-one subject" rule has been invariably establishment of separate legislative districts.
adopted by this court so as not to cripple or At any rate, it is not required that all laws
impede legislation. Thus, in Sumulong v. emanating from the legislature must contain
Comelec (73 Phil. 288 [1941]), we ruled that all relevant data considered by Congress in
the\ constitutional requirement as now the enactment of said laws.
expressed in Article VI, Section 26(1) "should
be given a practical rather than a technical As to the contention that the assailed law
construction. It should be sufficient violates the present limit on the number of
compliance with such requirement if the title representatives as set forth in the
expresses the general subject and all the Constitution, a reading of the applicable
provisions are germane to that general provision, Article VI, Section 5(1), as
subject." aforequoted, shows that the present limit of
250 members is not absolute. The
The liberal construction of the "one title-one Constitution clearly provides that the House
subject" rule had been further elucidated in of Representatives shall be composed of not
Lidasan v. Comelec (21 SCRA 496 [1967]), to more than 250 members, "unless otherwise
wit: provided by law." The inescapable import of
the latter clause is that the present
“Of course, the Constitution does not require composition of Congress may be increased, if
Congress to employ in the title of an Congress itself so mandates through a
enactment, language of such precision as to legislative enactment.
mirror, fully index or catalogue all the
contents and the minute details therein. It As to the contention that Section 49 of R.A. No.
suffices if the title should serve the purpose of 7675 in effect preempts the right of Congress
the constitutional demand that it inform the to reapportion legislative districts, the said
legislators, the persons interested in the argument borders on the absurd since
subject of the bill and the public, of the nature, petitioners overlook the glaring fact that it

Page | 117
MENDIOLA, MANILA
was Congress itself which drafted, deliberated nature of a substitute” the only requirement
upon and enacted the assailed law, including being that the third version be germane to
Section 49 thereof. Congress cannot possibly the subject of the House and Senate bills. As
preempt itself on a right which pertains to to the possibility of an entirely new bill
itself. emergency out of a Conference Committee, it
has been explained: Under congressional
rules of procedure, conference committees
TOLENTINO VS. SECRETARY OF FINANCE are not expected to make any material change
235 SCRA 630, 1994 in the measure at issue, either by deleting
provisions to which both houses have already
FACTS: The value-added tax (VAT) is levied agreed or by inserting new provisions. But
on the sale, barter or exchange of goods and this is a difficult provision to enforce. Note
properties as well as on the sale or exchange the problem when one house amends a
of services. It is equivalent to 10% of the proposal originating in either house by
gross selling price or gross value in money of striking out everything following the enacting
goods or properties sold, bartered or clause and substituting provisions which
exchanged or of the gross receipts from the make it an entirely new bill. The versions are
sale or exchange of services. Republic Act No. now altogether different, permitting a
7716 seeks to widen the tax base of the conference committee to draft essentially a
existing VAT system and enhance its new bill.
administration by amending the National
Internal Revenue Code. The result is a third version, which is
considered an "amendment in the nature of a
It was challenged for alleged constitutional substitute," the only requirement for which
infirmities (defects), among others: It is being that the third version be germane to the
claimed that the conference committee subject of the House and Senate bills.
included provisions not found in either the
House Bill or the Senate Bill – that these
provisions were stealthily inserted by the
conference committee. ABAKADA Guro Party List vs. Ermita
G.R. No. 168056 September 1, 2005
ISSUE: Whether or not there are
constitutional defects in RA 7716, since the FACTS:
conference committee included provisions Before R.A. No. 9337 took effect, petitioners
not found in either the House Bill or the ABAKADA GURO Party List, et al., filed a
Senate Bill. petition for prohibition on May 27, 2005
questioning the constitutionality of Sections 4,
HELD: 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Sections
A third version of the bill may result from the 106, 107 and 108, respectively, of the
conference committee, which is considered National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC).
may result from the conference committee, Section 4 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of goods
which is considered an “amendment in the and properties, Section 5 imposes a 10% VAT
on importation of goods, and Section 6

Page | 118
MENDIOLA, MANILA
imposes a 10% VAT on sale of services and go forward.

use or lease of properties. These questioned
provisions contain a uniformp ro v is o 3. The power of the State to make reasonable
authorizing the President, upon and natural classifications for the purposes of
recommendation of the Secretary of Finance, taxation has long been established. Whether
to raise the VAT rate to 12%, effective it relates to the subject of taxation, the kind of
January 1, 2006, after specified conditions property, the rates to be levied, or the
have been satisfied. Petitioners argue that the amounts to be raised, the methods of
law is unconstitutional. assessment, valuation and collection, the
State’s power is entitled to presumption of
ISSUES: validity. As a rule, the judiciary will not
interfere with such power absent a clear
1. Whether or not there is a violation of showing of unreasonableness, discrimination,
Article VI, Section 24 of the Constitution. or arbitrariness.
2. Whether or not there is undue delegation of

legislative power in violation of Article VI Sec
28(2) of the Constitution. SECTION 27. (1) Every bill passed by the
Congress shall, before it becomes a law, be
3. Whether or not there is a violation of the presented to the President. If he approves the
due process and equal protection under same, he shall sign it; otherwise, he shall veto it
Article III Sec. 1 of the Constitution. and return the same with his objections to the
House where it originated, which shall enter
RULING: the objections at large in its Journal and
proceed to reconsider it. If, after such
1. Since there is no question that the revenue reconsideration, two-thirds of all the Members
bill exclusively originated in the House of of such House shall agree to pass the bill, it
Representatives, the Senate was acting within shall be sent, together with the objections, to
its constitutional power to introduce the other House by which it shall likewise be
amendments to the House bill when it reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of
included provisions in Senate Bill No. 1950 all the Members of that House, it shall become
amending corporate income taxes, percentage, a law. In all such cases, the votes of each House
and excise and franchise taxes. shall be determined by yeas or nays, and the
names of the Members voting for or against
2. There is no undue delegation of legislative shall be entered in its Journal. The President
power but only of the discretion as to the shall communicate his veto of any bill to the
execution of a law. This is constitutionally House where it originated within thirty days
permissible. Congress does not abdicate its after the date of receipt thereof; otherwise, it
functions or unduly delegate power when it shall become a law as if he had signed it.
describes what job must be done, who must
do it, and what is the scope of his authority; in (2) The President shall have the power to veto
our complex economy that is frequently the any particular item or items in an
only way in which the legislative process can appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill, but the

Page | 119
MENDIOLA, MANILA
veto shall not affect the item or items to which

he does not object. ISSUE: Whether or not the President has the
power to veto provisions with regard to
SECTION 28. (1) The rule of taxation shall be appropriation bills.
uniform and equitable. The Congress shall
evolve a progressive system of taxation. HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court held the
following: The President can veto an item or
(2) The Congress may, by law, authorize the items in an appropriations bill BUT nothing
President to fix within specified limits, and less than an item or items.
subject to such limitations and restrictions as it
may impose, tariff rates, import and export o Item – an indivisible sum of money
quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other dedicated to a stated purpose that a distinct
duties or imposts within the framework of the and severable part of a bill maybe subject to a
national development program of the different veto.
Government.
Therefore, regard to the petitioner’s
(3) Charitable institutions, churches and contention that if a provision in an
parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, appropriations bill is vetoed the entire bill
mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, must be vetoed cannot be sustained. The said
buildings, and improvements, actually, directly, power to veto provisions has been carried
and exclusively used for religious, charitable, or over the previous constitutions and has now
educational purposes shall be exempt from been understood as broadened to include the
taxation. item or items to which the provision relates.
In relation still to veto of provisions, the
(4) No law granting any tax exemption shall be principle that distinct and severable parts of a
passed without the concurrence of a majority bill maybe the subject to a different veto is
of all the Members of the Congress. founded on Art. 6, Section 25(2) wherein
provisions are limited to its operation to the
appropriation to which it relates…a distinct
and severable part subject to a different veto.
GONZALES VS. MACARAIG Therefore it doesn’t mean that if the
191 SCRA 452 president vetoes a provision in an
appropriations bill he’ll need to veto the
FACTS: The veto of a particular section in the entire bill.
1989 appropriations act was assailed for
being unconstitutional on grounds that the Besides, the said provisions are inappropriate
president may not veto provisions with in the first place because the provisions
regard to appropriation bills and if the should relate to a particular appropriation in
president vetoes a provision in an the general appropriations bill. That said
appropriation bill that the entire bill should sections of the appropriation bill cannot be
be vetoed. Further, item-veto power does not subject to veto if such are made to be
carry with it the power to strike out conditions on the expenditure of funds cannot
conditions.

Page | 120
MENDIOLA, MANILA
be sustained because such conditions · Congress thought to revive RA 1797 through

“inappropriate.” HB No.16297.
· But PD 644 never became a law! (not
Restrictions or conditions in an appropriation published)
bill must exhibit a connection with money · President vetoed HB No. 16297.
items in a budgetary sense in the schedule of
expenditures. Said sections were in fact ISSUE: Whether or not the veto act of the
general law measures, there was no President the use of such fund for the
necessary connection with the schedule of adjustment of the pension of justices is valid.
expenditures. That in any case, the sections
mentioned contravene the Constitution as it HELD: The Supreme Court ruled:
takes away the power of the President to · In declaring the veto invalid, the Court said
augment any item in the appropriations law that it was not the veto of an item. The item
of their respective offices from savings in was the entire 500M peso allocation out of
other items of their respective appropriations, which unavoidable obligations not adequately
since a statute has already authorized such funded in separate items could be met. What
power. the President had vetoed was the method of
meeting unavoidable obligations or the
manner of using the 500M Pesos.
BENGZON VS. DRILON
208 SCRA 133, 1992 · When the President vetoed certain
provisions of the 1992
FACTS: General Appropriations Act, she was actually
The case involved the General Appropriations vetoing RA
Act of 1992. The law appropriated 500M 1797 since PD 644 never took effect which is
Pesos “For general fund adjustment for beyond the
operational and special requirements as power to accomplish.
indicated hereunder.” Among the several · The Congress included in the General
authorized uses of the fund was the Appropriations Act of 1992, provisions
adjustment of pension of justices as identifying funds and savings which may be
authorized by an earlier law. The President used to pay the adjusted pensions pursuant to
vetoed the use of such fund for the the Supreme Court Resolution. As long as
adjustment of the pension of justices. The retirement laws remain in the statute book,
funds pertaining to the payment of the there is an existing obligation on the part of
adjusted pensions of Retired Justices of the the government to pay the adjusted pension
Supreme Court and CA was vetoed and rate pursuant to RA 1797 and AM-91-8-225-
assailed as being unconstitutional. CA.
· RA 1797 was the law granted these benefits Neither may the veto power of the President
in 1957. be exercised as a means of repealing RA 1797.
· Section 3-A of RA 1797 was repealed by PD This is arrogating unto the Presidency
644. legislative powers which are beyond its
authority. The President has no power to

Page | 121
MENDIOLA, MANILA
enact or amend statutes promulgated by her concurrence of the Congress of the

predecessors much less to repeal existing Philippines; provided further, that in no case
laws. The President’s power is merely to shall this fund be used to pay for the liabilities
execute the laws passed by Congress. of the Central Bank of Liquidators.”
Petitioners claim that the President cannot

veto the special provision on the
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION appropriations for debt service without
VS. ENRIQUEZ 235 SCRA 506. 1994 vetoing the entire amount of P86B for said
purpose. In the appropriation for the AFP
FACTS: The General Appropriation Bill of Pension and Gratuity Fund, the President
1994 was passed and approved by both vetoed the new provision authorizing the
Houses of Congress. It presented the bill to Chief of Staff to use savings in the AFP to
the president for the exercise of his veto augment pension and gratuity funds.
power. One of the special provisions vetoed According to the President, the grant
by the President is with respect to the retirement and separation benefits should be
realignment of operating expenses. Whereas covered by direct appropriation specially
each member of Congress is allotted for his approved for the purpose pursuant to Section
own operating expenditures, a proportionate 29 (1) of Article VI of the Constitution.
share of the appropriation for the house Moreover, he stated that the authority to use
which he belongs. If he does not spend for one savings is lodged in the officials enumerated
item of expense, the questioned provision in Section 25 of Article VI of the Constitution.
allows him to transfer his allocation in said
item of expense. Petitioners assail the special On the contrary, petitioners claim that said
provision allowing a member of Congress to provision is a condition or limitation, which is
realign his allocations for operational intertwined with the item of appropriation
expenses to any other expense categorically that it could not be separated therefrom.
claiming that this practice is prohibited by
Section 25 (5), Article VI of the Constitution. ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner’s
contentions are tenable.
They argue that the Senate President and
Speaker of the House, not the individual HELD: Petitioner’s contentions are without
member of Congress, are the ones authorized merit. Under the special provisions applicable
to realign the savings as appropriated. to the Congress of the Philippines, the
Another special provision vetoed by the members of the Congress only determine the
President is on the appropriation for debt necessity of the realignment of the savings in
service. It provides “Use of funds. The the allotment for their operating expenses.
appropriation authorized therein shall be They are in the best position to do so because
used for payment of principal and interest of they are the one who know whether there are
foregoing and domestic indebtedness; savings available in some items and whether
provided, that any payment in excess of the there are deficiencies in other items of their
amount therein appropriated shall be subject operating expenses that need augmentation.
to the approval of the President with the

Page | 122
MENDIOLA, MANILA
However, it is the Senate President and the and that in no case shall this fund be used to
Speaker of the House as the case may be who pay for the liabilities of the Central Bank
shall approve the realignment. Before giving Board of Liquidators. These provisos are
their stamp of approval, those two officials germane to and have direct connection with
will have to see to it that: (1) the funds to be the item of debt service. Inherent in the
aligned or transferred are actually savings in power of the appropriation is the power to
the items of expenditures from which the specify how the money shall be spent. Said
same are to be taken and to the transfer on provisos are appropriate provisions hence,
realignment is for the purpose of augmenting cannot be vetoed separately.
the items of expenditure to which said
transfer or realignment is to be made. It is The SC is sustaining the veto of the Special
readily apparent that the special provision Provision of the item on debt service can only
applicable to the appropriation for debt be with respect to the proviso therein
service in so far as it refers to funds in excess requiring that any payment in excess of the
of the amount appropriated in the bill, is an amount therein, appropriated shall be the
“inappropriate provision” referring to the subject to the approval of the President of the
funds other than P68B appropriated in the Philippines with the concurrence of the
GAAA of 1994. Congress of the Philippines. The special
provision which allows the Chief of Staff to
The veto power while exercised by the use savings to augment the pension fund for
President is actually a part of the legislative the AFP being managed by the AFP
process. Hence, found in Article VI rather than Retirement and Separation Benefits System is
Article VII. As the constitution is explicit that violative of Section 25 and Section 29 of
the provision with the Congress can include Article VI of the Constitution.
in an appropriate to which it relates, “it
follows that any provision which does not
relate to any particular item or which it
extends in its operation beyond an item of
appropriation is considered an inappropriate SECTION 28. (1) The rule of taxation shall be
provision which be vetoed separately from an uniform and equitable. The Congress shall
item. Also to be included in the category of evolve a progressive system of taxation.
inappropriate provision are unconstitutional
provisions and provisions which are intended (2) The Congress may, by law, authorize the
to amend other laws because clearly those President to fix within specified limits, and
kinds of laws have no place in an subject to such limitations and restrictions as it
appropriation bill. may impose, tariff rates, import and export
quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other
The President vetoed the entire paragraph, duties or imposts within the framework of the
one of the special provision of the item on national development program of the
debt services including the provisos that the Government.
appropriation authorized in said item shall be
used for the payment of one principal and (3) Charitable institutions, churches and
interest of foreign and domestic indebtedness parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto,

Page | 123
MENDIOLA, MANILA
mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, exempted from real property taxes under Sec
buildings, and improvements, actually, directly, 28(3) Art VI of the Constitution. QC-LBAA
and exclusively used for religious, charitable, or dismissed the petition and the decision was
educational purposes shall be exempt from likewise affirmed on appeal by the Central
taxation. Board of Assessment Appeals of Quezon City.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment
(4) No law granting any tax exemption shall be of the CBAA.
passed without the concurrence of a majority
of all the Members of the Congress. ISSUE:
1. Whether or not petitioner is a charitable
institution within the context of PD 1823 and
the 1973 and 1987 Constitution and Section
KAPATIRAN VS. TAN 234(b) of RA 7160.
163 SCRA 371, 1988
2. Whether or not petitioner is exempted
CASE: from real property taxes.
The VAT law or EO 273 is being assailed on
grounds among others that taxation shall be RULING:
uniform and equitable. The Court overruled 1. Yes. The Court hold that the petitioner is a
the contention holding that such was uniform charitable institution within the context of the
because it operates with the same effect and 1973 and 1987 Constitution. Under PD 1823,
force in every place where the subject may be the petitioner is a non-profit and non-stock
found. It is also equitable since it is imposed= corporation which, subject to the provisions
only on sales of goods or services by persons of the decree, is to be administered by the
engaged in business with an aggregate gross Office of the President with the Ministry of
annual sale exceeding 200,000. Health and the Ministry of Human
Settlements. The purpose for which it was
LUNG CENTER OF THE PHILIPPINES VS created was to render medical services to the
QUEZON CITY G.R. No. 144104, June 29, public in general including those who are
2004 poor and also the rich, and become a subject
of charity. Under PD 1823, petitioner is
FACTS: Petitioner is a non-stock, non-profit entitled to receive donations, even if the gift
entity established by virtue of PD No. 1823, or donation is in the form of subsidies
seeks exemption from real property taxes granted by the government.
when the City Assessor issued Tax
Declarations for the land and the hospital 2. Partly No. Under PD 1823, the lung center
building. Petitioner predicted on its claim that does not enjoy any property tax exemption
it is a charitable institution. The request was privileges for its real properties as well as the
denied, and a petition hereafter filed before building constructed thereon.
the Local Board of Assessment Appeals of The property tax exemption under Sec. 28(3),
Quezon City (QC-LBAA) for reversal of the Art. VI of the Constitution of the property
resolution of the City Assessor. Petitioner taxes only. This provision was implanted by
alleged that as a charitable institution, is Sec.243 (b) of RA 7160.which provides that in

Page | 124
MENDIOLA, MANILA
order to be entitled to the exemption, the lung actual and direct use of the lands, buildings,
center must be able to prove that: it is a and improvements for religious (or
charitable institution and; its real properties charitable) purposes to be exempted from
are actually, directly and exclusively used for taxation.
charitable purpose. Accordingly, the portions
occupied by the hospital used for its patients The case was remanded to the lower court for
are exempt from real property taxes while a trial on merits.
those leased to private entities are not
exempt from such taxes.
ABRA VALLEY COLLEGE VS. AQUINO

162 SCRA 106, 1988
PROVINCE OF ABRA VS HERNANDO
FACTS: Petitioner filed suit to annul and
Facts: The provincial assessor made a tax declare void the "Notice of Seizure" and the
assessment on the properties of the Roman "Notice of Sale" of its lot and building for non-
Catholic Bishop of Bangued. The bishop payment of real estate taxes and penalties.
claims tax exemption from real estate tax, Petitioner contends that the primary use of
through an action for declaratory relief. A the lot and building for educational purposes,
summary judgment was made granting the and not the incidental use thereof, determines
exemption without hearing the side of the and exemption from property taxes under
Province of Abra. Section 22 (3), Article VI of the 1935
Constitution. Hence, the seizure and sale of
Issue: Whether the properties of the Bishop subject college lot and building, which are
of Bangued are tax-exempt. contrary
Held: The 1935 and the 1973 Constitutions Private respondents counter that the college
differ in language as to the exemption of lot and building in question which were
religious property from taxes as tehy should subjected to seizure and sale to answer for
not only be “exclusively” but also “actually” the unpaid tax are used:
and “directly” used for religious purposes. (I) for the educational purposes of the r
Herein, the judge accepted at its face the college;
allegation of the Bishop instead of (2) permanent residence of the President and
demonstrating that there is compliance with Director thereof, and his family including the
the constitutional provision that allows an in-laws and grandchildren; and
exemption. There was an allegation of lack of (3) for commercial purposes because the
jurisdiction and of lack of cause of action, ground floor of the college building is being
which should have compelled the judge to used and rented by a commercial
accord a hearing to the province rather than establishment, the Northern Marketing
deciding the case immediately in favor of the Corporation
Bishop. Exemption from taxation is not
favored and is never presumed, so that if ISSUE: Whether or not the lot and building is
granted, it must be strictly construed against question are used exclusively for educational
the taxpayer. There must be proof of the
Page | 125
MENDIOLA, MANILA
purposes thereby exempting petitioner from

property taxes.
HELD:
Section 29
NO. The lot and building are not used
exclusively for educational purposes. It must 1) No money shall be paid out of the Treasury
be stressed however, that while this Court except in pursuance of an appropriation
allows a more liberal and non-restrictive made by law.
interpretation of the phrase "exclusively used 2) No public money or property shall be
for educational purposes" as provided for in appropriated, applied, paid, or employed,
Article VI, Section 22, paragraph 3 of the 1935 directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or
Philippine Constitution, reasonable emphasis support of any sect, church, denomination,
has always been made that exemptions sectarian institution, or system of religion,
extends to facilities which are incidental to or of any priest, preacher, minister, or
and reasonably necessary for the other religious teacher, or dignitary as
accomplishment of the main purposes. such, except when such priest, preacher,
Otherwise stated, the use of the school minister, or dignitary is assigned to the
building or lot for commercial purposes is armed forces, or to any penal institution, or
neither contemplated by law, nor by government orphanage or leprosarium.
jurisprudence. Thus, while the use of the 3) All money collected on any tax levied for a
second floor of the main building in the case special purpose shall be treated as a
at the bar for residential purposes of the special fund and paid out for such purpose
Director and his family, may find justification only. If the purpose for which a special fund
under the concept of incidental use, which is was created has been fulfilled or
complimentary to the main or primary abandoned, the balance, if any, shall be
purpose - educational, the lease of the first transferred to the general funds of the
floor thereof to the Northern Marketing Government.
Corporation cannot by any stretch of the
imagination be considered incidental to the NOTES:
purpose of education.
CLASSIFICATIONS OF APPROPRIATION
Under the 1935 Constitution, the trial court LAWS
correctly arrived at the conclusion that the
school building as well as the lot where it is  General appropriation law: passed
built, should be taxed, not because the, second annually, intended to provide for the
floor of the same is being used by the Director financial operations of the entire
and his family for residential purposes, but government during one fiscal period.
because the first floor thereof is being used  Special appropriation law: designed for a
for commercial purposes. However, since specific purpose.
only a portion is used for purposes of
IMPLIED LIMITATIONS ON
commerce, it is only fair that half of the
APPROPRIATION MEASURES:
assessed tax be returned to the school
involved.

Page | 126
MENDIOLA, MANILA
1. Appropriation must be devoted to a case and dissolving of the preliminary

public purpose. injunction held by the Court of the First
2. The sum authorized to be released must Instance. Petitioner prayed for that RA #920
be determinate, or at least determinable. be declared null and void, that the alleged
Deed of Donation made by Zulueta be
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON declared unconstitutional. Petitioner also
SPECIAL APPROPRIATION MEASURES: prayed for an injunction enjoining Secretary
of Public Works and Communications,
1. Must specify the public purpose for which
Director of Public Works and Highways and
the sum is intended.
the disbursing officers of the latter
2. Must be supported by funds actually
department from making and securing any
available as certified to by the National
further release of funds for the said road
Treasurer, or to be raised by a
project. RA# 920 contained an item
corresponding revenue proposal included
appropriating P85,000.00 which the
therein.
petitioner alleged that it was for the
WHAT IS IMPOUNDMENT? construction of roads improving the private
property of Jose Zuleta, a member of the
The refusal by the President for whatever Senate.
reason to spend funds made available by
Congress. It is the failure to spend or obligate
budget authority of any type. This power of
RULING/DOCTRINES:
the President is derived from Sec. 38 of the
Administrative Code of 1987 on suspension. INCIDENTAL BENEFIT DOES NOT SATISFY
PUBLIC PURPOSE - It is a general rule that the
APPROPRIATION RESERVES
legislature is without power to appropriate
Sec. 37 of the Administrative Code authorizes public revenue for anything but a public
the Budget Secretary to establish reserves purpose. . . . It is the essential character of the
against appropriations to provide for direct object of the expenditure which must
contingencies and emergencies which may determine its validity as justifying a tax, and
arise during the year. This is merely not the magnitude of the interest to be
expenditure deferral, not suspension, since affected nor the degree to which the general
the agencies concerned can still draw on the advantage of the community, and thus the
reserves if the fiscal outlook improves. public welfare, may be ultimately benefited
by their promotion. Incidental to the public or
to the state, which results from the promotion
of private interest and the prosperity of
Wenceslao Pascual vs. The Secretary of private enterprises or business, does not
Public Works and Communications, Et Al. justify their aid by the use public money.
FACTS: The rule is set forth in Corpus Juris Secundum
in the following language:
Pascual, in his official capacity as the
Provincial Governor of Rizal, petitioned for a
writ of certiorari against the dismissal of the
Page | 127
MENDIOLA, MANILA
In accordance with the rule that the taxing influence is deeply felt and highly appreciated.
power must be exercised for public purposes When the Filipino people, in the preamble of
only, money raised by taxation can be their Constitution, implored "the aid of Divine
expended only for public purposes and not Providence, in order to establish a
for the advantage of private individuals. government that shall embody their ideals,
conserve and develop the patrimony of the
nation, promote the general welfare, and
secure to themselves and their posterity the
GREGORIO AGLIPAY VS JUAN RUIZ
blessings of independence under a regime of
FACTS: In May 1936, the Director of Posts justice, liberty and democracy," they thereby
announced in the dailies of Manila that he manifested reliance upon Him who guides the
would order the issuance of postage stamps destinies of men and nations. The elevating
commemorating the celebration in the City of influence of religion in human society is
Manila of the 33rd International Eucharistic recognized here as elsewhere.
Congress, organized by the Roman Catholic
THE PURPOSE OF THE STAMPS IS NOT
Church. The petitioner, Mons. Gregorio
SECULAR - Act No. 4052 contemplates no
Aglipay, Supreme Head of the Philippine
religious purpose in view. What it gives the
Independent Church, in the fulfillment of
Director of Posts is the discretionary power
what he considers to be a civic duty,
to determine when the issuance of special
requested Vicente Sotto, Esq., member of the
postage stamps would be "advantageous to
Philippine Bar, to denounce the matter to the
the Government." Of course, the phrase
President of the Philippines. In spite of the
"advantageous to the Government" does not
protest of the petitioner’s attorney, the
authorize the violation of the Constitution. It
Director of Posts publicly announced having
does not authorize the appropriation, use or
sent to the United States the designs of the
application of public money or property for
postage for printing. The said stamps were
the use, benefit or support of a particular sect
actually issued and sold though the greater
or church. In the present case, however, the
part thereof remained unsold. The further
issuance of the postage stamps in question by
sale of the stamps was sought to be prevented
the Director of Posts and the Secretary of
by the petitioner.
Public Works and Communications was not
RULING/ DOCTRINES: inspired by any sectarian denomination. The
stamps were not issue and sold for the benefit
THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT INHIBIT of the Roman Catholic Church. Nor were
REVERENCE TO RELIGION - Religious money derived from the sale of the stamps
freedom, however, as a constitutional given to that church. On the contrary, it
mandate is not inhibition of profound appears from the latter of the Director of
reverence for religion and is not denial of its Posts of June 5, 1936, incorporated on page 2
influence in human affairs. Religion as a of the petitioner's complaint, that the only
profession of faith to an active power that purpose in issuing and selling the stamps was
binds and elevates man to his Creator is "to advertise the Philippines and attract more
recognized. And, in so far as it instills into the tourist to this country." The officials
minds the purest principles of morality, its concerned merely, took advantage of an event
considered of international importance "to
Page | 128
MENDIOLA, MANILA
give publicity to the Philippines and its Department of Education, Culture and Sports
people" amount to P27,017,813,000.00.
It is significant to note that the stamps as The said automatic appropriation for debt
actually designed and printed (Exhibit 2), service is authorized by P.D. No. 81, entitled
instead of showing a Catholic Church chalice “Amending Certain Provisions of Republic Act
as originally planned, contains a map of the Numbered Four Thousand Eight Hundred
Philippines and the location of the City of Sixty, as Amended (Re: Foreign Borrowing
Manila, and an inscription as follows: "Seat Act),” by P.D. No. 1177, entitled “Revising the
XXXIII International Eucharistic Congress, Budget Process in Order to Institutionalize
Feb. 3-7,1937." What is emphasized is not the the Budgetary Innovations of the New
Eucharistic Congress itself but Manila, the Society,” and by P.D. No. 1967, entitled “An
capital of the Philippines, as the seat of that Act Strengthening the Guarantee and
congress. It is obvious that while the issuance Payment Positions of the Republic of the
and sale of the stamps in question may be Philippines on Its Contingent Liabilities
said to be inseparably linked with an event of Arising out of Relent and Guaranteed Loan by
a religious character, the resulting Appropriating Funds For The Purpose.
propaganda, if any, received by the Roman
Catholic Church, was not the aim and purpose
of the Government. We are of the opinion that
The petitioner seek the declaration of the
the Government should not be embarrassed
unconstitutionality of P.D. No. 81, Sections 31
in its activities simply because of incidental
of P.D. 1177, and P.D. No. 1967. The petition
results, more or less religious in character, if
also seeks to restrain the disbursement for
the purpose had in view is one which could
debt service under the 1990 budget pursuant
legitimately be undertaken by appropriate
to said decrees.
legislation. The main purpose should not be
frustrated by its subordinate to mere RULING/DOCTRINES:
incidental results not contemplated.
AUTOMATIC BUDGET ALLOCATION FOR
DEBT SERVICING IS ALLOWED UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION - More significantly, there is
TEOFISTO GUINGONA VS CARAGUE
no provision in our Constitution that provides
FACTS: or prescribes any particular form of words or
religious recitals in which an authorization or
The 1990 budget consists of P98.4 Billion in appropriation by Congress shall be made,
automatic appropriation (with P86.8 Billion except that it be "made by law," such as
for debt service) and P155.3 Billion precisely the authorization or appropriation
appropriated under Republic Act No. 6831, under the questioned presidential decrees. In
otherwise known as the General other words, in terms of time horizons, an
Appropriations Act, or a total of P233.5 appropriation may be made impliedly (as by
Billion, while the appropriations for the past but subsisting legislations) as well as
expressly for the current fiscal year (as by

Page | 129
MENDIOLA, MANILA
enactment of laws by the present Congress), RULING/DOCTRINES:

just as said appropriation may be made in
general as well as in specific terms. The THE RULE ON SECTION 29 (3) APPLIES ONLY
Congressional authorization may be TO MONIES COLLECTED IN THE EXERCISE
embodied in annual laws, such as a general OF THE POWER OF TAXATION AND NOT
appropriations act or in special provisions of THOSE LEVIED FOR REGULATORY PURPOSES
laws of general or special application which - Also of relevance is this Court's ruling in
appropriate public funds for specific public relation to the sugar stabilization fund the
purposes, such as the questioned decrees. An nature of which is not far different from the
appropriation measure is sufficient if the OPSF. In Gaston v. Republic Planters Bank, 16
legislative intention clearly and certainly this Court upheld the legality of the sugar
appears from the language employed (In re stabilization fees and explained their nature
Continuing Appropriations, 32 P. 272), and character, viz.:
whether in the past or in the present.
The stabilization fees collected are in the
nature of a tax, which is within the power of
the State to impose for the promotion of the
JOHN OSMENA VS ORBOS sugar industry (Lutz v. Araneta, 98 Phil.
148). . . . The tax collected is not in a pure
FACTS: Senator John Osmeña assails the exercise of the taxing power. It is levied with
constitutionality of paragraph 1c of PD 1956, a regulatory purpose, to provide a means for
as amended by EO 137, empowering the the stabilization of the sugar industry. The
Energy Regulatory Board (ERB) to approve levy is primarily in the exercise of the police
the increase of fuel prices or impose power of the State (Lutz v. Araneta, supra).
additional amounts on petroleum products
which proceeds shall accrue to the Oil Price xxx xxx xxx
Stabilization Fund (OPSF) established for the
reimbursement to ailing oil companies in the The stabilization fees in question are levied
event of sudden price increases. The by the State upon sugar millers, planters and
petitioner avers that the collection on oil producers for a special purpose — that of
products establishments is an undue and "financing the growth and development of the
invalid delegation of legislative power to tax. sugar industry and all its components,
Further, the petitioner points out that since a stabilization of the domestic market including
'special fund' consists of monies collected the foreign market." The fact that the State
through the taxing power of a State, such has taken possession of moneys pursuant to
amounts belong to the State, although the use law is sufficient to constitute them state funds,
thereof is limited to the special even though they are held for a special
purpose/objective for which it was created. It purpose (Lawrence v. American Surety Co.
thus appears that the challenge posed by the 263 Mich. 586, 249 ALR 535, cited in 42 Am
petitioner is premised primarily on the view Jur Sec. 2, p. 718). Having been levied for a
that the powers granted to the ERB under P.D. special purpose, the revenues collected are to
1956, as amended, partake of the nature of be treated as a special fund, to be, in the
the taxation power of the State. language of the statute, "administered in
trust" for the purpose intended. Once the

Page | 130
MENDIOLA, MANILA
purpose has been fulfilled or abandoned, the purse," belongs to Congress, subject only to
balance if any, is to be transferred to the the veto power of the President. The
general funds of the Government. That is the President may propose the budget, but still
essence of the trust intended (SEE 1987 the final say on the matter of appropriations
Constitution, Article VI, Sec. 29(3), lifted from is lodged in the Congress.
the 1935 Constitution, Article VI, Sec. 23(1).
The power of appropriation carries with it the
power to specify the project or activity to be
funded under the appropriation law.
The Countrywide Development Fund is

PHILCONSA VS ENRIQUEZ explicit that it shall be used "for
infrastructure, purchase of ambulances and
FACTS: The General Appropriations Act
computers and other priority projects and
appropriated Php 86.3 billion for debt
activities and credit facilities to qualified
services. Congress added a special provision
beneficiaries . . ." It was Congress itself that
which provided that the amount appropriated
determined the purposes for the
shall be used for payment of the national debt
appropriation.
only and not to be paid to the liabilities of the
Central Bank. The appropriation for DPWH Executive function under the Countrywide
also provided that the maximum amount to Development Fund involves implementation
be contracted for the maintenance of national of the priority projects specified in the law.
roads and bridges should not exceed 30% the
appropriation for medicines by the Armed THE AUTHORITY GRANTED TO THE
Forces of the Philippines required approval PRESIDENT, THE PRESIDENT OF THE
Congress for the release of funds. SENATE, THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF
In the General Appropriations Act of 1994 the
THE SUPREME COURT, AND THE HEADS OF
appropriation for the Armed Forces of the
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS TO
Philippines contains a provision authorizing
AUGMENT AN ITEM IN AN APPROPRIATION
the Chief of Staff to use savings in the
ACT IS VALID ONLY WHEN THE LAW
appropriation to augment the pension and
AUTHORIZES SUCH POWER - Petitioners
gratuity fund of the Armed Forces of the
assail the special provision allowing a
Philippines. The President vetoed the
member of Congress to realign his allocation
authorization given by the Chief of Staff to use
for operational expenses to any other expense
savings to augment the pension and gratuity
category (Rollo, pp. 82-92), claiming that this
fund. Several Senators questioned the validity
practice is prohibited by Section 25(5),
of the veto.
Article VI of the Constitution. Said section
RULING/DOCTRINES: provides:
THE CONGRESS HAS FULL DISCRETION ON No law shall be passed authorizing any
MATTERS INVOLVING APPROPRIATIONS - transfer of appropriations: however, the
Under the Constitution, the spending power President, the President of the Senate, the
called by James Madison as "the power of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the

Page | 131
MENDIOLA, MANILA
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the best position to do so because they are the
heads of Constitutional Commissions may, by ones who know whether there are savings
law, be authorized to augment any item in the available in some items and whether there
general appropriations law for their are deficiencies in other items of their
respective offices from savings in other items operating expenses that need augmentation.
of their respective appropriations. However, it is the Senate President and the
Speaker of the House of Representatives, as
The proviso of said Article of the Constitution the case may be, who shall approve the
grants the President of the Senate and the realignment. Before giving their stamp of
Speaker of the House of Representatives the approval, these two officials will have to see
power to augment items in an appropriation to it that:
act for their respective offices from savings in
other items of their appropriations, whenever (1) The funds to be realigned or transferred
there is a law authorizing such augmentation. are actually savings in the items of
expenditures from which the same are to be
The special provision on realignment of the taken; and
operating expenses of members of Congress
is authorized by Section 16 of the General (2) The transfer or realignment is for the
Provisions of the GAA of 1994, which purposes of augmenting the items of
provides: expenditure to which said transfer or
realignment is to be made.
Expenditure Components. Except by act of the
Congress of the Philippines, no change or NOTES:
modification shall be made in the expenditure
items authorized in this Act and other IS AN AUTOMATIC REAPPROPRIATION
appropriation laws unless in cases LAW FOR SERVICING FOREIGN DEBTS
INVALID BECAUSE IT DOES NOT
of augmentations from savings in APPORPRIATE A FIXED AMOUNT AND
appropriations as authorized under Section THEREFORE AN UNDUE DELEGATION OF
25(5) of Article VI of the Constitution (GAA of LEGISLATIVE POWER?
1994, p. 1273).
No, the amount is fixed by the parameters of
Petitioners argue that the Senate President the law itself which requires the simple act of
and the Speaker of the House of looking in the books of the Treasure.
Representatives, but not the individual (Guingona Jr. vs Carague GR 9457, 4/22/91)
members of Congress are the ones authorized
to realign the savings as appropriated. ARE NOT PORK BARREL PROVISIONS IN
THE ANNUAL BUDGET A VIOLATION OF
Under the Special Provisions applicable to the SEPARATION OF POWERS IN SUCH A WAY
Congress of the Philippines, the members of THAT IT ALLOWS MEMBERS OF THE
Congress only determine the necessity of the CONGRESS TO PERFORM EXECUTIVE
realignment of the savings in the allotments FUNCTION OF SPENDING MONEY
for their operating expenses. They are in the APPROPRIATED?

Page | 132
MENDIOLA, MANILA
When such provisions were upheld in the Court pursuant to Article 82 of EO 226 (the
case of Philippine Constitution Association vs Omnibus Investments Code of
Enriquez the court stated that the Congress 1987).Petitioner argued that the Judiciary
itself had specified the uses of the fund and Reorganization Act of 1980 or B.P. 129 and
that the power given to the enumerated Circular 1-91, "Prescribing the Rules
officials was merely recommendatory to the Governing Appeals to the Court of Appeals
President who could approve or disapprove from a Final Order or Decision of the Court of
the recommendation. “The Court praised the Tax Appeals and Quasi-Judicial Agencies"
scheme as ‘imaginative’ and ‘innovative’.” cannot be the basis of Mariwasa's appeal to
respondent court because the procedure for
It must be emphasized that the Court has appeal laid down therein runs contrary to
declared the PDAF as unconstitutional in the Article 82 of E.O. 226 , a substantive right
recent case of Greco Belgica vs Paquito Ochoa which under the constitution cannot be
(GR 208566, 11/19/13). modified. While Mariwasa maintains that
whatever inconsistency there may have been
between B.P. 129 and Article 82 of E.O. 226
on the question of venue for appeal, has
Section 30. No law shall be passed increasing already been resolved by Circular 1-91 of the
the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court Supreme Court, which was promulgated on
as provided in this Constitution without its February 27, 1991 or four (4) years after E.O.
advice and concurrence. 226 was enacted.
FIRST LEPANTO CERAMICS vs. CA RULING/DOCTRINES:
FACTS: The case arose when the Bureau of THE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT TO APPEAL WAS
Investments (BOI) granted the petitioner’s NOT AFFECTED BUT MERELY TRANSFERRED
application to amend its BOI certificate by FROM THE BOI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS -
changing the scope of its registered product Indeed, the question of where and in what
from “glazed floor tiles” to “ceramic tiles”. manner appeals from decisions of the BOI
Eventually, Mariwasa filed an MR of the said should be brought pertains only to procedure
BOI decision. Soon rebuffed in its bid for or the method of enforcing the substantive
reconsideration, Mariwasa filed an petition right to appeal granted by E.O. 226. In other
for review with respondent Court of Appeals words, the right to appeal from decisions or
pursuant to Circular 1-91.CA temporarily final orders of the BOI under E.O. 226 remains
restrained the BOI from implementing its and continues to be respected. Circular 1-91
decision. The TRO lapsed by its own terms simply transferred the venue of appeals from
twenty (20) days after its issuance, without decisions of this agency to respondent Court
issuing any preliminary injunction. Petitioner of Appeals and provided a different period of
filed a motion to dismiss and to lift the appeal, i.e., fifteen (15) days from notice. It
restraining order contending that CA does not did not make an incursion into the
have jurisdiction over the BOI case, since the substantive right to appeal.
same is exclusively vested with the Supreme

Page | 133
MENDIOLA, MANILA
The fact that BOI is not expressly included in FACTS: Davao Light and Power Company, Inc.
the list of quasi-judicial agencies found in the (DLPC) filed with the Energy Regulatory
third sentence of Section 1 of Circular 1-91 Board (ERB) an application for the approval
does not mean that said circular does not of the sound value appraisal of its property in
apply to appeals from final orders or decision service. The Asian Appraisal Company valued
of the BOI. The second sentence of Section 1 the property and equipment of DLPC as of 12
thereof expressly states that "(T)hey shall March 1990 at One Billion One Hundred Forty
also apply to appeals from final orders or One Million Seven Hundred Seventy Four
decisions of any quasi-judicial agency from Thousand Pesos (P1,141,774,000.00). ERB
which an appeal is now allowed by statute to approved the application of DLPC after
the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court." deducting Fourteen Million Eight Hundred
E.O. 266 is one such statute. Besides, the Thousand Pesos (P14,800,000.00) worth of
enumeration is preceded by the words property and equipment which were not used
"(A)mong these agencies are . . . ," strongly by DLPC in its operation.
implying that there are other quasi-judicial
agencies which are covered by the Circular Petitioners filed a petition for review on
but which have not been expressly listed certiorari before this Court assailing the
therein. More importantly, BOI does not fall decision of ERB on the ground of lack of
within the purview of the exclusions listed in jurisdiction and/or grave abuse of discretion
Section 2 of the circular. Only the following amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
final decisions and interlocutory orders are
RULING/DOCTRINES:
expressly excluded from the circular, namely,
those of: (1) the National Labor Relations We deny the petition. The predecessor of the
Commission; (2) the Secretary of Labor and Energy Regulatory Board was the Board of
Employment; (3) the Central Board of Energy created under P.D. No. 1206.
Assessment Appeals and (4) other quasi- Thereunder, appeals from the decisions of the
judicial agencies from which no appeal to the Board of Energy were appealable to the Office
courts is prescribed or allowed by statute. of the President. However, under the Interim
Since in DBP v. CA 13 we upheld the appellate Rules Implementing the Judiciary
jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals over the Reorganization Act of 1980, final decisions,
Court of Tax Appeals despite the fact that the orders, awards or resolutions of the Board of
same is not among the agencies reorganized Energy were made appealable to the
by B.P. 129, on the ground that B.P. 129 is Intermediate Appellate Court
broad and comprehensive, there is no reason
why BOI should be excluded from The Supreme Court promulgated Circular No.
Circular 1-91, which is but implementary of 1-91, par. (1) of which specifically provides
said law. that the proper mode of appeal from any
quasi-judicial agency, including ERB, is by
way of a petition for review with the Court of
Appeals.
ANTONIO DIAZ vs. CA
If the appeal is brought to either Court
(Supreme Court or Court of Appeals) by the

Page | 134
MENDIOLA, MANILA
wrong procedure, the only course of action WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS
open to it is to dismiss the appeal. There is no PROVISION?
longer any justification for allowing transfers
of erroneous appeals from one court to The Federalist (No. 84), speaking of the
another importance of the prohibition against titles of
nobility in the Federal Constitution says;
Paragraph (d) of said Circular No. 2-90 also “This may be truly denominated the
provides that "[n]o transfer of appeals cornerstone of a republican government, for
erroneously taken to the Supreme Court or to so long as they are excluded there can never
the Court of Appeals to whichever of these be serious danger that the government will be
Tribunals has appropriate appellate any other than that of the people.”
jurisdiction will be allowed; continued
ignorance or willful disregard of the law on This provision was in the Bill of Rights of both
appeals will not be tolerated." the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions.
Consequently, the Court of Appeals was

correct when it held —
Section 32. The Congress shall, as early as
Contrary to petitioners' stand, the Supreme possible, provide for a system of initiative and
Court's Resolution dated September 8, 1992, referendum, and the exceptions therefrom,
referring "this case to the Court of Appeals for whereby the people can directly propose and
further disposition" was not a directive for enact laws or approve or reject any act or law
this court to disregard the above circulars or part thereof passed by the Congress or local
and precedents. Rather the said SC resolution legislative body after the registration of a
could mean only that this court should petition therefor signed by at least ten per
dispose of the subject petition in conformity centum of the total number of registered voters,
with, and not in violation of, those circulars of which every legislative district must be
and precedents. represented by at least three per centum of the
registered voters thereof.
NOTES:
MAY THE CONGRESS INCREASE THE

APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE SBMA vs. COMELEC
SUPREME COURT?
FACTS:
Yes, with the advice and concurrence of the
On March 13, 1992, Congress enacted RA.
Supreme Court itself.
7227 (The Bases Conversion and
Development Act of 1992), which created the
Subic Economic Zone. RA 7227 likewise
Section 31. No law granting a title of royalty of created SBMA to implement the declared
nobility shall be enacted. national policy of converting the Subic

Page | 135
MENDIOLA, MANILA
military reservation into alternative portion of the former naval base within the
productive uses. territorial jurisdiction of the Municipality of
Morong.
On November 24, 1992, the American navy
turned over the Subic military reservation to On June 18, 19956, respondent Comelec
the Philippines government. Immediately, issued Resolution No. 2845and 2848,
petitioner commenced the implementation of adopting a "Calendar of Activities for local
its task, particularly the preservation of the referendum and providing for "the rules and
sea-ports, airport, buildings, houses and other guidelines to govern the conduct of the
installations left by the American navy. referendum
On April 1993, the Sangguniang Bayan of On July 10, 1996, SBMA instituted a petition
Morong, Bataan passed Pambayang for certiorari contesting the validity of
Kapasyahan Bilang 10, Serye 1993, Resolution No. 2848 alleging that public
expressing therein itsabsolute concurrence, respondent insistent on proceeding with a
as required by said Sec. 12 of RA 7227, to join local initiative that proposes an amendment
the Subic Special Economic Zone and of a national law
submitted such to the Office of the President.
RULING/DOCTRINES:
On May 24, 1993, respondents Garcia filed a
petition with the Sangguniang Bayan of DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INITIATIVE AND
Morong to annul Pambayang Kapasyahan REFERENDUM - Prescinding from these
Blg.10, Serye 1993.The petition prayed for the definitions, we gather that initiative is
following: a) to nullify Pambayang Kapasyang resorted to (or initiated) by the people
Blg. 10 for Morong to join the Subic Special directly either because the law-making body
Economi Zone,b) to allow Morong to join fails or refuses to enact the law, ordinance,
provided conditions are met. resolution or act that they desire or because
they want to amend or modify one already
The Sangguniang Bayan ng Morong acted existing. Under Sec. 13 of R.A. 6735, the local
upon the petition by promulgating legislative body is given the opportunity to
Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg. 18, Serye 1993, enact the proposal. If its refuses/neglects to
requesting Congress of the Philippines so do so within thirty (30) days from its
amend certain provisions of RA 7227. presentation, the proponents through their
duly-authorized and registered
Not satisfied, respondents resorted to their representatives may invoke their power of
power initiative under the LGC of 1991. initiative, giving notice thereof to the local
legislative body concerned. Should the
On July 6, 1993, COMELEC denied the petition
proponents be able to collect the number of
for local initiative on the ground that the
signed conformities within the period granted
subject thereof was merely a resolution and
by said statute, the Commission on Elections
not an ordinance.
"shall then set a date for the initiative (not
On February 1, 1995, the President issued referendum) at which the proposition shall be
Proclamation No. 532 defining the metes and submitted to the registered voters in the local
bounds of the SSEZ including therein the government unit concerned x x x".

Page | 136
MENDIOLA, MANILA
On the other hand, in a local referendum, the into several autonomous parts, each such part
law-making body submits to the registered to be voted upon separately. Care must also
voters of its territorial jurisdiction, for be exercised that "(n)o petition embracing
approval or rejection, any ordinance or more than one subject shall be submitted to
resolution which is duly enacted or approved the electorate," although "two or more
by such law-making authority. Said propositions may be submitted in an
referendum shall be conducted also under the initiative".
control and direction of the Commission on
Elections. It should be noted that under Sec. 13 (c) of RA
6735, the "Secretary of Local Government or
In other words, while initiative is entirely the his designated representative shall extend
work of the electorate, referendum is begun assistance in the formulation of the
and consented to by the law-making body. proposition."
Initiative is a process of law-making by the
people themselves without the participation In initiative and referendum, the Comelec
and against the wishes of their elected exercises administration and supervision of
representatives, while referendum consists the process itself, akin to its powers over the
merely of the electorate approving or conduct of elections. These law-making
rejecting what has been drawn up or enacted powers belong to the people, hence the
by a legislative body. Hence, the process and respondent Commission cannot control or
the voting in an initiative are understandably change the substance or the content of
more complex than in a referendum where legislation. In the exercise of its authority, it
expectedly the voters will simply write either may (in fact it should have done so already)
"Yes" or "No" in the ballot. issue relevant and adequate guidelines and
rules for the orderly exercise of these
[Note: While the above quoted laws variously "people-power" features of our Constitution.
refer to initiative and referendum as
"powers" or "legal processes", these can also NOTES:
be "rights", as Justice Cruz terms them, or
DOES THE CONGRESS HAVE THE
"concepts", or "the proposal" itself (in the
EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO PASS NATIONAL
case of initiative) being referred to in this
LEGISLATION?
Decision.]
No. Section 32 has introduced the concept of
From the above differentiation, it follows that
“initiative and referendum” whereby the
there is need for the Comelec to supervise an
people themselves can legislate. The enabling
initiative more closely, its authority thereon
law is TA 6735, the Initiative and Referendum
extending not only to the counting and
Law.
canvassing of votes but also to seeing to it
that the matter or act submitted to the people The first case to come under this
is in the proper form and language so it may implementing law involved local “initiative
be easily understood and voted upon by the and referendum”. Gracia vs COMELEC upheld
electorate. This is especially true where the the validity of the procedure prescribed by
proposed legislation is lengthy and the Local Government Code for local initiative
complicated, and should thus be broken down and referendum.

Page | 137
MENDIOLA, MANILA

Page | 138

Legislative Department

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Legislative Department

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF LAW 2017

compliance with the requirements of this Act

THE LEGISLATIVE Sec. 3. Definition of Terms. For purposes of

REPUBLIC ACT a.3. Initiative on local legislation which refers

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

Sec. 8. Conduct and Date of Initiative or

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

Facts: Congress passed RA 9165,

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

TOBIAS VS ABALOS (2) Does it violate Section 5(1) of Article VI of

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

the establishment of separate legislative representative of the first district of Leyte,

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

the assailed resolution where, among others, geographically located shall be

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

Reapportionment.” was mentioned about a population. While in

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

the House of Representatives. The threshold, Congress wanted to ensure that

ISSUE: How should the additional seats of a

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

out of the 155 parties garnered more than

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

policy, as well as the legislative objective 5. to enable sectoral representatives to rise to

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

we must strike down the offending condition memoranda.

On April 17, 2001, Petitioner Bayan Muna

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

underrepresented' sectors and organizations. Court in a verified petition for certiorari

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

representation designed to give those who

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

Commission on Elections (Comelec) Political Law- Party-list system

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

the party has at least one remaining qualified

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

The principle of non-discrimination requires

FACTS: In the 2007 elections, Bantay party-

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

party-list organization under the Party-List

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

and acts, transactions, or decisions, as well to

2. Section 7, Article III of the Constitution, viz:

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

Section 8. Nomination of Party-List In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

Section 11. Number of Party-List

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

Section 17. Rights of Party-List natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, on

Section 21. Repealing Clause. All laws,

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM

COFFEE NOTES 2017 | POLITICAL LAW COMPENDIUM