Preamble: We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just and humane society and establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.
• Sets down origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution
• Useful as an aid in ascertaining the meaning of ambiguous provisions in the body of the Constitution
• Not a source of rights and obligations
NATIONAL TERRITORY
Article 1. 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.
Elements of archipelagic principle:
• Waters around, between, and connecting are internal waters – no right of innocent passage • Internal waters are delineated from territorial sea by straight baseline method – drawing
straight lines connecting appropriate points on the coast without departing to any appreciable extent from the general direction of the coast.
• Under UNCLOS, “waters around, between...” are considered archipelagic waters which are subject to the right of innocent passage = that’s why the Philippines signed the UNCLOS with
reservations
Rationale for having a national territory provision in the Constitution: Preservation of national wealth
Preservation of national security
Manifestation of own solidarity as a people EDUCATION VALUE
Why treaties are not mentioned in the Constitution: To erase every possible trace of our colonial history U.S. Military Base:
authority to the U.S. Maritime boundaries
• Internal waters – within baseline
• Territorial sea – 12 nm. from baseline. Part of sovereign; all laws apply; right of innocent passage.
• Contiguous zone – 24 nm. from baseline. Limited jurisdiction relating to fiscal, customs, immigration and sanitary matters.
• Exclusive Economic Zone – 200 nm. from end territorial sea. State has sovereign rights for the purpose of exploration, exploitation, conservation and management of the natural resources.
PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES
Principles: binding rules which must be observed in the conduct of government Policies: guidelines for the orientation of the state
• These principles in Article are not intended to be self-executing principles ready for enforcement through the courts. They are used by the judiciary as aids or as guides in the exercise of its power of judicial review, and by the legislature in its enactment of laws. [Tañada v. Angara]
• Basic ideological principle and policies that underlie the Constitution
• Shed lights or serve as guide for all departments of the government in the implementation of the Constitution
Section 1. The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.
4 ELEMENTS OF A STATE: 1. PEOPLE
2. TERRITORY 3. SOVEREIGNTY 4. GOVERNMENT
State: 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 the great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience
People: a community of persons, sufficient in number and capable of maintaining the continued existence of the community and held together by a common bond of law
Government: that institution or aggregate of institutions by which an independent society makes and carries out those rules of action which are necessary to enable men to live in a social state, or which
are imposed upon the people forming the society by those who possess the power or authority of prescribing them.
FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT:
1. Ministrant/Proprietary: optional functions of government intended for achieving a better life for the community
The principles for determining whether gov't will exercise these functions:
a) that a gov't should do for the public welfare those things that private capital would not naturally undertake;
b) that a gov't should do those things which by its very nature it is better equipped to administer for the public welfare than any private entity.
2. Constituent/Governmental: the functions which constitute the very bonds of society (Pres. Wilson’s enumeration is Bacani v. NACOCO):
a) The keeping of order and providing the protection of persons and property form violence and robbery
b) The fixing of legal relations between husband and wife and between parents and children c) The regulation of the holding, transmission and interchange of property, and the
determination of its debt or for crime
d) The determination of contract rights between individuals e) The definition and punishment of crime
f) The administration of justice in civil cases
g) The determination of political duties, privileges, and relations of citizens
h) Dealings of the state with foreign powers: the preservation of the state from external danger or encroachment and the advancement of the national interest
Importance of distinction: It is useful to distinguish between governmental and proprietary functions when an unincorporated agency of government claims privileges which flow from sovereignty, e.g., immunity from suit. If the agency performs governmental functions, it may claim the privileges; otherwise, it cannot.
ACCFA v. CUGCO: Agrarian reform, though not strictly “governmental” under Bacani, was considered to be governmental because of the social justice mandate of the Constitution. The Court said that the growing complexities of modern society have rendered the traditional classification of functions quite unrealistic. (e.g., housing is considered governmental; supply of water for a price is proprietary) PVTA v. CIR: The Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration, which was established to promote the tobacco industry and improve living conditions of tobacco farmers was considered to perform governmental functions.
REPUBLIC V. CFI: The Rice and Corn Administration, which was established to stabilize prices of rice and corn, was considered to perform governmental functions.
WHAT IS A REPUBLICAN STATE?
A state wherein all government authority emanates from the people and is exercised by representative chosen by the people.
WHY IS THE PHILIPPINES CALLED A DEMOCRATIC STATE?
Due to the direct democracy given by the Constitution to the people, such as “initiative and referendum.” It is also a monument to the EDSA I Revolution which re-won freedom through direct action of the people
DE JURE AND DE FACTO GOVERNMENTS:
De Jure: established by authority of the legitimate sovereign De Facto: established in defiance of the legitimate sovereign Three kinds of De Facto governments:
1. In a proper and legal sense, is that government that gets possession and control of, or usurps by force or by the voice of the majority, the rightful and legal government and maintains itself against the will of the latter (e.g., Cromwell as protectorate of the people)
2. Established as an independent gov’t by inhabitants of a country who rise in insurrection against the parent state (e.g., Southern Confederacy in revolt against the Union)
3. That which is established and maintained by military forces who invade and occupy a territory of the enemy in the course of war, and which is denominated by a government of paramount force (e.g., Castine in Maine reduced to a British possession in 1812 war; Tampico, Mexico occupied by U.S. forces in U.S.-Mexican war)
Characteristics of a government of paramount force:
• The belligerent occupant generally respects municipal laws (Civil Code, Insurance Code, etc.), or those that enforce public order and regulate the social and commercial life of the country, unless they are incompatible with new order of things.
• Laws of a political nature or affecting political relations, such as the right to bear arms, the freedom of the press, and the right to travel freely in the territory occupied are considered suspended during the military occupation.
• Judicial acts and proceedings which are not of a political complexion (defamation as opposed to treason) remain valid even beyond the occupation.
CO KIM CHAN V. VALDEZ: The government during the Japanese occupation was a de facto government. Judicial acts and proceedings which were not of a political nature initiated under that regime could continue despite liberation. Under the principle of postliminy, the fact that a territory which has been occupied by an enemy comes again into the power of its legitimate government or sovereignty, does not, except in a very few cases, wipe out the effects of acts done by an invader. LETTER OF ASSOCIATE JUSTICE PUNO: The government established right after EDSA1 de jure; it was established by authority of the legitimate sovereign: the people.
previously subject to it. Hence, the existing legal system was abolished. The appointments made to the old courts have no relation to appointments made to the newly established courts and rank/seniority may be disregarded in making new appointments.
SOVEREIGNTY
Sovereignty (two kinds):
• Legal: supreme power to make law; lodged in the people
• Political: sum total of all the influences in a state, legal and non-legal, which determine the course of law
PEOPLE V. GOZO: The Philippine government did not abdicate its sovereignty over the territory occupied by the US bases; it merely gave the US government preferential jurisdiction in the areas. Any state may, by its consent, express or implied, submit to a restriction of its sovereign rights and restrain what is otherwise plenary – this is known as auto-limitation.
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, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.
War
• Only offensive war is renounced. The power to wage defensive war is the essence of sovereignty.
International law
• The law of nations is adopted under the doctrine of transformation. Other jurisdictions apply the doctrine of transformation, whereby international law is transformed into municipal law by some constitutional machinery, e.g., a law.
• Only customary international law and treaties which have become part of customary law are made part of the law of the land.
Amity
Amity with all nations does not mean automatic diplomatic recognition with all nations. It is an ideal to be aimed at. Diplomatic recognition, however, remains a matter of executive discretion
TAÑADA V. ANGARA: In upholding the validity of the WTO Agreement, the Court said that the Philippines, by treaty, voluntarily surrendered some aspects of its sovereignty in exchange for greater benefits. Under the treaty, the Philippines has certain obligation which it must comply with in accordance with one of the oldest and most fundamental rules in international law: pacta sunt servanda - international agreements must be performed in good faith.
BAYAN V. ZAMORA: The SC held that the Visiting Forces Agreement was valid. As a member of the family of nations, the Philippines agrees to be bound by the generally accepted rules for the conduct of
its international relations. We cannot plead our municipal law, including the Constitution, as a convenient excuse for non-compliance with out obligations, duties, and responsibilities under international law.
LIM V. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY: Under the doctrine of incorporation as applied in most countries, rules of international law are given a standing equal, not superior, to national legislation. Though from an international law perspective, a treaty may be favored over municipal law, our Constitution espouses the opposing view. The SC is given the power to judge the validity of a treaty and treaties are always subject to qualification by subsequent laws.
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 armed forces can be a legitimate instrument for the overthrow of a civilian government which has ceased to serve the people.
IBP V. ZAMORA: The deployment of marines by Estrada to address peace and order issues did not violate the civilian supremacy clause because their participation is limited. Authority over the patrols was with the civilian police who were merely assisted by the soldiers. What we have here is mutual support and cooperation, not derogation of civilian supremacy.
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.
• Conditions for military or civil service must be established by law.
• Not involuntary servitude. It is the supreme and noble duty of a citizen to contribute to the defense of the nation.
Section 5. The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property, and the promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy.
KILOSBAYAN V. MORATO: A lotto gaming contract was not invalidated under the peace and order provision. This principle is not self-executing. The morality of gambling is not a justiciable issue.
Enunciated in Article III Section 5, “No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.
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.
LIM V. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY: There is an antipathy towards foreign influence in general. Foreign troops may be allowed in the country only by way of direct exception.
Section 8. The Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts and pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory.
• Only weapons are banned. Peaceful uses of nuclear energy are allowed. Nuclear capable vessels are also allowed provided they are not armed.
• The ban on nuclear weapons is not absolute; there may be deviation if national interest requires.
BAYAN V. ZAMORA: The SC did not discuss whether the VFA violated the nuclear weapons ban, although the issue was raised.
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.
• When the law can be interpreted in more ways than one, an interpretation that favors the underprivileged must be followed.
• Social justice is the equalization of economic, political, and social (EPS) opportunities with special emphasis on the duty of the State to tilt the balance of social forces in favor of the disadvantaged in life. Justice for the common tao; those who have less in life shall have more in law
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.
• The family is anterior to the State and is not a creature of the State. It protects the family from the instrumentalization by the State
• This provisions will not prohibit the legislature from enacting a law on divorce • Family – heterosexual relationship, whether formalized by marriage or not • Presumptions are resolved in favor of marriage
• Abortion is not allowed although the unborn may be sacrificed to save the mother.
• With regard to manner of education, the primary and natural right belongs to the parents. The government has the secondary and supportive role based on parens patria to protect persons who, because of age or other incapacity, are at a disadvantage
ROE V. WADE: In the US, abortion may be done during the first six months of pregnancy at the mother’s discretion. This is not allowed in the Philippines.
The right of the parents to rear their children is superior to the right of the state.
MEYER V. NEBRASKA: A law prohibiting the teaching of the German language to students was declared invalid.
PIERCE V. SOCIETY OF SISTERS: A law which required children from 8 to 16 to be sent to public schools only was declared to be an unreasonable interference with the liberty of the parents to rear their children.
Standing: the private corporations (schools) were allowed to assert the rights of the parents because their business was threatened by unconstitutional compulsion upon the parents.
WISCONSIN V. YODER: The right of the Amish community to educate their own was upheld against a law requiring formal public or private schooling. The community was able to prove that their mode of education adequately met the purpose of the law. A claim of parens patriae cannot be sustained against a free exercise claim where the interest of the state is not substantially injured.
The right of the children was not discussed by the majority but Justice Douglas, in his dissent said that the children’s rights should be respected because it is their future that is at stake.
GINSBERG V. NEW YORK: A law prohibiting the sale of girlie magazines to minors was upheld. The well-being of children is within the State’s power to regulate. Though upbringing of children is the primary right of the parents, this law merely assists or supports parents in exercising that right by recognizing that parental supervision is not always present. The legislature makes a valid presumption
that parents would not want these materials readily available to their children.
If parents want their children to have access to the magazines, they are free to make the purchase for their children.
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.
Section 14. The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure the before the law of women and men.
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.
Article 14 (women) doesn’t automatically repeal the Civil Code provisions law jurisprudence on the matter, what it does is to give a mandate to legislature to remove, when they make laws, existing inequalities. The general idea is for the law to ignore sex where sex is not a relevant factor in determining rights and duties. Nor is the provision meant to ignore customs and traditions.
This article does not add anything more to what the equal protection clause already guarantees
OPOSA V. FACTORAN: The right to a balanced and healthful ecology is self-executing and if violated, gives rise to a cause of action. It does not even have to be included in the Constitution because it is grounded on the most primary right of self-preservation. The petitioners were allowed to sue on their own behalf and on behalf of succeeding generations based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility.
LLDA V. CA: The LLDA’s right to issue a cease and desist order against Caloocan City was upheld based on its broad power to regulate projects around the lake and the Constitutional right of the lakeside dwellers to a balanced and healthful ecology.
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.
Section 18. The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare.
Section 19. The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos.
Section 20. The State recognizes the indispensable role of the private sector, encourages private enterprise, and provides incentives to needed investments.
Section 21. The State shall promote comprehensive rural development and agrarian reform.
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.
Section 26. The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.
Section 27. The State shall maintain honesty and integrity in the public service and take positive and effective measures against graft and corruption.
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.
the nonhuman factors in production.
Any doubt in interpretation as regards national economy and patrimony must be resolved in favor of Filipinos
This includes not only agrarian reform, but also encompasses a broad spectrum of social, economic, human, cultural, political, and even industrial development
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.
Legislative power: the authority to make laws and to alter or repeal them (MAR) Scope of Legislative power: Plenary
Consequences of Legislative power:
Non-delegable: power is vested only in Congress; due to Separation of Powers and the doctrine “potestas delegate delegari non potest”
No irrepealable laws: such will in effect reduce future legislative power; only the Constitution can limit legislative power
Limitations:
Substantive: as regards contents of law, must be lawful Procedural: as regards manner of passage of law
Advantages of bicameralism:
1. Allows for a body with a national perspective to check the parochial tendency of district representatives
2. Allows for a more careful study of legislation
3. Makes legislature less susceptible to control by the executive 4. Serves as a training ground for national leaders
Advantages of unicameralism
1. Simplicity of organization resulting in: 2. Economy
3. Efficiency
4. Facility in pinpointing responsibility for legislation 5. Avoidance of duplicate legislation
1. Original: possessed by the sovereign people
2. Derivative: delegated by the sovereign people to the legislative bodies and is subordinate to the original power of the people
Legislative power may also be classified into:
1. Constituent: power to amend or revise the constitution 2. Ordinary: power to pass ordinary laws
Two limits on legislative power:
1. Substantive: limits the intrinsic validity of the law 2. Procedural: limits the manner of passing laws Delegation of Powers
Delegata potestas non potest delegari - What has been delegated cannot be delegated: Premised on the ethical principle that delegated power constitutes not only a right but a duty to be performed by the delegate through the instrumentality of his own judgment and not through the intervening mind of another.
Exceptions/Permissible Delegation: P Delegation to the people at large
E Delegation of emergency powers to the President T Delegation of tariff powers to the President A Delegation to administrative bodies L Delegation to local governments
Delegation to the people at large :
Initiative: power of the people to propose amendments to the Constitution or to propose and enact legislation through an election called for the purpose
**after registration of a petition signed by at least 10% of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least 3% of the registered voters thereof
Referendum: method of submitting an important legislative measure to a direct vote of the whole people
Plebiscite: device to obtain a direct popular vote on a matter of political importance in order to create some more or less permanent political condition
e.g. Constitutional amendments
Delegation of emergency powers to the President (art. vi, § 23(2)): Conditions:
1. There must be war or other national emergency 2. The delegation must be for a limited period
3. The delegation must be subject to such restrictions as Congress may prescribe
4. The emergency powers must be exercised to carry out a national policy declared by Congress • Unless such emergency powers are withdrawn by resolution, they continue until the next
adjournment of the legislature (the session called after the adjournment of the first session when the emergency powers were delegated).
Delegation of tariff powers to the President (art. vi, § 28(2)):
• The reason for this delegation is the necessity of giving the President authority to act immediately on certain matters affecting the national economy because delay could result in the hardship of the people.
• It is recognized that the legislative process is too slow for the quick solutions needed for economic problems.
Delegation to administrative bodies:
Power of Subordinate Legislation: authority entrusted to administrative agencies to issue rules to carry out the general provisions of the statute
• Based on the recognition that the proliferation of specialized activities and their attendant peculiar problems has made it necessary to entrust to administrative bodies the power of subordinate legislation
• With this power, administrative bodies may implement the broad policies laid out in a statute by “filling in the details” which the Congress may not have the opportunity or competence to provide.
• They can determine the effectivity of laws which depend on certain conditions. Such laws must be complete when they leave the hands of the Legislature. They merely provide a contingency. •
Delegation to local governments
• Based on the recognition that local legislatures are more knowledgeable than Congress on matters of purely local concern and are therefore in a better position to enact the necessary and appropriate legislation
• Subject to the interposition of the superior in cases of necessity Tests of Delegation
1. The Completeness Test:
• The law must be complete in all its essential terms and conditions when it leaves the legislature so that there will be nothing left for the delegate to do when it reaches him except enforce it.
2. The Sufficient Standard Test:
• Even if the law does not spell out in detail the limits of the delegate’s authority, it may still be sustained if the delegation of legislative power is made subject to a sufficient standard.
• Vague standards such as “for the public welfare” or “national security” have been held to be sufficient.
GRANT OF QUASI-LEGISLATIVE POWER;
IN GENERAL; LGUS AND ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES
RUBI V. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF MINDORO: The Provincial Governor was authorized to decide whether to move non-Christians to a reservation and to choose the reservation site.
The delegation or legislative powers to local authorities is sanctioned by immemorial practice.
ANTIPOLO REALTY CORP. V. NHA: The National Housing Authority was authorized to perform quasi-judicial functions.
PITC V. ANGELES: The Philippine International Trading Corporation was authorized by law to regulate trade between the Philippines and China and make rules for that purpose.
The delegation was valid. Delegation to administrative agencies is justified because of the growing complexity of modern society and the functions of government, the need for fast response to issues, and the fact that the rules which need to be made are too detailed for the legislature.
VALID DELEGATION
PEOPLE V. ROSENTHAL: The Blue Sky Law delegated to the Insular Treasurer the power to cancel certificates for sale of securities.
Public interest is a sufficient standard.
ARANETA V. GATMAITAN: The Fisheries Act prohibited the use of devices which could cause depletion of fish fry and authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate rules and regulations. The President issued Executive Orders prohibiting trawl fishing.
The President may exercise power delegated to a cabinet secretary under his power of control and supervision and because a cabinet member is his alter ego.
AGUSTIN V. EDU: An LOI (then valid as law) requiring vehicles to carry EWDs authorized the LTO to promulgate implementing rules.
The standard to be followed may be implied form the policy and purpose of the act considered as a whole. In this case, it was apparent from the LOI that public safety was the standard.
EASTERN SHIPPING LINES V. POEA: The law creating the POEA mandated it to ensure “fair and equitable employment practices.” It issued a memorandum circular prescribing a standard contract for seamen complete with benefits.
The following were held to be sufficient standards: to ensure fair and equitable employment practices, public interest, just and equitable, simplicity, economy, efficiency.
CONFERENCE OF MARITIME MANNING AGENCIES V. POEA: Same facts as Eastern Shipping case above.
Test for a valid exercise of delegated power to make rules: (1) the regulation should be germane to the purposes of the law; and (2) it should not be in contradiction to but in conformity with the standards prescribed by the law.
TABLARIN V. GUTIERREZ: The Medical Act created the Board of Medical Education and gave it power to issue rules to carry out the following purposes: (1) the standardization of medical education; (2) the regulation of the medical profession; (3) to determine requirements for admission to medical schools.
The purpose of the law may provide the standard.
OSMEÑA V. ORBOS: P.D. 1956, created the Oil Price Stabilization Fund and authorized the Energy Regulatory Board to augment the fund by imposing additional amounts on petroleum products.
The amount to be imposed is determined by the standard: “to augment the resources of the Fund.” GUINGONA V. CARAGUE: P.D. 1177 provided for automatic appropriation of funds for the payment of foreign loans. (To whom was power delegated here? The Secretary of Budget?)
The standard is that the amounts appropriated shall be enough to pay the principal, interest, taxes and other normal banking charges when they shall become due. No uncertainty arises in executive implementation as the limit will be the exact amounts as shown by the books of the Treasury.
VIOLA V. ALUNAN: The Local Government Code provides for the officers and board in each chapter of the Liga ng Mga Barangay and allows the creation of additional positions by the board as it may deem necessary for the management of the chapter.
“For the management of the chapter” is a sufficient standard.
UNITES STATES V. BARRIAS: A law was passed giving the Collector of Customs the authority to regulate harbor and river craft and to make rules to carry the law into effect. The law made punishable a violation of any rule made by the Collector pursuant to the law. The Collector made a
rule barring certain underpowered vessels from plying the Pasig River.
Administrative bodies have the authority to issue administrative regulations which are penal in nature where the law itself makes the violation of the administrative regulation punishable and provides for its penalty.
MARCOS V. COURT OF APPEALS: The Central Bank Act provides that a willful violation of the Act or any order, instruction, rule or regulation issued by the Monetary Board shall be punished by a fine and imprisonment. Marcos was charged for a violation of a Central Bank circular issued by the Monetary Board which prohibited foreign exchange accounts abroad without CB authority.
Administrative bodies have the authority to issue administrative regulations which are penal in nature where the law itself makes the violation of the administrative regulation punishable and provides for its penalty.
FERNANDEZ V. STO. TOMAS: A Civil Service Commission was issued to reorganize some structural aspects of the Commission. The Revised Administrative Code authorized the Civil Service Commission to effect changes in its organization as the need arises. It recognized the purpose of the CSC to promote efficiency and responsiveness in the civil service and required it to be decentralized.
The SC said that by ruling that there was valid delegation, it was not saying that the power had to be granted to the CSC for the power to exist.
CHIONGBIAN V. ORBOS: R.A. 6734 created the ARMM and authorized the president to merge remaining regions. The President issued an Administrative Order reorganizing the administrative regions in the regions which did not vote in favor of joining the ARMM. There was no standard for reorganization in R.A. 6734.
Another law, R.A. 5435, authorized the President to organize the Executive Department to promote simplicity, efficiency, and economy in government.
A legislative standard need not be found in the law challenged. It may be embodied in other statutes on the same subject as that of the challenged legislation.
RODRIGO V. SANDIGANBAYAN: R.A. 6758, the Compensation and Position Classification Act, directed the DBM to prepare the Index of Occupational Services to be guided by the Benchmark Position Schedule and several factor, e.g., education required by the job, nature of work, etc. The DBM classified the position of Municipal Mayor as Salary Grade 27. The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over offenses committed by officers with Salary Grade 27 and higher but the law defining its jurisdiction did not include municipal mayors.
The standard for classifying was “equal work for equal pay.” The DBM merely classifies positions; that by such classification, an official comes under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is only an incidental consequence to the exercise of the DBM’s functions.
UNDUE DELEGATION
PEOPLE V. MACEREN: The Fisheries Law prohibits the use of any obnoxious or poisonous substance in fishing. The Secretary of Agriculture issued an Administrative Order banning the use of electro-fishing and imposing a penalty for violation. The AO The law does not expressly prohibit/punish electro-fishing.
The power to declare what constitutes a criminal offense cannot be delegated. In a prosecution for a violation of an administrative order, it must be clear that the order is within the scope of the law and that the penalty is provided for in the law itself.
PEOPLE V. VERA: The Probation Law stated that it “shall apply only in those provinces in which the respective provincial boards have provided for the salary of a probation officer.”
By making the application of the law in a particular province dependent of the provincial board, what is granted is a “roving commission” which enables the provincial boards to exercise arbitrary discretion.
UNITED STATES V. PANLILIO: The law authorized the Director of Agriculture order a quarantine of animals but did not state that a violation of such orders would be punishable. The law merely stated that a violation of “any of the provisions of this Act” shall incur criminal liability.
Where the law granting the power to make rules does not state that a violation of the rules is punishable, a person violating the rules cannot be proceeded against criminally.
PEOPLE V. DACUYCUY: R.A. 4670, the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers contained a penal provision punishing any person who violates the rights of teachers under the act. The penalty was set at “a fine of not less that one hundred pesos nor more than one thousand pesos, or by imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.”
The penalty of imprisonment is unconstitutional for giving the courts an unduly wide latitude of discretion to fix the term of imprisonment, without the benefit of a sufficient standard.
CEBU OXYGEN V. DRILON: R.A. 6640 raised the minimum wage. The Secretary of Labor issued an implementing rule which prohibited an employer from crediting anniversary wage increases negotiated under a collective bargaining agreement against wage increases mandated by R.A. 6640.
Since the law did not prohibit the crediting of CBA anniversary increases, the implementing rules cannot provide such a prohibition. Implementing rules cannot add or detract from the provisions of the law it is designed to implement. The law itself cannot be expanded by regulations.
YNOT V. IAC: E.O. 626-A mandated the confiscation of illegally transported carabaos/carabeef and allowed certain government officers to dispose of the confiscated animals/beef as they “may see fit.” The phrase “may see fit” is extremely dangerous; it is laden with perilous opportunities for partiality and abuse, and even corruption. The discretion of the officers is boundless. There is here a “roving commission,” a wide and sweeping authority that is not “canalized within the banks that keep it from overflowing.”
EXECUTIVE MISAPPLICATION
TATAD V. SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY: The Downstream Oil Industry Deregulation Act authorized the DOE, upon approval of the President, to implement the full deregulation of the oil industry not later than March 1997. The DOE was directed to time the full deregulation when prices of crude oil and petroleum products in the world market are declining and
when the exchange rate of the peso in relation to the US dollar is stable.
The President issued E.O. 372 to fully implement deregulation. The E.O. stated that the conditions set by Congress have been met: depletion of the buffer fund; stable prices of crude oil; and stable exchange rate.
While the law contained a valid delegation of power, the E.O. implementing it failed to faithfully follow the standards set down by the law. The Executive misappreciated the extra factor of depletion of the buffer fund. It is not harmless error, even if the standards required by Congress were present. It may be that the presence of the two standards required by Congress wouldn’t have been sufficient to the Executive were it not for the presence of the improperly considered standard.
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.
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.
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 an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was elected.
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.
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 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.
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.
QUALIFICATIONS SENATORS
Number: • 24
Qualifications: • Natural born • 25 years old • Read and write • Registered voter • 2 year residency
Term: • 6 years
2 term limit HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Number: • Not more than 250 (may be increased by law)
Qualifications: • Natural born • 25 years old • Read and write • Registered voter (IN
DISTRICT)
• 1 year residency (IN DISTRICT)
Term: • 3 years
3 term limit CITIZENSHIP
BENGSON V. HRET: Bengson was a natural-born Filipino who lost his citizenship by his naturalization in the United States in connection with his service in the U.S. Marine Corps. He subsequently reacquired his Philippine citizenship through repatriation under a law which allowed those who served in the U.S. Military to reacquire Philippine citizenship. He ran for and won a seat in the House. Natural born?
A natural born Filipino is one who is a Philippine citizen from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect his citizenship.
Filipino citizens who have lost their citizenship may reacquire it by: naturalization, repatriation, or a direct act of Congress. Repatriation simply consists of taking an oath of allegiance and registering it in the Local Civil Registry. It results in the recovery of the original nationality. A natural born Filipino who has lost his citizenship, if repatriated, will recover his natural born status.
Moreover, under the 1987 Constitution, there are only two classes of citizens: natural born and naturalized. A citizen who did not have to go through the process of naturalization is, necessarily,
natural born.
DOMICILE AND RESIDENCE
AQUINO V. COMELEC: Aquino, a candidate for congressman in Makati, was born in Tarlac and had his domicile of origin there. To show that he fulfilled the one-year residency requirement, he presented a one-year residential lease in Makati.
The Constitution, when it says “residence” actually means “domicile.” It is clear that Aquino’s domicile of origin is Tarlac. Thus to establish his domicile in Makati, he should be able to prove an (1) actual change of domicile, a (2) bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of domicile and establishing a new one and (3) acts which correspond with the purpose. In the absence of clear and positive proof, the domicile of origin should be deemed to continue.
The one-year lease was insufficient to prove change of domicile.
ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS V. COMELEC: Imelda was a candidate for congressman in her domicile of origin, Leyte. Although she was born in Manila, she followed the domicile of her parents. She was raised and educated in Leyte, after college, she went to Manila and married ex-President Marcos. They lived in Malacañang and, after EDSA1, moved to Hawaii.
Imelda never lost her domicile of origin. Domicile of origin is not easily lost. To successfully effect a change in domicile, one must demonstrate:
1. An actual change of domicile;
2. A bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new one; and 3. Acts which correspond with the purpose.
In the absence of clear and positive proof, domicile of origin should be deemed to continue. She did not lose her domicile by marriage; the Civil Code allows the husband to fix the residence of the family. When the Civil Code uses the word residence, it actually means residence and not domicile.
Dissent: the one year residence requirement is crucial regardless of whether or not the term residence is to be synonymous with domicile – the candidate’s intent and actual presence in one district must in all situations satisfy the length of time prescribed by the fundamental law. The candidate must be familiar with the environment and problems of a district he intends to represent.
PROBLEM: Can a person who has been naturalized in a foreign country be deemed to have abandoned his domicile in the Philippines? Assuming he does not live abroad? Probably not. The three requisites for a change of domicile must first be shown before one can be said to have abandoned his domicile. The mere act of naturalizing is insufficient.
DOMINO V. COMELEC: Domino filed a certificate of candidacy for congressman in Sarangani. His domicile of origin was Ilocos. He successfully changed domicile to QC, where he ran for congressman. To establish a change of domicile from QC to Sarangani, he presented a lease contract.
Domino is still domiciled in QC. He has not shown the three requirements for change of domicile. In the consideration of these circumstances, three rules must be borne in mind: (1) a man must have a domicile somewhere; (2) once established, it continues until a new one is acquired; (3) there can only be one domicile at a time.
The lease contract will show, at most, residence. Also, Domino’s lack of intention to change domicile is shown by his registering as a voter in QC. This is true even if the MTC declared Domino to be a resident of Sarangani in an exclusion proceeding in QC. The only authority of the MTC is to determine whether or not the voter is entitled to vote in that locality.
PEREZ V. COMELEC: Aguinaldo’s qualification to run for representative of Tuguegarao were challenged. He was able to prove his qualifications by presenting: an affidavit from his lessor which affirmed residence; a marriage certificate; birth certificates of his children; letters addressed to him in Tuguegarao.
The fact that he registered as a voter in another district is not proof that his domicile is in that other district.
TERM
DIMAPORO V. MITRA: Rep. Dimaporo filed his certificate of candidacy for governor of ARMM. The Speaker and the Secretary of the House excluded his name from the Roll, considering him to have
voluntarily renounce his office.
The grounds for shortening of term enumerated in the Constitution are not exclusive. They are: forefeiture by holding another office in the government; expulsion; disqualification by the electoral tribunal; voluntary renunciation. There are other grounds: death, resignation; conviction with disqualification.
The mere act of filing a certificate of candidacy for another office is forfeiture of the elective position held. It is considered forfeiture under the Omnibus Election Code. [N.B. This provision has been repealed by the Fair Elections Act. Now, only acceptance of an appointive office is considered forfeiture.]
Term v. Tenure: The term of an office must be distinguished from the tenure of the incumbent. The term means the time during which the officer may claim to hold the office as of right, and fixes the interval after which the several incumbents shall succeed one another. The tenure represents the term during which the incumbent actually holds the office. The tenure may be shorter than the term for reasons within or beyond the power of the incumbent.
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.
PARTY LIST
VETERANS FEDERATION PARTY V. COMELEC: In the 1998 elections, the COMELEC issued a resolution proclaiming parties which did not garner at least 2% of votes cast under the party list system in order to fill-up the 20% requirement. The SC cleared up the rules:
1. 20% of the total number of representatives is a ceiling; it is not mandatory. To compute:
a. (# of district representatives/.80) X .20 = maximum number of party list representatives 2. Allocation of seats:
a. All with at least 2% of the vote get one seat
b. Determine number of seats top ranked party is entitled to; this is the basis c. Determine number of seats other parties are entitled to. To compute:
i. (# of votes of party/# of votes of 1st party) X # of additional seats of 1st party. The rationale is it would be unfair for parties with many votes to have the same number of seats as those which are barely over 6%. The Niemeyer Formula used in the German Bundestag cannot be applied here because there are fundamental differences between our party-list systems. In Germany, one-half of the Parliament is filled by party-list representatives; also, there is no three-seat limit. ANG BAGONG BAYANI-OFW LABOR PARTY V. COMELEC: Petitions for party-list registration were filed with the COMELEC. Some were granted; some weren’t. The SC set down guidelines for the COMELEC to follow in evaluating applications for registration.
1. must represent marginalized or underrepresented sectors enumerated in the law; 2. political parties are allowed but they must comply with #1;
3. the religious sector may not be represented; 4. the party must not be disqualified under the law; 5. it must not be related to government;
6. nominees must be from the marginalized or underrepresented sectors;
7. nominees must also comply with the law (same qualifications as congressmen except for residency requirement plus must have been members of party-list for at least 90 days preceding election; for youth sector, must be 25-30 on election day;
8. nominees must be able to contribute to the enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the country as a whole.
Section 5. (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 reappointment of legislative districts based on the standards provided in this section. DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVES
TOBIAS V. ABALOS: Mandaluyong and San Juan used to belong to only one legislative district. A law was passed converting Mandaluyong into a Highly Urbanized City; it now formed a separate legislative district.
The law need not include a census to show that Mandaluyong already has 250k residents thus making it into a highly urbanized city. It is presumed that Congress did its job.
Its creation into a separate legislative district is valid even if the number of Congressmen goes over 250. The number in the Constitution is subject to law.
Though the Constitution directs Congress to make reapportionments three years after each census; there may still be reapportionment via special law.
MARIANO V. COMELEC: Makati was converted into a city.
Reapportionment of legislative districts may be done through a special law.
The law stated that the area of the Municipality of Makati would be the area of the City of Makati. It is not necessary that there be a delimitation by metes and bounds.
The law provided that Makati shall have two legislative districts. The Constitution merely requires a city with at least 250k population to have at least one representative. There is no requirement for additional representatives.
SAMSON V. AGUIRRE: A law was passed creating Novaliches City from 15 QC barangays.
The law was held valid despite allegations that there were certifications as to income, population, and land area. Every law is presumed valid. Petitioners failed to show overcome the presumption of validity.
The seat of government was not provided for in the law; this may be established after creation.
MONTEJO V. COMELEC: Biliran was made into a province and the COMELEC transferred some municipalities to other legislative districts purportedly to adhere to the equality of vote principle
Redistricting and reapportionment are legislative prerogatives which the COMELEC may not exercise. The power of the COMELEC under the Ordinance attached to the Constitution is limited to minor adjustment or corrections. Reapportionment is substantial.
HERRERA V. COMELEC: A COMELEC resolution divided the province of Guimaras into two provincial
districts.
The COMELEC has the power to divide provinces with only one legislative district into two districts for the purpose of electing members of the provincial board. The apportionment was done in accordance with law. The districts are contiguous and/or adjacent, meaning “adjoining, abutting, having a common border, connected, and/or touching along boundaries often for considerable distances.”
Distinguish this from Montejo, where apportionment of legislative districts was done.
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.
LUCERO V. COMELEC: There was a failure of elections in Samar. The special election could be held close to the next election date because the one-year rule in the special elections for vacancies in Congress did not apply to special elections held because of failure of elections.
1. Permanent vacancy occurs in the Senate of House 2. At least one year before expiration of term
3. Election must be held: between 60 and 90 days after the vacancy if House; simultaneously with next regular election, if Senate.
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.
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.
SALARIES AND ALLOWANCES
• Increase in salaries shall not take effect until after the expiration of the full term of all the Senators and Representatives approving such increase
• Reduction of salaries is permitted
• No prohibition on receipt of allowances but subject to audit by the COA PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITIES:
1) Privilege from Arrest Conditions:
Only from arrests for criminal offenses punishable by not more that six years (prision correccional max.)
Only while Congress is in session, whether regular or special
⇒ Purpose is to protect legislator against harassment which would keep him away from legislative sessions
2) Privilege of Speech and Debate Condition:
Remarks must be made in the discharge of official functions such as speeches delivered, statements made and votes cast; utterance must constitute legislative action
It must relate to an act generally done in Congress and in relation to the business before it ⇒ Only protection from other forums other that Congress itself; may be disciplined by Congress ⇒ Purpose is to leave the legislator unimpeded in the performance of his duties
⇒ Extends to agents as long as the agency consists of assisting legislator in his official functions PEOPLE V. JALOSJOS: Jalosjos was convicted for rape and acts of lasciviousness; he was sent to prison. He filed a petition to be allowed to attend sessions, committee meetings, etc.
The immunity is only for offenses punishable by not more than six years.
Congress has the power to compel attendance unless absence is for a legitimate reason.
JIMENEZ V. CABANGBANG: Rep. Cabangbang wrote an open letter addressed to the President which was allegedly libelous; he had it published.
The communication is not privileged. It is not considered “speech and debate in Congress” so as to be privileged. In causing publication of the communication, he was not performing an official duty. Moreover, the letter was dated on a date that Congress was not in session.
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.
• Failure to make the disclosure may be sanctioned under the House’s power to discipline its members, e.g., 60 day maximum suspension or expulsion, both with 2/3 concurrence.
Section 13. No Senator or a 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.
INCOMPATIBLE AND FORBIDDEN OFFICES
Incompatible: Representatives may not 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
Forbidden: May not under any circumstances be appointed to offices which may have been created or the emoluments thereof increased during the term for which he was elected
Exception: if it can be shown that the second office is an extension of the legislative position or is in aid of legislative duties, the holding thereof will not result in the loss of the legislator’s seat in Congress, e.g., Chairman of Senate Blue Ribbon Committee or member of the JBC.
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.
Prohibitions:
1. Appear as counsel
2. Direct or indirect interest in any contract, etc. with the government and GOCCs (including subsidiaries)
3. Intervene in any matter before any government office for his direct/indirect pecuniary benefit or where he may be called upon to act on account of his office
PUYAT V. DE GUZMAN: An assemblyman appeared as counsel for a corporation before the SEC. Because the other party objected, he acquired nominal shares in the corporation so that his appearance would be in his own behalf.
The appearance was an indirect appearance as counsel. The SC will not be fooled by the ruse. What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly.
If the appearance is genuinely in one’s own behalf, then it is permissible.
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.
SESSION
2. Special session: may be called by President at any time RECESS
1. Compulsory recess: the 30 day period between regular sessions OR the period between the beginning of a new term (noon of June 30) until the beginning of the regular session
2. Voluntary recess: Each house may adjourn voluntarily; if for more than three days, must obtain consent of other House.
Pimentel v. Joint Committee: Did the term of Congress expire when it adjourned sine die upon the termination of its regular session, making any actions by the Joint Canvassing Committee beyond such termination void?
No. Upon adjournment, what was terminated was the regular session. The current Congress continued in existence until the proclamation of the replacements. The legislative functions cease upon
adjournment; this does not affect non-legislative functions.
In fact, the joint public session convened by directive of the Constitution to canvass the votes and proclaim the P/VP cannot adjourn sine die until it has accomplished its tasks. This is true even it the newly proclaimed members of Congress have to take over the functions.
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 for 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.
OFFICERS
Defensor-Santiago v. Guingona: During the election of officers in the Senate, (Majority – LAMP, 10; Minority – Lakas, 7), all but Miriam and Tatad voted for Fernan to be Senate President. Miriam and Tatad claim that they are now the “minority” and manifested that Tatad be the minority leader. Lakas’ choice was Guingona.
All the Constitution requires is that the Senate President be elected by more than half of all of the Senators. It does not define who comprise the majority/minority.
The rules of the Senate do not provide for election of majority/minority leaders. QUORUM TO DO BUSINESS/COMPULSION TO ATTEND; MEANING
AVELINO V. CUENCO: To prevent Tañada from giving a privilege speech, 10 Senators, including Senate President Avelino, walked out. The remaining 12 declared the office of the Senate President vacant and elected Cuenco.
The election was valid. There was a quorum. One senator was in the US and a 12 is a majority of 23. When the Constitution declares that a majority of each House shall constitute a quorum, “House” does not mean “all” the members. There is a difference between a majority of all the members of the House and a majority of the House. The senator abroad was not considered to be part of the House because
