|







 


@
 
 



 Kinds of Legislative power:
¢   legislative power ʹ this power is possessed
by the sovereign people.
¢ = 
 legislative power ʹ the power which has
been delegated by the sovereign people to legislative
bodies i.e., Congress.
¢ 


legislative power ʹ the power to amend
or revise the Constitution.
¢  =  legislative power ʹ the power to pass
ordinary laws.
0ection 1 ʹ Who can exercise
legislative power?
£ Legislative power is vested in Congress.
Congress is consist of two houses:
- upper house or 0enate
- lower house or House of Representatives

£ The sovereign people has reserved legislative

power (initiative and referendum)
initiative and referendum:
£ 0ec. 32, Art. Vi also recognized the power of the
people called initiative and referendum which is
first mentioned in 0ec. 1, Art. Vi.
£ This is the power to ͞directly propose and enact
laws or approve or reject any act or law or part
thereof passed by Congress or local legislative
body͟.
£ The mechanics in the exercise of this power is
not stated in details in the Constitution but is
provided by law ʹ Republic Act No. 6735
R.A. 6735 ʹ definition of initiative:


 is the power of the people to propose amendments
to the Constitution or to propose and enact legislations
through an election called for the purpose.
There are three (3) systems of initiative, namely:
1. initiative on the Constitution which refers to a petition
proposing amendments to the Constitution;
2. initiative on statutes which refers to a petition proposing
to enact a national legislation; and
3. initiative on local legislation which refers to a petition
proposing to enact a regional, provincial, city, municipal, or
barangay law, resolution or ordinance.
How is local initiative conducted?
(0
A vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 125416, 0ept. 26, 1996)
͞initiative is resorted to (or initiated) by the people directly
either because the law-making body fails or refuses to enact
the law, ordinance, resolution or act that they desire or
because they want to amend or modify one already existing.
Under 0ec. 13 of R.A. 6735, the local legislative body is given
the opportunity to enact the proposal. if its refuses/neglects
to do so within thirty (30) days from its presentation, the
proponents through their duly-authorized and registered
representatives may invoke their power of initiative, giving
notice thereof to the local legislative body concerned. 0hould
the proponents be able to collect the number of signed
conformities within the period granted by said statute, the
Commission on Elections shall then set a date for the
initiative (not referendum) at which the proposition shall be
submitted to the registered voters in the local government
unit concerned.͟
R.A. 6735 ʹ definition of Referendum:
è = is the power of the electorate to approve
or reject a legislation through an election called for the
purpose.
Two classes of Referendum:
1. Referendum on statutes which refers to a petition to
approve or reject an act or law, or part thereof, passed
by Congress; and
2. Referendum on local law which refers to a petition to
approve or reject a law, resolution or ordinance
enacted by regional assemblies and local legislative
bodies.
 A 
G.R. No. 111230, 0ept. 30, 1994


Does an exercise of local initiative includes as subject
a resolution and not just an ordinance?
è
0ec. 32, Art. Vi of the Constitution clearly includes not
only ordinances but resolutions as appropriate subjects
of a local initiative. The term ͞act͟ found therein
includes resolution. Thus, 0ec. 3 of R.A. 6735 expressly
stated the term ͞resolution͟ in the definition of
initiative on local legislation.
 0

G.R. No. 127325,
arch 19, 1997

 PiR
A (People͛s initiative for Reforms,
odernization
and Action) filed a petition before the Comelec to amend the
some provisions of the Constitution relying on R.A. 6735.
 Does R.A. 6735 provides sufficient mechanism for the
conduct of initiative on the Constitution?
èThe Court ruled that the constitutional provision
granting the people the power to directly amend the
Constitution through initiative is not self-executory. An
enabling law is necessary to implement the exercise of the
people͛s right. Examining the provisions of R.A. 6735, the
Court held that said law was incomplete, inadequate, or
wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative
on amendments to the Constitution is concerned.
 initiative and referendum, distinguished
(0
A vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 125416, 0ept. 26, 1996)
> initiative is entirely the work of the electorate while
referendum is begun and consented to by the law-making
body.
> initiative is a process of law-making by the people themselves
without the participation and against the wishes of their
elected representatives, while referendum consists merely of
the electorate approving or rejecting what has been drawn up
or enacted by a legislative body.
> Hence, the process and the voting in an initiative is
understandably more complex than in a referendum where
expectedly the voters will simply write either "Yes" or "No" in
the ballot.
0anidad vs. Comelec
G.R. No. 90878, January 29, 1990
£ Referendum is merely consultative in character.
it is simply a means of assessing public reaction
to the given issues submitted to the people for
their consideration.
£ if the issue submitted to the people is intended
to work more permanent changes in the
political structure like a proposal to amend or
ratify the Constitution, it is to be done through
a plebiscite.
Non-delegability of legislative power:
Rule: Congress cannot delegate its legislative power.
͞The powers which Congress is prohibited from delegating
are those which are strictly, or inherently and exclusively,
legislative. Purely legislative power, which can never be
delegated, has been described as the 
 



 







=

!! =

=
 
"=

t.͟ (A AKADA
vs. Eduardo Ermita, G.R. No. 168056, 0eptember 1, 2005)
Exceptions to the Non-delegability of legislative power:
1. delegation of tariff powers to the President (0ec. 28 (2),
Art. Vi);
2. delegation of emergency powers to the President (0ec.
23(2), Art. Vi);
3. delegations to administrative agencies ʹ Congress finds
its necessary to entrust to administrative agencies the
authority to issue rules to carry out the general provisions
of a statute. (Power of subordinate legislation)
4. delegation to local legislative bodies ʹ Congress admits
that local legislative bodies are more knowledgeable on
matters of purely local concern and are therefore in a
better position to enact legislations peculiarly affecting
them.
Two tests of valid delegation:
> completeness test ʹ the law must be complete
in all its terms and conditions such that when
it reaches the delegate the only thing that he
will have to do is to enforce it.
> sufficient standard test ʹ the law must have
adequate guidelines and limitations to map
out the boundaries of the delegate͛s authority
and prevent the delegation from running riot.
 A AKADA vs. Eduardo Ermita
G.R. No. 168056, 0eptember 1, 2005

 0ections 4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337, amending 0ections 106, 107
and 108, respectively, of the NiRC give the President the ›



  to raise the VAT rate from 10% to 12% when certain conditions
are met.
 Does this constitute undue delegation of legislative power?
è it is not a delegation of legislative power. it is simply a delegation of
ascertainment of facts upon which enforcement and administration of
the increase rate under the law is contingent. The legislature may
delegate to executive officers or bodies the power to determine certain
facts or conditions, or the happening of contingencies, on which the
operation of a statute is, by its terms, made to depend, but the
legislature must prescribe sufficient standards, policies or limitations on
their authority.
While the power to tax cannot be delegated to executive agencies,
details as to the enforcement and administration of an exercise of such
power may be left to them, including the power to determine the
existence of facts on which its operation depends.
Tio vs. Videogram Regulatory oard
G.R. No. 75697, June 18, 1987
͞The grant in 0ection 11 of the P.D. 1987 of
authority to the ARD to "solicit the direct
assistance of other agencies and units of the
government and deputize, for a fixed and limited
period, the heads or personnel of such agencies
and units to perform enforcement functions for
the oard" is not a delegation of the power to
legislate but merely a conferment of authority or
discretion as to its execution, enforcement, and
implementation.͟
Case law on non-delegation of
legislative power:
Ë
 0#$%Ë@(166 0CRA 533)
- The provisions of the
C No. 2 of the PEA which
prescribes a standard contract to be adopted by both
foreign and domestic shipping companies in the hiring
of Filipino seamen for overseas employment is upheld
as a valid delegation of legislative power based on the
standard imposed by Executive rder No. 797 which
created the PEA.
- The standard provided by law is for PEA to protect
the rights of Filipino overseas workers to ͞fair and
equitable employment practices͟.
People vs. Dacuycuy (G.R. No. L-45127,
ay 5, 1989)

 0ec. 32 of R. A. No. 4670 (
agna Carta for Public 0chool Teachers)
provides:
U
 


›
  
›

›
 


 
› 












›

 › ›



 › 


›






 

 







›
›
 ›
 ›


 

›





››


 


›
›






›

›
›
›

 
›





 
 is this a valid delegation of legislative power?
è it is not for the courts to fix the term of imprisonment where no
points of reference have been provided by the legislature. What valid
delegation presupposes and sanctions is an exercise of discretion to
fix the length of service of a term of imprisonment which must be
encompassed within specific or designated limits provided by law, the
absence of which will constitute such exercise as an undue
delegation. Thus, the penalty of imprisonment should be, as it hereby,
declared unconstitutional.
PHiLC
0AT vs. Alcuaz, NTC
G.R. No. 84818, Dec. 18, 1989
͞Delegation of legislative power may be sustained only upon the
ground that some standard for its exercise is provided and that
the legislature in making the delegation has prescribed the
manner of the exercise of the delegated power. Therefore,
when the administrative agency concerned, respondent NTC in
this case, establishes a rate, its act must both be non-
confiscatory and must have been established in the manner
prescribed by the legislature; otherwise, in the absence of a
fixed standard, the delegation of power becomes
unconstitutional. in case of a delegation of the rate-fixing
power, the only standard which the legislature is required to
prescribe for the guidance of the administrative authority is that
the rate be reasonable and just. However, it has been held that
even in the absence of an express requirement as to
reasonableness, this standard may be implied.͟
 Ynot vs. intermediate Appellate Court
G.R. No. 74457,
arch 20, 1987

Under E 626-A, it is authorized that the seized property shall "be distributed to
charitable institutions and other similar institutions as the Chairman of the
National
eat inspection Commission may see fit, in the case of carabeef, and to
deserving farmers through dispersal as the Director of Animal industry may see fit,
in the case of carabaos.͞
 is this valid delegation of legislative power?
è The phrase "may see fit" is an extremely generous and dangerous condition. it
is laden with perilous opportunities for partiality and abuse, and even corruption.
ne searches in vain for the usual standard and the reasonable guidelines, or
better still, the limitations that the said officers must observe when they make
their distribution. There is none. Their options are apparently boundless. Who
shall be the fortunate beneficiaries of their generosity and by what criteria shall
they be chosen? nly the officers named can supply the answer, they and they
alone may choose the grantee as they see fit, and in their own exclusive discretion.
Definitely, there is here a "roving commission," a wide and sweeping authority that
is not "canalized within banks that keep it from overflowing," in short, a clearly
profligate and therefore invalid delegation of legislative powers.
Lokin vs. Comelec
G.R. No.179431-32, June 22, 2010
To be valid, therefore, the administrative iRRs must comply with the
following requisites to be valid:
1. its promulgation must be authorized by the Legislature;
2. it must be within the scope of the authority given by the Legislature;
3. it must be promulgated in accordance with the prescribed procedure;
and
4. it must be reasonable

iRRs must not be  

› as to be issued beyond the limits of the

authority conferred. it is basic that an administrative agency cannot
amend an act of Congress, for administrative iRRs are solely intended to
carry out, not to supplant or to modify, the law. The administrative
agency issuing the iRRs may not enlarge, alter, or restrict the provisions
of the law it administers and enforces, and cannot engraft additional
non-contradictory requirements not contemplated by the Legislature.

agtajas vs. Pryce Properties
G.R. No. 111097, July 20, 1994

 The 0angguniang Panglungsod of Cagayan de ro City enacted an ordinance
that prohibits the entry of casino in the city. However, PD 1869, the charter of
PAGCR, allows PAGCR to operate casinos within the territorial jurisdiction of
the Philippines.
 is the city ordinance of the Cagayan de ro valid?
èNo. To be valid an ordinance must conform to the following requirements:
1. it must not contravene the Constitution or any statute;
2. it must not be unfair or oppressive;
3. it must not be partial or discriminatory;
4. it must not prohibit but may regulate trade;
5. it must be general and consistent with public policy;
6. it must not be unreasonable.

unicipal governments are only agents of the national government. Local
councils exercise only delegated legislative powers conferred only them by
Congress as the national lawmaking body. The delegate cannot be superior to
the principal. The ordinance violate PD 1869 which has the character and force
of a law, thus, the ordinance is invalid.
0enate: (0ections 2,3 & 4, Art. Vi)
£ consisting of 24 senators who are elected at
large;
£ the term of office of senators is 6 years;
£ no senator shall serve for more than two
consecutive terms;
£ qualifications of the office:
1. citizenship ʹ natural born Filipino
2. age ʹ at least 35 years of age
3. literacy ʹ able to read and write
4. registered voter
5. residency ʹ at least two years immediately before the
day of election
 0ocial Justice 0ociety vs.DD & PDEA
G.R. No.157870, November 3, 2008

 n December 23, 2003, the Comelec issued Resolution No. 6486,
requiring the mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office in
connection with the
ay 10, 2004 synchronized national and local
elections. The said resolution was issued in order to implement
0ection 36 (g) of Republic Act No. 9165 provides that ͞All candidates
for public office x x x both in the national or local government shall
undergo a mandatory drug test.͟
 is the said provision of R.A. 9165 constitutional?
è0ec. 36(g) of RA 9165 should be, as it is hereby declared as,
unconstitutional. it is basic that if a law or an administrative rule
violates the Constitution, that issuance is null and void and has no
effect. The Constitution is the basic law to which all laws must
conform; no act shall be valid if it conflicts with the Constitution.
Congress cannot require a candidate for senator to meet such
additional qualification not stated in 0ec. 3, Art. Vi and the C
ELEC
is also without such power.
House of Representatives:
Two kinds of membership in the House:
£ District representatives ʹ those representing the different
legislative districts.
Qualifications:
1. citizenship ʹ natural born Filipino
2. age ʹ at least 25 years old
3. literacy ʹ able to read and write
4. registered voter in the district
5. residency ʹ at least one year immediately before the election

£ Party-list representatives ʹ those representing the marginalized

and underrepresented sectors.
Qualifications:
0ame as above-mentioned and he must be a bona fide member of the
organization which he seeks to represent. (0ec. 9, R.A. 7941)
Four parameters of party-list election:
1. Twenty percent allocation ʹ the combined number of all
party-list congressmen shall not exceed twenty percent of
the total membership of the House including those elected
under the party-list.
2. Two percent threshold ʹ only those parties garnering a
minimum of two percent of the total valid votes cast for the
party-list system are qualified to have a seat in the House.
3. Three-seat limit ʹ each qualified party, regardless of the
number of votes it obtained, is entitled to a maximum of
three seats.
4. Proportional representation ʹ the additional seats which a
qualified party is entitled to shall be computed in
proportion to the total number of votes.
Ang agong ayani vs. Comelec
G.R. No. 147589, June 26, 2001
¢ only those Filipinos who are marginalized and
underrepresented will become members of Congress
under the party-list system.
¢ 0ec. 5 of R.A. 7941 enumerates the marginalized and
underrepresented sectors: labor, peasant, fisherfolk,
urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly,
handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas
workers, and professionals.
¢ the enumeration in 0ec. 5 is not exclusive, the
marginalized and underrepresented in our midst are
the majority who wallow in poverty, destitution and
infirmity.
 Grounds for disqualification of a party:
1. it is a religious sect or denomination, organization or
association organized for religious purposes;
2. it advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal;
3. it is a foreign party or organization;
4. it is receiving support from any foreign organization;
5. That the party must not be adjunct of, or a project
organized or an entity funded or assisted by the
government;
6. That the party must really be representing any of the
marginalized and underrepresented sector;
7. The nominees of the party must also belong to the
marginalized and underrepresented sector whom it/he
wish to represent.
How will the party-list seats be allocated?
0ections 11 &12 of R.A. 7941
0


·


 › 

›


› x x x
in determining the allocation of seats for the second vote, the following
procedure shall be observed:
(a) The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked from the
highest to the lowest based on the number of votes they garnered during
the elections.
(b) The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two
percent (2%) of the total votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled
to one seat each: $ == &

   

 

'()*

!

=
==

 


 


! 
 Provided, finally, That each party, organization, or
coalition shall be entitled to not more than three (3) seats.

0

(






›

 › 

›


›.
The C
ELEC shall tally all the votes for the parties, organizations, or
coalitions on a nationwide basis, rank them according to the number of
votes received and allocate party-list representatives proportionately
according to the percentage of votes obtained by each party, organization,
or coalition as against the total nationwide votes cast for the party-list
system.
 ANAT vs. Comelec
G.R. No. 179271, April 21, 2009
͞xxx in computing the allocation of ==

, the continued
operation of the two percent threshold for the distribution of the
additional seats as found in the second clause of 0ection 11(b) of R.A.
No. 7941 is 


. This Court finds that the two percent
threshold makes it mathematically impossible to achieve the maximum
number of available party list seats when the number of available party
list seats exceeds 50. The continued operation of the two percent
threshold in the distribution of the additional seats frustrates the
attainment of the permissive ceiling that 20% of the members of the
House of Representatives shall consist of party-list representatives. We
therefore strike down the two percent threshold only in relation to the
distribution of the additional seats as found in the second clause of
0ection 11(b) of R.A. No. 7941. The two percent threshold presents an
unwarranted obstacle to the full implementation of 0ection 5(2), Article
Vi of the Constitution and prevents the attainment of ͞the broadest
possible representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the House
of Representatives.͟
What does ͞total votes cast͟ mean?
£ 0ec. 10, R.A. 7941 provides that the votes cast for a
party, a sectoral organization or a coalition not entitled
to be voted for shall not be counted.
£ Thus, the votes garnered by those disqualified party-list
groups will be subtracted from the total votes cast under
the party-list system.
£ This means that the two percent threshold can be more
easily attained by the other qualified parties, thus
increasing and broadening the number of
representatives from these sectors.
(Ang agong ayani-FW Labor Party vs. Comelec
G.R. No. 147589, June 25, 2003)
 A-RA 7941 vs. Comelec
G.R. No. 177271,
ay 4, 2007
Facts: Loreta Ann Rosales requested the Comelec to reveal the names of
nominees of some party-list groups. However, the Comelec refused.
issue: Can the Comelec be compelled to reveal the names of nominees?
Ruling: Yes. The right to information and its companion right of access to
official records are not absolute. The people͛s right to know is limited to
͞

›


͟ and is further subject to such limitation as
may be provided by law. 0imilarly, the policy of full disclosure is
confined to transactions involving ͞

›  and is subject to
reasonable conditions prescribed by law. Too, there is also the need of
preserving a measure of confidentiality on some matters, such as
military, trade, banking and diplomatic secrets or those affecting
national security. As may be noted, no national security or like concerns
is involved in the disclosure of the names of the nominees of the party-
list groups in question. Doubtless, the Comelec committed grave abuse
of discretion in refusing the legitimate demands of the petitioners for a
list of the nominees of the party-list groups subject of their respective
petitions.
andamus, therefore, lies.
 Lokin vs. Comelec
G.R. No.179431-32, June 22, 2010

 Ci AC party submitted the names of its nominees with the Comelec and
Lokin is the second nominee. After the Comelec had published the names of
nominees of all the party-list groups, Ci AC withdrew the names of three of
its nominees including Lokin which the Comelec had favorably acted upon.
 is the act of Ci AC in withdrawing the names of its nominees which was
approved by the Comelec valid and legal?
è No. The provisions of 0ec. 8 of RA 7941 is ͞daylight clear͟ which reads
͞No change of names or alteration of the order of nominees shall be allowed
after the same shall have been submitted to the C
ELEC except in cases
where the nominee dies, or withdraws in writing his nomination, becomes
incapacitated in which the name of the substitute nominee shall be placed
last in the list.͟
Allowing the party-list organization to change its nominees through
withdrawal of their nominations, or to alter the order of the nominations
after the submission of the list of nominees circumvents the voters͛ demand
for transparency. The lawmakers͛ exclusion of such arbitrary withdrawal has
eliminated the possibility of such circumvention.
District representatives
(Apportionment of legislative districts)
£ The territories (towns) comprising each
legislative district must be contiguous,
compact and adjacent. No ͞gerrymandering͟
is allowed.
£ Each province irrespective of the population is
entitled to one representative.
£ Each city with a population of at least 250,000
is entitled to at least one representative.
Residence qualification:
Rationale:
͞The manifest intent of the law in fixing a
residence qualification is to exclude a stranger
or newcomer, unacquainted with the
conditions and needs of a community and not
identified with the latter, from an elective
office to serve that community...͟
(Gallego vs. Vera, G.R. No. L-48641, Nov. 24, 1941)
Residence means domicile:
£ The term ͞residence͟ is synonymous with ͞domicile͟.
£ Domicile of origin has two elements:
1. fact of residing or physical presence, and
2. intention to remain (
›

) or
whenever absent, there is intention to return
(
›


)
£ in order to acquire a new domicile (domicile of choice) ,
three (3) elements must concur:
1. residence or bodily presence in a new locality;
2. an intention to remain there (
›

), and
3. an intention to abandon the old domicile (
›




)
 Romualdez-
arcos vs. Comelec
(G.R. No. 119976, 0ept. 18, 1995)

 imelda R.
arcos was born and raised in Tacloban,
Leyte. in 1952, she went to
anila. in 1954, she married
Ferdinand
arcos and they lived in 0an Juan,
.
. When
Ferdinand became President, they lived in
alacanang
Palace, part of 0an
iguel,
anila. in 1986, they were
exiled in Hawaii. in 1995, she filed her certificate of
candidacy for Congress in First district of Leyte.
 is imelda qualified to run for Congress in Leyte?
è Yes, she possesses the residence qualification.
Although imelda held various residences for different
purposes during the past four decades, none of these
purposes unequivocally point to an intention to abandon
her domicile of origin in Tacloban, Leyte.
 Aquino vs. Comelec
(G.R. No. 120265, 0ept. 18, 1995)


 utz Aquino, after his stint in the 0enate, decided to

run for Congress in
akati. He resided in
akati by
renting a condo unit. ut utz Aquino was born in
Concepcion, Tarlac and this is his domicile of origin while
he was in the 0enate. in 1995, he filed his certificate of
candidacy for Congress in the 2nd district of
akati.
 is utz qualified to represent
akati in Congress?
è No, Aquino is not considered a resident of
akati.
There is no proof that he has abandon his domicile of
origin which is Tarlac. He has no intention to establish a
new domicile in
akati. His act of just leasing a condo unit
does not engender the kind of permanency required to
prove abandonment of one͛s original domicile.
 Domino vs. Comelec
(G.R. No. 134015, July 19, 1999)

 Juan Domino resides in Quezon City but he also rented a
house in Alabel 0arangani. He registered as a voter in Quezon
City. However, the
eTC of Quezon City in an exclusion
proceedings declared that Domino is not a resident of Quezon
City but he is a resident of 0arangani. Domino ran for Congress
in 0arangani.
 is he qualified to run for Congress in 0arangani?
è No, he is not a resident of 0arangani but he is a resident of
Quezon City. The determination of the
eTC of Quezon City in
the exclusion proceedings as to the right of Domino to be
included in the list of voters does not preclude the Comelec in
determining Domino͛s qualification as a candidate, to pass upon
the issue of compliance with the residency requirement. in
short, the findings of the
eTC is not conclusive or binding on
the Comelec.
Citizenship requirement:
£ must be a 
 ! 
- 0ec. 2, Art. iV: ͞Natural-born citizens are those
who are citizens of the Philippines from birth
without having to perform any act to acquire or
perfect their citizenship. Those who elect
Philippine citizenship in accordance with
paragraph 3 hereof shall be deemed natural
born citizens.͟
Who are citizens under the 1935 Constitution?
0ec. 1, Art. iV of the 1935 Constitution provides:
͞0ection 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:
(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippine islands at the
time of the adoption of this Constitution;
(2) Those born in the Philippines islands of foreign parents
who, before adoption of this Constitution, had been
elected to public office in the Philippine islands;
(3) Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines;
(4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines
and, upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine
citizenship;
(5) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.͟
Who are citizens under the 1973 Constitution?
0ec. 1, Art. iii of the 1973 Constitution provides:
͞0ection 1. The following are citizens of the
Philippines:
(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippine at the
time of the adoption of this Constitution;
(2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of
the Philippines;
(3) Those who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant
to the provisions of the Constitution of nineteen
hundred thirty five;
(4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with
law.͟
Who are citizens under the 1987 Constitution?
0ec. 1, Art. iV of the 1987 Constitution provides:
͞0ection 1. The following are citizens of the
Philippines:
(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippine at the
time of the adoption of this Constitution;
(2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of
the Philippines;
(3) Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino
mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority; and
(4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with
law.͟
ƒ››
›principle:
£ This principle of ‰››
›is citizenship by
blood, meaning a child follows the citizenship of
his parents regardless of the place of his birth.
£ This was first adopted by the 1935 Constitution.
 Co vs. HRET
G.R. No. 92191-92, July 30, 1991

 Jose ng, Jr. was born in 1948 in 0amar of a Chinese
father and a Filipina mother. When he was 9 years old, his
father had been naturalized. in 1987, he ran for Congress
in the 2nd district of Northern 0amar.
 is he a natural-born Filipino and thus, qualified to run
for Congress?
è Yes. 0ince his mother is a Filipino, he would be
considered a natural born if he elected Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. However,
since his father became a naturalized Filipino when he was
still 9 years old, the effect of this is that it was the law
itself that had already elected Philippine citizenship for
him. esides, his exercise of his right to suffrage constitute
a positive act of election of Philippine citizenship.
 engzon vs. Cruz
G.R. No. 142840,
ay 7, 2001

Teodoro Cruz was born in Tarlac in 1960 of Filipino
parents. in 1985, he was enlisted in the U0
arine and
thus, he lost his Philippine citizenship. in 1994, he
reacquired his Philippine citizenship through repatriation
under R.A. 2630. in 1998, he ran for Congress in
Pangasinan and won against his rival engzon.
 is he a natural born Filipino?
è Yes. His repatriation results in the recovery of his
original nationality. Cruz is deemed to have recovered his
original status as a natural born citizen, a status which he
acquired at birth as the son of Filipino parents.
HoR term of office:
£
embers of the House (district and party-list)
have a term of three years
£ No member of the House shall serve for more
than three consecutive terms
vacancy in the 0enate or House:
£ 0ec. 9, Art. Vi provides that in case of vacancy
in the 0enate or in the House, a special
election may be called to fill such vacancy
£ ut the 0enator or member of the House thus
elected shall serve only for the unexpired
term.
 Tolentino vs. Comelec
G.R. No. 148334, January 21, 2004

 After PG
A succeeded the presidency in January, 2001, she
nominated 0en. Teofisto Guingona as Vice-President. When
Guingona ultimately assumed the vice-presidency, it created a
vacancy in the 0enate. in the
ay, 2001 elections, the Comelec
proclaimed Gringo Honasan, the 13th placer in the senatorial race as
the one to serve the unexpired term of 0en. Guingona.
Was there a valid special election for the 0enate vacant seat?
è The calling of an election, that is, the giving of notice of the time
and place of its occurrence is indispensable to the election͛s validity.
0ec. 2, R.A. 6645 provides that in case of vacancy in the 0enate, the
special election to fill such vacancy shall be held simultaneously with
the next succeeding election. Thus, the law charges the voters with
knowledge of this statutory notice and the Comelec͛s failure to give
the additional notice did not negate the calling of such special
election, much less invalidate it.
 Dimaporo vs.
itra
G.R. No. 96859, ct 15, 1991

 Dimaporo was elected representative of the 2nd district of Lanao del
0ur in the 1987 elections. He then took his oath and discharges his duties
as a member of Congress. However, on January 15, 1990, he ran for the
position of Governor for the AR

. However, he lost and when he went
back to Congress to resume his duties, 0peaker
itra refused to accept
him since his name has been dropped from the roll of members.
 Does the act of Dimaporo in filing his certificate of candidacy for
governor created a vacancy of his seat in Congress?
è Yes. 0ec. 67, Art. i of .P. lg. 881 provides: ͞Any elective official
whether national or local running for any office other than the one which
he is holding in a permanent capacity, except the President and Vice-
President shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the
filing of his certificate of candidacy͟. The mere fact of filing of a
certificate should be considered the overt act of abandoning or
relinquishing his mandate to the people and that he should therefore
resign if he wants to seek another position which he feels he could be of
better service.
 Farinas vs. Executive 0ecretary
G.R. No. 147387, Dec. 10, 2003

0ec. 14 of RA 9006 expressly repeals 0ec. 67 of P 881. The
petitioners questioned the constitutionality of RA 9006. They
argued that 0ec. 67 of P 881 is a good law since it is based on the
principle of accountability of public officers. Thus, the repeal of this
law is a bad policy.
 is RA 9006, the repealing law unconstitutional?
è: No. Government policy is within the exclusive dominion of the
political branches of the government. it is not for this Court to look
into the wisdom or propriety of legislative determination. indeed,
whether an enactment is wise or unwise, whether it is based on
sound economic theory, whether it is the best means to achieve
the desired results, whether, in short, the legislative discretion
within its prescribed limits should be exercised in a particular
manner are matters for the judgment of the legislature.
 Parliamentary immunities:
(0ection 11, Article Vi)
1. immunity from arrest ʹ any member of Congress (0enator
or member of the House) cannot be arrested in all
offenses punishable by not more than six years of
imprisonment while Congress is in session.
2. Privilege of speech and debate ʹ No member of Congress
can be questioned nor be held liable for any speech or
utterance he made while in session in Congress or in any
committee thereof.
ù
 To make the legislator unimpeded in the
performance of his duties and protect him against
harassment which will keep him away from legislative
sessions
 People vs. Jalosjos
G.R. No. 132875-76, February 3, 2000


 Romeo Jalosjos, a member of the House, was confined

at the national penitentiary upon his conviction of rape
and acts of lasciviousness. While his case is on appeal, he
asked that he be allowed to attend sessions in Congress
and perform his duties as congressman.
 Can his immunity from arrest justify his release?
è No. A congressman convicted under Title 11 of the
RPC could not claim parliamentary immunity from arrest.
ne rationale behind confinement, whether pending
appeal or after final conviction is public self-defense.
0ociety must protect itself. it also serves as an example
and warning to others. The performance of legitimate and
even essential duties by public officers has never been an
excuse to free a person validly from prison.
 Jimenez vs. Cabangbang
G.R. No. L-15905, August 3, 1966

 artolome Cabangbang, a congressman from ohol
caused the publication of an open letter to the President
of the Philippines in several newspapers. The persons who
claimed to have been maligned by the letter filed an
action for damages against the congressman.
Whether or not the publication is privileged?
è The publication of such communication is not
privileged. The phrase ͞speech or debate therein͟ refers to
utterances made by congressmen in the performance of
their official functions, such as speeches delivered,
statements made, or votes cast in the halls of Congress,
while the same is in session. in causing the communication
to be published, the congressman was not performing his
official duty.
The phrase 





in the speech and debate clause

£ The privilege of speech and debate is not

absolute.
£ A member of Congress may be called to
account for his remarks by his own colleagues
in Congress itself and when warranted,
punished for disorderly behavior.
 smena vs. Pendatun
G.R. No. L-17144, ct. 28, 1960

Congressman 0ergio smena, Jr. delivered a privileged
speech in the House wherein he made serious accusations
against President Carlos P. Garcia. The majority members of the
House loyal to the President questioned his speech. He was
ordered to substantiate his charges. When he refused, he was
disciplined by suspending him for 15 months. smena went to
the 0upreme Court and questioned the legality of his
suspension.
 Would his suspension violate his parliamentary immunity?
èNo. The parliamentary immunity guarantees the legislator
complete freedom of expression without fear of being made
responsible in criminal and civil actions before the courts or any
other forum outside of the congressional hall. ut 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 a member thereof.
Duty on conflict of interest:
0ec. 12, Art. Vi
£ All members of Congress shall, upon
assumption of office, make 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.
 
!
First sentence, 0ec. 13, Art. Vi
·









›



›


›











 




 

››




› 

 





 




 





›

››

› ›


 

  ››


- The prohibition from holding this office is not absolute,
what is not allowed is simultaneous holding of that office
and the seat in Congress.
- When the legislator opted to hold an incompatible office,
his seat in Congress will automatically be forfeited.
 Adaza vs. Pacana
135 0CRA 431

 Adaza, the governor of
isamis riental and Pacana, the
vice-governor, both ran for the atasang Pambansa election.
Adaza won while Pacana lost. After Adaza took his oath as
member of the atasang Pambansa, Pacana assumed the
governorship. Adaza objected, saying that no vacancy is created
in the position of governor since he could concurrently serve as
governor and member of the atasan.
Can Adaza simultaneously hold these two positions?
è No. When Adaza took his oath as member of the atasang
Pambansa, he automatically forfeited the govenorship of

isamis riental. The office of the governor is an incompatible
office to the position of being a member of the legislature.
 Liban vs. Gordon
G.R. No. 175352, July 15, 2009

 0enator Richard Gordon, during his term as 0enator, was elected as
chairman of the board of the Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC).
Did Gordon forfeit his 0enate seat upon his acceptance to the PNRC
Chairmanship post?
è No. PNRC is a private organization merely performing public
functions and that the PNRC Chairman is not a government official or
employee. Not being a government office, the PNRC Chairmanship may
be held by any individual, including a 0enator or
ember of the House
of Congress. PNRC is autonomous, neutral and independent of the
Philippine Government. it is a voluntary organization that does not have
government assets and does not receive any appropriation from the
Philippine Congress. The PNRC is not a part of any of the government
branches. PNRC is neither owned nor controlled by the Government.
The PNRC Charter provides that ͞The President has no control in the
decisions nor actions of the PNRC Chairman.͟ The lack of Presidential
supervision proves that the PNRC Chairman is not an official or
employee of the Executive ranch or any of the remaining branches of
the government, but rather, a private official.
  !==%
0econd sentence, 0ec. 13, Art. Vi
·

›









  













 ›





›



  


›



- the prohibition is absolute since even if a
member of Congress is willing to forfeit his seat,
he cannot be appointed to this kind of office.
- the prohibition exist only during the term of the
member of Congress when the said office is
created or its emoluments were increased.
 $ !

0ec. 14, Art. Vi
£ Not to personally as counsel before any court of
justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-
judicial and other administrative bodies;
£ Not to, 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 GCCs or its subsidiary;
£ Not to 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.
 Puyat vs. De Guzman, Jr.
113 0CRA 31 (1982)

 Assemblyman Estanislao Fernandez appeared as
counsel of a party in a case before the 0EC. Puyat, the
opposing party, objected to the appearance of
Assemblyman Fernandez. However, Fernandez purchased
ten shares of the company of his client and proceeded to
intervene in the case.
Whether or not Fernandez violated the constitutional
prohibition not to appear as counsel?
è Yes, Fernandez is in effect appearing as counsel,
albeit indirectly, before an administrative body in
contravention of the constitutional provision. His act of
acquiring shares of the company was done ͞after the fact͟
and his intervention was an afterthought to enable him to
appear actively in the proceedings in some other capacity.
 Legislative sessions:
0ec. 15, Art. Vi
£ The two houses of Congress hold their session on separate venues.
- 0enate building is in Pasay City
- atasan complex is in Quezon City

£ Each house will convene every year on the 4th
onday of July and
since then it shall continue to be in session until it will adjourned a
month before the opening of its next regular session.
£ However, the President may call a special session any time.
£ Congress itself will hold special session on its own initiative
without the President͛s call when necessary such as in the
following cases:
- to canvass presidential elections (0ec. 4, Art. Vii)
- to call a special election when both the Presidency and the Vice-
Presidency are vacated (0ec. 10, Art. Vii)
- to initiate impeachment case
 fficers of both houses:
0ec. 16 (1), Art. Vi
£ 0enate is headed by the 0enate President
£ House of Representatives is headed by its 0peaker
£ The 0enate President and the 0peaker do not have a
fixed term and they may be replaced anytime at the
pleasure of the majority of all the members of each
house
£ The 0enate will elect also a 0enate President 




and the HoR its 0peaker 




£ ther officers in the 0enate and in the HoR are:
1.
ajority Floor Leader;
2.
inority Floor Leader and
3. Chairmen of different committees
Quorum requirement:
0ec. 16 (2), Art. Vi

£ A majority of all members of each house shall

constitute a quorum to do business.
£ 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.
 Avelino vs. Cuenco
G.R. No. L-2821,
arch 4, 1949

 n Feb. 21, 1949, the 0enate had its session with 0enate
President Avelino presiding. During the session, Avelino ignored
0enator Tañada who was prepared to deliver his speech which
would enumerate charges against him. Avelino finally adjourned
the session and walked out with his followers. However, the 12
senators who were left behind continued the session and
passed a resolution which declared the position of the 0enate
President vacant and elected 0enator Cuenco as Acting 0enate
President.
 is the act of the remaining 12 senators in continuing with
the session and in electing an acting 0enate President valid?
èThe constitutional grant to the 0enate of the power to elect
its own president should not be interfered with nor taken over
by the judiciary. The continuation of the session was valid since
the twelve senators constitute a quorum of 23 senators since
one senator was outside the country at that time.
 0antiago vs. Guingona
G.R. No. 134577, November 18, 1998

 During the 0enate͛s first regular session on July 27, 1998, by a vote of
20 to 2, 0enator Fernan was elected 0enate President as against 0enator
Tatad. Tatad and 0enator 0antiago, the one who voted for him insisted
that they would constitute the minority and those who voted for Fernan
would constitute the majority. Thus, the election of 0enator Guingona as
the minority floor leader is illegal since he did not belong to the minority.
 Who constitute the majority? Who constitute the minority?
è While the Constitution mandates that the 0enate President must be
elected by a number constituting more than one-half of all members
thereof, it does not provide that the members who will not vote for him
shall ipso facto constitute the minority, who could thereby elect the
minority leader. Verily, no law or regulation states that the defeated
candidate shall automatically become the minority leader. The majority
in either house of Congress refers to the political party which has the
most numbers of lawmakers while the minority normally referred to a
party with a lesser number of members. in a government with multi-
party system such as in the Philippines, there could be several minority
parties, one of which has to be identified as dominant minority party.
Power to promulgate rules of its
proceedings (0ec. 16 [3], Art. Vi):
£ one of the most basic powers of each house of
the legislature is to formulate and implement its
own rules of proceedings
£ as a rule, the interpretation and the
enforcement of these rules of proceedings lies
within the exclusive discretion of each house
£ Thus, unless such rules violate fundamental or
individual rights, they may not be inquired into
by the courts
 Arroyo vs. De Venecia
G.R. 127255, August 14, 1997

 Rep. Joker Arroyo questioned the validity of the passage of R.A.
8240 which imposes ͞sin taxes͟. He alleged that there were rules of
the House which were violated when the bill was approved and these
violations are tantamount to violation of the Constitution.
Did Congress committed grave abuse in approving the bill which
ultimately becomes a law?
è The rules that are allegedly violated are merely internal rules of
procedure of the House rather than constitutional requirements for
the enactment of the law. Courts have no power to inquire into
allegations that in enacting a law, a house of Congress failed to
comply its own rules, in the absence of showing that there was a
violation of a constitutional provision or rights of private individuals.
esides, mere failure to conform to parliamentary usage will not
invalidate the action when the requisite number of members have
agreed to a particular measure.
 Power to discipline members:
0ec. 16 (3), Art. Vi
A = disorderly behavior ʹ the interpretation of this phrase
͞disorderly behavior͟ is a prerogative of Congress and cannot
be judicially reviewed.
è+ =
majority vote of all members for censure or
reprimand and 2/3 vote of all members for suspension or
expulsion. 0uspension shall not exceed 60 days.
,=
Punishment by way of reprimand or fine
vindicates the outraged dignity of the House without depriving
the constituency of representation; expulsion, when
permissible, likewise vindicates the honor of the legislative
body while giving to the constituency an opportunity to elect
anew; but suspension deprives the electoral district of
representation without that district being afforded any means
by which to fill the vacancy. y suspension, the seat remains
filled, but the occupant is silenced.
Journals and Records of proceedings:
0ec. 16 (4), Art. Vi

£ Journal is only a resume of minutes of what

transpired during a legislative session.
£ Record is the word-for-word transcript of the
proceedings taken during the session.
 United 0tates vs. Pons
34 Phil. 729 (1916)

Pons was charged for having violated Act No. 2381.
However, his counsel argued that the law is null and void for
the same was passed beyond the last day of special session of
the Philippine Legislature in 1914. The legislature can validly
hold session only until midnight of February 28, 1914 however,
the law was approved only on the next day
arch 1, 1914.
How will the true date of adjournment of the legislature be
proved?
è The journal clearly showed that the legislature adjourned
at midnight of February 28, 1914. The journals are not
ambiguous or contradictory as to the actual date of
adjournment. Thus, the court will take judicial notice of the
legislative journals . The contains of the journals are conclusive
evidence as to the date of adjournment.
Enrolled bill doctrine:
£ in the case of acts of the Philippine legislature,
when there is in existence a copy signed by the
presiding officers and secretaries of said bodies, it
shall be conclusive proof of the provisions of such
acts and the due enactment thereof.
£ This doctrine is based on the respect due to co-
equal and independent departments which
requires the judicial department to accept as
having passed by Congress all bills authenticated
in the manner stated.
 Casco Philippine Chemical Co. vs. Gimenez
7 0CRA 347 (1963)

 0ec. 2 of RA 2609 provides that the product ͞urea formaldehyde͟
is exempted from payment of margin fee. The petitioner company
insisted that the term ͞urea formaldehyde͟ in the law should be
construed as ͞urea and formaldehyde͟ citing a statement made on
the 0enate floor, thus, Congress intended to also exempt ͞urea͟ and
͞formaldehyde͟ from the payment of margin fee.
 Whether or not ͞urea͟ and ͞formaldehyde͟ are exempt?
è it is well settled that the enrolled bill which uses the term ͞urea
formaldehyde͟is conclusive upon the courts as regards the tenor of
the measure passed by Congress and approved by the President. if
there has been any mistake in the printing of the bill before it was
certified by the officer of Congress and approved by the President
on which the court cannot speculate without jeopardizing the
principle of separation of powers, the remedy is by amendment or
curative legislation, not by judicial decree.
Journal entry rule:
£ The court may consult the recitals of the journals
of the legislature in order to verify matters
relating to the passage of a bill such as the real
text of a bill as approved by both houses or
whether the required number of votes for the
approval of the bill was really obtained.
£ The court respect the entries of legislative
journals these being acts of the Government and
thus, court will not inquire into the veracity of the
journals.
 Astorga vs. Villegas
56 0CRA 714 (1974)

 House ill No. 9266 was passed by Congress and was signed into law,
thus, it became R.A. 4065. However, 0enator Tolentino issued a press
statement that the enrolled copy of House ill 9266 which was signed by
the President was a wrong version of the bill actually passed by the
0enate because it did not embody the amendments introduced by him
and approved on the 0enate floor. The 0enate President confirmed
Tolentino͛s statement and he withdrew his signature therein. The
President of the Philippines also withdrew his signature on the bill.
 Which will be the basis in determining whether the bill was validly
passed by Congress, the enrolled bill or the entries of the journals?
è 0ince the signature of the 0enate President was withdrawn, the
attestation is now lacking and there is practically no enrolled bill to speak
of. Thus, the court will have to go to the journals. The 0enate journal
reveals that substantial and lengthy amendments were introduced on the
floor and approved by the 0enate but were not incorporated into the
printed text sent to the President and signed by him. Thus, it is clear that
the bill was not validly enacted.
Electoral Tribunals:
0ec. 17, Art. Vi
£ Each house will have an Electoral Tribunal. This is a
constitutionally-created body
£ The Electoral Tribunals shall be the sole judge of all
contests relating to the election, returns, and
qualifications of their respective members.
£ Composition: total of 9 members, 3 0C justices and 6
senators or representatives chosen on the basis of
proportional representation.
£ The Electoral Tribunals have implied powers to
promulgate their own rules of procedure necessary in the
proper exercise of their express powers. (Angrara vs.
Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 134)
 Abbas vs. 0enate
166 0CRA 651 (1988)

 During the
ay 11, 1987 elections, some losing senatorial candidates
filed an election protest before the 0enate Electoral Tribunal (0ET) against
22 proclaimed senators. 0ince the 6 senator-members of the 0ET were
respondents, thus, the petitioners moved to disqualify them all and they
proposed that the rules of procedure of the 0ET be amended to allow
that only the 3 justices-members will validly decide the case.
 Would this proposed amendment be legally allowed?
è No. The Constitution ordains the composition of the Electoral
Tribunal to be staffed by both justices of the 0upreme Court and
members of the 0enate. it intended that both the ͞judicial͟ and
͞legislative͟ components commonly share the duty and authority of
deciding all contests relating to election, returns and qualifications of
0enators. 0aid intent is even more clearly signalled by the fact that the
proportion of senators to justices in the prescribed membership of the
0ET is 2 to 1 ʹ an unmistakable indication that the legislative component
cannot be totally excluded from participation in the resolution of
senatorial election contests, without doing violence to the spirit and
intent of the Constitution.
 ondoc vs. Pineda
G.R. No. 97710, 0eptember 26, 1991

 in the congressional race in the 4th district of Pampanga, Pineda was
proclaimed as winner. ondoc filed a protest before the HRET. When the
HRET heard the case, ondoc actually won over Pineda. Cong. Camasura,
a member of HRET and a partymate of Pineda in the LDP voted in favor
of ondoc and this angered the LDP leadership in the House that he was
expelled from the party for disloyalty and ultimately he was removed
from the HRET.
is the termination of Cong. Camasura from the HRET valid and legal?
è No. As judges, the members of the tribunal must be non-partisan.
They must discharge their functions with complete detachment,
impartiality and independence even independence from the political
party to which they belong. Hence, ͞disloyalty to party͟ and ͞breach of
party discipline͟ are not valid grounds for the expulsion of a member of
the tribunal. in expelling Cong. Camasura from the HRET for having cast a
͞conscience vote͟ in favor of ondoc, the House of Representatives
committed a grave abuse of discretion and in justice and a violation of
the Constitition.
 Guerrero vs. Comelec
G.R. No. 137004, July 26, 2000

 efore
ay 11, 1998 elections, a petition to disqualify Farinas as
candidate for congress was filed with the Comelec. n election eve,
Comelec dismissed the case. Farinas came out as winner in the election
and was proclaimed and later, he took his oath of office as member of
Congress. A motion for reconsideration was filed with the Comelec but
the Comelec denied the motion on the ground that the issue on validity
of the certificate of candidacy of Farinas is already within the jurisdiction
of the HRET.
 is the Comelec correct that it has no more jurisdiction over the issue?
è Yes. While the Comelec is vested with the power to declare valid or
invalid a certificate of candidacy, its refusal to exercise that power
following the proclamation and assumption by Farinas to the position as
member of Congress is a recognition of the jurisdictional boundaries
separating the Comelec and the HRET. nce a winning candidate has
been proclaimed, taken his oath and assumed office as member of the
House of Representatives, Comelec͛s jurisdiction over election contests
relating to his elections, returns and qualifications ends and the HRET͛s
own juridiction begins.
 Commission on Appointments:
0ec. 18, Art. Vi
£ The CA is a constitutionally-created body which will
check the appointing power of the President
£ Composition: 0enate President ʹ ex-officio chairman;
members ʹ 12 senators and 12 congressmen
£ However, it is not mandatory to elect 12 senators to the
CA. The Constitution does not contemplate that the CA
must necessarily include 12 senators and 12
congressmen. What the Constitution requires is that
there be at least a majority of the entire membership.
£ The senator-members and the congressmen-members
constitute a body and they will vote jointly and not
separately.
Appointments that requires CA approval:
0ec. 16, First 0entence, Art. Vii

The President shall nominate and, with the consent

of the Commission on Appointments, appoint
1. the heads of the executive departments,
2. ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls,
3. officers of the armed forces from the rank of
colonel or naval captain, and
4. other officers whose appointments are vested in
him in this Constitution.
Guingona vs. Gonzales
G.R. No. 106971, ct. 20, 1992

 After the
ay 11, 1992 elections, the 0enate composition as to
party affiliation and corresponding proportional membership and its
election of CA members is as follows:
LDP 15 senators 7.5 8 members elected
NPC 5 senators 2.5 2 members elected
LAKA0-NUCD 3 senators 1.5 1 member elected
LP-PDP-LA AN 1 senator .5 1 member elected
 is the rule of proportional representation strictly followed in filling
up membership in the CA?
è No. There is a violation of 0ec. 18 on the rule on proportional
representation. This provision is mandatory in character and does not
leave any discretion to the majority party in the 0enate to disobey or
disregard this rule. in the 0enate, a political party must have at least
two duly elected senators for every seat in the Commission on
Appointments.

atibag vs. enipayo
G.R. No. 149036, April 2, 2002
Two modes in appointing officials who are subject to confirmation by the CA:
First, while Congress is in session, the President may nominate the
prospective appointee, and pending consent of the CA, the nominee cannot
qualify and assume office.
0econd, during recess if Congress, the President may extend an


appointment which allows the appointee to immediately qualify and
assume office. An

appointee disapproved by the CA can no
longer be extended a new appointment. The disapproval is a final decision
of the CA in the exercise of its checking power on the appointing authority
of the President. However, an ad interim appointment that is by-passed by
the CA because of lack of time or failure of the CA to organize is another
matter. A by-passed appointment is one that has not been finally acted
upon on the merits by the CA at the close of the session of Congress.
Absent of such decision, the President is free to renew the ad interim
appointment of a by-passed appointee.
The power of inquiry
0ec. 21, Art. Vi
£ The 0enate or the House or any of its
committees may conduct inquiries in aid of
legislation.
£ The inquiry or investigation must be:
1. made in accordance with 0enate or House
duly published rules of procedure and
2. the rights of the persons appearing in or
affected by such inquiries must be respected.
Arnault vs. Nazareno
87 Phil. 29 (1950)

Rationale of the power of inquiry:

͞the power of inquiry-with process to enforce it-is an
essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative
function. A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or
effectively in the absence of information respecting the
conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or
change; and where the legislative body does not itself
possess the requisite information-which is not
infrequently true-recourse must be had to others who
do possess it.͟
 engzon vs. 0enate lue Ribbon Committee
G.R. No. L-89914, Nov. 20, 1991

 engson was requested to testify before the 0enate hearing on the
alleged sale of Romualdez assets to Ricardo Lopa, a relative of President
Cory Aguino. These Romualdez assets are subject of sequestration by
the PCGG.
 Can the 0enate compel engzon to appear and testify?
èNo. The power of both houses of Congress to conduct inquires is
not absolute or unlimited. The investigation must be in aid of legislation
meaning such inquiries may refer to the implementation or re-
examination of any law or in connection with any proposed legislation or
the formulation of future legislation. However, the purpose of inquiry to
be conducted by the 0enate is to find out whether or not the relative of
the President has violate the law which is not really in aid of legislation.
esides, there is already a case filed before the 0andiganbayan involving
this issue, thus, the 0enate investigation would be an encroachment into
the exclusive domain of judicial jurisdiction.
 0enate lue Ribbon vs. Judge
ajaducon
G.R. No. 136760, July 29, 2003

The 0enate lue Ribbon Committee conducted an inquiry on the
alleged fund irregularities of the Armed Forces Retirement and
0eparation enefits 0ystem (AFP-R0 0). it subpoenaed Atty. Flaviano
to appear before it. Atty. Flaviano secured a TR against the 0enate
issued by Judge
ajaducon of RTC-23 of General 0antos City.
 is the TR issued by the Judge ordering the 0enate to cease and
desist from proceeding with its heaing valid?
èNo. The principle of separation of powers essentially means
that legislation belongs to Congress, execution to the Executive and
settlement of legal controversies to the Judiciary. Each is prevented
from invading the domain of the others. The RTC of General 0antos
or any court for that matter, had no authority to prohibit the 0enate
committee from requiring the respondent (Atty. Flaviano) to appear
and testify before it.
͞Question Hour͟ under the 1987 Constitution
0ec. 22, Art. Vi
Two ways of conducting the Question Hour, Philippine style:
1. Appearance upon initiative of Department Head - When a
department head desires to appear before either house of
Congress on any matter pertaining to his department, he may,
with the consent of the President, notify the house in Congress
where he intends to appear.
2. Appearance upon request of the House - A department head may
be requested to appear before either house and be heard on any
matter pertaining to his/her department. The request shall state
specifically the questions to be answered and the date and hour
for his/her appearance.
Purpose: The appearance during question hour is for Congress to be
informed on how department heads are implementing the
statutes which it had enacted .
 0enate vs. Executive 0ecretary Ermita
G.R. No. 169777, April 20, 2006

 Pres. Arroyo issued E 464 and under 0ection1 thereof, it
requires all heads of departments of the Executive branch to
secure the consent of the President prior to appearing before
either house of Congress.
 is E 464 valid and constitutional?
è The requirement to secure presidential consent under 0ec. 1
is valid if the appearance of the department secretary before
Congress is under the question hour. The attendance of the
department heads is discretionary during question hour. However,
if the appearance of the department head is sought during a
hearing in Congress in the exercise of its power of inquiry in aid of
legislation, the appearance is mandatory with or without
presidential consent. The only way for department heads to
exempt themselves is by a valid claim of executive privilege.
 What is "
 ?
£ Executive privilege is the power of the President and
high-level executive branch officers to withhold
information from the public, the courts, and the
Congress.
£ The matters covered under executive privilege include:
(1) information between inter-government agencies prior to
the conclusion of treaties and executive agreements;
(2) Presidential conversations, correspondences, and
discussions in closed-door Cabinet meetings; and
(3)
atters affecting national security and public order.
 Neri vs. 0enate
G.R. No. 180643,
arch 25, 2008

Romulo Neri, the NEDA chief, testified at the N N-ZTE probe at the 0enate
that Abalos offered him P200
in exchange for the approval of the N N project.
He further declared that he informed President Arroyo about the bribery
attempt. ut when asked about these three questions: (1) whether or not the
President followed up the N N project, (2) whether or not she instructed him to
prioritize it and (3) whether or not she instructed him to approve it, he refused
to answer invoking the executive privilege.
 Are the communications to be elicited by these three questions covered by
the executive privilege?
è There are two kinds of executive privilege; one is the  =


  and the other is the =! 
  .
The former pertains to communications, documents or other materials that
reflect presidential decision-making and deliberations and that the President
believes should remain confidential. The latter includes advisory opinions,
recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a process by which
governmental decisions and policies are formulated. The communications
elicited by these three questions are covered by the presidential communication
privilege.
How to invoke executive privilege?
When an official is being summoned by Congress on a matter
which, in his own judgment, might be covered by executive
privilege, he must be afforded reasonable time to inform the
President or the Executive 0ecretary of the possible need for
invoking the privilege. This is necessary in order to provide the
President or the Executive 0ecretary with fair opportunity to
consider whether the matter indeed calls for a claim of executive
privilege.
if, after the lapse of that reasonable time, neither the
President nor the Executive 0ecretary invokes the privilege,
Congress is no longer bound to respect the failure of the official
to appear before Congress and may then opt to avail of the
necessary legal means to compel his appearance.
Power to declare the existence of a state of war:
0ec. 23 (1), Art. Vi
£ The power to wage war is lodged in the President,
he being the commander-in-chief of the armed
forces. in other words, the ͞power of the sword͟
is in him. He can wage war only in defense of the
state and the people.
£ However, when a war has been waged already,
Congress has to declare the existence of a state of
war in order to justify the appropriation of money
to finance the war since the ͞power of the purse͟
is vested in Congress.
Lawmaking at the Lower House:
0ec. 24, Art. Vi
£ The following bills must originate from the House of
Representatives:
1. appropriation bill
2. revenue or tariff bill
3. bills authorizing increase of public debt
4. bills of local application
5. private bills
£ Upon approval by the House of these bills, the same
shall be forwarded to the 0enate who may propose or
concur with amendments.
 0teps in the passage of a bill in Congress:
1. A bill may be introduced in the House of Representatives or the 0enate.
2. n 1st Reading, the title and number of the bill is read, and then, it is
referred to the appropriate committee.
3. A committee studies the bill and conducts hearings on it. Thereafter, a
committee report is prepared on the bill.
4. The committee report is read in open session, and together with the bill, it
is referred to the Rules Committee. The Rules Committee can place the bill
in the 2nd Reading Calendar or in the Calendar of Unassigned usiness.
5. n 2nd Reading, a bill is subject to debate and amendment before being
placed in the 3rd Reading Calendar for final passage.
6. After its passage by one house, the bill goes through the same process in
the other house.
7. if amendments are made in one house, the other house must concur.
8. When the bill is passed by both houses, it is signed by their respective
leaders and sent to the President for approval.