THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Powers of a Non-Legislative Nature:

1.) Canvass
of
the
Presidential
Elections (Art. VII, Sec. 4)
2.) Declaration of the existence of war
(Art. 6, Sec. 23)
3.) Confirmation of Amnesties (Art. VI,
Sec. 19)
4.) Presidential
Appointments,
through
the
Commission
on
Appointments (Art. VII, Sec. 16)
5.) Amendment or Revision of the
Constitution (Art. XVII)
6.) Impeachment (Art. XI)
THE SENATE:
-Composed of 24 senators elected AT
LARGE
-AT LARGE ELECTION: This rule intends to
make the Senate a training ground for
national
leaders
and
possibly
a
springboard to the Presidency.
-QUALIFICATIONS:
1.) natural-born citizen of the
Philippines
2.) at least 35 years of age
3.) able to read and write
4.) a registered voter
5.) resident of the Philippines for
not less than 2 years immediately
preceding the day of the election
-ESPINOSA vs. AQUINO: The late Sen.
Benigno Aquino, Jr., who was less than
the required age on the day of election
but celebrated his 35th birth anniversary
before his proclamation as one of the
winners
-LIM vs. PELAEZ, ELECTORAL CASE No. 36
House Electoral Tribunal: RESIDENCE is
defined as the place where on habitually
resides and to which, when he is absent,
he has the intention of returning
-ANIMUS MANENDI(Japzon vs. COMELEC):
The place where a party actually or
constructively has his permanent home,
where he, no matter where he may be
s presumed to have changed her
domicile upon her marriage, or by

found at any given time, eventually

intends to return and remain
-DOMICILE: denotes a fixed permanent
residence to which, whenever absent for
business, pleasure or some other
reasons, one intends to return. It is a
question of intention and circumstances
3 RULES, in consideration of the
circumstances:
1.) that a man must have a
residence
or
domicile
somewhere
2.) when
once
established it
remains until a new one is
acquired
3.) a man can have but one
residence or domicile at a time
-DOMINO vs. COMELEC: If one wishes to
successfully effect a change of domicile,
he must demonstrate an actual change
of domicile, a bona fide intention of
abandoning
the
former
place
of
residence and establishing a new one,
and definite acts which correspond with
the purpose
-IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR
DISQUALIFICATION OF TESS DUMPITMICHELENA: Without clear and positive
proof of the concurrence of these three
requirements, the domicile of origin
continues
-PEREZ vs. COMELEC : a persons
registration as voter in one district is not
proof that he is not domiciled in another
district. The registration of a voter in a
place other than his residence of origin is
not sufficient to consider him to have
abandoned or lost his residence.
-TORAYNO,
residency
excluding
advantage
existing in
gain

SR. vs. COMELEC: One-year

requirement is aimed at
outsiders
from
taking
of favorable circumstances
that community for electoral

-LIMBONA vs. COMELEC: A candidate i

operation of law consistent with the
provisions of Art. 68-69 of the Family

Code to the effect that spouses shall

have a single family domicile, unless one
of them maintains separate residence
-MITRA vs. COMELEC: The minimum
requirement under our Constitution and
election laws for the candidates
residency in the political unit they seek
to represent has a very specific purpose:
to prevent strangers or newcomers
unacquianted with the conditions and
needs of a community from seeking
elective offices in that community
-LIMKAICHONG vs. COMELEC: Senators
and
Members
of
the
House
of
Representatives must be natural-born
citizens not only at the time of their
election but during their entire tenure
-MAQUILING vs. COMELEC: SC declared
that a candidate who takes his Oath of
Allegiance to the Republic and executes
an Affidait of Renunciation of his
American
citizenship
under
the
provisions of RA 9225, but thereafter
continues using his American passport, is
to be considered as having withdrawn his
oath of renunciation of his foreign
citizenship and shall therefore be
ineligible to run for elective office as he
thereby reverts to his status as dual
citizen
-SOCIAL
JUSTICE
SOCIETY
vs.
DANGEROUS DRUGS BOARD: Sec. 36 of
RA9165,which required all candidates for
public office, whether appointed or
elected, both in the national or local
government, to undergo a mandatory
drug test, was, upon peition of a Senator,
declared unconstitutional by the SC
-GOVERNMENT vs. SPRINGER: Congress
inherent legislative powers, broad as
they may be, are subject to certain
limitations.
Legislative power remains limited in the
sense that it is subject to substantive
and constitutional limitations which
circumscribe both the exercise of power
itself and the allowable subjects of
legislation.

-SUBSTANTIVE
CONSTITUTIONAL
LIMITATIONS (LEGISLATIVE) can be found
in:
1.) The Bill of Rights
2.) Sec. 3, Art. VI prescribing the
qualifications of candidates for
senators
-Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165: As sought to be
assailed by a COMELEC Resolution,
enlarges the qualification requirements
enumerated in Sec. 3, Art. VI of the
Constitution. Said resolution requires a
senator to be certified illegal-drug clean,
obviously as a pre-condition to the
validity of a certificate of candidacy for
senator or, with like effect, a condition
sine qua non to be voted upon and, if
proper, be proclaimed as senator-elect.
** COMELEC, cannot,in the guise of
enforcing and administering election
laws
or
promulgating
rules
and
regulations to implement Sec. 36(g),
validly
impose
qualifications
on
candidates for senator in addition to
what the Constitution prescribes. If the
Congress cannot require a candidate for
senator
to
meet
such
additional
qualifications, the COMELEC, to be sure,
is also without power.
Of course, this ruling would be applicable
even to Members of the House of
Representatives and other elective and
appointive constitutional officers.
TERM
-Unlike the House of Representatives, the
Senate shall not at any time be dissolved
-CONTINUING INSTITUTION: The Senate
is not dissolved as an entity with each
national election or change in the
composition of its members
-NOT A CONTINUING BODY/LEAGUE OF
CITIES
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES
vs.
COMELEC/GARCILLANO vs. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES: All pending matters
and
proceedings
are
considered
terminated upon the expiration of that
Congress and it is merely optional on the

Senate of the succeeding Congress to

take up such unfinished matters, not in
the same status, but as if presented for
the first time.
Said deliberations on
unapproved bills do not even qualify as
extrinsic aids in construing laws passed
by subsequent Congresses.
-ARNAULT vs. NAZARENO:
Senates
power to punish for contempt in the
exercise of its power to conduct inquiries
in aid of legislation does not cease to
exist upon the periodical dissolution of
the
Congress
of
the
House
of
Representatives, because the Senate is,
for said purpose or in connection with
said power, to be considered a
continuing body. That power subsists
as long as the Senate, which is a
continuing body, persists in performing
the
particular
legislative
function
involved
-GARCI vs. HOUSE OF REP./NERI vs.
SENATE COMMITTEE: the present Senate
under the 1987 Constitution is no longer
a continuing legislative body.
The
present senate has 24 members, 12 of
whom are elected every 3 years for a
term of 6 years each. Thus, the term of
12 Senators expires every 3 years,
leaving less than a majority of Senators
to continue into the next Congress. The
1987
Constitution,
like
the
1935
Constitution, requires a majority of
Senators to constitute a
quorum to do business.
-The continuity of the life of the Senate is
intended to encourage the maintenance
of the Senate policies as well as
guarantee that there will be experienced
members who can help and train
newcomers in the discharge of their
duties.

250,000 , and every province, shall have

at least one representative.
-GERRYMANDERING: The arrangement of
districts in such a way as to favor the
election of preferred candidates (usually
re-electionists) through the inclusion
therein only those areas where they
expect to win, regardless of the resultant
shapes of such districts.
-ALDABA vs. COMELEC: SC nullified a law
which created a legislative district for
Malolos City.
This contravenes the
requirement in Sec. 5(3), Article VI that
each legislative district shall comprise, as
far as practicable, contiguous, compact
and adjacent territory. A law creating a
legislative district was annulled after a
finding that it was based on mere
demographic projections.
-NAVARRO vs. ERMITA: A proposed
province composed of one or more
islands need not comply with the 2,000
square
meter
contiguous
territory
requirement under the Local Government
Code.
-MACIAS vs. COMELEC: is the authority
for the view that the validity of a
legislative apportionment measure is a
justiciable question, involving as it does
certain requirements the interpretation
of which does not call for the exercise of
legislat
ive discretion.
The SC annulled the
challenged law in this case when it was
shown that the apportionment was not
based on the number of inhabitants in
the various representative districts.
-HERRERA vs. COMELEC: The SC clarified
that the basis for districting is the
number of inhabitants and not the
number of registered voters.

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

-COMPOSITION:
1.) District Representatives (direct
and personally elected)
-The legislature shall see to it that each
city with a population of at least

-MARIANO vs. COMELEC: Any province

that may hereafter be created, or any
city whose population may hereafter
increas to more than 250,000 shall be
entitled to at least one Member or such
number of Members.

TOBIAS vs. ABALOS: A plebiscite is

necessary in the conversion of a highly
urbanized city to a legislative district.
However, there would be no need for
such a plebiscite where no new territory
or no change in an existing territory is
made under a law, and only a
reapportionment or the creation of an
additional legislative district is done.
2.)
Party-List
Representatives
(indirectly
elected)
-The party-list representatives shall
constitute 20% of the total membership
of
the
body
including
such
representatives.
-R.A. NO. 7941: where the rules for the
selection of the party-list representatives
are embodied.
-Sec. 2: proportional representation in
the election of representatives to the
House of Representatives through a
party-list system of registered national,
regional
and
sectoral
parties
or
organizations or coalitions thereof, which
will enable Filipino Citizens belonging to
the marginalized and underrepresented
sectors, organizations and parties, and
who
lack-well
defined
political
constituencies but who could contribute
to the formulation and enactment of
appropriate legislation that will benefit
the nation as a whole, to become
members
of
the
House
of
Representatives.
-ATONG PAGLAUM, INC. vs COMELEC: In
setting the parameters for participation
in party-list elections, the party-list
system provides for three (3) different
groups, namely:
1.)
National
parties
or
organizations*
2.)
Regional
parties
or
organizations*
3.)
Sectoral
parties
or
organizations
*do not need to represent
any marginalized
or
underrepresented sector
Other provisions:

2.)
National
parties
or
organizations and regional parties or
organizations do not need to organize
along sectoral lines and do not need to
represent
any
marginalized
or
underrepresented sector.
3.) Political parties can participate
in party-list elections provided they
register under the party-list system and
do not field candidates in legislative
district elections.
A political party,
whether major or not, that fields the
candidates in legislative district elections
can participate in party-list elections only
through its sectoral wing that can
separately register under the party-list
system. The sectoral wing is by itself an
independent sectoral party, and is linked
to a political party through a coalition.
4.)
Sectoral
parties
or
organizations may either be:
a.)
marginalized
and
underrepresented
b.)
well-defined
political
constituencies
It is enough that their principal advocacy
pertains to the special interest and
concerns of their sector. T
he
sectors that are marginalized and
underrepresented include:
a.) labor
b.) peasant
c.) fisherfolk
d.) urban poor
e.) indigenous
cultural
communities
f.) handicapped
g.) veterans
h.) overseas workers
The sectors that lack well-defined
political constituencies include:
a.) professionals
b.) elderly women
c.) youth
5.) A majority of the members of sectoral
parties or organizations that represent
the marginalized and underrepresented
must belong to the marginalized and
underrepresented sector they represent.
Similarly, a majority of the members of
the sectoral parties or organizations that
lack well-defined constituencies must

belong to the sector they represent. The

nominees
of
sectoral
parties
or
organizations
that
represent
the
marginalized and underrepresented, or
that those who lack well-defined political
constituencies, either must belong to
their respective sectors, or must have a
track record of advocacy for their
respective sectors.
The nominees of
national
and
regional
parties
or
organizations
must
be
bona-fide
members
of
such
parties
or
organizations.
6.) National, regional and sectoral parties
or organizations shall not be disqualified
if
some
of
their
nominees
are
disqualified, provided that they have at
least
one
nominee
who
remains
qualified.
N.B.
Party-list
is
intended
to
DEMOCRATIZE political power by giving
political parties that cannot win in
legislative district elections a chance to
win
seats
in
the
House
of
Representatives. It is not synonymous
with that of the sectoral representation.
Petition (Filing)
-not later than 90 days before election
day
-shall be published in at least 2
newspapers of general circulation
-be resolved within 15 days and in no
case later tha 60 days before election
Upon Registration
-political group shall submit o the
COMELEC not later than 45 days before
the election at least 5 names from which
representatives may be chosen in case it
obtains the required number of votes.
-Under the law, the names of the partylist nominees shall not be shown on the
certified list of participants in the partylist system to be distributed by the
COMELEC among all the precincts. It has
been ruled though that it is the
COMELECs
constitutional
duty
to
disclose and release the names of the
nominees of the party-list groups.

-ONLY persons who have given their

consent in writing may be named as
party-list candidates, and in one list only.
-Persons who lost in the immediately
preceding election are ineligible.
NOMINEES OF THE YOUTH SECTOR: must
be at least 25 years old but not more
than 30 years old at the day of the
election.
-ALAUYA vs. LIMBONA: The SC declared
as ineligible and punished a judge who
filed his certificate of candidacy as a
party-list representative without first
resigining. No officer or employee in the
civil service shall engage directly or
indirectly, in any electioneering or
partisan political campaign.
-SENERES vs. COMELEC: Submission of a
nomination list by the President of a
party,
who
is
concurrently
LRTA
Administrator, WITHOUT DOING MORE, is
not electioneering or partisan political
activity.
-Sec. 8: No change of names or alteration
of the order of nominees shall be allowed
after the same shall have been
submitted to the COMELEC except in
cases
where
the
nominee
DIES,
WITHDRAWS IN HIS NOMINATION or
becomes INCAPACITATED, in which case,
the name of the substitute nominee shall
be placed LAST in the list.**
-**LOKIN vs. COMELEC: The SC annulled
an additional ground allowed by the
COMELEC for the substitution by a
registered party of its nominees. The SC
considered said additional ground as
ULTRA VIRES stating that the IRR of the
COMELEC should not override, supplant
or modify the law. It is basic that the
IRRs should remain consistent with the
law they intend to carry out.
-At any rate, it is established that the
COMELEC has jurisdiction over cases
pertaining to party leadership and the
nomination of party-list representatives.

-VOTER shall be entitled to 2 vots: 1 vote

for the House of Rep and the 2 nd vote for
the party, org or coalition he wants
represented in the House of Rep.
-Ranked accdg to the number of votes;
those getting atleast 2% of the total
votes cast shall be entitled to 1 seat
each. NONE of them shall be entitled to
3 seats each.
-BANAT vs. COMELEC: For every 4 district
reps., there shall be 1 party-list rep.
Filling-up of all available paty-list seats is
not mandatory. The four paramters in a
Philippine-style party-list election system
are as follows:
1.) 20% of the total number of the
membership of the House of Rep is the
max number of seats available to partylist organizations, such that, there is
AUTOMATICALLY 1 party-list seat for
every 4 existing legislative districts.
2.) Garnering 2% of the total votes
cast in the party-list election guarantees
a party-list organization one seat. The
guaranteed seats shall be distributed in a
first round of seat allocation to parties
receiving at least 2 % of the total partylist votes.
3.) The addtl seatls, that is, the
remaining seats after allocation of the
guaranteed seats, shall be distributed to
the party-list organizations including
those that received less than 2% of the
total votes. The continued operation of
the 2% threshold as it applies to the
allocation of the addtl seats is now
unconstitutional because this threshold
mathematically and physically prevents
the flling up of the available party-list
seats.
4.)
The
three-seat
cap
is
constitutional.
THe three-seat cap is
intended by the Legislature to prevent
any party from dominating the party-list
system. There is no violation of the
Consti because it does not require
absolute proportionality for the party-list
system. RULE: Courts will not question
the wisdom of the Legislature aslong as it
is not violative of the Constitution.

-ABAYAN vs. HRET: Both the district

representatives
and
the
party-list
representatives are treated in the like
manner. They are also subject to the
same term limitations of 3 years for a
max of 3 consecutive terms. The HRET
has jurisdiction to pass upon the
qualifications of party-list nominees after
their proclamtion and assumption of
office.
QUALIFICATIONS (HP)
1.) natural-born citizen
2.) at least 25 y/o at the day of
election
3.) able to read and write
4.) registered voter
5.) resident for a period of not less
than a year
6.) party-list rep must be a bona
fide member of the sector he
seeks to represent at least 90
days before election day
-BRILLANTES
vs.
REYES:
ANIMUS
REVERTENDI.
Natural-born
Filipino
citizens who was naturalized in a foreign
country, shall, upon taking the oath of
allegiance,
be
deemed
to
have
reacquired their Philippine citizenship.
-The unmarried child, whether legitimate,
illegitimate or adopted, below 18 years
of age, of those who reacuire Philippine
citizenship upon effectivity of this Act
shall likewise be deemed citizens of the
Philippines.
-Those who retain or re-acquire Philippine
citizenshop under this Act shall enjoy full
civil and political rights and be subject to
all
attendant
liabilities
and
responsibilities under existing laws of the
Philippines and subject to certain
conditions.
-Those intending to exercise their right of
suffrage must meet the requirements
under Sec. 1, Art. V of the Constitution,
Republic Act No. 9189, otherwise known
as The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of
2003 and other existing laws.

-Those seeking elective public office in

the
Philippines
shall
meet
the
qualifications for holding such public
office as required by the Constitution and
existing laws, and, at the time of the
filing of the certificate of candidacy,
make a personal and sworn renunciation
of any and all foreign citizenship before
any
public
officer
authorized
to
administer an oath.

-NICOLAS
LEWIS
vs.
COMELEC/
MACALINTAL vs. COMELEC: upheld the
right ti be registered as a voter of a dual
citizen who was then concededly a nonresident of the PH. In Macalintal, Sec. 2
of Art. V of the Consti is an exception to
the residency requirement.

-It must be noted that, upon taking said

second oath, the citizen ceases to be a
dual citizen.

-ABUNDO vs. COMELEC: summarized the

rules
in
connection
with
the
consecutiveness
of
terms
and
involuntary interruptions:
1.) When a permanent vacanay occurs
in an elective position and the official
merely assumed the position pursuant to
the rules on succession under the LGC,
then his service for the unexpired portion
of the term of the replaced official cannot
be treate as one full term as
contemplated
under
the
subject
constitutional and statutory provision
that service cannot be counted in the
application of any term limit.
If the
official runs again for the same position
he held prior to his assumption of the
higher office, then his succession to said
position is by operation of law and is
considered an involuntary severance or
interruption.
2.) An elective official, who has ervred
for 3 consecutive terms and who did not
seek the elective position for what could
have be his fourth term, but later won in
a recall election, had an interruption in
the continuity of the officials service.
3.) The abolition of an elective local
office due to the conversion of a
municipality to a city does not, by itself,
work to interrupt the incumbent officials
continuity of service.
4.) PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION is not a
term-interrupting event as the elective
officers continued stay and entitlement
to the office remain unaffected during
the period of suspension, although he is
barred from exercising the functions of
his office during this period.
5.) When a candidate is proclaimed as
winner for an elective position and
assumes office, his term is uninterrupted

-ON SUFFRAGE:
-SUFFRAGE may be exercised by all
citizens of the Philippines not otherwise
disqualified by law, who are at least 18
y/o, and who shall have resided in the PH
for at least 1 year and in the place
wherein they propose to vote for at least
6 months immediatey preceding the
election.
-Under Sec. 118 of the Omnibus Election
Code, the following are disqualified from
voting:
1.) any person who has been
sentenced by final judgment to suffer
imprisonment for not less than a year,
such disability not having been removed
by plenary pardon or granted amnesty
(provided that he shall automatically
reacquire the right to vote upon
expiration of 5 years after service of
sentence)
2.) any person who has been
adjudged by final judgment of having
been committed a crime involving
disloyalty to the duly constituted
government such as rebellion, sedition,
violation of the anti-subeversion and
firearms laws, or any crime against
national security, unless restored to his
full civil and political rights in accordance
with the law (provided that he shall
regain his right to vote automatically
upon expiration of 5 years after service
of sentence)
3.) insane or incompetent persons
as declared by competent authority

-TERM (HP):
-3 years, limited to 3
terms, or a total of 9 consecutive years

when he loses in an election protest and

is ousted from office, thus disenabling
him from serving what would otherwise
be the unexpired portion of his term offic
had the protest been dismissed.
The break or interruption need not be a
full term of 3 years or for the major part
of the 3-year term. An interruption for
any length of time, provided the cause is
involuntary, is sufficient to break the
continuity of service.
6.) When an official is defeated in an
election protest and said decision
becomes final after said official had
served the full term for said office, then
his loss in the election contest does not
constitute an interruption since he has
managed to serve the term from start to
finish.
His full service, despite the
defeat, should be counted in the
application of term limits because the
nullification of his proclamation came
after the expiration of the term.
-ELECTION:
-SPECIAL ELECTION: may be called to fill
a vacany in the Senate or in the HP, but
the Senator or Member of the HP thus
elected shall only be served for the
unexpired term
-SALARIES:
-Reduction of the salaries of the membes
of the Congress is not prohibited by the
Consti. If any increase is to be made, the
same canoot be effective during the term
of the members of the Congress,
including the Senators, who have
approved such increase
-PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATIOB
vs.
GIMENEZ:
questioned
the
consitutionality of RA 3836 insofar as
the same allows retirement gratuity and
commutation of vacation and sick leave
to Senators and Reps. And to the elective
officials of both houses of Congress.
The Court sustained the petition and
declared the law unconstitutional.
It
noted that the retirement benefits were
immediately
available,
thereunder

without awaiting the expiration of the full

term of all Members of the Senate and
the HP approving such increase. Such
provision clearly runs counter to the
prohibition in Art. VI, Sec. 14 of the
Consti.
-PARLIAMENTRAY IMMUNITIES:
2 KINDS:
1.) IMMUNITY FROM ARREST:
-intended to ensure representation of the
consitutents of the member of the
Congress by preventing attempts to keep
him from attending its sessions.
-For any criminal offense, he is subject at
any time, even during sessions.
-Under the 1987 Consti, the scope of
immunity has been expanded to cover
not only civil arrests but also for criminal
offenss punishable by not more than 6
yers imprisonment.
2.) PRIVELEGE OF SPEECH AND DEBATE
-enables the legislator to express views
bearing upon the public interest without
fear of accountability outside the halls of
the legislature for his inability to support
his statement with the usual evidence
required in the court of justice.
-2 REQUIREMENTS:
a.) remarks must be made while
the legislature is in session
b.) must be made in connection
with the discharge of official duties
-COFFIN vs. COFFIN: privelege was
denied
a
legislator
who
uttered
slanderous remarks in the course of a
private convo with a constituent during a
lull in the session
-JIMENEZ vs. CABANGBANG: privelege
could not be invoked because the attack
was made at a time when Congress was
in recess and in his private capacity only
-N.B: THe legislator may not be
questioned in any other place, which
means that he may be called to account
for his remarks by his own colleagues in
the Congress itself and, when warranted,

punished
for
disorderly
(OSMENA vs PENDATUN)

behavior

-POBRE
vs.
DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO:
Although she has not categorically
denied making such statements, she has
unequivocally said making them as part
of her privelege speech. Her implied
admission is good enough for the Court.
-INCOMPATIBLE
AND
FORBIDDEN
OFFICES:
-Prohibition against the holding of an
incompatible office is not absolute. What
is not allowed is the SIMULTANEUOS
holding of that office and the seat in the
Congress.
-may hold another office or employment
in the govt provided the legislator forfeits
his position in the Congress
-Forfeiture of the legislators seat, or
cessation of his tenure, shall be
automatic upon the holding of the
incompatible office.
-Even if the member of the Congress is
willing to forfeit his seaat, he may not be
appointed to any office in the govt that
has been created or the emoluments
thereof increased during his term.
-TOPACIO NUENO vs. ANGELES:
TERM: the time during which the officer
may claim to hold the office as of right,
and fixes the interval after which the
several incumbents shall succeed one
another.
TENURE: represents the period during
which the incumbent actually holds the
office
-LIBAN vs. GORDON: The Office of the
Chairman of the Philippine National Red
Cross (PNRC) is not to be considered a
govt office or an office in a govt-owned
or controlled corporation for purposes of
the prohibition

-INHIBITIONS
DISQUALIFICATIONS:
Under Sec. 14, Art VI:

AND

1.) shall not personally appear as

counsel before any court or justice
or before the Electoral Tribunals, or
quasi-judicial
and
other
administrative bodies.
2.) Shall not be indirectly or directly
interested financiallyy in any
contract/franchise/special
privelege with the govt.
3.) Shall not intervene in any matter
before any office of the govt for
his pecuniary benefit
-GARCIA vs. EXEC. SEC.: The General
Court Martial has been characterized by
the SC as a court within the strictest
sense of the word and acts as a criminal
court.
-MARCOS vs. CHIEF OF STAFF: A courtmartial case is a criminal case and the
General Court Martial is a court akin to
any other courts.
-PUYAT VS. DE GUZMAN: legislator
entered his appearance as counsel for
one of the parties before the SEC.
=circumvention of the Constitutional
provision.
-SESSIONS:
-Once every year on the fourt Monday of
July, unless a different date is fixed by
law
-Recess: 30 days
-Presi may call a SPECIAL SESSION at any
time
-Presis call not necessary in instances
where:
1.) Congress meeets to canvass
the presidential elections
2.) Call a special election when
both the Presi and VP positions are
vacated
3.) When it exercises its power to
impeach
-ARANETA vs. DINGLASAN: Regular vs.
Special Session
REGULAR SESSION: The power of the
Congress is not cirumscribed except by
limitations imposed by organic law.

SPECIAL SESSION: The Congress may

consider general legislation or only
subjects as the President may designate
-OFFICERS:
-The Presi of the Senate and the Speaker
of the HP do not have a fixed term and
may be repaced at any time at the
pleasure of a majority of all the members
of their respective chambers.
-QUORUM: Defined as any number
sufficient to transact business (JAVELLAN
vs. TAYO), which may be less than the
majority of the membership.
In our
Consti, it is required that the quorum be
a majority of each House.
-AVELINO vs. CUENCO: One Senator was
then in the US and outside the coercive
jurisdiction of the smaller number of
members who could adjourn from day to
day and compel the aattendance of
absent members in such manner and
under such penalties.
-DATU MICHAEL ABAS KIDA vs. SENATE
OF THE PH: SC nullified a law requiring
what it referred to as supermajority
vote of 2/3 of all the Members of
Congress for purposes of amending or
repealing the same. Said provision gave
said law the character of an irrepealable
law by requiring more than what the
Consti demands.
-DISCIPLINE OF MEMBERS:
-ALEJANDRINO
vs.
QUEZON:
The
interpretation of the phrase disorderly
behavior is the prerogative of the
Congress and cannot be JUDICIALLY
REVIEWED. The matter comes in the
category of a POLITICAL QUESTION. SC
did not interfere when the legislature
declared that the physical assault of one
member to another OR the delivery of a
deragatory
speech
(OSMENA
vs.
PENDATUN) justified the adoption of
disciplinary measures.

-DISCIPLINARY MEASURES:
1.) expulsion
2.) suspension
3.) deletion of unparliamentary
remarks
from the record
4.) fine
5.) imprisonment
6.) censure (soft impeachment)
-JOURNALS: are a record of what is
done and past in a legislative assembly.
They
are
useful
not
only
for
authenticating the proceedings but also
for the interpretation of laws through a
study of the debates held thereon and
for informing the people of the official
conduct of their respective legislators.
-ENTERED IN THE JOURNAL are:
1.) at the request of 1/5 of the
Members present, the yeas and nays on
any question
2.) votes with respect to the
consideration of bills on third reading
3.) objections of the President
when he vetoes a bill as well as the votes
cast by the Members of each House in
their reconsideration of a bill vetoed by
the President
4.) vote of each Member of the
House of Representatives regarding the
Articles of Impeachment proposed by its
Committee which hears an impeachment
complaint
-JOURNAL vs. RECORD: The JOURNAL is
only a resume or the minutes of what
transpired during a legislative sesion.
The RECORD is the word-for-word
transcript of the proceedings taken
during the session.
-U.S. vs. PONS: To inquire into the
veracity of the journals of the Philippine
Legislature when they are clear and
explicit would be to violate 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 the Government, and to interfere with
the legitimate powers and functions of
the Legislature.

-MABANAG vs. LOPEZ VITO:

Where
matters are required to be entered into
journals, like the yeas and nays on the
final reading of a bill or on any question
at any question at the request of 1/5 of
the members present, the contents of
the enrolled bill shall prevail over those
of the journal in case of conflict.
-ENROLLED BILL: one which has been
duly introduced, finally passed by both
houses, signed by the proper officers of
each, approved by the governor or
president, and filed by the secretary of
the state (Black Laws Dictionary)
-CASCO PHILIPPINE CHEMICAL CO. vs.
GIMENEZ: If there has been any mistake
in the printing of the bill before it was
certified by the officers of the Congress
and approved by the Executive on
which the Court cannot speculate
without jeopardizing the principle of
separation of powers and undermining
one of the cornerstones of our
democratic system the remedy is by
amendment or curative legislation, not
by judicial decree.
-VAT CASE (Tolentino vs. Sec. of Finance)
The SC emphasized that our cases
manifest firm adherence to the rule that
an enrolled copy of a bill is conclusive
not only of its provisions but also its due
enactment.
-PHILIPPINE JUDGES ASSOCIATION vs.
PRADO:
SC declined to look into petitioners
charges that an amendment was made
upon the last reading of the bill that
eventually became RA no. 7354 and that
copies thereof in its final form were not
distributed among the members of each
House. They are bound by such official
assurances
from
a
coordinate
department of the government, to which
they owe, at the very least, a becoing
courtesy.
-ASTORGA vs. VILLEGAS: SC had the
authority in this case to verify the real

content of the approved bill as reported

in the journal. There was no bill to speak
of in view of the withdrawal of the
signatures of the President of the
Philippines and the Senate President.
-LEAGUE OF CITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES
vs.
COMELEC:
Hearings
and
deliberations during a previous Congress
cannot be used to interpret bills enacted
into law in the next or subsequent
Congresses.
-ADJOURNMENT: Neither House during
the sessions of the Congress shall,
without the consent of the other, adjourn
for more than 3 days, nor to any other
place than that in which the 2 Houses
shall be sitting.
-THE ELECTORAL TRIBUNALS:
-TANADA vs. CUENCO: The right to
nominate to the legislative seats in the
Electoral Tribunals belonged to the
majority and minority parties in the
chamber, not to the chamber itself or to
the majority party therein if the minority
did not make its own nomination.
Presumably, the parties entitled to
representation in the Electoral Tribunals
now are also entitled to nominate their
own representatives although the above
provision does not expressly say so.
-ABBAS
vs.
SENATE
ELECTORAL
TRIBUNAL:
Although
the
Electoral
Tribunals are predominantly legislative in
membership and the provision creating
them is found in Article VI on the
Legislative Department, it is not correct
to say that they are mere adjuncts of the
Congress of the Philipines.
In the
discharge of their constitutional duties,
they are independent of the legislature,
and also of the other departments for
that matter.
-ANGARA vs. ELECTORAL COMMISSION
(precedent of the Electoral Tribunals)
The respondent body had the exclusive
right to prescribe its own rules of

procedure, as against those earlier

adopted by the legislature itself, in
connection with the election contests
under its jurisdiction.
-SUANES vs. DISBURSING OFFICER OF
THE SENATE:
The employees of the
Electoral Tribunals are its own, and not of
the Senate nor the HP nor of any other
entity, and it stands to reason that the
appointment,
the
supervision,
and
control over said employees are wholly
within the Tribunal itself.
-MORRERO vs. BOCAR: The decisions
rendered by the Electoral Tribunals in the
contests mentioned in this section, of
which they are the sole judge, are not
appealable to the SC except in cases
where there is a clear showing of grave
abuse of discretion.
-DUENAS vs. HRET: Any accusation of
grave abuse of discretion on the part of
the HRET must be established by a clear
showing
of
arbitrarines
and
improvidence.
-ROBLES vs. HP: The independenece of
the Electoral Tribunals as the sole judge
of all election contests was affirmed in
this case.
-BONDOC vs. PINEDA: whether the HP,
could, at the request of the dominanat
political party therein, change its
representatives
in
the
House
of
Representatives
Electoral
Tribunal,
presumably to thwart the promulgation
of a decision freely reached by the
Tribunal.
The HP committed a grave
abuse of discretion, an injustice and a
violation of the Constitution.
-N.B.: The SC has ruled in several cases
that the jurisdiction of an Electoral
Tribunal begins once a winning candidate
has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and
assumed office, for it is only after the
occurrence of these events that a
candidate can be considered as either a
Member of the HP or a Senator. THe
practical application of these rulings, at

least insofar as the HRET is concerned,

has been that it commences to exercise
such jurisdiction, to the exlusion of the
COMELEC, which has initial jurisdiction
over said maters upon the proclamation
of the winning candidate.
-PLANAS vs. COMELEC: The general rule
is
that
the
proclamation
of
a
congressional
candidate
divests
COMELEC of jurisdictioni n favor of the
HRET.
-VINZONS-CHATO: Where the candidate
has already been proclaimed winner in
the congressional elections, the remedy
of the petitioner is to file an electoral
protest with the HRET.
-REYES vs. COMELEC: clarified and
reiterated that the jurisdiction of the
HRET begins only after the candidate is
considered a Member of the HP. Accdg.
To the Court, to be considered a Member
of the HP there must be concurrence of
the ff. requisites:
1.) a valid proclamation
2.) a proper oath
3.) assumption of office
-Comment: To strictly adhere to the rules
specified in this case would necessarilyl
entail the revision by the HRET of its
rules prescribing the deadlines for the
filing of election protests and petitions
for quo warranto before it.
-BANAT vs. COMELEC: The jurisdiction of
the Electoral Tribunals can be invoked
only after the winning candidates have
been proclaimed.
-LIMKAICHONG vs. COMELEC: It is the
State,
through
its
representatives
designated by the statute that may
question the illegaly or invalidly procured
certificate of naturalization in the
appropriate
denaturalization
proceedings. It is plainly not a matter
that may be raised by private persons in
an election case involving the naturalized
citizens descendant.

-VILANDO vs. HRET: HRET does not carry

with it the authority to delve into the
legality of the judgment of naturalization.
-N.B.: It would only be the COMELEC
which may entertain petitions for the
disqualification of said national, regional
or sectoral parties, organizations or
coalitions or for the cancellation of their
registration.
-THE
COMMISSION
APPOINTMENTS

ON

-All appointments submitted to the

Commission must be acted upon within
30 session days from their submission.
Ad interim appointments not acted upon
at the time of the adjournment of the
Congress, evenif the 30-day period has
not yet expired are deemed by-passed
under Article VII, Section 16.

-ORGANIZATION
-The rule that the Commission on
Appointments can meet only during the
sessions of the Congress is the reason
why ad interim appointments are
permitted under the Consitution.
-AD INTERIM APPOINTMENTS:
These
appointments are made during the
recess, subject to consideration later by
the Commission, for confirmation or
rejection. Ad interim appointments shall
be effective only until disapproval by the
Comission on Appointments or until the
next adjournment of the Congress,
referring to the adjournment of the
regular or special session immediately
following
the
recess
when
said
appointments were made.