CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REVIEWER
ARTICLE II
SECTION 1
a) In Re Letter of Associate Justice Puno
The Aquino government is a de jure government because it
was established by a legitimate sovereign, the Filipino
people. Article 2 section 1 provides that Sovereignty resides
on the people and all government authority emanates from it.
SECTION 2
The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national
policy. It adopts general principles of international law as
part of the law of the land and adheres to the principles of
peace, justice freedom, equality, cooperation and amity with
all nations
ARTICLE VI
SECTION 1
a) Rubi vs. Provincial Board
The congress may delegate is legislative powers to local
governments
May an administrative rule be a penal regulation: Yes.
Provided that the following condition concur:
b) US vs. Grimmaud: The dealing statute must
authorize the promulgation of a penal regulation
c) US vs. Barrias: The penalty to imposed must be
provided in the delegating statute
d) People vs. Que Po Lay: Said regulation must be
published in the Official Gazette.
e) People vs. Dacucuy
The law which provided that the period of the penalty shall be
upon the discretion of the court is INVALID.
SECTION 5
a) Ang Bagong Bayani vs. COMELEC
Only parties that represent the underprivileged and
marginalized sector are allowed to run for positions in the
party list. Religius sectors are not allowed (RA 7941)
b) Veterans Federation Party vs. COMELEC
Two percent threshold-three limit rule; the twenty percent is a
ceiling for party list in the congress, it is not mandatory.
SECTION 6
a) Romualdez Marcos vs. COMELEC; Aquino vs.
COMELEC
A person’s residence is not his temporary residence but his
domicile.
b) Domino vs. COMELEC
In order to establish domicile, there must be animus manendi
coupled with animus non revertendi: an intention of
abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a
new one.
SECTION10
a) Philconsa vs. Mathay
The reason for the delayed effect of the salary increase is to
place a legal bar on legislators’ yielding to the natural
temptation to increase their salary.
SECTION 11
a) Osmena vs. Pendatun
Page 1 of 36
The parliamentary privilege of speech does not immune the
congressman from the disciplinary powers but it is an
absolute protection against libel.
b) Jimenez vs. Cabangbang; Antonino vs. Valencia
The speech and utterances must constitute legislative action
– that is actions that are done in relation with the duties of a
Congressman.
c) Gravel vs. US
The privilege extends to the agents of the assemblyman
provided that the agency consist precisely in assisting the
legislator in the performance of legislative action.
SECTION 14
a) Puyat vs de Guzman jr.
The prohibition against Congressmen in the practice of
profession includes acts that are impliedly prohibited (ex.
buying stocks in the interest of a client).
SECTION 16
a) Santiago vs. Guigona
The courts may not interfere in the internal affairs of the
legislature.
b) Osmena vs. Pendatun
Each house shall be the sole judge of what disorderly
behavior is.
c) US vs. Pons
The journal is conclusive upon the courts
d) Casco Philippine Chemical Corp. vs Gimenez
The enrolled bill is conclusive assurance that the bill is
authentic and thus is more conclusive in courts than the
journal.
e) Astorga vs. Villegas
If the signatories repudiates their signatures on the enrolled
bill, it is no longer considered authentic and the journal shall
be conclusive.
SECTION 17
a) Bondoc vs. Pineda; Robles vs. HRET; Co vs.
HRET; Arroyo vs. HRET
The supreme court may intervene in the Electoral tribunals if
there grave abuse of discretion.
b) Angara vs. Electoral Commission
The congress may not intervene in the ET for they are
independent constitutional bodies.
SECTION 18
a) Guingona Jr. vs. Gonzales
There is no need to fill up the 12 seats in the CA.
Section 21
a) Aurnault vs. Nazareno
Why legislative inquiry is important and why there is a need
to punish
b) Bengzon vs. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee
The speech of Enrile contained no suggestion of
contemplated legislation. Thus, the legislative inquiry that
followed is not for the aid of legislation.
c) Negros II vs. Sanguniang Panlungsod
The power to punish for contempt on leguslative inquiries is
inherent only in the Congress and may be exercised by LGU.
SECTION 24
a) Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance
Prerogative to pass this bills in based on the house alone.
But once approved, the Senate may overhaul it with its own
version.
ARTICLE VII
SECTION 1
a) Villena vs. Secretary of Interior
The president is the executive of the government of the
Philippines and no one else.
b) Marcos vs. Manglapus et al.
The president is the executive of the government and his
powers are more than the totality of the specific powers that
are enumerated in the constitution. The President has the
duty to protect and serve the citizens, protect liberty, property
and life, promote general welfare and ensure peace and
order. These duties point to the existence of unstated
residual powers.
c) Laurel vs. Garcia
The president may not convey real properties of the
government solely upon his will. Such conveyance must be
authorized by law enacted by the Congress.
SECTION 8
a) Liberties Union vs. Executive Secretary
EO 284 is invalid for it gives the president and the family
broad exceptions under Section 7 of Art. IX. The exception
of Section 13 Art. VII should be the one to apply for the
president.
b) Soliven vs. Judge Makaisar
Immunity from suits is a presidential prerogative which only
the president can invoke or waive.
SECTION 15
a) In re Valenzuela and Vallarta
The prohibition on section 15 also applies to judiciary
appointments of the president
b) dela Rama vs. CA
The prohibition only applies to presidential appointees
SECTION 16
a) Government vs. Springer
Power to appoint is executive in nature
b) Manalang vs. Quitoriano
Since power to appoint is executive in nature, the legislature
may not usurp said power (see book).
c) Flores vs. Drilon
The congress limiting the choice of the president for the
SBMA chairman to only the Mayor of Olango is invalid thus
null and void.
d) Bautista vs. Salonga
Appointment of CHR Chairman does not need CA
confirmation, the position not being one of those listed in the
st
1 sentence of article 16.
e) Quintos-deles vs. CA
Appointment of Sectoral representative needs the
confirmation of CA because the appointment is expressly
provided by the constitution (falls in the first sentence).
f) Sarmiento vs. Mison
The appointment of Customs Commissioner needs no
confirmation from CA. Only those falling in the first sentence
needs confirmation.
g) Calderon vs. Carale
The congress may not expand the list of appointment
needing confirmation. See Sarmiento vs. Mison
h) Manalo vs. Sistoza
Page 2 of 36
Congress may not expand the list of those who needs the
confirmation of CA. .PNP officers are not a member of AF
but civilians.
i) Matibag vs. Benipayo
Ad interim appointment is pwemanent in nature. The fact
that it is subject to confirmation of the CA does not alter its
permanent character.
SECTION 17
a) Mondano vs. Silvosa
Power of control is the power of an officer to alter, modify or
nullify the judgments of subordinate officers in the
performance of his duties.
b) Blaquera vs. Alcasid
EO 29 and 268 are valid exercise of presidential control for
the president is merely modifying the acts of the respondents
who granted incentives without appropriate clearance from
the president thereby resulting to uneven distribution of
government resources.
c) Villena vs. Secretary of Interior
The acts of the secretaries of executive departments,
promulgated in the regular course of business, unless
disapproved and reprobated by the president are considered
acts of the Chief Executive himself.
d) Lacson-Magallanes vs. Pano
The Executive Secretary when acting by the authority of the
president may reverse the decision of another department
secretary.
e) De Leon vs. Carpio
The acts of the Secretary of justice, in the regular course of
the performance of his duties are acts of the president, which
are controlling over all executive offices. Hence NBI chief
must obey.
f) Ang-Angco vs. Castillo
The president’s power of control can only be exercised over
acts of made by a subordinate officer of his duties.
g) NAMARCO vs. ARCA
The president has the power to control government owned
corporation. (Note: power does not come from the
constitution but from statue, thus it may also be taken away
by statue)
SECTION 18
a) Martin vs. Mott
The ultimate authority to decide whether such necessity
already arisen lies on the President and is conclusive upon
all other persons.
b) IBP vs. Zamora
The factual necessity of calling out the armed forces is for the
president to decide based on his powers provided for in Art.
VII section 18.
c) Lacson vs. Secretary Perez
The president has the vast power of intelligence network to
gather information affecting the security of the state.
Although the Court, in proper cases, may look into the
sufficiency of the factual basis of the exercise of this power,
based on its power to determine grave abuse of discretion,
such is no longer possible when proclamation has already
been lifted.
SECTION 19
a) Llmas vs. Orbos
The Constitution does not make any distinction with regard to
the extent of the pardoning power of the president except
with respect to impeachment.
b) Drilon vs. CA
Commutation may come in any form. House arrest in place
of imprisonment is a form of commutation by shortening the
penalty.
c) Cabantag vs. Wolfe
A distinction between absolute and conditional pardon must
be made. An absolute pardon will take effect even without
acceptance while conditional pardon will only take effect after
acceptance of the condemned. The reason for this is that the
conditional pardon may be less acceptable to him than the
original sentence and may in fact be more onerous.
d) Monsanto vs. Factoran
One who is given absolute pardon has no demandable right
to reinstatement. Nonetheless, he may apply for new
appointment.
e) Garcia vs. Commission on Audit
If pardon is given because one is acquitted on the ground
that he did not commit the crime, he has a right to
reinstatement and back wages due.
f) Torres vs. Gonzales
The convicts acceptance of pardon also involves acceptance
of the president’s authority to withdraw such conditional
pardon.
g) People vs. Salle Jr.
Pardons have no effect to those that are not serving by final
judgment. Appeals must be withdrawn before pardon can be
effected.

SECTION 21
a) Usaffe Veterans Association Inc. vs. Treasurer of
the Philippines
Treaties require the concurrence of the Senate, less formal
types of international agreements may be entered into by the
Chief Executive and become binding without the concurrence
of the legislative body.
b) Bayan vs. Executive Secretary
Section 21 of Art. 7 applies as to the manner of ratifying the
treaty.

Page 3 of 36
 NOTES AND DIGESTS
PREAMBLE
 There are specific terms included in the
preamble, which although does not create rights or
obligations, it sets down the origin, scope, and
purpose of the Constitution (Jacobson v.
Massachussets, 197 US 11).
 The significance of the first person We
stresses the active and sovereign role of the Filipino
people as authors of the Constitution.
These specific terms are:
• Almighty God – This reflects personalist
Filipino behavior toward religion.
• Common Good – This statement implies an
aim toward the prevention against tyranny of the
majority. The phrase “general welfare” was avoided
because general welfare may not be the common
good.
• Love – This word was included as a tribute
to EDSA. We’re the only country in the world with the
word “love” in our fundamental law.
• Truth – This is a statement against the
suppression of truth in the Marcos era.
• Peace – This is mentioned last because this
is supposed to be a fruit of truth, justice, freedom,
love, and equality.
• Rule of Law – This emphasizes that
government officials have only the authority given and
defined by law, and such authority continues only with
the concurrence of the people.
Article I
National Territory
The national territory comprises the Philippine
archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced
therein, and all other territories over which the
Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting
of its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, including
its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular
shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters
around, between, and connecting the islands of the
archipelago, regardless of their breadth and
dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the
Philippines.
• You may not find a declaration of territory in
other Constitutions because Constitutions are
municipal law and are not binding as International
Law.
• The Treaty of Paris, signed in 1935,
described the Philippines as a rectangle, and the
territorial limitations in the treaty excluded parts of
Western Philippines and Batanes, hence the clause:
and any other territories within Philippine jurisdiction.
This allowed for the inclusion of Batanes and the
Page 4 of 36
excluded islands because historically, they have
always been under Philippine jurisdiction.
The scope of the national territory as defined in this
Article refers to:
• the Philippine Archipelago
• all other territories over which the Philippines
has sovereignty or jurisdiction – worded so that it may
include all future land acquisitions of the Philippines
either by war or by grant of international law
• the territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil,
the insular shelves, and other submarine areas
corresponding to the first two provisions, or the
country’s terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains.
Archipelagic Principle
There are two elements to the archipelagic principle,
the inclusion of internal waters in the territorial waters
of a country, and the straight baseline method of
defining territorial waters.
1. Straight Baselines - against normal
baselines that follow the coast: 12 NM = territorial
waters, + 12 NM = contiguous zone + 250 NM
exclusive economic zone. Malampaya falls under our
exclusive economic zone. This creates controversy
over the local government share
2. Internal Waters - Waters found between
islands with a distance greater than what is
considered under territorial waters. This conflicts with
the 1982 Treaty on the Law of the Sea, which
recognizes these internal waters as international
waters. We signed the treaty with reservations (1984),
declaring that it does not in any manner impair or
prejudice the sovereign tights of the Philippines in
accordance with its Constitution.
Article II
Declaration of Principles and State Policies
PRINCIPLES
Section 1
The Philippines is a democratic and republican state.
Sovereignty resides in the people and all government
authority emanates from them.
A state is a community of persons more or less
numerous permanently occupying a definite portion of
territory independent of external control and
possessing an organized government to which a body
of inhabitants render habitual obedience.
Four requirements for a government:
•People
•Territory
•Sovereignty
•Government
A republican state implies a representative
government while a democratic state implies a direct
democracy.
Sovereignty
Sovereignty is the power to make legal decisions. All
sovereignty resides in the people, and whatever
power you have has to be given to you. Sovereignty
is defined by Jellinek as the supreme power to affect
all legal interests either by executive, legal, or judicial
action.
People v. Gozo
Doctrine The Philippine government merely consents
to a foreign state’s jurisdiction in certain areas as a
matter of comity, courtesy, or expediency. The US
has prior or preferential, but not exclusive jurisdiction,
and the Philippines does not divest itself of jurisdiction
over offenses committed inside the military bases.
The bases are not foreign territory.
Functions of Government
As defined in Bacani v. NACOCO, the functions of
government are classified into constituent and
ministrant functions.
Constituent Functions
The constituent functions of government are the
compulsory functions of government that constitute
the very bonds of society. As enumerated by
Woodrow Wilson, they are:
• The keeping of order and providing for the
protection of persons and property from violence and
robbery.
• The fixing of legal relations between man and
wife and between parents and children.
• The regulation of the holding, transmission, and
interchange of property, and the determination its
liabilities for debt or for crime
• The determination of contract rights between
individuals.
• The definition and punisment of crime.
• The administration of justice in civil cases.
• The determination of the political duties,
privileges, and relations of citizens
• Dealings of the state with foreign powers: the
preservation of the state from external danger or
encroachment and the advancement of its
international interest.
It is opined that housing for the people and the
compelling demands of social justice now fall under
the ambit of a government’s constituent functions.
Ministrant Functions
Ministrant functions of the government are the
optional functions that are intended for achieving a
better life for the community. The principles for
Page 5 of 36
determining whether or not the government shall
exercise these functions are: that a government
should do for the public welfare those things that
private capital would not naturally undertake, and that
a government should do those things which by its
very nature it is better equipped to administer for the
public welfare than any private individual or group of
individuals.
State, government, and administration
State is the corporate entity, government is the
institution that implements the will of the State, and
administration refers to the people running the
institution.
De jure and de De facto government
Judicial acts and proceedings of de facto
governments remain good and valid even after the
liberation or reoccupation of the Philippines by the
American and Filipino forces.
Go Kim Chan v. Valdez Tan Keh
Doctrine There are three kinds of de facto
governments.
• First, is when the government de
facto gets possession and control of, or usurps, by
force or by the voice of the majority, the rightful legal
government and maintains itself against the will of the
latter. (Cromwell’s England)
• The second is a government
established and maintained by military forces who
invade and occupy a territory of the enemy in the
course of war, and which is denominated a
government of paramount force (Japanese
Occupation)
• The third kind is that established as
an independent government by the inhabitants of a
country who rise in insurrection against the parent
state (Southern Confederacy)
Of the second kind, denominated as a government of
paramount force.
• Its existence is maintained by active
military power within the territories and against the
rightful authority of an established and lawful
government
• While it exists it must necessarily
be obeyed in civil matters by private citizens, who by
obedience rendered in submission to such force, do
not become responsible as wrongdoers for those
acts, though not warranted by the laws of the rightful
government.
In Re: Letter of Associate Justice Puno
Synopsis With respect to the Aquino
government of 1986, it can be said that the
organization of Mrs. Aquino’s government was met by
little resistance and her control of the state evidenced
by the appointment of the Cabinet and other key
officers of Cabinet officials, revamp of the Judiciary,
and the Military signaled the point where the legal
system in effect had ceased to be obeyed by the
Filipino people.
Patterns of Government
What superficially appears to be a bewildering variety
of applications of constitutional democracy can be
reduced to the following basic patterns:
• Direct government – the people, organized
as the electorate, are the preponderant power holder
(Ancient Greek City-States)
• Assembly government – name for the
pattern which the parliament as the representation of
the people is the preponderant power holder (China,
former USSR)
• Parliamentarism – where there exists an
equilibrium between the independent power holders,
parliament and government, and is attempted by the
integration of the two. There are two widely divergent
forms of this type, where the parliament is superior in
political power to the cabinet (French model) or vice
versa (British model).
• Presidential – If the independent power
holders, government and parliament, are kept
separated but are constitutionally obligated to
corporate for the formation of the will of the state,
interdependence is achieved by coordination.
Marcos Dictatorship and Parliamentarism vs.
Presidential Government
The Marcos government was a presidential form of
government. A presidential form of government has
these distinguishing features:
• separation of powers
• the preeminence of the President
First of all, Marcos inherited the powers of the
President as defined in the 1935 Constitution. He was
also superior to the Prime Minister by the fact that he
nominated the Prime Minister, approved the program
of government to be administered by the Prime
Minister, terminated the term of the Prime Minister if
and when he nominates his successor, and could
delegate powers to the Prime Minister. He also had
control over the ministries. Moreover, while there was
a closer relationship between the executive and
legislative, thereby manifesting some aspects of
parliamentarism, there was a definite separation.
Separation from the Judiciary was also maintained.
Section 2
The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of
national policy, adopts the generally accepted
principles of international law as part of the law of the
land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality,
Page 6 of 36
justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all
nations.
The war that is renounced is an aggressive and not a
defensive war.
International law can only become part of municipal
law through the appropriate constitutional machinery,
such as an act of parliament or Congressional
legislation.
Although the doctrine of incorporation tells us that
public international law carries the same weight as
statutory law, when it comes to general principles of
international law, the ones that will be adopted by the
country are arrived at through jurispruidential
development.
Section 3
Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the
military. The Armed Forces of the Philippines is the
protector of the people and the State. Its goal is to
secure the sovereignty of the State and the integrity of
the national territory.
The section is divided into two clauses, the Civilian
Supremacy clause and the Mark of Sovereignty
clause.
• Civilian Supremacy - Civilian authority is, at
all times, supreme over the military.
• Mark of Sovereignty -The AFP is the
protector of the people and the state.
Mark of Sovereignty
The MoS clause is, in capsule form, the description of
a soldier’s vocation. The soldier is supposed to
renounce political ambition because he finds nobility
and dignity and honor in being the guardian of the
people and of the integrity of the national territory of a
legitimate government.
This is not a principle, which once articulated, creates
the reality that it seeks to describe. To keep the
dream of civilian supremacy alive, two elements are
needed: a civilian government that is both legitimate
and stable, and an armed force of the highest
professionalism.
Section 4
The prime duty of the Government is to serve and
protect the people. The Government may call upon
the people to defend the State and, in the fulfillment
thereof, all citizens may be required, under conditions
provided by law, to render personal, military or civil
service.
Section 5
The maintenance of peace and order, the protection
of life, liberty, and property, and promotion of the
general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all
the people of the blessings of democracy.
The 1987 version places an emphasis in the service
to and protection of the people. This is in contrast with
earlier versions proclaiming the defense of the state
being a prime duty of government. The phrase “under
conditions provided by law” in the second sentence of
Article 4 places a premium on serving the people and
protecting their rights even when there is a need to
defend the State.
Section 6
The separation of Church and State shall be
inviolable.
See Article III, Section 5.
STATE POLICIES
Section 7
The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy.
In its relations with other states, the paramount
consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorial
integrity, national interest, and the right to self-
determination.
Section 8
The Philippines, consistent with the national interest,
adopts and pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear
weapons in its territory.
The Consitution prescribes a policy of freedom from
nuclear weapons. The policy includes the prohibition
of not only the possession, control, and manufacture
of nuclear weapons but also nuclear arms tests. Any
exception to this policy must be justified by national
interest. The policy should not be construed as a
prohibition against the peaceful use of nuclear
energy.
Any new agreement on bases or the presence of
troops must embody the basic policy of freedom from
nuclear weapons.
Section 9
The State shall promote a just and dynamic social
order that will ensure the prosperity and
independence of the nation and free the people from
poverty through policies that provide adequate social
services, promote full employment, a rising standard
of living, and an improved quality of life for all.
Section 10
The State shall promote social justice in all phases of
national development.
The social justice provisions mean the equalization of
economic, political, and social opportunities with
special emphasis on the duty of the state to tilt the
balance of social forces by favoring the
disadvantaged in life. The social justice provision
guides the attitude of the Court toward jurisprudence
with respect to property rights.
Page 7 of 36
Section 11
The State values the dignity of every human person
and guarantees full respect for human rights.
Section 12
The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and
shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic
autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect
the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from
conception. The natural and primary right and duty of
parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency
and the development of moral character shall receive
the support of the Government.
Section 13
The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in
nation-building and shall promote and protect their
physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social well-
being. It shall inculcate in the youth patriotism and
nationalism, and encourage their involvement in
public and civic affairs.
The word family emphasizes a stable heterosexual
relationship. Sec. 12 also accepts the principle that
the family is anterior to the state. It also protects the
family from instrumentalization by the state.
The legal meaning and purpose of the protection of
the unborn clause is not an assertion that the unborn
is a legal person. This is also not an assertion that the
life of the unborn is the same as the life of the mother.
The idea is that life begins at conception, although the
time of conception is for science to specify.
As to the education of children, the rights of the State
and parents are delineated, as the primary right
belongs to the parents and affirms the secondary and
supportive role of the state. The State, as parens
patriae, may step in when a natural parent cannot or
fails to cope with the duties of raising his or her
children.
Section 14
The State recognizes the role of women in nation-
building, and shall ensure the fundamental equality
before the law of women and men.
The provision is worded as not to dislocate the Civil
Code and the jurisprudence on the subject. What it
does is to give impetus to the removal, through
statutes, of existing inequalities. The general idea is
for the law to ignore gender in determining rights and
duties
Section 15
The State shall protect and promote the right to health
of the people and instill health consciousness among
them.
Section 16
The State shall protect and advance the right of the
people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord
with the rhythm and harmony of nature.
This provision recognizes an enforceable right. This is
illustrated in the following cases.
Oposa v. Factoran
Ruling The subject matter of the complaint is the
general interest of all citizens of the Philippines. The
petitioner minors assert that they represent their
generation and the generations yet unknown. Their
personality to sue in behalf of succeeding generations
is based on the concept of intergenerational
responsibility. Every generation has a responsibility to
the next to preserve the rhythm and harmony for the
full enjoyment of a balanced ecology.
Laguna Lake Development Authority v. Court of
Appeals
Synopsis Some residents near the dumpsite
in Caloocan were concerned about pollution. The
LLDA issued a cease and desist order because of its
harmful effects on the residents and the possible
pollution to the receiving streams. The Court upheld
the LLDA ruling.
Section 17
The State shall give priority to education, science and
technology, arts, culture, and sports to foster
patriotism and nationalism, accelerate social
progress, and promote total human liberation and
development.
This does not mean that the government is not free to
balance the demands of education against other
competing and urgent demands.
Section 18
The State affirms labor as a primary social economic
force. It shall protect the rights of workers and
promote their welfare.
This means that the human factor has primacy over
the non-human factor in production.
Section 19
The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent
national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos.
Any doubt in the interpretation of provisions on the
economy and patrimony should be resolved in favor
of the self-reliance and independence of Filipinos. In
Garcia v. Board of Investments, no cogent advantage
was shown in the petrochemical plant transfer. It is a
repudiation of the independent policy of the
government to run its own affairs in its best interests.
Page 8 of 36
Section 20
The State recognizes the indispensable role of the
private sector, encourages private enterprise, and
provides incentives to needed investments.
This is nothing more than an acknowledgment of the
importance of private initiative in building the nation,
but it is not a call for the official abdication of duty to
the citizenry.
Section 21
The State shall promote comprehensive
rural development and agrarian reform.
This includes a broader spectrum of social, economic,
human, cultural, political, and industrial development.
See more in Article XIII.
Section 22
The State recognizes and promotes the rights of
indigenous cultural communities within the framework
of national unity and development.
Section 23
The State shall encourage non-governmental,
community-based, or sectoral organizations that
promote the welfare of the nation.
Section 24
The State recognizes the vital role of communication
and information in nation-building.
Section 25
The State shall ensure the autonomy of local
governments.
All further discussed in Article X.
Section 26
The State shall guarantee equal access to
opportunities for public service and prohibit political
dynasties as may be defined by law.
This is to give substance to the desire for the
equalization of political opportunities. However, the
definition of the term “political dynasty” is left to
legislature.
Section 27
The State shall maintain honesty and integrity in the
public service and take positive and effective
measures against graft and corruption.
Discussed in Article XI.
Section 28
Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law,
the State adopts and implements a policy of full public
disclosure of all its transactions involving public
interest.

Article VI
The Legislative Department
Section 1
The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress
of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and
a House of Representatives, except to the extent
reserved to the people by the provision on initiative
and referendum.
Bicameral Body
The Jones Law called for a bicameral Congress, but
the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions both originally called
for a unicameral Congress. However, the 1935
Constitution was later amended to provide for a
bicameral legislature.
The arguments for a unicameral body as
contemplated in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions are:
• simplicity of organization resulting in
economy and efficiency
• facility in pinpointing responsibility for
legislation
• avoidance of duplication
• strengthening of the legislature in relation to
the executive.
This debate resurfaced in the deliberations for the
1987 Constitution. A bicameral legislature was
adopted, by a vote of 23-22, because:
• an upper house has the capacity to look at
problems from a national perspective, and this
national perspective serves as a check on the
parochial tendency of a body elected by districts
• a bicameral legislature allows for a more
careful study of legislation
• bicameralism is less vulnerable to attempts
by the executive at manipulation
Nature of Legislative Power
Legislative power is the authority to make laws and to
alter and repeal them. It is a derivative and vested
power given to the legislature by the Constitution.
According to American jurisprudence, “the
Constitution fixes limits to the exercise of legislative
authority, and prescribes the limits within it must
move. This also provides the basis for non-
delegability and the prohibition against the passage of
irrepealable laws.
Unlike the United States Constitution, the 1987 (like
the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions) gives a grant of
plenary legislative power to the Philippine legislature.
This means that “any power, deemed to be legislative
by usage and tradition, is necessarily possessed by
Congress, unless the organic act has lodged it
elsewhere.”
Separation of Powers
Page 9 of 36
A basic corollary of the presidential system of
government is the principle of separation of powers.
Separation of powers means that legislation belongs
to Congress, execution to the executive, and
settlement of judicial controversies to the
judiciary.This principle is an implicit limitation on
legislative power. However, the separation is not
absolute because it allows for checks and balances
because no one department is able to act without the
cooperation of at least one of the other departments.
The purpose of these checks and balances is to avoid
power being concentrated in one department. The
danger in the concentration of power was realized in
the dark days of martial law.
Limits on Legislative Power
Legislative power is subject to substantive limitations
which circumscribe both the exercise of the power
itself and the allowable subjects of legislation.. The
substantive limitations are chiefly found in the Bill of
Rights, and there exist procedural limitations
prescribing the manner of passing bills and the forms
that these bills should take.
Initiative and Referendum
In republican constitutional theory, the original
legislative power belongs to the people who, through
the Constitution, confer derivative legislative power on
the legislature. However, under the 1987 Constitution,
the grant of legislative power to Congress is not
exclusive. The Constitution provides for initiative and
referendum as a direct means for the people to create
law.
The power of initiative and referendum is thus the
power of the people directly to propose and enact
laws or approve or reject any act or law or part thereof
passed by the Congress or local legislative body. The
purpose of the provisions for initiative and referendum
(Sections 1 and 32) is to institutionalize People
Power.
The operationalization of initiative and referendum
has been left by the Constitution to Congress.
Although the legislative power of Congress is plenary,
the scope of the legislative power that is given to the
people by initiative and referendum is limited to
whatever exceptions that Congress may impose.
Garcia v. COMELEC
Synopsis In its Pambayang Kapasyahan, the
Sangguniang Bayan of Morong agreed to the
inclusion of the municipality of Morong as part of the
Subic Special Economic Zone. The residents of
Morong opposed this resolution through their power of
initiative provided under the Local Government Code
of 1991. They started soliciting signatures to cause
the repeal of the resolution.
In its decision, the Supreme Court held that the
petition of the residents was valid because the subject
matter directly affects the welfare of the residents of
Morong, and that the power of initiative covers the
repeal of a resolution passed by a local legislative
body.
Legislative Powers of Marcos and Aquino
The 1973 Constitution provided for two concurrent
legislative agencies: the Batasang Pambansa and the
President. The legislative power of the Batasan was
ordinary, while the legislative power of the President
was extraordinary. The extraordinariness of the
President's power, however, did not lie solely in that it
was a tool for coping with emergency; it also lay in the
distinct advantage it gave to the President over the
legislature. It not only enabled him to supply for the
legislature when the latter, in the judgment of the
President, "fail[ed] or [was] unable to act on any
matter" that may need immediate action, but it also
enabled the President to undo what the legislature
might have done not to his satisfaction. Moreover, he
could legislate, or repeal or amend old legislation
unhampered by any need for debate or three readings
or by the other formal limitations that are imposed on
the legislative body.
Immediately after the February 1986 revolution,
President Corazon C. Aquino assumed revolutionary
legislative power and, on March 25, 1986, issued
Proclamation No. 3, the Provisional Freedom
Constitution, whose Article I, Section 3, abolished the
Batasang Pambansa and whose Article II, Section 1,
vested legislative power in the President "[u]ntil a
legislature is elected and convened under a new
Constitution." Section 6 of the 1987 Transitory
Provisions in turn said: "The incumbent President
[Corazon Aquino] shall continue to exercise legislative
powers until the first Congress is convened." Thus
the only difference between the scope of the
legislative powers of President Aquino and that of
President Marcos was that, whereas Mr. Marcos
exercised the power concurrently first with the interim
Batasang Pambansa and subsequently with the
regular Batasang Pambansa, President Aquino
exercised it alone. She lost it on July 26, 1987. But
she lost it with a bang signing a batch of forty-two
legislative acts on the eve of the convening of the
First Congress.
Non-delegability of Legislative Power
There are three theories that advance the non-
delegability of legislative power:
• Separation of Powers keeps the
responsibility for the creation of statutes to the
legislative branch
• Due Process – the process by which the
powers are separated and safeguarded demand that
legislation come from the legislative
Page 10 of 36
• Delegata potestas non potest delegari, which
means that which has been delegated to you cannot
be further delegated by you
Since the Constitution gave to Congress alone the
power to make law, means that no other body or
branch of government can make laws. The controlling
legal maxim is the maxim of agency, delegata
potestas non potest delegari. However, in spite of this
principle, numerous statutes have been passed
conferring legislative power to administrative
agencies, authorizing them to exercise regulatory
powers.
This is justified by two theories: the first theory,
advanced in 1825, is that a non-legislative body may
be authorized to “fill in the gaps” of a statute. The
other theory, is that Congress may pass contingent
legislation, which leaves to another body the business
of the fact necessary to bring the law into actual
operation. As a result, the function performed by the
administrative agency becomes administrative in
nature.
In order to ensure that the function of the
administrative agency is not law-making power, the
statute making the delegation must:
• be compete in itself – it must set forth
therein the policy to be carried out or implemented by
the delegated agency, and
• fix a standard – the limits of which are
sufficiently determinate or determinable, to which the
delegate must conform in the performance of his
functions.
Since rules and regulations promulgated by
administrative agencies pursuant to the valid
delegating statute have the force of law, jurisprudence
tells us that their violation may be punished as a
penal offense as long as these conditions are met:
• the violation must have been made criminal
by the delegating statute
• the penalty must be provided by the statute
itself
• the regulation must be published.
Furthermore, legislative power is delegated to local
government by constitutional tradition (as defined as a
practice that has existed since time immemorial).
Congress may, by law, grant the President powers
necessary to carry out declared national policy in
times of war or other national emergency. Congress
may also, by law, subject to limitiations that it may
impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas,
tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or
imposts.
Eastern Shipping Lines v. POEA
Synopsis The respondent was awarded a
sum for the death of her husband who worked in a
vessel and was killed in an accident in Tokyo. ESL
said that POEA does not have jurisdicition because
the deceased is not an overseas worker. The
Supreme Court held the POEA had jurisdiction, and
that ESL’s violations constituted a breach of the
administrative statute of the POEA given that the
standard “fair and equitable employment practices”
was a sufficient enough basis for a regulation
prescribing a model contract for overseas workers.
Tablarin v. Guttierez
Synopsis The petitioners flunked the NMAT
but wanted to take med school anyway. The Supreme
Court ruled that the authority of the Board of Medical
Education to set rules for the closure of medical
schools was drawn from the general standard
“standardization and regularization” of the medical
profession, taken together with the other provisions of
the delegating statute. The petitioners could not enter
med school.
Free Telephone Workers Union v. Minister of
Labor
Doctrine The powers given to the Minister of Labor to
certify a labor dispute to the NLRC for compulsory
arbitration are valid.
Cebu Oxygen and Acetylene Co. v. Drilon
Synopsis The issue was whether or not an
implenting order by the Secretary of Labor can
provide a prohibition not contemplated by the law it
seeks to implement. The Supreme Court held that an
administrative agency cannot expand laws enacted by
Congress because that would be tantamount to
amending an act of Congress.
People v. Dacuycuy
Synopsis Some teachers were charged with
the violation of the Magna Carta for public school
teachers. The petitioners questioned whether or not
Sec. 32 of RA 4670 was constitutional. RA 4670
prescribed a penalty whose duration was left “to the
discretion of the court.” The Supreme Court declared
this provision invalid. It is not for the courts to fix the
term of imprisonment where no points of reference
have been provided by the legislative. What valid
delegation presupposes and sometimes is an
exercise of discretion to fix the length of service which
must be served within specific or designated limits
provided by law, the absence of which designated
limits will constitue such exercise as undue delegation
if not an outright intrusion or assumption of legislative
power.
Chongbian v. Orbos
Page 11 of 36
Synopsis Pursuant to Article 8, Section 18 of
the Constitution, Congress enacted RA 6734, the
Organic Act for the ARMM, calling for a plebiscite to
be held in 13 provinces and 9 cities. President Aquino
issued EO 429 providing for the reorganization of the
administrative regions of Mindanao. The issue was
whether there was an undue delegation of power to
the President in her issuing EO 429.
The Supreme Court held that in conferring to the
President the power to merge the existing regions
following the establishment of the ARMM, Congress
merely followed the patterns set out by previous
legislation. The power to merge administrative regions
has been traditionally lodged with the President to
facilitate the power of supervision over local
government units. A legislative standard need not be
expressed. It may simply be gathered or implied. Nor
need it be found in the law challenged because it may
be found in other statutes on the same subjects as
that of the challenged legislation.
Employees Confederation v. National Wages
Commission
Synopsis The Employers Confederation of
the Philippines is questioning the validity of a wage
order issued by a RTWPB promulgated to fix new
wage rates and wage incentives pursuant to the
Wage Rationalization Act. The Court held that the
power of the RTWPB as an expert commission to fix
wages under strict standards set by Congress is
necessary in an age of specialized activities.
Solicitor General v. MMA
Synopsis MMA passed a regulation
authorizing the confiscation of license plates and
drivers licenses for certain traffic violations. The Court
held that this regulation was invalid because it was an
undue delegation of legislative power because it runs
counter to PD 1605.
Tatad v. Secretary of Energy
Synopsis The Court invalidated EO 392
because in effecting the full deregulation of the oil
industry, President Ramos added a standard which
did not appear in the delegating law, RA 8180.
The standards set by RA 8180 for oil deregulation
were:
o the time when the price of crude oil
and petroleum products in the world market were
declining and
o the time when the exchange rate of
the peso to the dollar was stable.
In EO 392 Ramos used the depletion of the OPSF as
a third factor for ordering the full deregulation of the
oil industry. The Court held that such consideration
amounts to rewriting the standards set forth in RA
8180 and the Executive failed to follow faithfully the
standards set in RA 8180.
PITC v. Angeles
Doctrine Administrative agencies are allowed to
promulgate supplementary rules because as a result
of the growing complexity of modern society, it is
necessary to create more administrative bodies to
help in regulation of its ramified activities. Specialized
in the field assigned to them, they can deal with
problems with more expertise and dispatch than can
be expected from the legislature or courts of justice.
Other Exceptions to Non-delegability
Local governments may be allowed to legislate on
purely local matters. On the local level, the principle of
separation of powers does not apply strictly between
the executive and the law-making body. Hence, the
local law-making agency may be given executive
functions. When what is given is an executive power,
the rules applicable to the empowerment of
administrative agencies also becomes applicable to
the local law-making body. There are two other
exceptions given to the President, one in times of war
and national emergency, where the President has the
powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared
national policy, and where the President is delegated
to fix tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage
and wharfage dues, and other duties and imposts.
Section 2
The Senate shall be composed of twenty-four
Senators who shall be elected at large by the qualified
voters of the Philippines, as may be provided by law.
The number of senators is pegged at twenty four
because the drafters envisioned a small Senate which
was supposed to ensure that the quality of the people
elected to the Senate remained at a high standard.
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-five years of age, able to
read and write, a registered voter, and a resident of
the Philippines for not less than two years
immediately preceding the day of the election.
The residence requirement is satisfied if one is
domiciled in the Philippines, even though not
physically present within the two-year period, and the
age qualification must be possessed on the day the
votes are cast and not on the day of the proclamation.
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 thirtieth day of June next following
their election. No Senator shall serve for more than
two consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the
office for any length of time shall not be considered as
Page 12 of 36
an interruption in the continuity of his service for the
full term of which he was elected.
The term of office of Senators is six years, and unless
otherwise provided by law, commences at noon on
the thirtieth day of June next following their election.
The term follows that found in the 1935 Constitution.
There is a two consecutive term limit. A Senator can
run again three years after the expiration of his
second term.
Section 5
(1) The House of Representatives shall be composed
of not more than two hundred and fifty members,
unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected
from legislative districts apportioned among the
provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in
accordance with the number of their respective
inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and
progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law,
shall be elected through a party-list system of
registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or
organizations.
(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute
twenty per centum of the total number of
representatives including those under the party list.
For three consecutive terms after the ratification of
this Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to
party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided
by law, by selection or election from the labor,
peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, women, youth, and such other sectors
as may be provided by law, except the religious
sector.
(3) Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as
practicable, contiguous, compact, and adjacent
territory. Each city with a population of at least two
hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have
at least one representative.
(4) Within three years following the return of every
census, the Congress shall make a reapportionment
of legislative districts based on the standards
provided in this section.
The membership of the House is fixed at two hundred
and fifty. However, the total membership of the House
may be raised from time to time by statute because
the Constitution says that the total must be 250
unless otherwise fixed by law. This can be done by
reapportionment resulting in the creation of new
districts or the creation of new provinces, since one
province is entitled to one representative, or therough
the creation of cities entitled to at least one district.
When one of the municipalities of a congressional
district is converted into a city large enough to entitle
it to one legislative district, the incidental effect is the
splitting of the district into two. The incidental arising
of a new district in this manner need not be preceded
by a census. Moreover, this incidental effect is
deemed implicitly contained in the title announcing the
creation of the new city thus satisfying the
requirement that the content of the bill be announced
in the title. However, if an imbalance is created in the
remaining legislative districts, the imbalance can only
be corrected by a reapportionment law.
Apportionment
The rules for dividing provinces and cities and the
Metropolitan Manila area as well as other
metropolitan areas which might be created in the
future are set down in Section 5. The first basic rule
is that the legislative districts shall be "apportioned
among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan
Manila area in accordance with the number of their
respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform
and progressive ratio."
The second rule, is that each legislative district shall
comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact
and adjacent territory." In Felwa v. Salas, construing
an identical provision in the 1935 Constitution, there
was a suggestion that ethnic or tribal considerations
might justify departure from the rule.
A third rule is that each city with a population of at
least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province,
shall have at least one representative. It should be
noted that for a city to merit one representative it
should have a population of at least two hundred fifty
thousand. If a city is smaller than the minimum size
required, it will simply be represented as a part of one
of the districts within the province. A province,
however, is entitled to one representative no matter
what its population size.
The fourth rule is that within three years following the
return of every census, the Congress shall make a
reapportionment of legislative districts based on the
standards provided in this section. The observance of
the constitutional mandate regarding apportionment of
representative districts is a justiciable question
cognizable by the courts. Decisions in this tenor were
promulgated by the Court under the 1935
Constitution.
So far, Congress has not reapportioned any
legislative district following the return of a census.
Although it is the constitutional duty of Congress to
ensure proportional representation, it is submitted that
there is no power which can compel Congress to
make a reapportionment even when, through the
growth and movement of populations, the existing
apportionment has in fact become inequitable. In
fact, jurisprudence suggests that what the
Constitution abhors is inequality in apportionment if
the inequality is created by law and not when it arises
from a change in the population.
Page 13 of 36
Tobias v. Abalos
Synopsis An act was promulgated converting
the Municipality of Mandaluyong into a City. Although
only 14.41% of the voting population voted, the act
was ratified. The act was challenged on the ground
that it did not mention any census indicating San Juan
and Mandaluyong had the minimal requirement of
250,000 inhabitants but the challengers never gave
any evidence that the population was less than the
minimum requirement. The Court presumed that
Congress gave this minimum requirement due
consideration.
Mariano, Jr., v. COMELEC
Synopsis RA 7854 provided for the
conversion of Makati into a highly urbanized city. The
act was assailed on the fact that it did not properly
identify the land area by metes and bounds in
violation of the Constitution. It was also assailed on
the basis that the increase in legislative districts as
provided for in the act is not in accord with Section
5(3) of the Constitution. The Court held that the
districts may be increased and apportionment of
legislative districts may be made by special law. The
Court also held that the description was sufficient
enough to describe the land.
Montejo v. COMELEC
Synopsis The Province of Leyte has 5
legislative districts. Biliran is part of the thirds district,
before it became a province. After the conversion, the
COMELEC transferred the certain subprovinces from
one district to another. Montejo contended that there
was an unequitable distribution of inhabitants. Does
the COMELEC have the constitutional power to
transfer municipalities from one district to another?
No. The ComElec only possesses the power to effect
minor adjustments according to an ordinance
appended to the 1987 Constitution. There should be
no change in the allocation per district.
Sectoral Representation
According to Commisioner Villacorta, “the idea of
giving meaningful representation, particularly to the
farmers and the workers, would be our Commission's
humble gesture of extending protection to the
interests of these groups which are not adequately
attended to in normal legislative deliberations.
Sectoral representation is a necessity, especially in
these times when the people are giving the
democratic process another chance, if not its last
chance.”
Party List
Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC
Doctrine Congress is vested with the broad power to
define and prescribe the mechanics of the party list
system. The Constitution implicitly set down only the
percentage of the total membership in the House
reserved for party-list representatives. In imposing a
two percent threshold for parties to qualify for
representation, Congress wanted to ensure that only
those parties, organizations, and coalitions having a
sufficient number of constituents deserving of
representation were actually represented in
Congress. The Court also ruled that the 20%
prescription of the Constituition was merely a
maximum limit to the number of party list
representatives but the maximum need not be filled.
Ang Bagong Bayani v. COMELEC
Doctrine The intent of the Constitutional Commission
and of the party List Law is not to allow all
associations to participate indiscriminately in the
system but to limit participation to parties or
organizations representing the marginalized and
underprivileged. The party list system is a form
sectoral representation meant to promote social
justice. For this purpose, the Court laid down
guidelines for the Comelec to apply in deciding which
organizations qualified. Among the guidelines was the
requirement that the parties or organizations must
represent the marginalized and underrepresented
sector. The Court said that even political parties must
comply with this requirement. Moreover, the
nominees themselves must comply with the
qualitative requirement.
What is clear from these decisions is that the Court,
speaking through Justice Panganiban, sees the party-
list system not as a proportional system of
representation designed to strengthen democracy but
as "sectoral representation" meant to promote social
justice. The deliberations of the Constitutional
Commission were clearly to the contrary. In the
course of the drafting of the provision, Commissioner
Villacorta proposed that 30% of the seats in the
House of Representatives be allocated equally
between sectors and representatives of parties and
organizations. The thrust of the proposal was that
30% of the party-list seats should be permanently
reserved for marginalized sectors.
When the dissenting opinion of Justice Mendoza
pointed to what the Record of the Constitutional
Commission showed, Panganiban retorted that
Commission records should be consulted only when
the text of the Constitution is not clear. For him, the
text -- in spite of the specific three term and fifty
percent limitation -- was clearly not for twenty five only
but for fifty seats, and not for three terms only but
forever. Effectively, he deleted the phrase "For three
consecutive terms after the ratification of this
Constitution one-half of the seats . . ." Indeed, after
such amputation, and only after such amputation, the
text becomes clearly on his side..
Page 14 of 36
That is not all. The majority also ruled that party-list
nominees "must represent marginalized and
underrepresented sectors." This means that
nominees who do not have this ideological quality,
(which incidentally is not easily proved or disproved),
they are not qualified to be members of the House of
Representatives as party-list representatives. But this
is another departure from the constitutional text; this
time, however, not by amputation but by grafting. No
such ideological requirement is found in Section 6 of
Article VI which enumerates the qualifications of a
member of the House of Representatives.
Section 6
No person shall be a Member of the House of
Representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen of
the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at
least twenty-five years of age, able to read and write,
and, except the party-list representatives, a registered
voter in the district in which he shall be elected, and a
resident thereof for a period of not less than one year
immediately preceding the day of the election.
Party List and Sectoral Representative
Qualifications
They must be able to read and write and belong to the
minority which they represent, and since the
Constitution is silent on the qualifications of sectoral
representatives, they are assumed to be the same as
those for party list representatives.
Residence Qualification
The residence period qualification must be possessed
on the day of the election. He must not only reside in
the district where he is elected, he must also be a
registered voter.
Gallego v. Verra
Doctrine The term “residence” as used in the election
law is synonymous with “domicile” which imports not
only the intentionto reside in a fixed place but also
personal presence in that place coupled with conduct
indicative of such intention. In order to acquire
domicile by choice, these must concur:
o residence or bodily presence in the
new locality
o an intention to remain there
indefinitely (animus mamendi)
o an intention to abandon the old
domicile voluntarily (animus non revertendi)
Romualdez-Marcos v. COMELEC
Synopsis At issue is the candidacy of The
Imeldific in Leyte. The Court ruled that Imeldific had
satisfied the one year residency requirement.
If a person retains his domicile of origin, then the one
year period is irrelevant because by legal fiction,
wherever he may be, he is a resident of his domicile
of origin. If a person reestablishes a previously
abandoned domicile or wishes to acquire a new one,
the one year requirement must be satisfied. The Court
also held that a widow, upon the death of her spouse,
reverts back to her domicile of origin.
Aquino v. COMELEC
Synopsis Butz Aquino was not able to satisfy
the requirement that he abandon his domicile in
Tarlac when he ran for a Makati Congressional
district. Even if he had, he had not been in Makati for
one year preceding the election. In this case, Justice
Padilla’s view was that either domicile or evidence
would suffice provided that there is a physical
presence of one year in the district where a candidate
is running is satisfied.
Domino v. COMELEC
Synopsis The petitioner’s domicile of origin
was Candon, Ilocos Sur, and in 1991, he acquired a
new domicile of choice in Quezon City, as shown in
his certificate of candidacy to run as a representative
of Quezon City. Then in 1995, he abandoned his old
domicile of choice and established a new one in
Saranggani. The Court found that the above facts
were insufficient to establish a new domicile by
choice. Personal presence in a particular place must
be coupled with conduct indicative of that intention. In
order to change a domicile, one must have a bona
fide intention to abandon the other and establish a
new one through definite acts. The lease contract did
not show the kind of permanency required to prove
abandonment of the old domicile. Domino’s old
registration as a voter in Quezon City also belied his
claims.
Natural-Born Citizens
A natural-born citizen, according to the Constitution,
are those citizens who are citizens of the Philippines
from birth without having to perform any act to acquire
or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those who elect
Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph 3,
Section 1 of Article IV are also considered natural-
born citizens (those born before January 17, 1973, of
Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority).
Bengson v. Cruz
Doctrine A natural-born citizen who loses his
citizenship by naturalization in another country but is
later repatriated recovers his status as a natural-born
citizen and therefore is qualified to become a member
of Congress.
Section 7
The Members of the House of Representatives shall
be elected for a term of three years which shall begin,
unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on the
Page 15 of 36
thirtieth day of June next following their election. No
Member of the House of Representatives shall serve
for more than three consecutive terms. Voluntary
renunciation of the office for any length of time shall
not be considered as an interruption in the continuity
of his service for the full term for which he was
elected.
Term and Tenure
Aside from fixing the three year term of
Representatives, there is a three-term limit for
Representatives. The Constitution also places a
distinction between one’s term and one’s tenure,
since “voluntary renunciation of the office for any
length of time shall not be considered as an
interruption in the continuity of his service ( or tenure)
for the full term for which he was elected.”
Dimaporo v. Mitra
Synopsis Dimaporo filed his candidacy for
Governor of ARMM, and he was excluded from the
Roll of Members in the House of Representatives as
the House complied with Section 67, Article IX of the
Omnibus Election Code which considered someone
running for an elective office other than President or
Vice-President resigned ipso facto from his office
upon filing of the certificate of candidacy. The law was
challenged because Dimaporo claimed that it
shortened his term as Congressman, but the Court
ruled that it only shortened his tenure but not his term.
Section 8
Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election
of the Senators and the Members of the House of
Representatives shall be held on the second Monday
of May.
Section 9
In case of vacancy in the Senate or in the House of
Representatives, a special election may be called to
fill such vacancy in the manner prescribed by law, but
the Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives thus elected shall serve only for the
unexpired term.
The service of the unexpired term shall count as one
term for purposes of counting the number of allowable
successive terms. The holding of special elections is
not mandatory.
Section 10
The salaries of Senators and Members of the House
of Representatives shall be determined by law. No
increase in said compensation shall take effect until
after the expiration of the full term of all the Members
of the Senate and the House of Representatives
approving such increase.
Any increase in the compensation shall not take effect
until after the expiration of the full term of all the
Members of the Senate and the House of
Representatives approving such increase. This
serves as a legal bar to the legislators yielding to the
natural temptation to increase their salaries. It is only
after the expiration of the six year term of the
Senators who approved the increase that the increase
becomes effective. Moreover, the retirement benefits
of a legislator must be based on the salary during his
term and not on the present salary of a legislator.
There is no legal limit to the amount Congress may
appropriate for expenses toward supplies and
personnel. The limit shall be moral, inasmuch as the
records and books of account shall be open to the
public in accordance with law and that such books
shall be audited by the Commission on Audit.
Section 11
A Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable by
not more than six years imprisonment, be privileged
from arrest while the Congress is in session. No
Member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any
other place for any speech or debate in the Congress
or in any committee thereof.
The privilege from arrest is the same privilege
extended to the Parliament of England and to
members of the United States Congress. The
immunity applies to all arrests punishable by not more
than six years’ imprisonment, and exists for as long
as Congress is in session, whether or not the
legislator involved is actually attending it. This
immunity is not extended to one who is convicted.
Jimenez v. Cabangbang
Synopsis Cabangbang wrote an open letter to
the President and caused this to be published in
several newspapers. Cabangbang contends that he is
shielded from suit. The Court noted that the open
letter is not within the scope of privileged
communication.
Antonino v. Valencia
Synopsis Valencia issued a libelous press
release attacking the honor and reputation of the
plaintiff. The press release is not qualified privileged
communication because he has not shown that he
published the same with good intentions and
justifiable ends. Furthermore, the statement was not
made in his function as a legislator.
People v. Jalosjos
Doctrine The grant of Congressional immunity does
not extend to one convicted, much less one convicted
of rape. He cannot claim that he should be freed
because of popular sovereignty and that his
constituents need to be represented. The Court noted
that Members of Congress may be arrested for crimes
Page 16 of 36
punishable by more than six months imprisonment,
whether or not Congress is in session.
Osmeña v. Pendatun
Doctrine The provision that no Member shall be
questioned nor be held liable in any other place
means that a legislator may still be held liable by
Congress in Congress for offensive speech. The
provision guarantees the legislator complete freedom
of expression without fear of being made responsible
in criminal actions before the courts or any other
forum outside of the Congressional hall, but it does
not protect him from responsibility before the
legislative body itself whenever his words and
conduct are considered by the latter disorderly or
unbecoming of a member thereof.
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
filing of a proposed legislation of which they are
authors.
The first sentence sets down a policy of full disclosure
of the financial and business affairs of a legislator.
The second sentence requires him to put the House
on notice for any potential conflict of interest. This
does not mean that a legislator may not further his or
her personal interest in his term as a legislator. It
merely allows the House to examine his arguments
with a sharper eye and in the context of his personal
interest. The advance disclosure shifts any
presumption to favor the legislator in cases of conflict
of interest.
Section 13
No Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives may hold any other office or
employment in the Government, or any subdivision,
agency, or instrumentality thereof, including
government-owned or controlled corporations or their
subsidiaries, during his term without forfeiting his
seat. Neither shall he be appointed to any office which
may have been created or the emoluments thereof
increased during the term for which he was elected.
The prohibited offices include membership in the
Board of Regents, Board of Trustees, or Board of
Directors in SUC’s. Since the prohibition is only during
his tenure, he may be offered and he may accept an
appointment. However, if he does accept, he
automatically forfeits his seat in Congress.
Section 14
No Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives may personally appear as counsel
before any court of justice or before the Electoral
Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other administrative
bodies. Neither shall he, directly or indirectly, be
interested financially in any contract with, or in any
franchise or special privilege granted by the
Government, or any subdivision, agency, or
instrumentality thereof, including any government-
owned or controlled corporation, or its subsidiary,
during his term of office. He shall not intervene in any
matter before any office of the Government for his
pecuniary benefit or where he may be called upon to
act on account of his office.
Conflict of Interest
Legislators are prohibited from being directly or
indirectly interested financially in any contract with or
in any franchise or special privilege granted by the
Government, or any subdivision, agency, or
instrumentality thereof, including any government
owned and controlled corporations and its
subsidiaries during his term of office. They cannot be
members of boards of corporations that do business
with the government. Neither may they intervene in
any manner before any other office of the
Government where he may be called upon to act
upon account of his office. This prohibition is direct
and indirect, and covers pecuniary benefits for
relatives.
Lawyer Legislators
Puyat v. De Guzman
Synopsis This involves an Assemblyman who
bought a nominal amount of shares in a corporation
which was party to a suit before the SEC. He then
proceeded to appear “in intervention” puportedly to
protect his own interest. The Court saw through the
ruse and said that a ruling upholding the “intervention”
would make the Constitutional provision preventing
members of Congress from using their office to
influence their dealings with courts ineffective. It is
inferred from this decision that a legislator may
appear in person before a court if in fact is is a
genuine party in the case.
Section 15
The Congress shall convene once every year on the
fourth Monday of July for its regular session, unless a
different date is fixed by law, and shall continue to be
in session for such number of days as it may
determine until thirty days before the opening of its
next regular session, exclusive of Saturdays,
Sundays, and legal holidays. The President may call
a special session at any time.
Sessions of Congress
A regular session lasts for as long as Congress
wishes but only until thirty days before the opening of
its next regular session, exclusive of Saturdays,
Sundays, and legal holidays. However, the President
may call Congress to a special session at any time. It
Page 17 of 36
can last for as long as Congress wants. The President
is given the power to call for a session and to specify
the subjects considered, but cannot prohibit any other
subject from being considered. Technically, Congress
can stay in session for as long as it wants.
Section 16
(1) The Senate shall elect its President and the House
of Representatives, its Speaker, by a majority vote of
all its respective Members. Each House shall choose
such other officers as it may deem necessary.
(2) A majority of each House shall constitute a
quorum to do business, but a smaller number may
adjourn from day to day and may compel the
attendance of absent Members in such manner, and
under such penalties, as such House may provide.
(3) Each House may determine the rules of its
proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly
behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds of all
its Members, suspend or expel a Member. A penalty
of suspension, when imposed, shall not exceed sixty
days.
(4) Each House shall keep a Journal of its
proceedings, and from time to time publish the same,
excepting such parts as may, in its judgment, affect
national security; and the yeas and nays on any
question shall, at the request of one-fifth of the
Members present, be entered in the Journal. Each
House shall also keep a Record of its proceedings.
(5) Neither House during the sessions of the
Congress shall, without the consent of the other,
adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other
place than that in which the two Houses shall be
sitting.
Political Questions
Avelino v. Cuenco
During the Senate session of February 21, 1949
Senate President Avelino walked out of the session
hall followed by nine other senators. This left only
twelve senators in the session hall. The Senate
President pro-tempore took over, and by a resolution
approved by the other senators, the position of
Senate Presdent was declared vacant, and Senator
Cuenco was declared Acting Senate President. The
Court refused jurisdiction.
Election of Officers
Quorum
The basis of determining the existence of a quorum
should be the total membership of the body.
Avelino v. Cuenco
Synopsis During the Senate session of
February 21, 1949 Senate President Avelino walked
out of the session hall followed by nine other
senators. This left only twelve senators in the session
hall. The Senate President pro-tempore took over,
and by a resolution approved by the other senators,
the position of Senate Presdent was declared vacant,
and Senator Cuenco was declared Acting Senate
President. By a vote of 6-4, the Court refused to
assume jurisdiction on the basis of it being a political
question of the second type (see later discussion on
political questions)
Santiago v. Guingona
Synopsis Miriam questioned the capacity of
those who voted for Fernan to become Senate
President to fill the Senate Minority posts. The
respondents alleged that the Court had no jurisdiction
because there was no statutory provision guiding the
filling of Senate posts other than that of the Senate,
whose rules accorded the posts according to party
number. The Court said that “in the absence of
constitutional guidelines or specific rules, it is devoid
of any basis upon which to determine the legality of
the acts of the Senate. The Court may not intervine in
the internal affairs of Congress because of the
respect it has for the separation of powers.”
Internal Discipline
Each House may determine the rules of its
proceedings. Therefore it is clear that on matters
affecting only the internal operation of the legislature,
the legislature’s formulation and implementation of its
rules is beyond the reach of the Courts. In these
matters, the jurisdiction conferred to by Article VIII,
Section I does not apply, unless it affects private
rights.
Osmeña v. Pendatun
Doctrine Disciplinary proceedings were initiated by
the House against Sergio Osmeña, Jr. for a speech
delivered on the floor of Congress. Osmeña filed for
declaratory relief saying that his speech did not
constitute disorderly behavior and that by House
Rules, he could not be censured because the
business had transpired before Congress decided to
take action. The Court ruled that the House is the final
judge of what it construes as disorderly behavior.
Paredes, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan
Synopsis Congressman Paredes was
charged with violations of the Anti-Graft law that he
allegedly committed while he was still a provincial
governor. The Sandiganbayan prescribed a
mandatory suspension. Paredes asked the Supreme
Court on the basis that only the House can suspend
him. On the argument that the grounds was not based
on Section 16(3), or the House Rules, the Court
upheld the suspension, with a one page decision.
Page 18 of 36
When the House decided not to implement the
suspension, the Court could do nothing.
Journals
The duty to keep a journal has two purposes:
• to insure publicity to the proceedings of the
legislature, and a correspondent responsibility of the
members to their respective constituents
• to provide proof of what actually transpired in
the legislature.
Under the 1935 Constitution, Congress could impose
secrecy at its discretion, the 1973 and 1987
Constitutions, exempt from publication only such
matters “as may, in each House’s judgment, affect
national security”. It still remains to be seen how the
rule can be enforced and who will enforce it in
Congress.
US v. Pons
Synopsis The defendant argued that the
statute under which he was being prosecuted was
invalid for having been passed after the last allowable
day of the legislative session. He claimed that the
legislature’s clock had been stopped at midnight on
the last day of the session and it was in fact after
midnight that the statute was passed. The journal said
that the statute was passed before midnight. The
Court said that to inquire into the veracity of the
journals when they are clear and explicit, would
violate both the letter and the spirit of the organic law.
Enrolled Bill Doctrine
Under the enrolled bill doctrine, the signature of the
Speaker of the House and the Senate President, and
the certification of the Secretaries of both Houses of
Congress are conclusive of its due enactment.
Casco Phil. Chemical Company v. Gimenez
Synopsis Casco claimed that both urea and
formaldehyde were included in the tax exemption
given by a law to urea formaldehyde, a fertilizer. To
prove its case, Casco referred to the Congressional
journal. The Court opined that the statement in the
law itself was clear and did not lend itself to
construction but stopped short of declaring the statute
a mistake. It further opined, “if there has been a
mistake in the printing of a bill before it was certified
by the Congrress and approved by the Executive, on
which we cannot speculate without jeopardizing the
principle of separation of powers, the remedy is
amendment or curative legislation and not judicial
decree.”
Astorga v. Villegas
Doctrine The Senate President and the President of
the Philippines withdrew their signatures upon the
discovery of the inaccuracies in the bill, the document
was stripped of the character and probative value of
an enrolled bill and had to yield to the version found in
the journal.
Arroyo v. De Venecia
Doctrine The issue is whether or not RA 8420, which
amends portions of the National Internal Revenue
Code, which imposes sin taxes on beer and cigarettes
is null and void because it is in violation of the Rules
of the House. What is alleged to have been violated
are merely internal Rules of Procedure, not the
Constitutional requirements for the enactment of a
law. Mere failure to comply with the Rules of
Procedure does not invalidate a law.
Recess
Both houses may hold session practically all year
round. They go on compulsory recess thirty days
before the opening of the next regular session. Each
House may also adjourn for a voluntary recess, but
neither house may adjourn, without the consent of the
other, for more than three days nor to any place other
than that in which the two Houses are sitting. This is
necessary because there are only two houses and
one body.
Section 17
The Senate and the House of Representatives shall
each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the
sole judge of all contests relating to the election,
returns, and qualifications of their respective
Members. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed
of nine Members, three of whom shall be Justices of
the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief
Justice, and the remaining six shall be Members of
the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the
case may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of
proportional representation from the political parties
and the parties or organizations registered under the
party-list system represented therein. The senior
Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman.
Composition of Electoral Tribunals
The electoral tribunals are a mixture of members of
the Supreme Court and Congress. The six members
from Congress are selected through proportional
party representation and the three Supreme Court
Justices are selected by the Chief Justice. The
Supreme Court justices are supposed to represent
the rights of all other political parties not represented
in the tribunal.
Abbas v. SET
Synopsis Abbas sought to disqualify all six
Senator Members of the Electoral Tribunal on the
ground that they, together with all the other Senators,
Page 19 of 36
were respondents in the contest filed by the
opposition party. He therefore wanted his case to be
heard by the three Justices on the Tribunal. The Court
rejected this contention, because it left the Tribunal no
alternative but to abandon a duty that no other court
or body can perform but which it cannot lawfully
discharge if shorn of the participation of its entire
membership of Senators.
Bondoc v. Pineda
Synopsis This involved a blatant attempt of a
political party to manipulate the decision of the
Tribunal by manipulating its membership. On the eve
of the promulgation of a decision by the Tribunal
against the LDP, the LDP expelled Camasura from
the party on the ground of disloyalty. Camasura, the
LDP member of the Electoral Tribunal, had earlier
confided that he broke party rank because he
followed his conscience. The Court considered the
expulsion of Camasura from the Tribunal a clear
impairment of the Tribunal’s prerogative to be the sole
judge of election contests.
Jurisdiction of the Electoral Tribunals
Angara v. Electoral Commission
Doctrine The Electoral Commission has jurisdiction
over all election contests regarding qualifications and
returns of members of the National Assembly.
Vera v. Avelino
Doctrine The Electoral Commission has the power to
be the “sole judge of all contests.” Election contests
relate only to statutory contests in which the
contestant seeks not only to oust the intruder, but also
to have himself inducted into office.
Where therefore, no defeated candidate challenges
the credentials of a member in order not only to
dislodge him but also totake his seat, the legislative
body itself, in the exercise of its inherent right of self-
preservation, may inquire into the credentials of the
member and judge his qualifications. When a member
of the legislative body challenges the qualification of
another, an election contest does not therefore ensue,
because the former does not seek to be substituted
for the latter, and hence, it is the legislative body itself
and not the Commission which has jurisdiction over
the question raised.
Sanchez v. COMELEC
Synopsis The candidate who was trailing in
the announced count wanted the COMELEC to
withhold proclamation until a recount could be made
of the votes. The name of another candidate Sanchez
without specification of a given name had been
considered an invalid vote. He wanted the ballot
boxes reopened for purposes retrieving the
invalidated Sanchez votes. The Court laid down that
this was not a pre-proclamation controversy and thus
the jurisdiction for this belongs to the Electoral
Tribunals.
Chavez v. HRET
Synopsis Chavez was trailing in the
announced count and wanted the COMELEC to
withhold proclamation until a recount could be made.
Pre-proclamations are limited to incomplete returns,
returns with material defects, or returns which appear
to be tampered with, falsified, or prepared under
duress, or containing discrepancies in the votes
credited to any candidate the difference of which
could affect the results.
Guerrero v. COMELEC
Synopsis The right of Fariñas to sit in the
House was challenged on the ground that his
certificate for candidacy was invalid. The question
here is not about qualification but election over which
the Tribunal has jurisdiction, because what Fariñas
failed to show was just his certificate of candidacy..
Otherwise, he had all the qualifications as mentioned
in Section 6.
Lazatin v. COMELEC
Doctrine When there has been a proclamation and a
defeated candidate claims he is the winner, the
Electoral Tribunal has jurisdiction.
Pimentel v. HRET
Synopsis The petitioners are assailing the
composition of the HRET, saying that party list
representatives should have at least one seat in the
HRET. The Court ruled that the proper venue is the
House and not the Court.
Codilla v. De Venecia
Synopsis The proclamation of Locsin was
void because it was premature, it having been
released prior to the resolution of Codilla’s
disqualification case. The case is still within the
COMELEC’s jurisdiction, hence the HRET has no say
on the matter.
Independence of the Electoral Tribunals
Although the Tribunals have six legislators on them,
they are not part of either House of Congress. They
are independent constitutional creations which have
power to create their own rules and are not under the
supervision or control of Congress.
Lazatin v. HRET
Page 20 of 36
Doctrine Electoral Tribunals are independent of the
COMELEC. The cases before the HRET are
governed by their own rules.
Garcia v. HRET
Synopsis Petitioners seeking to disqualify
Harry Angping failed to make the cash deposit
required by the rules of the HRET. The petition was
dismissed and the Court said that because of the
nature and importance of the charge, the HRET rules
of procedure must be taken seriously.
Grave Abuse of Discretion
Robles v. HRET
Doctrine The Supreme Court still has the authority to
look into the Electoral Tribunal under its jurisdiction
over actions where there may have been a grave
abuse of discretion leading to a lack or excess of
jurisdiction..
Lerias v. HRET
Doctrine The Court invalidated a final tally made by
the HRET without supporting evidence because it
found that the Tribunal acted with a grave abuse of
discretion.
Arroyo v. HRET
Doctrine Rules of Evidence can be made applicable in
a suppletory manner to HRET rules in judging the
correct number of botes for each of the two competing
Congressional candidates
Sandoval v. HRET
Doctrine The Court can still review the decision of the
HRET when there is a judicial controversy concerning
whether or not the decision constituted a grave abuse
of discretion leading to a lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Section 18
There shall be a Commission on Appointments
consisting of the President of the Senate, as ex officio
Chairman, twelve Senators, and twelve Members of
the House of Representatives, elected by each House
on the basis of proportional representation from the
political parties and parties or organizations registered
under the party-list system represented therein. The
chairman of the Commission shall not vote, except in
case of a tie. The Commission shall act on all
appointments submitted to it within thirty session days
of the Congress from their submission. The
Commission shall rule by a majority vote of all the
Members.
Section 19
The Electoral Tribunals and the Commission on
Appointments shall be constituted within thirty days
after the Senate and the House of Representatives
shall have been organized with the election of the
President and the Speaker. The Commission on
Appointments shall meet only while the Congress is in
session, at the call of its Chairman or a majority of all
its Members, to discharge such powers and functions
as are herein conferred upon it.
Composition of COA
The Commission on Appointments is composed of
twelve Senators and twelve Representatives and the
Senate President as ex oficio chair. Its members are
according to party proportion. The twelve seats need
not be filled up.
Daza v. Singson
Doctrine The House of Representatives proportionally
apportioned its 12 seats in the Commission on
appointments among the several political parties. The
petitioner Raul Daza was chosen to represent the
LDP. Later, the LDP was reorganized. 24 members
from the LP resigned from the party and joined the
LDP, swelling its number and reducing the LP to only
17. The House revised the representation in the
Commission of Appointments, withdrawing the
petitioner’s seat. Daza challenged the validity of his
removal. He said his seat was permanent and the
LDP was not a duly registered political party and has
not yet attained stability. The Court held that the
House has the authority to change its representation
in the COA to reflect any changes that may transpire
in political alignments. It is understood that such
changes must be permanenet and do not include
temporary alliances not involving severance of
political loyalties or formal disapplication.
Coseteng v. Mitra
Synopsis Coseteng was the only member of
Congress from the political party KAIBA. The Court
ruled that she was not entitled to a seat in the
Commission on Appointkments. To be entitled, a
party must have 17 members in the house or 8.4% of
the total membership. Disregard the fractions.
Section 20
The records and books of accounts of the Congress
shall be preserved and be open to the public in
accordance with law, and such books shall be audited
by the Commission on Audit which shall publish
annually an itemized list of amounts paid to and
expenses incurred for each Member.
Section 21
The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of
its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid
of legislation in accordance with its duly published
rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing
in, or affected by, such inquiries shall be respected.
Page 21 of 36
For the protection of the rights of witnesses, there are
implicit limitations on the power of legislative
investigation. It must be in aid of legislation, it must be
in accordance with duly established rules of
procedure, and the rights of persons appearing in
such inquiries must be respected.
No person may be punished in contempt unless his
testimony is required in a matter into which the
legislature has jurisdiction to inquire.
The phrase, in aid of legislation, contributes nothing
towards protecting witnesses. Practically any
investigation can be in aid of the broad legislative
power of Congress.
It is not necessary that every question propounded to
a witness must be material to or in aid of legislation.
In other words the materiality of the question must be
determined by its relation to the subject of the inquiry
and not its relation to any proposed legislation.
The Constitution explicitly recognizes the power of
investigation not just of either House, but also of its
committees.
Legislative Investigations
Negros Oriental II Electric Cooperative v.
Sangguniang Panglungsod
Synopsis The Sangguniang Panglungsod
subpoenaed NORECO for inquiry as to the alleged
installation of inefficient power lines. The SP held
NORECO in contempt. The Court ruled that such an
inquiry is beyond the jurisdicition of the SP.
Bengzon, Jr. v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee
Synopsis Kokoy Romualdez transferred some
properties to the Lopez Group of Companies and the
Senate Blue Ribbon Committee decided, purportedly
in aid of legislation to investigate the transaction. The
petitioners are also charged with a criminal case in
the Sandiganbayan. When they were asked to appear
before the Senate, they asked for a TRO because
appearing before the Senate would prejudice their
case before the Sandiganbayan, thus violating due
process.
The Court ruled that the investigation was not in aid of
legislation because the speech of Senator Enrile
contained no suggestion of contemplated legislation
but merely pointed to the need to determine wheteher
the relatives of President Aquino, particularly Ricardo
Lopa, had violated the law.
Section 22
The heads of departments may, upon their own
initiative, with the consent of the President, or upon
the request of either House, as the rules of each
House shall provide, appear before and be heard by
such House on any matter pertaining to their
departments. Written questions shall be submitted to
the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the
House of Representatives at least three days before
their scheduled appearance. Interpellations shall not
be limited to written questions, but may cover matters
related thereto. When the security of the State or the
public interest so requires and the President so states
in writing, the appearance shall be conducted in
executive session.
Section 21 deals with the inherent power of legislative
investigation in aid of legislation for which Congress
or its committees are authorized to summon
witnesses. Because of separation of powers,
however, and the peculiar position which heads of
departments hold in relation to the President, the
relationship of Congress to the official family of the
President is also delicate. Section 22 deals with this
delicate relationship.
The provision rejects the original proposal patterned
after the 1973 version and reflects instead its 1935
counterpart. The tenor is permissive. The President
may or may not consent to the appearance of
department heads; and even if he does, he may
require that the appearance be in executive session.
Reciprocally, Congress may refuse the initiative taken
by the department secretary.
Hence, although the task of legislation demands
adequate information and although the Bill of Rights
guarantees the right of the people to information on
matters of public concern, the dynamics of legislative-
executive relations would dictate that Congress find
ways of obtaining information from department heads
other than by compulsion. On the other hand,
department heads should be aware that information
vital to legislation legitimately requested by Congress
should not, for the welfare of the nation, be withheld.
The provision does not prevent the subpoena of
Department Undersecretaries.
Section 23
(1) The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of both
Houses in joint session assembled, voting separately,
shall have the sole power to declare the existence of
a state of war.
(2) In times of war or other national emergency, the
Congress may, by law, authorize the President, for a
limited period and subject to such restrictions as it
may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and
proper to carry out a declared national policy. Unless
sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such
powers shall cease upon the next adjournment
thereof.
War is defined as armed hostilities between two
states. The executive power, when necessary, may
Page 22 of 36
make war even in the absence of a declaration of war.
This is because the actual power to make war resides
in the Executive. What the Constitution provides is for
the legislature to have the power to declare the
existence of a state of war and to enact all measures
to support the war.
Section 24
All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills
authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of local
application, and private bills, shall originate
exclusively in the House of Representatives, but the
Senate may propose or concur with amendments.
Originating Clause
Laws with the following subjects MUST come from the
Lower House alone:
• Bills of Appropriation – one whose purpose
is to set aside a sum of money for public use. Only
appropriation bills in the strict sense of the word are
included.
• Revenue or Tariff Bills – these are strictly for
the raising of revenues. Bills for other purposes which
incidentally create revenues are not included.
• Bills increasing the public debt – this is
meant as a safeguard against the rampant borrowing
of foreign debt during the Marcos era
• Bills of Local Application – these refer to
those whose reach is limited, like those creating a
town, municipality, or city.
• Private Bills – those which affect private
persons, such as Ronnie Nathanielsz and Michael
Keon
Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance
Doctrine: The exclusivity of the prerogative of the
House means simply that the House alone can initiate
the passage of a revenue bill, such that if the House
does not initate one, no revenue law will be passed.
But, once the House has passed a revenue bill and
passed it on to the Senate, the Senate can overhaul
the bill. It does not matter that the Senate already
anticipated a bill from the House and prepared one to
take the place of whatever the House might send. The
Court rejected the idea that the Senate is bound to
retain the essence of what the House approved.
Section 25
(1) The Congress may not increase the appropriations
recommended by the President for the operation of
the Government as specified in the budget. The form,
content, and manner of preparation of the budget
shall be prescribed by law.
(2) No provision or enactment shall be 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 the appropriation to which it relates.
(3) The procedure in approving appropriations for the
Congress shall strictly follow the procedure for
approving appropriations for other departments and
agencies.
(4) A special appropriations bill shall specify the
purpose for which it is intended, and shall be
supported by funds actually available as certified by
the National Treasurer, or to be raised by a
corresponding revenue proposal therein.
(5) No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of
appropriations; however, the President, the President
of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions
may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in the
general appropriations law for their respective offices
from savings in other items of their respective
appropriations.
(6) Discretionary funds appropriated for particular
officials shall be disbursed only for public purposes to
be supported by appropriate vouchers and subject to
such guidelines as may be prescribed by law.
(7) If, by the end of any fiscal year, the Congress shall
have failed to pass the general appropriations bill for
the ensuing fiscal year, the general appropriations law
for the preceding fiscal year shall be deemed re-
enacted and shall remain in force and effect until the
general appropriations bill is passed by the Congress.
Limits on Appropriative Power
The provision that law shall only be paid out of the
treasury if there is a law is a prohibition on the
disbursing power of the executive. This does not
mean that the legislative has no restrictions on their
power to appropriate funds. There are explicit
restrictions to the power of Congress to appropriate
funds, to wit:
• All appropriation, revenue, or tariff bills, bills
authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of local
application, and private bills shall originate exclusively
in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may
concur with amendments.
• The Congress may not increase the
appropriations recommended by the President for the
operation of the Government as specified in the
budget
• Congress may not clutter the general
appropriation law with provisions not specifically
related to some particular item of appropriation, and
every such provision shall be limited in its operation to
the appropriation item to which it relates.
• Congress may not adopt a procedure for
approving appropriations for itself different from the
procedure for other appropriations.
• Special appropriations bills must specify the
purpose for which they are intended and must be
supported by funds certified as available by the
National Treasurer. If the funds are not actually
Page 23 of 36
available, the special appropriation bill must provide a
corresponding revenue proposal.
• Congress has limited discretion to authorize
transfer of funds
• Discretionary funds appropriated for
particular officials shall be dusbursed only for public
purposes to be supported by appropriate vouchers
and subject to such guidelines as may be prescribed
by law
• Congress cannot cripple the operation of
government by refusing to pass a new appropriations
bill. If no general appropriations bill is passed, the last
year’s appropriation carries over until a new one is
passed.
• The expenditure of public funds can never
be for religious purposes.
• The general appropriation law must be
based on the budget prepared by the President.
Riders
Provisions unrelated to the appropriation
Garcia v. Mata
Synopsis RA 1600 which provided for the
specific appropriation of the AFP contained a rider, a
provision not relevant to the act itself. The provision
dealt with the security of tenure of a reserve officer
from reversion to inactive service. The provision in RA
1600 is unconstitutional. It is invalid and inoperative.
Transfer of Funds
The rule on the transfer of funds says that only the
President, the Senate President, the House Speaker,
the Chief Justice, and the heads of the constitutional
commissions, may, by law, be authorized to augment
any item in the general appropriations law for their
respective offices from savings in other items of their
respective appropriations. This list is exclusive.
Public Purpose
Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works
Synopsis At issue was the appropriation of
PhP 85,000 for the appropriation of a projected feeder
road which ran through a private subdivision and over
private property. The Court incalidated the
appropriation saying that inasmuch as the land on
which the projected roads were to be constructed
belonged to a private individual, the result is that the
appropriation sought a private purpose. The
subsequent donation of the feeder road is
inconsequential, since the validity of a statute
depends upon the powers of Congress at the time of
its passage or approval, not upon events occurring, or
acts performed, subsequently thereto.
Demetria v. Alba
Synopsis The constitutionality of the Budget
Reform Decree of 1977 was being challenged on the
ground that it infringes upon the fundamental law by
authorizing the illegal transfer of public money. The
provision is unconstitutional because it violates the
Constitutional provisions on appropriations.
Section 26
(1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace
only one subject which shall be expressed in the title
thereof.
(2) No bill passed by either House shall become a law
unless it has passed three readings on separate days,
and printed copies thereof in its final form have been
distributed to its Members three days before its
passage, except when the President certifies to the
necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public
calamity or emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill,
no amendment thereto shall be allowed, and the vote
thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter, and the
yeas and nays entered in the Journal.
Subject and Title of Bills
The requirement that every bill shall embrace only
one subject which shall be expressed in the title
thereof is both directory and mandatory and
compliance with this requirement is essential to the
validity of legislation.
Tio v. Videogram Regulatory Board
Synopsis: Tio claimed that the tax on 30% of gross
receipts payable to local governments was a rider.
The Court held that the title was sufficiently broad to
cover a regulatory tax provision included in the act.
Philippine Judges Association v. Prado
Synopsis: The case at bar dealt with the franking
privileges of judicial mail. The title was found to be
sufficiently broad to cover the removal of the franking
privileges of the judiciary, but the Court found other
reasons to restore franking privileges.
Tan v. Del Rosario
Synopsis: Simplified Net Income Tax scheme for
professionals engaged in the practice of their
profession. The requirements of the one-subject one-
title rule has been sufficiently met. The title of a law is
not an index of its contents.
Tobias v. Abalos
Synopsis: The Court ruled that the title of the law
creating the city of Mandaluyong was sufficient
enough to cover the creation of another
Congressional district.
Page 24 of 36
Reading on Separate Days
Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance
There was no dispute that the VAT law had gone
through the second and third readings on the same
day.The President’s certification effects a
dispensation from all the procedural requirements.
Section 27
(1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it
becomes a law, be presented to the President. If he
approves the same he shall sign it; otherwise, he shall
veto it and return the same with his objections to the
House where it originated, which shall enter the
objections at large in its Journal and proceed to
reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds
of all the Members of such House shall agree to pass
the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to
the other House by which it shall likewise be
reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of all the
Members of that House, it shall become a law. In all
such cases, the votes of each House shall be
determined by yeas or nays, and the names of the
Members voting for or against shall be entered in its
Journal. The President shall communicate his veto of
any bill to the House where it originated within thirty
days after the date of receipt thereof, otherwise, it
shall become a law as if he had signed it.
(2) The President shall have the power to veto any
particular item or items in an appropriation, revenue,
or tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect the item or
items to which he does not object.
Passage of Bills
Two steps are required before a bill finally becomes a
law. First, it must be approved by both Houses of
Congress. The votes of the members of Congress
may be obtained viva voce. However, there are
instances when a roll call vote is required and
individual members must vote with a yea or nay. Such
roll call vote iss required upon the last and third
readings of a bill, at the request of one-fifth members
present and re-passing a bill vetoed by the President.
If unchallenged, a bill not acted upon within thirty days
of the President’s receipt becomes law.
Conference Committees
Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance
Doctrine In the United States, conference committees
could be held in executive session and amendments
germane to the purpose of the law may be introduced
even if these were not in either original bill. The
Constitutional safeguards against last minute
provisions have been disregarded by the Supreme
Court in the Tolentino ruling.

Arroyo v. De Venecia
Synopsis The issue is whether or not RA
8420, which amends portions of the National Internal
Revenue Code, which imposes sin taxes on beer and
cigarettes is null and void because it is in violation of
the Rules of the House. What is alleged to have been
violated are merely internal Rules of Procedure, not
the Constitutional requirements for the enactment of a
law. Mere failure to comply with the Rules of
Procedure does not invalidate a law.
Item Veto Power
CIR v. CTA (Caterer’s Tax)
Synopsis The President vetoed a portion of
Section 42 of RA 6110 referring to 20% of the
caterer’s tax on restaurants operated by hotels,
motels, and rest houses. The Court upheld the veto
because an “item” in a revenue bill does not refer to
an entire section imposing a particular kind of tax, but
refer to the subject ot the tax and the tax rate.
Bengzon v. Drilon
Synopsis The law appropriated 500 million
pesos for the general fund adjustment “for operational
and special requirements as indicated hereunder” and
one of the authorized uses of the fund was for the
adjustment of pension of justices as provided for in an
earlier law. The President vetoed the use of the fund.
In declaring the veto invalid, the Court said it was not
the veto of an item. The item was the entire 500
million smackers.
Doctrine of Inappropriate Provisions
Gonzales v. Macaraig
Doctrine The doctrine says that a provision that is
constitutionally inappropriate for an appropriation bill
may be singled out for veto even if it is not an
appropriation or revenue item.
Philconsa v. Enriquez
Synopsis The Court invalidated a veto of a
restriction on the use of funds for road maintenance
and a restriction on the use of funds for the puchase
of medicines since the veto did not include the veto of
the appropriated funds themselves. An item which
can be subject of a separate veto must be a distinct or
severable part of a bill.
Impoundment
Philconsa v. Enriquez
Page 25 of 36
Synopsis The President did not veto a
provision for the compensation and separation
benefits of CAFGU’s but instead said that the
implementation of the provision would be subject to
the peace and order situation of the affected localities.
The Court said that the provision was in effect
deactivated CAFGUs and the President had no
choice but to implement the law.
Section 28
(1) The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable.
The Congress shall evolve a progressive system of
taxation.
(2) The Congress may, by law, authorize the
President to fix within specified limits, and subject to
such limitations and restrictions as it may impose,
tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and
wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts within the
framework of the national development program of
the Government.
(3) Charitable institutions, churches and personages
or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit
cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and
improvements, actually, directly, and exclusively used
for religious, charitable, or educational purposes shall
be exempt from taxation.
(4) No law granting any tax exemption shall be
passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the
Members of the Congress.
Uniformity of Taxation
Tan v. Del Rosario
Doctrine The uniformity of taxation, like its kindred
concept of equal protection, merely requires that all
subjects/objects of taxation, similarly situated, are to
be treated equally. Uniformity does not prohibit
classification as long as:
(a) the standards used are substantial
and not arbitrary
(b) the categorization is germane to
achieve the legislative purpose
(c) the law applies to both present and
future conditions, and
(d) the classification applies equally
well to all those belonging to the same class.
Delegability
Garcia v. Executive Secretary
Synopsis There was an Executive Order
imposing an additional 5% ad valorem tax to all
articles imported to the Philippines. The rule that
revenue bills must originate from the House of
Representatives under the Originating Clause does
not prevent Congress from exercising this delegable
authority even if it involves the authority to create
revenue measures.
Tax Exemptions
Corollary to the power to tax is the power to exempt
from taxation. This is another limit on the power to
tax. The provision provides that charitable institutions,
churches and personages or convents appurtenant
thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all
lands, buildings, and improvements, actually, directly,
and exclusively used for religious, charitable, or
educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation.
Section 29
(1) No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except
in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.
(2) No public money or property shall be appropriated,
applied, paid, or employed, directly or indirectly, for
the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church,
denomination, sectarian institution, or system of
religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, other
religious teacher, or dignitary as such, except when
such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is
assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal
institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium.
(3) All money collected on any tax levied for a special
purpose shall be treated as a special fund and paid
out for such purpose only. If the purpose for which a
special fund was created has been fulfilled or
abandoned, the balance, if any, shall be transferred to
the general funds of the Government.
Expenditure of Public Funds
Congress is the guardian of the public treasury. The
power of the purse comprehends both the power to
generate money for the government by taxation and
the power to spend it. Congress alone can authorize
the expenditure of public funds with its power of
appropriation.
Public money cannot be paid to a religious person if
they are paid as religious persons, and not if they are
fulfilling another capacity.
Guingona v. Carague
Synopsis The case is about the
constitutionality of the automatic appropriation for
debt service. The Court found that the Origination
Clause only referred to bills still to be passed by
Congress and that the questioned laws were
complete in their essential terms and the sufficient
standards are indicated therein. After Congress
makes the appropriation, it is the Executive that
actually spends the fund.
Special Fund
Page 26 of 36
Osmeña v, Orbos
Synopsis The question is whether or not the
money that went into the OPSF was tax money levied
for a special purpose. As set up by the law it was a
“trust fund” which derived funding from the following
sources:
1. from increase in the tax collection
as a result of lifting tax exemptions from government
corporations
2. from any increase in tax collection
from ad valorem taxes on oil products
3. from peso savings from the
fluctuation of the peso against currencies used for the
importation of crude oil or petroleum products
While the funds may be referred to as taxes, they are
exacted in the exercise of the police powers of the
state. The OPSF is a special fund.
Section 30
No law shall be passed increasing the appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as provided in this
Constitution without its advice and concurrence.
Fabian v. Desierto
Fabian claims that according to Section 27 of RA
6770, appeals to decisions of the Ombudsman go
directly to the Supreme Court. Agustin says that the
bar on administrative case appeal based on the
Ombudsman’s rules on procedure must be binding.
Even though no party raised the issue, the SC
ordered the parties to look into the constitutionality of
Section 27 of RA 6770 as it increased the appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court without its consent.
Section 31
No law granting a title of royalty or nobility shall be
enacted.
Section 32
The Congress shall, as early as possible, provide for
a system of initiative and referendum, and the
exceptions therefrom, whereby the people can directly
propose and enact laws or approve or reject any act
or law or part thereof passed by the Congress or local
legislative body after the registration of a petition
therefor signed by at least ten per centum of the total
number of registered voters, of which every legislative
district must be represented by at least three per
centum of the registered voters thereof.
The current implementing law is RA 6735 which
provides that to exercise the power of referendum, at
least 10 percent of the registered voters, with at least
3 percent of all the voters per legislative district, shall
sign a petition for the purpose and register the same
petition with the COMELEC. It should provide the
context or text of the proposed law, the proposition,
the reason or reasons therefore, that it is not an
exception as provided, the signatures of the voters,
and an abstract of less than 100 words printed on top
of every page of the petition.
Within 30 days from receipt of the petition, the
COMELEC shall publish the petition in both English
and Filipino at least twice in newspapers of general
circulation and set the date of the election between
forty five and ninety days from the determination by
the COMELEC of the sufficiency of the petition. The
COMELEC shall set a special registration day three
weeks before the election.
If approved by a majority of the votes cast, the law
becomes effective fifteen days following the
completion of publication of the proposition and
certification by the Commission in the Official Gazette
or in a newspaper of general circulation in the
Philippines. A national or local initiative proposition
approved by a majority of the votes cast becomes
effective fifteen days after its proclamation by the
Constitution.
The one subject one title rule still applies to these
laws. Statutes involving emergency measures cannot
be subject to referendum until ninety days after
effectivity.
Article VII
The Executive Department
Section 1
The executive power shall be vested in the President
of the Philippines.
Executive Power
The conviction that permeated the 1986 ConCom was
that Marcos had taxed the executive power beyond its
allowable limits. However, the power that emerges
from this text is still potent because the primary
source of presidential power, the national vote, still
exists.
Marcos v. Manglapus
Synopsis The existence of “residual powers”
not specified in the Constitution allowed President
Aquino to prevent Marcos from returning home.
Executive power is more than the sum of specific
powers so enumerated. Whatever power not lodged
in the legislative or the judiciary is executive.
According to Fr. Bernas, the doctrine enunciated in
these two resolutions will be regretted when another
Marcos emerges as President.
Ceremonial Functions
The long catalogue of public duties that the Queen
discharges in England, the President of the Republic
of France, and the Governor General of Canada are
the President’s responsibilities in this country.
Page 27 of 36
Immunity from Suit
There is no provision clothing the President with
immunity from suit during his tenure. This immunity
only refers to suits that may arise out of the
performance of his duties. The President may be
charged with criminal acts during his tenure (Estrada
v. Desierto) and with civil suits not arising from the
exercise of his duties after his tenure (Clinton v.
Jones).
Soliven v. Makasiar
Doctrine The rationale for the grant of presidential
immunity is to assure the exercise of his duties free
from hindrance or distraction. This privilege pertains
only to the President. There is also nothing in our
laws that prevents the President from waiving that
right and submitting himself to the Court’s jurisdiction.
Clinton v. Jones
Synopsis The trial on the merits was
postponed until after the tenure of Clinton, as this was
a civil suit for damages.
Estrada v. Desierto
Doctrine The non-termination of the impeachment of a
President whose tenure has ended should not serve
as a bar for prosecution. The decision implies that a
sitting President does not have any immunity from suit
for non-official acts or for wrongdoing.
Section 2
No person may be elected President unless he is a
natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a registered
voter, able to read and write, at least forty years of
age on the day of the election, and a resident of the
Philippines for at least ten years immediately
preceding such election.
One must be a registered voter, able to read and
write, at least forty years old on the day of the
election, and a resident of the Philippines for at least
ten years immediately preceding the election. It is
enough that the candidate is domiciled anywhere in
the Philippines.
Section 3
There shall be a Vice-President who shall have the
same qualifications and term of office and be elected
with, and in the same manner, as the President. He
may be removed from office in the same manner as
the President.
The Vice-President may be appointed as a Member of
the Cabinet. Such appointment requires no
confirmation.
The Vice President is a President in reserve. Attempts
to give him another constitutional function failed
because it was seen as either encroaching on the
indpendence of the Senate (as Senate President in
the United States) or below his office. Unless he is
appointed as a member of the Cabinet or is given
some other executive funvtion, he has no other
function than to be prepared to assume the
Presidency in case a vacancy in the office arises. He
must have the same qualifications as President. He
may also be removed from office in the same manner
as the President.
In deference to his office, any appointment given to
him need not pass through the Commission on
Appointments.
Section 4
The President and the Vice-President shall be elected
by direct vote of the people for a term of six years
which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June
next following the day of the election and shall end at
noon of the same date, six years thereafter. The
President shall not be eligible for any re-election. No
person who has succeeded as President and has
served as such for more than four years shall be
qualified for election to the same office at any time.
No Vice-President shall serve for more than two
successive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office
for any length of time shall not be considered as an
interruption in the continuity of the service for the full
term for which he was elected.
Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election
for President and Vice-President shall be held on the
second Monday of May.
The returns of every election for President and Vice-
President, duly certified by the board of canvassers of
each province or city, shall be transmitted to the
Congress, directed to the President of the Senate.
Upon receipt of the certificates of canvass, the
President of the Senate shall, not later than thirty
days after the day of the election, open all the
certificates in the presence of the Senate and the
House of Representatives in joint public session, and
the Congress, upon determination of the authenticity
and due execution thereof in the manner provided by
law, canvass the votes.
The person having the highest number of votes shall
be proclaimed elected, but in case two or more shall
have an equal and highest number of votes, one of
them shall forthwith be chosen by the vote of a
majority of all the Members of both Houses of the
Congress, voting separately.
The Congress shall promulgate its rules for the
canvassing of the certificates.
The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole
judge of all contests relating to the election, returns,
Page 28 of 36
and qualifications of the President or Vice-President,
and may promulgate its rules for the purpose.
The fixing of the exact time and date for the start and
end of the term excludes the right to hold over in case
there is a vacancy in the next Presidency. On June
th
30 , 2004 either a newly elected President takes over
(since Gloria said she’s not running, I have to take her
word for it) or Section 7 becomes operative.
A President is limited to only one term, the Vice
President may not serve for more than two
consecutive terms. A voluntary renunciation of the
office for any length of time shall not be considered as
an interruption in the continuity of the Vice President’s
service. Moreover, if the Vice President succeeds the
President and serves for less than four years, she
may run for President as it would not constitute a re-
election.
Congress merely acts as a national board of
canvassers charged with the ministerial and executive
duty to make the declaration on the basis of the duly
certified election returns. This duty does not impose
on Congress the power to determine whether or not
the returns were irregularly made or tampered with.
The extent to which Congress as a canvassing body
may determine authenticity and due execution must
only be in the manner provided by law.
A tie in the count is broken by a vote of majority of all
the members of both Houses of Congress, voting
separately.
The Supreme Court is the sole Electoral Tribunal for
electoral contests involving the President and Vice
President.
Section 5
Before they enter on the execution of their office, the
President, the Vice-President, or the Acting President
shall take the following oath or affirmation:
"I do solemnly swear [or affirm] that I will faithfully and
conscientiously fulfill my duties as President [or Vice-
President or Acting President] of the Philippines,
preserve and defend its Constitution, execute its laws,
do justice to every man, and consecrate myself to the
service of the Nation. So help me God." [In case of
affirmation, last sentence will be omitted].
Section 6
The President shall have an official residence. The
salaries of the President and Vice-President shall be
determined by law and shall not be decreased during
their tenure. No increase in said compensation shall
take effect until after the expiration of the term of the
incumbent during which such increase was approved.
They shall not receive during their tenure any other
emolument from the Government or any other source.
Section 7
The President-elect and the Vice President-elect shall
assume office at the beginning of their terms.
If the President-elect fails to qualify, the Vice
President-elect shall act as President until the
President-elect shall have qualified.
If a President shall not have been chosen, the Vice
President-elect shall act as President until a President
shall have been chosen and qualified.
If at the beginning of the term of the President, the
President-elect shall have died or shall have become
permanently disabled, the Vice President-elect shall
become President.
Where no President and Vice-President shall have
been chosen or shall have qualified, or where both
shall have died or become permanently disabled, the
President of the Senate or, in case of his inability, the
Speaker of the House of Representatives, shall act as
President until a President or a Vice-President shall
have been chosen and qualified.
The Congress shall, by law, provide for the manner in
which one who is to act as President shall be selected
until a President or a Vice-President shall have
qualified, in case of death, permanent disability, or
inability of the officials mentioned in the next
preceding paragraph.
Section 8
In case of death, permanent disability, removal from
office, or resignation of the President, the Vice-
President shall become the President to serve the
unexpired term. In case of death, permanent
disability, removal from office, or resignation of both
the President and Vice-President, the President of the
Senate or, in case of his inability, the Speaker of the
House of Representatives, shall then act as President
until the President or Vice-President shall have been
elected and qualified.
The Congress shall, by law, provide who shall serve
as President in case of death, permanent disability, or
resignation of the Acting President. He shall serve
until the President or the Vice-President shall have
been elected and qualified, and be subject to the
same restrictions of powers and disqualifications as
the Acting President.
There are two sets of rules for determining who is
President in case of a vacancy. The first set of rules
(Sec. 7) applies to when the vacancy occurs at the
start of the term, and the second set (Sec. 8) applies
to when the vacancy occurs in the middle of the term.
Estrada v. Arroyo
Three justices accepted some form of resignation, two
justices saw permanent disability, three justices
accepted the Arroyo presidency as an irreversible
fact. Five justices signed the decision without any
Page 29 of 36
opinion, there was one dissent, and two abstained.
There is no clear doctrine from this case.
Section 9
Whenever there is a vacancy in the Office of the Vice-
President during the term for which he was elected,
the President shall nominate a Vice-President from
among the Members of the Senate and the House of
Representatives who shall assume office upon
confirmation by a majority vote of all the Members of
both Houses of the Congress, voting separately.
Also known in my contemporary history as the
Guingona rule, him being the first person to assume
the Vice-Presidency in this manner.
Section 10
The Congress shall, at ten o'clock in the morning of
the third day after the vacancy in the offices of the
President and Vice-President occurs, convene in
accordance with its rules without need of a call and
within seven days, enact a law calling for a special
election to elect a President and a Vice-President to
be held not earlier than forty-five days nor later than
sixty days from the time of such call. The bill calling
such special election shall be deemed certified under
paragraph 2, Section 26, Article V1 of this
Constitution and shall become law upon its approval
on third reading by the Congress. Appropriations for
the special election shall be charged against any
current appropriations and shall be exempt from the
requirements of paragraph 4, Section 25, Article V1 of
this Constitution. The convening of the Congress
cannot be suspended nor the special election
postponed. No special election shall be called if the
vacancy occurs within eighteen months before the
date of the next presidential election.
Subject to Section 8.
Section 11
Whenever the President transmits to the President of
the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives his written declaration that he is
unable to discharge the powers and duties of his
office, and until he transmits to them a written
declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties
shall be discharged by the Vice-President as Acting
President.
Whenever a majority of all the Members of the
Cabinet transmit to the President of the Senate and to
the Speaker of the House of Representatives their
written declaration that the President is unable to
discharge the powers and duties of his office, the
Vice-President shall immediately assume the powers
and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the
President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the
House of Representatives his written declaration that
no inability exists, he shall reassume the powers and
duties of his office. Meanwhile, should a majority of all
the Members of the Cabinet transmit within five days
to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of
the House of Representatives, their written
declaration that the President is unable to discharge
the powers and duties of his office, the Congress shall
decide the issue. For that purpose, the Congress shall
convene, if it is not in session, within forty-eight hours,
in accordance with its rules and without need of call.
If the Congress, within ten days after receipt of the
last written declaration, or, if not in session, within
twelve days after it is required to assemble,
determines by a two-thirds vote of both Houses,
voting separately, that the President is unable to
discharge the powers and duties of his office, the
Vice-President shall act as President; otherwise, the
President shall continue exercising the powers and
duties of his office.
Estrada v. Arroyo
Estrada made a statement of inability and gave this to
the Senate and House of Representatives. Unaware
of the letter Arroyo took her oath as President, both
Houses declared their support for Arroyo, the Senate
declared the impeachment functus oficio, and
Guingona was nominated and sworn in as the new
Vice President.. The Court declared that this was not
a case of temporary disability because in light of all
that had happened, Estrada’s inability was no longer
temporary. Because Congress already passed on the
subject of Estrada’s inability to govern, it became a
political question of the second type as enumerated in
Baker v. Carr.
Section 12
In case of serious illness of the President, the public
shall be informed of the state of his health. The
members of the Cabinet in charge of national security
and foreign relations and the Chief of Staff of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines, shall not be denied
access to the President during such illness.
This section refers to a serious illness that is not
incapacitating. This guarantees the people’s right to
know about the President’s health, contrary to
secretive practice in totalitarian governments.
Section 13
The President, Vice-President, the Members of the
Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not,
unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold
any other office or employment during their tenure.
They shall not, during said tenure, directly or
indirectly, practice any other profession, participate in
any business, or be financially interested in any
contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege
granted by the Government or any subdivision,
agency, or instrumentality thereof, including
government-owned or controlled corporations or their
Page 30 of 36
subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of
interest in the conduct of their office.
The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity
within the fourth civil degree of the President shall not,
during his tenure, be appointed as Members of the
Constitutional Commissions, or the Office of the
Ombudsman, or as Secretaries, Undersecretaries,
chairmen or heads of bureaus or offices, including
government-owned or controlled corporations and
their subsidiaries.
Prohibitions
The President, the Vice President, the members of
the Cabinet, or their deputies or assistants are
forbidden by the Constitution from holding any other
office or employment during their tenure, with the
exception of the Vice President who can serve as a
member of the Cabinet.
Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary
Synopsis The CLU assailed EO 284 which
allowed the Cabinet to hold more than two positions in
the government and GOCC’s. The Court ruled that
this Order went contrary to Section 13.
Except for the Vice President, who may be appointed
to the Cabinet, and the Secretary of Justice, who by
ex officio membership is a member of the Judicial and
Bar Council, the officials enumerated in Section 13
may not hold any other office, public or private. They
may be given additional functions which are intimately
related to their office.
Rafael v. Embroidery and Apparel Control Board
Doctrine We do not think that, because additional
duties germane to the offices already held by them
were devolved upon them by the Act, it was
necessary that they should again be appointed by the
President. It cannot be doubted that Congress may
increase the power and duties of an existing office
without thereby rendering it necessary that the
incumbent should again be nominated and appointed.
Erap and the PACC
Since the appointment of Erap to the PACC, which is
not a Cabinet rank office, was not challenged, this
assumes that the prohibition on other offices is meant
to prevent the enhancement of the powers of one who
is already powerful or the distraction of one who is
already too busy with his duties. The Vice President,
by the nature of his job, is neither powerful nor busy.
The provision on relatives up to the fourth civil degree
to the positions of Members of the Constitutional
Commiussions, the Office of the Ombudsman, or as
Secretaries, Undersecretaries, chairmen or heads of
bureaus or offices, including GOCC’s and their
subsidiaries only applies to new appointments.
Section 14
Appointments extended by an Acting President shall
remain effective, unless revoked by the elected
President, within ninety days from his assumption or
reassumption of office.
Section 15
Two months immediately before the next presidential
elections and up to the end of his term, a President or
Acting President shall not make appointments, except
temporary appointments to executive positions when
continued vacancies therein will prejudice public
service or endanger public safety.
The prohibition here also applies to appointments to
the judiciary. The provision in Article VIII which
requires the President to make appointments to the
judiciary within ninety days covers the period not
covered by Article VII, Section 15 (In re: Appointment
of Valenzuela). This Constitutional provision only
applies to the President and does not extend to local
executives (De la Rama v. Court of Appeals).
Section 16
The President shall nominate and, with the consent of
the Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads
of the executive departments, ambassadors, other
public ministers and consuls, or officers of the armed
forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and
other officers whose appointments are vested in him
in this Constitution. He shall also appoint all other
officers of the Government whose appointments are
not otherwise provided for by law, and those whom he
may be authorized by law to appoint. The Congress
may, by law, vest the appointment of other officers
lower in rank in the President alone, in the courts, or
in the heads of departments, agencies, commissions,
or boards.
The President shall have the power to make
appointments during the recess of the Congress,
whether voluntary or compulsory, but such
appointments shall be effective only until disapproved
by the Commission on Appointments or until the next
adjournment of the Congress.
Appointment to office is an executive function. The
filling up of that office is the implementation or
execution of that law.
Government v. Springer
Doctrine Since the power to appoint is neither
legislative nor judicial, it must be executive.
Bermudez, et. al. v. Executive Secretary, et. al.
Doctrine The provision in the Revised Administrative
Code of 1987 to the effect that “all provincial and city
prosecutors and their assistants shall be appointed by
the President upon the recommendation of the
Page 31 of 36
Secretary” cannot be read as requiring the President
to seek the recommendation of the Secretary of
Justice. The power to appoint is given to the
President. The Secretary of Justice is under the
control of the President. The law must be read as
simply allowing the Secretary of Justice to advise the
President.
This should not be confused with the authority of the
legislature to impose additional duties on existing
offices. See Rafael v. Embroidery and Apparel
Control Board.
Ad Interim Appointments
The second paragraph of this provision allows the
President to make appointments while Congress is in
recess, whether this be a voluntary or compulsory
recessd.
For a recess or ad-interim appointment to be
effective, it does not have to wait for action by the
Commission on Appointments. It becomes effective
once it is delivered to and accepted by the appointee.
There are two modes of terminating ad-interim
appointments: disapproval by Congress and
adjournment of Congress prior to the action of the
Commission on the appointment.
Matibag v. Benipayo
Doctrine Benipayo is the lawful Chairman of the
COMELEC because he assumed office in accordance
with the Constitution. An ad interim appointment is
permanenent in nature because it takes effect
immediately and can no longer be withdrawn by the
President once the appointee has qualified into office.
The fact that it is subject to confirmation by the
Commission on Appointments does not alter its
permanent character.
Commission on Appointments
The restoration of the Commission on Appointments
restores an executive limit on the appointing authority
of the President removed by the 1973 Constitution.
Sarmiento v. Mison
Doctrine The appointment of the Bureau of
Customs director does not need the confirmation of
the Commission on Appointments because this is not
mentioned in the first sentence of Section 16, This
has come to be known as the Mison doctrine.
Bautista v. Salonga
Ruling The appointment of the Chairman of the
Commision on Human Rights likewise does not need
confirmation of the Commission on Appointments
following the Mison doctrine.
Quintos-Deles v. COA
Doctrine However, sectoral representatives need the
confirmation of the Commission on Appointments
because it falls under the clause “and other officers
whose appointments are vested in him under the
Constitution.”
Calderon v. Carale
Doctrine The Constitutional Commission radically
narrowed the scope of the constitutional power of the
Commission on Appointments and reversed the
scope of the authority of the Commission under the
1935 Constitution. This is the basis for the ruling in
this case where the Court said that Congress may not
expand the list of positions that require the approval
of the Commission on Appointments.
Tarroza v. Singson
Doctrine The position of Central Bank Governor
likewise falls under the Mison Doctrine.
Appointment of Police Generals
Manalo v. Sistoza
Doctrine The officers referred to in Section 16 are
officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. Police
generals are civilian officers because of Article XVI,
Section 6 which characterizes police generals as
civilian officers. Thus the Court invalidated a provision
in the PNP Law which required police generals to be
confirmed by the Commission on Appointments.
Section 17
The President shall have control of all the executive
departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure
that the laws be faithfully executed.
Power of General Supervision and Power of
Control
The President has the power of general supervision
over local government and the power of control over
the executive branch, as well as GOCCs. The
meaning of this provision may be found in
jurisprudence from the 1935 Constitution.
The President does not have the power of control
over local governments. The power of control is the
power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set
aside what a subordinate officer had done in the
performance of his duties and to substitute the
judgment of the former for that of the latter.
The President is expected to delegate some of his
powers of control to members of the Cabinet..
Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency
Page 32 of 36
The acts of the Department Secretaries are the aots
of the President unless the President says otherwise.
Blaquera v. Alcasid
Doctrine The President issued the order to regulate
the grant of productivity incentive benefits and to
prevent discontentment, dissatisfaction, and
demoralization among government personnel by
committing limited resources of government for the
equal payment of incentives and awards. The
President was only exercising his power of control.
The power to grant incentives was not the duty of the
Civil Service Commission but that of the President.
De Leon v. Carpio
Doctrine The Director of the NBI cannot ignore an
order of the Secretary of Justice because, as the
alter-ego of the President, he has power of control
over executive officials. The NBI director must obey.
Lacson-Magallanes Co. v. Pano
Doctrine Executive Secretary Juan Pajo
issued ruling for Pano and company under the
authority of the President, overturning the Director of
Lands, and Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources.
Doctrine of Exhaustive Administrative Remedies
Unless your case reaches the Department Secretary,
and you do not hear from the President, you can't
bring your case to court.
Ang-Angco v. Castillo
Synopsis Ang-Angco was Collector of
Customs. After an investigation conducted by the
Office of the President, he was found “guilty” of
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service
and was “considered resigned” effective from the date
of the notice.
The Court had to resolve the power of control against
the security of tenure that flows from the Civil Service
Law. The Court held that this was an exercise of
disciplinary power, which flows from the power to
appoint. It said, in an obiter, that the Executive could
use the Civil Service Law to exercise its disciplinary
power.
Dadole v. COA
Synopsis Local government of Mandaue
issued allowance for judges of Mandaue. Denied by
DBM. This is an exercise of the power of control and
makes the order invalid.
NAMARCO v. Arca
Synopsis Although NAMARCO is a GOCC,
and because it is a GOCC, it falls under the
Executive, and the Executive has power of control. A
mistake in judgment can be reversed but cannot be a
ground for disciplinary action.
Faithful Execution Clause
The second sentence of Section 17 is the Faithful
Execution Clause, The faithful execution of laws,
according to the Neagle case in American
jurisprudence, includes not just the formal acts of
legislature but any duty or obligation inferable from
the Constitution and from statutes. The flip side of the
coin is the duty to carry the law out. The President
cannot refuse to carry out a law because in his
judgment it will not be beneficial to the people.
Section 18
The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all
armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it
becomes necessary, he may call out such armed
forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence,
invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion,
when the public safety requires it, he may, for a
period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines
or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-
eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus, the President shall submit a report in person
or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting
jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its
Members in regular or special session, may revoke
such proclamation or suspension, which revocation
shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the
initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the
same manner, extend such proclamation or
suspension for a period to be determined by the
Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and
public safety requires it.
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-
four hours following such proclamation or suspension,
convene in accordance with its rules without need of a
call.
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate
proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the
factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus or the extension thereof, and must promulgate
its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation
of the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the
civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the
conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and
agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to
function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus.
Page 33 of 36
The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus shall apply only to persons judicially charged
for rebellion or offenses inherent in, or directly
connected with, invasion.
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus, any person thus arrested or detained
shall be judicially charged within three days,
otherwise he shall be released.
Supremacy of Civilian Authority.
The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines. However, his being
the Commander-in-Chief doesn't make him a member
of the Armed Forces. This is a concrete example of
the supremacy of civilian authority.
There are three military powers that the President
may call upon in times of national crisis:
Call out the Armed Forces
The President may call out the Armed Forces to
prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion, or
rebellion.
The Constitution provides that the President may call
out the Armed Forces "whenever it becomes
necessary." Unlike his power to suspend the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus and his power to declare
Martial Law, the power to call out the Armed Forces is
not subject to judicial review.
The authority to decide whether the state of exigency
exists rests solely on the President, and his
conclusion is binding.
A question regarding the calling out of the Armed
Forces is justiciable only when it can be shown that
the President acted with grave abuse of discretion
leading to a lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Lacson v. Secretary Perez
Facts President Arroyo's decision to declare Metro
Manila under a "state of rebellion" is violative of the
doctrine of separation of powers, since the judiciary
has the prerogative to determine or interpret EDSA III.
This declaration cannot be an exception to the rule.
Held The CINC may call out the armed forces
when necessary. In IBP v. Zamora (131 SCAD 800),
the factual necessity for calling out the Armed Forces
is something only the President can decide. The
Court may look into the sufficiency of the factual basis
on the basis of its power to determine grave abuse of
discretion.
Suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus
Habeas Corpus is an instrument for immediate
release. There must be a reason for your detention.
The writ of habeas corpus always issues. It is the
privilege of the writ that is suspended.
The suspension applies only to those charged with
rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected
with invasion.
Any person thus detained should be judicially charged
within three days. Without this charge, he will be set
free.
Martial Law
Martial law can only be declared in cases of invasion
or rebellion, and when the public safety requires it.
These are the same grounds for the suspension of
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
Normally, police power is exercised by the legislative
and implemented by the executive. Under Martial
Law, police power is exercised by the executive with
the aid of the military in place of "certain
governmental agencies which for the time being are
unable to cope with existing conditions in a locality
which remains subject to the sovereignty."
Two factual bases must exist before Martial Law can
be declared:
1. Existence of actual invasion or rebellion
2. Public safety requires it.
This public necessity under which martial law is
declared creates the vagueness under which we
understand martial law.
Conclusions of the Marcos Supreme Court about
Martial Law
(Gumaua v. Espino, 96 SCRA 403)
1. Martial law automatically suspends the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
2. The President, as enforcer or administer of
martial law, can promulgate proclamations, orders,
and decrees during the period of martial law.
3. The President, as legislator, can create
military tribunals to try civilian offenders for particular
offenses.
Note: These views are now obsolete.
Safeguards under the 1987 Constitution
Time limit of 60 days
In cases of invasion or rebellion, when the public
safety requires it, for a period not exceeding sixty
days, suspe d the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof
under martial law. For an extension, President must
ask Congress, extension determined by Congress.
Automatic review by Congress
Within 48 hours of the proclamation, the President, in
writing or in person, shall submit to Congress a report.
A vote of at least majority of all its members, voting
Page 34 of 36
jointly (makes the whole thing easier) is required to
revoke Martial Law. If Congress is not in session, it
shall convene after 24 hours accprding to its rules
without need of a call.
Possible nullification by the Supreme Court
The SC may review, in an appropriate proceeding
filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis
of the proclamation of martial law and the suspension
of the privilege of the writ. Decision within thirty days
from filing.
Martial Law as Political Question
Since the issue whether the declaration of martial law
is a political question is settled by this Constitution (it's
not, and the SC has to decide within 30 days from the
date of filing), the Court may judicially review the
proclamation of martial law and the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
Section 19
Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise
provided in this Constitution, the President may grant
reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit
fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final
judgment.
He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with
the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of
the Congress.
Ezecutive Clemency
The President may grant reprieves, commutations, or
pardons. He may also remit fines and forfeitures after
conviction of final judgment.
Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice
Synopsis Part of the power of the Courts is to
control the execution of their judgment. This control
does not infringe upon the power of the Executive to
grant clemency.
Limitations on Power
This power is withheld if the President is being
impeached. A grant of amnesty needs the
concurrence of a majority of all the members of
Congress. This power needs to go through the
COMELEC for election violations.
Amnesty
He may also grant amnesty only with the concurrence
of a majority of all the members of Congress. An
accused must confess guilt of the crime before
availing of amnesty as a defense (Vera v. People, 7
SCRA 152)
Purpose of Executive Clemency
Tacit admission of the imperfection of human
institutions and that there are infirmities in the
administration of justice. It is an instrument for
correcting harshness out of a too strict application of
the law.
Forms of Executive Clemency
• Reprieves -- postpones the execution of an
offense to a day certain (People v. Vera, 65 Phil. 56,
110)
• Commutations -- is a remission of a part of
the punishment; a substitution of a less penalty than
the one imposed (People v. Vera, 65 Phil. 111)
• Pardons -- defined as ''an act of grace,
proceeding from the power entrusted with the
execution of laws, which exempts the individual on
whom it is bestowed from the punishment the law
inflicts for a crime he has committed. It is the private,
though official act of the executive magistrate,
delivered to the individual forwhose benefit it is
intended and not communicated officially to the
Court." (United States v. Wilson, 7 Pet. 150)
• Remittance of fines and forfeitures -- only
refers to confiscated property; does not refer to
property vested in third parties or money in the public
treasury.
• Amnesty -- given to political prisoners;
abolishes the crime. Can only be given with the
concurrence of Congress. Conviction is not required
to obtain the benefits of amnesty. When amnesty is
granted, a commission is created. When you avail of
amnesty, you imply guilt.
Extension to Administrative Penalties
The Constitution does not distinguish and makes no
limitation with regard to the pardoning power except
when the President is impeached. (Llamas v. Orbos,
G. R. No. 99031)
Absolute Pardon and Conditional Pardon
There is a distinction between absolute pardon and
conditional pardon. With conditional pardon, the
condition may be more onerous than the original
punishment so you can refuse the conditional pardon
(Cabantag v. Wolfe, 6 Phil. 273). You cannot refuse
an absolute pardon.
Pardon and Reinstatement
One who has been given absolute pardon has no
demandable right to reinstatement (Monsanto v.
Factoran. Jr., G. R. No. 78239), but if he is reinstated,
and there are no circumstances that warrant the
diminuition of rank, then the person should be
restored to full rank (Sabello v. Department of
Education, G. R. 87687). However, if a pardon is
given because one is innocent (as in a purely
administrative pardon), there should be back wages
and reinstatement (Garcia v. Commission on Audit,
226 SCRA 356).
Pardon and Appeal
Pardon has no effect until the withdrawal of the
appeal, allowing for the finality of the conviction
(People v. Salle, 66 SCAD 190)
Page 35 of 36
Prisoners and Amnesty
The proper remedy for prisoners covered under an
amnesty is to submit his case to the proper amnesty
board, not file a petition for habeas corpus (De Vera
v. Animas, L-48176)
Pardon vs. Amnesty
Pardon is granted by the Chief Executive and as such
it is a private act which must be pleaded and proved
by the person pardoned, because the courts take no
notice thereof; while amnesty by Proclamation of the
Chief Executive with the concurrence of Congress, is
a public act which the courts should take judicial
notice.
Pardon is granted to one after conviction, while
amnesty is granted to classes of persons or
communities who may be guilty of political offense,
generally before or after the institution of criminal
prosecution and sometimes after conviction
(Barrioquinto v. Fernandez, 85 Phil. 642)
Tax Amnesty
The President cannot grant tax amnesty without the
concurrence of Congress.
Section 20
The President may contract or guarantee foreign
loans on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines with
the prior concurrence of the Monetary Board, and
subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.
The Monetary Board shall, within thirty days from the
end of every quarter of the calendar year, submit to
the Congress a complete report of its decision on
applications for loans to be contracted or guaranteed
by the Government or government-owned and
controlled corporations which would have the effect of
increasing the foreign debt, and containing other
matters as may be provided by law.
Foreign Loans
The President may contract or guarantee foreign
loans with the prior concurrence of the Monetary
Board. The MB is to report to Congress within 30
days from the end of every quarter of the calendar
year.
Congress cannot pass a law requiring the President
to submit all loan applications to Congress alone for
approval. Congress may not use the power given to
the Monetary Board.
Section 21
No treaty or international agreement shall be valid
and effective unless concurred in by at least two-
thirds of all the Members of the Senate.
Foreign Relations
The President has the following foreign relations
powers (including but not limited to):
• Power to negotiate treaties and other
international agreements
• Power to appoint ambassadors and other
public ministers and consuls
• Power to receive ambassadors and other
public ministers accredited to the Philippines
• Power to contract and guarantee foreign
loans on behalf of the Republic (see previous article)
• Power to deport aliens
Treaties
Treaties do not become binding without ratification by
two-thirds of all the members of the Senate.
In the extradition treaty we have with the United
States, "An extradition proceeding is not a criminal
proceeding." Therefore the due process safeguards
do not apply (Secretary of Justice v. Lantion, 110
SCAD 138).
If there is a conflict between a treaty and a statute.
A treaty though parallel with a statute, is both
municipal law and international law. If you are
litigating in a domestic court, the later law applies.
The one that goes ahead becomes void. Only the
domestic character of the treaty is repealed. In
International Law, the municipal law has no force.
The President has the power to deport aliens. The
power is lodged with him.
Section 22
The President shall submit to the Congress, within
thirty days from the opening of every regular session
as the basis of the general appropriations bill, a
budget of expenditures and sources of financing,
including receipts from existing and proposed revenue
measures.
Budget of Receipts & Expenditures
Prepared by the DBM, and is the source of the
General Appropriations Act. Congress may not
increase the allocation for the Executive Department.
Section 23
The President shall address the Congress at the
opening of its regular session. He may also appear
before it at any other time.
SONA
SONA given at the start of the regular session of
Congress. The President may appear before
Congress at any other time.

In some jurisdictions, International Law is superior,

but not here.

Less formal treaties: Host Agreements

Less formal types of treaties may be entered into
without ratification by the Senate (USAFFE Veterans
Association, Inc. v. Treasurer of the Philippines, 105
Phil. 1030). A Host Agreement falls into this category
(WHO v, Aquino, 28 SCRA 242)

Qualifier
In general, if an agreement is permanent and original
(it creates new national policy) it requires a treaty and
consequently, Senate ratification. If it is an
implementation of an existing treaty, it does not need
ratification. This is because that agreement is
administrative in character.

New treaty signed to not bring anyone from the United

States Military before the International Criminal Court.

The United States has not ratified the treaty creating

the ICC. You can force the issue with the ICC if your
judiciary does nothing.

We have ratified it in the Senate. We have not

deposited it in the United Nations, so it is not effective
with respect to the Philippines yet. For Fr. Bernas, It
is an extension of the VFA, and it does not need any
ratification.

The negotiation of treaties is a purely administrative

act.

Power to Deport Aliens

Page 36 of 36