Page 1 of 36
1 Macias v COMELEC Three branches of the government Congress Composition, qualification, term
House of representatives
RA 3040
Apportions representative districts in the Philippines. Contention c/o petitioners
• RA 3040 is unconstitutional.
• It was passed by the HOR without printed final copies of the bill having been furnished the Members at least 3 calendar days prior to its passage
• It was approved more than 3 years after the return of the last census of our population • It apportioned districts without regard to the number of inhabitants of the several provinces • They were discriminated against
• Provinces were given less representative districts Held & Ratio
Unconstitutional. It violated constitutional provisions on the printed form (3-day requirement), population census, and apportionment of members.
2 Tan v COMELEC Three branches of the government
Congress Composition, qualification, term
House of representatives
Fast facts
BP 885 sought to create a new province of Negros del Norte, getting areas and inhabitants from some of the cities and municipalities of Negros Occidental (i.e. San Carlos, Silay, Cadiz, Calatrava, taboso, Escalante, Sagay, Manapla, Victorias, E.B. Magalona, and Don Salvador Benedicto). A plebiscite to ratify BP 885 was scheduled on January 3, 1986, and would have included only voters from the areas in the would-be province of Negros del Norte, excluding those voters from the other cities and municipalities of Negros Occidental.
BP 885
An Act Creating a New Province in the Island of Negros to be known as the Province of Negros del Norte. The said law provides that some cities from the island of Negros would be separated in order to create the new province, subject to a concurrence of the majority in a plebiscite.
Contentions c/o petitioners
• The exclusion and non-participation of the voters of the Province of Negros Occidental other than those living within the territory of the new province of Negros del Norte is not in accordance with the Constitution.
• BP 885 is not in accordance with the Local Government Code as in Article 11, Section 3 of the Constitution. The Constitution provides that a plebiscite be held “in the unit or units affected”. The petitioners said that Negros Occidental is a unit affected by the creation of the new province, thus, they should be allowed to vote.
Held & Ratio
BP 885 is unconstitutional. The pertinent constitutional provision states that the majority of the “unit or units affected” should approve the change in boundaries in a particular province. The fact that only the inhabitants of the would-be province of Negros del Norte will be given a chance to vote on the plebiscite runs counter to the constitutional provision. Negros Occidental also has to vote on the plebiscite because it is also considered a unit affected, its area being diminished by the creation of this new province.
Tan v COMELEC
3 Veterans Fed. Party v COMELEC
Three branches of the government Congress Composition, qualification, term
House of representatives
What is a Party-List
• Organization registered with the COMELEC • Upon election, will sit in HoR as regular members Fast facts
In the case at bar, the petitioners are assailing the constitutionality of COMELEC Resolution 98-065 and January 7, 1999 Resolution (affirming 98-065). These 2 resolutions ordered the proclamation of 38 additional party-list representatives to fill all 52 seats in the HoR.
Purpose of RA 7941
The State shall promote proportional representation in the election of representatives to the HoR through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof, which will enable Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties, and who lack well-defined political constituencies but who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole, to become members of the HoR.
Parameters of RA 7941
1. 20% allocation. The combined number of all party-list congressmen shall not exceed 20% of the total membership of the HoR, including those elected under the party-list.
2. 2% threshold. Only those parites garnering a minimum of 2% of the total valid votes cast for the party-list system are “qualified” to have a seat in the HoR.
3. The 3-seat limit. Each qualified, regardless of the number of votes it actually obtained, is entitled to a maximum of 3 seats; 1 “qualifying” and 2 additional seats.
4. Proportional representation. The additional seats which a qualified party is entitlesl to shall be computed “in proportion to their total number of votes.”
Issues
1. Is the 20% allocation for party-list representatives mentioned in Article 6, Section 5(2), mandatory or is it merely a ceiling? Should the 20% allocation for party-list solons be filled up completely all the time?
2. Are the 2% threshold requirement and the 3-seat limit provided in RA 7941 constitutional? 3. If the answer to issue 2 is in the affirmative, how should the additional seats of a qualified party be
determined? Held & Ratio
The petitions are partly meritorious. The Court agrees with petitioners that the assailed Resolutions should be nullified, but disagrees that they should all be granted additional seats.
As to whether the 20% allocation is mandatory. The Constitution does not require all such seats be filled up all the time and under all circumstances. It is a mere ceiling. Article 6, Section 5 states that the Congress was vested with the broad power to define and prescribe the mechanics of the party-list system of representation. The Constitution explicitly sets down only the percentage of the total membership in
Veterans Federal
Party v COMELEC
the HoR reserved for PL representatives. The Congress exercised its power through RA 7941. Said legislation deemed it necessary to require parties, organizations, and coalitions participating in the system to obtain at least 2% of the total votes cast for the PL system in order to be entitled to a PL seat. Those garnering more than this percentage could have additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes.
As to the 2% threshold. Valid. This threshold was set out by Congress to ensure that only those organizations which have been given by the people sufficient basis for them to represent their constituents are to be awarded seats in the Parliament. It gives meaningful representation. We could not have PL reps seat in the House if they do not actually represent a significant number of marginalized people—those who voted them.
As to the 3-seat-per party limit. “Qualified” means having hurdled the 2% vote threshold. 3-seat limit ensures the entry of various interest-representations into the legislature; no single group, no matter how large its membership, would dominate the party-list seats, if not the entire house.
As to the method of allocating additional seats.
STEPS IN DETERMINING WHO QUALIFIES FOR ADDITIONAL SEATS
1. Rank from the highest, based on the number of votes won. All parties with at least 2% of the total votes are guaranteed 1 seat each. Only these parties shall be eligible for additional seats.
Illustration (all hypothetical values, no logical interrelationship)
Rank Party-List Votes % of total votes in PL
elections
1 ABC Party (FIRST PARTY) 1,000,000 7%
2 DEF Party 900,000 6% 3 GHI Party 800,000 5% 4 JKL Group 700,000 4% 5 MNO Group 600,000 3% 6 PQR Party 500,000 2% 7 STU Group 400,000 1% 8 VWX Group 300,000 1% 9 YZA Party 200,000 1% 10 BCD Group 100,000 1%
Note: In this example only those groups ranked 1 through 6 are “qualified” to have seats in the HoR, having hurdled the 2% threshold, ABC party being tagged as the “FIRST PARTY”.
2. Determine number of additional seats to be granted to the first party. Since the distribution is based on proportional representation, the number of seats to be allotted to the other parties cannot possibly exceed that to which the first party is entitled by virtue of its obtaining the most number of votes.
Formula for additional seats for the first party:
Rules:
If proportion ≥ 6%, first party will get 2 seats If proportion ≥ 4%, one seat
If proportion ≥ 4%, no additional seat
This formula is applicable only in determining the additional seats of the first party.
Illustration (based on illustrative facts in [1])
ABC Party Proportion = 7%
Additional seats as first party = 2 seats
3. Determine number of seats for other qualified parties.
Formula for additional seats for other qualified parties (concerned party):
Illustration
Additional seats of DEF Party
Hence, additional seats for DEF Party is only 1 seat, since rounding up is not applied.
Outcome based on illustrative facts
Party-List Qualified seats Additional seats Total HoR seats
1 ABC Party 1 2 3 2 DEF Party 1 1 2 3 GHI Party 1 1 2 4 JKL Group 1 1 2 5 MNO Group 1 1 2 6 PQR Party 1 1 2
As to COMELEC en banc’s decision. COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in ruling that the 38 herein repondent parties, organizations, and coalitions are each entitled to a party-list seat, because it violated 2 requirements of RA 7941: the 2% threshold and proportional requirement.
Page 3 of 36
4 Bagong Bayani v COMELEC Three branches of the government Congress Composition, qualification, term
House of representatives
Fast facts
The case at bar deals with the disqualification of private respondents, apparently organizations considered as political parties, because the party-list system was intended to benefit the marginalized and underrepresented; not the mainstream political parties, the non-marginalized or overrepresented. Contention c/o pet
Inclusion of political parties in the party-list race is inconceivable; most objectionable portion of the questioned Resolution.
Contention c/o Solicitor General
Party-list race is open to all, including political parties Issues (WON)
• Political parties may participate in the party-list elections
• Party-list system is exclusive to "marginalized and underrepresented" sectors and organizations. Requirements/criteria for party-list candidates
1. Must be representative of the marginalized 2. Political parties – must comply with #1
3. No organization hailing from the religious sector shall be allowed to participate 4. Must not be disqualified under Section 6 of RA7941
5. Must not be an offshoot of the government
6. The nominee him/herself must also qualify, not simply the party Held & Ratio
On the inclusion of political parties. They are not prohibited from joining the party-list race. RA 7941 expressly states that the party-list system is open to all “registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.” The respondents cannot be disqualified from the party-list elections, merely on the ground that they are political parties.
On the issue of marginalized and underrepresented. Political parties are not barred from joining the party-list elections, but not all of them can participate. Only those which prove that they qualify as party-party-list candidates based on the definition of what a party-list organization is. Allowing even rich and powerful political parties would defeat the purpose of the party-list system.
Case remanded to the COMELEC.
Bagong Bayani v
COMELEC
5 Aquino v COMELEC Three branches of the government Congress Composition, qualification, term
House of representatives
Fast facts
On April 24, 1995, Move Makati, a duly registered political party, and Mateo Bedon, Chairman of the LAKAS-NUCD-UMDP of Barangay Cembo, Makati City, filed a petition to disqualify Agapito A. Aquino on the ground that the latter lacked the residence qualification as a candidate for congressman which, under Article 6, Section 6 of the Constitution, should be for a period not less than one (1) year immediately preceding the May 8, 1995 elections.
Constitution on residency
• For a period not less than one (1) year prior to the elections • Residence = Domicile
Domicile
The place “where a party actually or constructively has his permanent home”, where he, no matter where he may be found at any given time, eventually intends to return and remain, i.e., his domicile, is that to which the Constitution refers when it speaks of residence for the purposes of election law.
Purpose of equating residency and domicile in election law
Gallego v Vera. To exclude strangers or newcomers unfamiliar with the conditions and needs fo the community from taking advantage of favorable circumstances existing in that community for electoral gain.
Issue (WON)
Butz Aquino actually was a resident for a period of one year in the area now encompassed by the Second Legislative District of Makati at the time of his election or he was domiciled in the same.
Aquino’s COC
His domicile of origin of record up to the time of filing of his most recent COC for the 1995 elections was Concepcion, Tarlac.
Aquino’s Lease contract
Indicates impermanency of residence. Instead of purchasing a place of residence, Aquino simply leased it. Moreover, he had other condominium units in Manila and QC. He admitted that he only stays in the condominium unit in short periods at a time.
Change of domicile
Not easily achieved. Must be proven that person actually changed his domicile, where he has abandoned prior residence and moved into a new one, with concrete acts manifesting such intention (i.e. severing ties with hometown).
Held & Ratio
Aquino is disqualified on the ground of the one year residency rule. Aquino’s lease contract is indicative of his purpose not to establish permanent residence in Makati, but simply qualify as a candidate. He also has not established that he has indeed changed his domicile from Tarlac to Makati.
6 Marcos v COMELEC Three branches of the government Congress Composition, qualification, term
House of representatives
Fast facts
The case at bar deals with the disqualification of Imelda Marcos from running as a candidate for her district in Leyte, on the ground of the one (1) year residency requirement. It has appeared that she has spent most of her recent life living outside of Leyte, specifically in Ilocos and Manila, since her husband became President of the country.
Domicile
• Natural place of residence • Permanent home
• Physical presence in a fixed place • Intention of returning home Residence v Domicile Residence – physical presence Domicile – intent to return
It is possible to have several residences at a time, but it is impossible to have more than one domicile. Successful change of domicile
1. An actual removal or an actual change of domicile
2. A bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new one. Voluntary act of relinquishing candidate’s former domicile with an intent to supplant the former domicile with one of her own choosing.
3. Acts which correspond with the purpose
Romualdez-Marcos v
COMELEC
Domicile of female spouse
Woman does not lose it in favor of her husband’s choice of residence. Held & Ratio
Imelda’s domicile was in Tacloban. One does not lose domicile even when he moves to another place for, say, greener pastures. Absence from legal residence does not constitute loss of residence. Imelda had always kept her ties with her domicile. She did have many residences but it did not imply that she never intended to abandon Tacloban as her domicile. All these despite the facts that her husband was the President and that his domicile was in Ilocos and most of his activities were in Manila.
7 Torayno v COMELEC Three branches of the government Congress Composition, qualification, term
House of representatives
Timeline
1995: Emano (private resp) ran for governor of Misamis oriental. His COC indicated as residence, Tagoloan Misamis Oriental.
June 14, 1997: Emano executed voter registration in Cagayan de Oro, claiming 20 years of residence. March 25, 1998: Filed candidacy for mayor of CDO, where his COC indicated as residence, Gusa, Cagayan
de Oro. Issue (WON)
Emano duly established residence in CDO at least one year prior to the May 11, 1998 elections to qualify him to run for the mayorship thereof.
Contentions c/o pet
• Emano is a resident of Tagoloan, not CDO • Evidenced by him being governor
• Evidenced by his pleadings stating that he is a resident of Tagoloan
• Evidenced by exercise of powers of government until he filed candidacy for CDO mayor
• He remained a resident of Tago, because residence is a “continuing qualification” that an official must possess
• Having a hose in CDO is not enough proof of change in domicile Residence requirement
• Prevent strangers to seek office in the city and taking advantage of the political situation in the area • To establish residence just to meet the requirement defeats the purpose of representation Representation
Candidate who has actual residence in the area is more cognizant of the needs of the community. Held & Ratio
Emano satisfied the residence requirement. Mamba-Perez v COMELEC. Emano not a newcomer to CDO. He has been residing in CDO for 3 years during his term as governor. CDO is where the seat of provincial government is located. His CTC and voter registration evidenced the same. Actual presence in CDO is enough proof that he is acquainted with the community in that he is familiar with their needs. 8 Santiago v Guingona Three branches of the government
Congress Organizations and sessions
Election of officers
Fast facts
On the first session of the 11th Congress, the Senate’s composition was as follows
10 members LAMP
7 members Lakas-NUCD-UMDP
1 member LP
1 member Aksyon Demokratico
1 member PRP
1 member Gabay Bayan
2 members Independent
23 – total number of senators, the last 6 members are all classified by petitioners as independent
On the agenda of the day was the election of officers. For Senate presidency, the candidates were Senators Fernan and Tatad. By a vote of 20-2, Fernan was won the position.
Senator Tatad thereafter manifested that, with the agreement of Senator Santiago (the only senator that voted for Tatad), allegedly the only other member of the minority, he was assuming the position of minority leader.
Senator Guingona was chosen to become the minority leader, being a member of Lakas-NUCD, a party considered a minority.
Contentions c/o Tatad
Those who had voted for Senator Fernan comprised the majority, while only those who had voted for him, the losing nominee, belonged to the minority. Therefore, only him or Senator Santiago may be chosen as minority leader. Guingona cannot be the minority leader. There has been a violation of the Constitution.
Avelino v Cuenco
• Question of who was the rightful Senate President • Court assumed jurisdiction
• Resolution of issue hinged on the interpretation of the Constitution (quorum)
• Judicial supremacy: court sees to it that no branch transgresses Constitution, WON it is justiciable (or political)
• Election of Senate Electoral Tribunal is not political. It does not depend on Senate’s full discretionary authority subject to constitutional limitations.
Majority
• In elections: plurality, more than half of votes needed to win
• In multi-party system: political party which most elected lawmakers belong to Minority
A group, party , or faction with a smaller number of votes or adherents than the majority. Election of officers
The Constitution provides only for the election of Senate President and Speaker of the House. It prescribes only the manner of election of the Senate President. It is silent on the election of other officers. It does not provide for the rules on the election of majority and minority leaders.
Held & Ratio
No violation. Constitution provides that the Senate President is voted by more than half (majority) of its members. That does not imply that those who do not vote for him constitute the minority. Congress verily has the power and prerogative to provide for such officers as it may deem. And is certainly within its own jurisdiction and discretion to prescribe the parameters for the exercise of this prerogative.
Page 5 of 36
9 Avelino v Cuenco Three branches of the government Congress Organizations and sessions
Quorum
Fast facts
In a senate session on February 21, 1949, Senator Tañada was scheduled to give his privilege speech which was supposed to be about allegations against the then Senate President Jose Avelino. As Tañada was about to deliver his speech, Avelino adjourned the session and walked out together with some senators. The remaining senators continued in the session and made Arranza as acting Senate President. Resolution 67
Seat of Senate President is vacant. Senator Cuenco was voted to fill it. Issue
Were resolutions Nos. 68 and 67 validly approved? Held & Ratio
As to the justiciability of the issue. The legal and constitutional issues raised by the petitioner in this case, notwithstanding their political nature and implications, are justiciable and within the jurisdiction expressly conferred to the SC, which cannot be divested from it by express prohibition of the Constitution. As to the adjournment of effected by Avelino. Invalid. Without authority of the senate.
As to the subsequent session held. The rump session held by 12 senators, after Avelino and his 9 supporters walked out from the session hall, had no constitutional quorum to transact business. As to the validity of the resolutions. Invalid. There was no quorum. The fact that the respondent has been designated only as acting President of the Senate would not entitle him to succeed to the position of the President of the Philippines, emphasizes the invalidity of his election.
Avelino v Cuenco
10 Pacete v Commission on appointments
Three branches of the government Congress Organizations and sessions
Rules of proceedings
Pacete v Comm on
Appointments
11 Arroyo v De Venecia Three branches of the government Congress Organizations and sessions
Rules of proceedings
Arroyo v De Venecia
12 Alejandrino v Quezon MEMORY AID: Punching of De Vera
Three branches of the government Congress Organizations and sessions
Discipline of members
Fast facts
Senator Alejandrino is assailing the constitutionality of a resolution adopted by the Senate, depriving him of his position. This resolution was adopted in response to his behavior, re: punching of Senator De Vera in one of its sessions.
Issue
WON the SC has jurisdiction over this matter, and if it does, can it reverse the effects of the said resolution?
Severino v Governor-General
Mississippi v Johnson The judiciary has no power over the executive and legislative branches inasmuch as reviewing the actions of these branches though it is already appropriate for the judiciary to exercise its power.
Sutherland v Governor The three branches and their powers are equally distributed and independent insofar as their actions as an individual branch are concerned.
WON there is usurpation of power, the theory of checks and balances shall be instated. However, if it is found that a branch has usurped the power of a co-equal branch, the remedy shall be impeachment and not one prescribed by one of the three branches to correct the wrong that has been done.
No court can compel the Legislature to make or to refrain from making laws, or to meet or adjourn at its command, or to take any action whatsoever, though the duty to take it be made ever so clear by the constitution or the laws.
French v Senate of the State of California
The judiciary cannot revise even the most arbitrary and unfair action of the legislative considering that its action is part of the power granted by the Constitution to that department.
Held & Ratio
No. Doing so is a violation of the separation of powers. Jurisprudence has held that the judiciary has no power to overturn any decision of the legislative to suspend an officer, regardless of the merits of the decision itself. The court relied on jurisprudence provided in cases Severino and French. Despite the criticisms on the jurisprudence applied and the merits of the controversy, the SC did not interfere with this matter out of respect for the legislators and the Senate.
Other information
There is now a limit in the period of suspension of legislators. Limit is because suspending an officer for a lengthy period of time would tantamount to taxation without representation.
Alejandrino v
Quezon
13 Osmeña v Pendatun
MEMORY AID: A Message to Garcia, Osmeña accusing the President of bribery
Three branches of the government Congress Organizations and sessions
Discipline of members
Osmeña’s privilege speech
He accused president Garcia and his government of bribery (i.e. criminals, even those with serious crimes, could bail themselves out given they could pay a hefty price). This occurrence does not say well of the country’s justice system.
Resolution No. 59
Obligating Congressman Osmeña to substantiate his allegations against the President and give reasons why the Congress should not punish him.
Contentions c/o Osmeña
• The resolution violated his parliamentary immunity as regards privilege speeches
• His speech did not contain words that are considered objectionable to which he must be subjected to punishment
• After making his speech, the House went on to discussing other matters. By virtue of which, he shall not be liable anymore to answer for his behavior and be questioned by the House (Rule 17, Section 7 Rules of the House)
Held & Ratio
• Given that Osmeña was not able to substantiate his allegations and reason out why he should not be reprimanded, a suspension fifteen (15) months was given as a punishment. The court did not find merit in his arguments.
• First, as to parliamentary immunity, privilege speeches do endow the legislators freedom of speech. However, this does not mean that the content of the speech can never be questioned by other members of the House, especially when the speech contains words illustrative of disorderly conduct. A
member of the Congress may be questioned of his privilege speech in the Congress itself (Section 15, Article VI of the Constitution).
• As to the rules of the House, compliance with the same was overturn by the adoption of Resolution 59, as unanimously approved. The rules adopted by deliberative bodies are subject to revocation, modification or waiver at the discretion of the body adopting them.
On court’s cognizance of issues on House Rules
On matters affecting only internal operation of the legislature, the legislature’s formulation and implementation of its rules is beyond the reach of the courts. When, however, the legislative rule affects private rights, the courts cannot altogether be excluded.
On privilege speeches
A legislator can be made accountable for whatever statement he has made. However, there are certain rules. In a privilege speech, a legislator is not liable for the statements he makes. This is bar the filing of cases against the legislator making the speech.
14 Santiago v Sandiganbayan MEMORY AID: Suspension of Miriam Defensor-Santiago
Three branches of the government Congress Organizations and sessions
Discipline of members
Three criminal cases
• Filed in Sandiganbayan: Violation of EO 324 on the prohibition of the legalization of 32 aliens who arrived after January 1, 1984
• Filed in RTC: Violation of PD 46 • Filed in RTC: Libel.
90-day preventive suspension, preventive suspension
Decreed on January 25, 1996 to suspend Santiago for the abovementioned cases. *legislators are not exempted
RA 3019
Any public official who has pending in court any criminal case under a valid information or any other offense involving fraud against the government shall be suspended from office.
Paredes v Sandiganbayan
The suspension spoken of in RA 3019 is different from what is provided in Section 16(3), Article 6 of the Constitution in that the former deals with suspension of the officer not as a penalty but a preliminary and preventive measure, given that the same was not being imposed upon the petitioner for misbehavior as a member of the House.
Contention c/o Santiago (pet)
Only the chamber they belong to has to power to discipline them.
REBUTTAL: The abovementioned contention is accurate. However, the case does not relate with them as legislators and their conduct as such. It relates with their penal liability.
Held & Ratio
The Sandiganbayan had the authority to order the preventive suspension of Santiago. Citing the Paredes case, the Sandiganbayan’s duty to issue the order of preventive suspension is distinct from the power of the Congress to discipline its members.
Santiago v
Sandiganbayan
15 De Venecia v Sandiganbayan
Three branches of the government Congress Organizations and sessions
Discipline of members
De Venecia refused to suspend; Sandiganbayan can cite him for contempt Rendered moot and academic.
Contention c/o pet
Only the chamber that they belong to can discipline them (TRUE)
This case does not relate with them as legislators and their conduct as such; it relates with their penal liability.
16 Casco Chemical Co. v Gimenez
MEMORY AID: urea, formaldehyde
Three branches of the government Congress Organizations and sessions
Journal and record
Fast facts
Casco Chemical Co. is engaged in the manufacture of synthetic resin glues. It has applied for a refund (from the Central Bank) of the margin fees it has paid as a result of its importation of chemicals urea and formaldehyde.
RA 2609
Exempts sale of foreign exchange in relation with the importation of “urea formaldehyde” from the payment of the margin fee.
“Urea and formaldehyde” v “urea formaldehyde”
• Urea and formaldehyde are the individual chemical ingredients to concoct the glue • Urea formaldehyde is the finished product; glue itself.
Contention c/o Casco
The intent of the legislators, as contemplated in the bill passed in congress and the statements made on the floor of the Senate during the consideration of the bill, was to exempt the importation of urea and formaldehyde separately, not only the finished product.
Enrolled bill • Printed, almost final.
• Signed by the speaker, senate president, secretary general • Signatures certify that the bill passed both houses Held & Ratio
Casco is not entitled to refunds. Although there were statements on the floor that contemplated the intent of exempting the separate articles of chemicals rather than the finished product, the statements are unavailing. What governs and is considered final in the judiciary is the enrolled bill. The enrolled bill stated that the exemption is for urea formaldehyde, the finished product, not the chemicals treated separately. 17 United States v Pons
MEMORY AID:
Adjournment of legislature, February 28 or March 1?
Three branches of the government Congress Organizations and sessions
Journal and record
Fast facts
Juan Pons et.al., were found guilty by the lower courts of importation of opium, an act which is punishable in RA 2381.
Contention c/o Pons
RA 2381 is null and void. The Act was passed on March 1, 1914 when the adjournment of the legislature, as set by the Governor-General, was supposed to be on February 28. If, indeed, null and void, he will not be guilty as there will be no law punishing the act of importation of opium.
Cognizance of legislative journals – Probative value
In the US, journals may be noticed by the courts in determining the question whether a particular bill became a law or not. Section 313 of Civil Procedure provides that the proceedings of the legislature may be proved by the contents of its journals, provided that in case of Acts of the legislature where a signed (by presiding officers) and approved copy exists, it shall be conclusive evidence of such an Act and of due enactment thereof.
Evidence v conclusive evidence
Page 7 of 36
• Evidence – that which proves or disproves any matter in question or to influence the belief respecting it.
• Conclusive evidence – that which establishes the fact Held & Ratio
Pons et.al. are guilty of an act punishable by RA 2381. The court recognized the contents of the legislative journals indicating that the adjournment of the session was on the midnight of February 28. The Act (2381) was enacted on March 1, as signed by the presiding officers, and serves as conclusive evidence. Even if it was dated March 1, the journal shall prevail. In the journal, there was adjournment sine die (clock was stopped). Although it really was March 1 already, the date in the journal was still February 28. 18 Astorga v Villegas
MEMORY AID: Enrolled bill doctrine or journal entry rule
Three branches of the government Congress Organizations and sessions
Journal and record
Fast facts
Villegas, Mayor of Manila, revoked certain rights and privileges granted to Astorga, Vice-mayor, by virtue of RA 4065. Astorga sued on the premise that RA 4065 should be strictly complied with.
RA 4065
An act defining the powers, rights, and duties of the vice mayor of the city of Manila. House bill 9266
House bill from which RA 4065 originated. Timeline
March 30, 1964: bill was filed in the HOR
April 21, 1964: bill was passed on its third reading without amendments
Bill was sent to the Senate committee on provinces and municipal governments and cities, headed by Senator Roxas. Committee came up with an amendment re: successor of vice-mayor in case of his incapacity to act as Mayor.
May 20, 1964: bill was discussed in the Senate on its second reading. Senator Tolentino introduced substantial amendments, which were subsequently approved by the rest of the Senate.
The amendment introduced by Senator Roxas was not acted upon, based on the entries in the journal of Senate proceedings.
May 21, 1964: Letter from the Secretary of the Senate to the HOR read that House bill 9266 was passed by the Senate on May 20, 1964, with amendments. Attached to the letter was a certification of the amendment, which was the one recommended by Senator Roxas and not the one that emanated from Tolentino, the latter being the ones actually approved by the Senate. HOR approved the bill. Bill was attested by the Secretary of HOR, Speaker of HOR, Secretary of the Senate, and the Senate President. June 16, 1964: Secretary of HOR sent the copies of the bill to the President of the Philippines. June 18, 1964: President of the Philippines signed the bill, thereby making it RA 4065.
July 5, 1964: Tolentino issued a press release that the enrolled copy of house bill 9266 signed into law by the president was a wrong version of the bill actually passed by the Senate.
July 11, 1964: Senate president addressed a letter to the President of the Philippines explaining that the bill he signed into a law was not the bill the Congress initially approved. With this, his signature on the enrolled bill had not force and effect as it was invalid.
July 21, 1964: Senate president clarified that the invalidation of his signature on the enrolled bill meant that the bill had never been approved by the Senate. The fact that he and the Secretary of the Senate had signed it did not make the bill a valid enactment.
July 31, 1964: President of the Philippines sent a message to the presiding officers of both Houses of Congress informing them that in view of the events that have unfolded, he was officially withdrawing his signature on the bill.
Contentions c/o Villegas
• RA 4065 never became law since it was no the bill actually passed by the Senate
• The entries in the journal of the Senate, not the enrolled bill itself, should be decisive in the resolution of the issue
Basic assumption of enrolled bill theory The enrolled bill was validly passed. Enrolled bill (or road bill???) doctrine
• All changes in the contents of the bill shall be valid so long as it comes before the certification • But it should not be done because it is a violation of the rules
• After it is certified, it becomes final. Enrolled bill doctrine v journal entry rule
Enrolled bill doctrine. When there exists a copy of an enacted Act signed by the presiding officers and secretaries of the legislative bodies, it shall be conclusive proof of the provisions of such acts and of the due enactment thereof.
Journal entry rule. The proceedings of the legislature may be proved by the journals of the respective houses.
Held & Ratio
• RA 4065 is deemed to have not been duly enacted and therefore did not become a law. Since the Senate President withdrew his signature on the enrolled bill, such lacks valid attestation that is required by the Constitution as to what constitutes proof of due enactment of a bill.
• The approval of the Congress, not the mechanical act of signing the bill, is the requisite contemplated in the Constitution.
• There being no bill to speak of, the courts shall resort to the entries in the journal.
• Upon examination of the journal, it was established that the bill and attachments submitted to the President of the Philippines for his signature into law was not the same bill approved by the Congress, as it did not contain the amendments emanating from Senator Tolentino.
Astorga v Villegas
19 Morales v Subido MEMORY AID: qualifications for chief of a police agency
Three branches of the government Congress Organizations and sessions
Journal and record
Contentions c/o Morales (pet)
• The version of the provision of house bill 6951, as amended at the behest of Senator Rodrigo, was the version approved by the Senate. However, this was not the same version enacted as a law (Police Act of 1966)
• The omission of the phrase “who has served the police department of a city or” was made not at any stage of the legislative proceedings but only during the proofreading stage, as performed by an employee
Field v Clark
The signing by the Speaker of the HOR and by the President of the Senate of an enrolled bill is an official attestation by the two houses that such bill is the one that has passed Congress. When the bill thus
attested is signed by the President and deposited in the archives, its authentication as a bill that has passed Congress should be deemed complete and unimpeachable.
Mabanag v Lopez-Vito
An enrolled bill imports absolute verity and is binding on the courts. US v Pons
Does not apply in the case at bar. Cited jurisprudence deals with the discrepancy between the enrolled bill and the journal, an issue which the present case lacks. The case at bar merely questions the
discrepancies between the enrolled bill and the copies of the bill furnished by the general endorsements made by clerks upon bills previous to their final passage and endorsement.
Held & Ratio
• With respect to matters not expressly required to be entered on the journal, the enrolled bill prevails in the event of any discrepancy.
• The enrolled bill does not always prevail over the journals. Only when the journals lack of pertinent information required by the Constitution.
• Field v Clark: The case at bar merely questions the discrepancies between the enrolled bill and the copies of the bill furnished by the general endorsements made by clerks upon bills previous to their final passage and endorsement.
20 Phiconsa v Mathay Three branches of the government Congress Salaries, privileges, disqualifications
Salaries
The purpose of delaying the effectivity of any increase in salary is to place a “legal bar to the legislators’ yielding to the natural temptation to increase their salaries.” While the letter of the present law prohibits immediate increase of “said compensation,” that is salaries, it is submitted that one may legitimately appeal to the spirit of the prohibition and read the prohibition as an absolute ban on any from of direct or indirect increase of salary.
Salary increase will only be increased after the terms of all the legislators who passed the bill on it have already lapsed/ended (next elections).
21 Ligot v Mathay Three branches of the government
Congress Salaries, privileges, disqualifications
Salaries
Ligot is not entitled to receive retirement pay computed based on the salaries of Congressmen after his term. Retirement pay is always based on the salary which one has received. In this case, Ligot never received such an amount (equal to salary of Congressmen after his term).
22 People v Jalosjos Three branches of the government Congress Salaries, privileges, disqualifications
Freedom from arrest
1935 v 1987 Constitution on immunity from arrest 1935 privilege only encompassed civil arrest
1987 (and 1973) a legislator is privileged from arrest even for a criminal offense provided that the offense was not punishable by a penalty of more than six (6) years imprisonment.
The privilege is available only “while the Congress is in session” whether regular or special and wehter or not the legislator is actually attending a session.
Subject matter of motion c/o Jalosjos
That he be allowed to fully discharge the duties of a Congressman, including attendance at legislative sessions and committee meetings despite his having been convicted in the first instance of a non-bailable offense.
Mandate of sovereign will • Main argument of Jalosjos
• The sovereign of the First District of Zamboanga del Norte chose him as their representative in Congress.
• Having been duly elected, he has the duty to perform the functions of a Congressman. This is a covenant with his constituents made possible by the intervention by the State.
• It cannot be defeated by insuperable procedural restraints arising from pending criminal cases. Held & Ratio
• Jalosjos is not allowed to pursue undertakings as Congressman while in detention.
• When the voters of his district elected him,, they did so with full awareness of the limitations on his freedom of action.
• All persons similarly situated shall be treated alike both in rights enjoyed and responsibilities imposed. The organs of government may not show nay undue favoritism or hostility to any person. • Privilege has to be granted by law, not inferred from the duties of a position. The higher the rank, the
greater is the requirement of obedience rather than exemption.
• The performance of legitimate and even essential duties by public officers has never been an excuse to free a person validly in prison.
• Election to the position of Congressman is not a reasonable classification in criminal law enforcement. • For offenses punishable by more than six (6) years imprisonment, there was no immunity from arrest.
Punishment for statutory rape is reclusion perpetua. • There was strong evidence of guilt.
• To prevent Jalosjos from fleeing again. • Equal protection laws.
People v Jalosjos
23 Jimenez v Cabangbang Three branches of the government Congress Salaries, privileges, disqualifications
Speech and debate clause
Fast facts
Jimenez files a case to recover damages from a publication of a letter by Cabangbang, a member of the HOR, which is allegedly libelous.
Letter of Cabangbang
• Open letter to the President of the Philippines dated November 14, 1968 while Congress was not in session
• Published in several newspapers
• Exposé on three plans, with Jimenez as one of the “masterminds” of the plans. Plans consisted of: (1) grooming, propagandizing, and glamorizing Jesus Vargas, Secretary of National Defense, to be the next RP President; (2) coup d’etat, and; (3) a modification of 1.
• ”It is of course possible that the officers mentioned above are unwitting tools of the plan of which they may have absolutely no knowledge.” Referring to the “masterminds”.
Contention c/o Cabangbang
The letter is not libelous since it is within his privilege as a member of the HOR that for any speech or debate made, the same shall not be questioned in any other place (Article 6, Section 15 of 1935). Held & Ratio
• It being an open letter, it does not fall under the speech and debate privileges of a member of the HOR. Furthermore, it was issued when the HOR was not in session. He was neither in the performance of his official duty in that he had published his open letter in newspapers, as he did that as a regular citizen and not as a legislator.
• The letter is not libelous. The statements contained therein are not sufficiently derogatory as to award damages to the petitioner.
Jimenez v
Cabangbang
Page 9 of 36
24 Adaza v Pacana Three branches of the government
Congress Salaries, privileges, disqualifications
Disqualifications
One cannot hold multiple positions. (Rationale: one cannot have two (2) or multiple loyalties) Adaza was the governor. He then ran as assemblyman.
In public office, one who runs for another position, once he takes his oath in the new position, his old position is deemed to have automatically been forfeited.
25 Puyat v De Guzman Three branches of the government Congress Salaries, privileges, disqualifications
Disqualifications
Fast facts
Puyat group, composed of some of the directors who were elected on May 14, 1979, contests the appearance in intervention of Fernandez, an assemblyman, in the SEC case on the ground that assemblymen cannot appear as counsel for SEC (Section 11, Article 8 of 1973).
Timeline
May 14, 1979: election for the 11 directors of International Pipe Industries (IPI), private corporation. Puyat group would be in control of management.
May 15, 1979: Fernandez purchased 10 shares of stock of IPI.
May 25, 1979: Acero group, composed of the remaining directors elected on May 14, filed a case in the SEC questioning the May 14 election and alleging that the votes thereat were not properly counted.
May 30, 1979: deed of sale of shares of stock owned by Fernandez was notarized.
May 25-31, 1979: Puyat group contends that Fernandez orally entered his appearance as counsel for Acero group. Puyat group contested this as it is in violation of the Constitution (…that no assemblyman could appear as counsel before any administrative body…).
May 31, 1979: Fernandez filed an urgent motion for intervention in the SEC case as the owner of the newly purchased 10 shares.
May 31, 1979: SEC case was called. July 17, 1979: SEC granted intervention. Contention c/o Fernandez (resp)
He was not the counsel for the Acero group as he only intervened as a separate party who had legal interest in the matter being a shareholder of IPI.
Held & Ratio
• Fernandez cannot intervene in the SEC case.
• He has circumvented the Constitution by hiding behind his supposed legal interest as a shareholder. This is evident in his actions where he bought the shares right after the elections and filed an intervention immediately thereafter. One cannot do indirectly something that he can also not do directly. Subterfuge.
• Moreover, he had already expressed his intention to appear as counsel for Acero which would have materialized had it not for the objection of the Puyat group. Realizing the validity of the objection, he decided, instead, to “intervene” as a shareholder.
• The “intervention” was merely an afterthought to enable him to appear actively in the proceedings in some other capacity.
26 Abbas v SET Three branches of the government
Congress Electoral tribunals
Fast facts
Petitioners filed a case in the Senate Electoral Tribunal against 22 newly elected senators (May 11, 1987 elections).
Senate Electoral Tribunal
• Composed of three (3) SC justices and six (6) senators
• Sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective members
Motion for disqualification
Disqualification of the senators from being members of the tribunal who was going to adjudicate the case of mass disqualification (22 senators).
Contention c/o petitioners
• Senators cannot be members of the tribunal because, especially in this case, they are interested parties • Considerations of public policy and norms of fair play and due process call for the disqualification of the
senators as members of the tribunal
• In response to this, there should be an amendment in the tribunal’s rules wherein its procedure should permit the contest to be decided by only three (3) members of the Tribunals (effectively, only the SC justices)
Held & Ratio
• It is proper for the senators to remain as member of the tribunal
• The Constitution clearly provides for the composition of the tribunal and definition of its jurisdiction and powers
• The reason why the Constitution provides such a composition (justices and senators) is that the duty and authority in adjudicating in election contests lies in both the legislative and the judiciary • As to the ratio of the members (3:6), the Constitution implies that the legislative component in the
tribunal, evidenced in its majority membership, is indispensable. Pulling them out of the tribunal would result to violating the spirit and intent of the Constitution
• Inasmuch as substitutions will take place, the substitutes of the senators will still be questioned. If everyone who becomes a member of such tribunal and for every instance their membership questioned, the tribunal will be hampered in performing its duty. In effect, the tribunal will have abandoned its duty
• The tribunal should not be prevented from discharging their duty, especially when the duty is expressly granted by the Constitution.
27 Bondoc v Pineda Three branches of the government
Congress Electoral tribunals
Fast facts
Pineda (LDP) and Bondoc (NP) are rivals in the congressional race in the 4th district of Pampanga.
Initially, Pineda was proclaimed the winner of the elections, having won with a margin of 3,300 votes. Bondoc protested Pineda’s proclamation with the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET). HRET
Chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and the parties or organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein (Section 17, Article 6 of 1987) Decision of HRET
Bondoc is the winner of the contest, with a margin of, after reexaminations, 107 votes. Timeline
March 4, 1991: Congressman Camasura, member of the HRET which decided on the Bondoc case, revealed to Congressman Cojuangco, secretary-general of LDP, not only the final tally in the case, but also that he voted for Bondoc to honor a gentleman’s agreement among the HRET members. This stirred a buzz in the LDP that led to the plotting of neutralizing the “Bondoc majority” in the HRET.
March 5, 1991: HRET issued a Notice of Promulgation of Decision on March 14, 1991 re: Bondoc case. March 13, 1991: Eve of promulgation of decision. Cojuangco informed Camasura that he, together with
Congressman Bautista, has been expelled by the LDP as early as February 28, 1991, for allegedly pirating LDP members to join a rival party.
Cojuangco also informed Mitra, speaker of the house, about the ouster of the two (2) congressmen and had him note the implications of the ouster as to the prerequisite “party” in the membership to the HRET.
March 14, 1991: Tribunal Chairman Armeurfina Herrera received a letter, dated March 13, 1991, from the Secretary-General of the HOR, informing the tribunal that it has decided to withdraw the nomination and rescind the election of Camasura to the HRET. Such will affect the results of the Bondoc case where Camasura was the “conscience vote”…the decision lacks the concurrence of five (5) members as required by the rules of the tribunal. Promulgation of the decision of Bondoc case was cancelled.
SC justices who were members of the tribunal, being of the opinion that the turn of events undermines the independence of the tribunal and derails the orderly adjudication of electoral cases, they have asked the Chief Justice to relieve them of membership from the tribunal.
Remaining senator-members of the tribunal, other than Camasura, expressed similar sentiments.
March 19, 1991: SC ordered the justices to return to their posts in the tribunal.
March 21, 1991: Bondoc seeks reversal of HOR decision of disqualifying Camasura from the HRET. Pineda files for the dismissal of Bondoc’s petition.
Contentions c/o Pineda
• Congress has the sole authority to nominate and elect, from its members, delegates to the HRET • Vis-à-vis, it also has the sole power to remove any of them whenever the ratio in the representation of
the political parties in the House or Senate is materially changed
• The term of the member of the tribunal could not be co-extensive with his legislative term, for if a member of the tribunal suddenly changes political party affiliation and is not removed from the tribunal, the constitutional provision mandating representation based on political affiliation would be completely nullified.
• Expulsion of Camasura from LDP is “purely a party affair” and is thus a political question beyond the reach of the judiciary
Proportional representation in the tribunal • Provided for by the 1987 constitution
• 3 members chosen by the House or Senate upon nomination of the party having the largest number of votes; 3 members from the party having the second largest number of votes; 3 SC justices • Premised that no party or coalition of parties can dominate the legislative component in the tribunal • Justices hold the deciding votes in that it is impossible for any political party to control the voting in the
tribunal
Suanes v Chief Accountant of the Senate
• Purpose of the establishment of the Electoral Commission was to provide an independent and impartial tribunal for the determination of contest to legislative office, devoid of partisan consideration, and to transfer to that tribunal all the powers previously exercised by the legislature in matters of pertaining to contested elections of its members
• Power of Electoral Commission: intended to be unimpaired as if it had remained in the legislature Held & Ratio
• HOR’s resolution disqualifying Camasura from the tribunal is null and void
• The disqualification was made in view of what happened between Camasura and the LDP. It is a clear impairment of the constitutional prerogative of the HRET to be the sole judge of the election contest between Bondoc and Pineda
• Disloyalty to a party is not a valid cause for termination of membership in the HRET. As a member of the tribunal, one must discharge his duties with the concept of nonpartisanship. Therefore, it is not a valid ground for expulsion.
• The disqualification is violative of Camasura’s right to security of tenure. A member cannot be expelled unless there be some just cause.
• The disqualification was clearly made to interfere with the tribunal’s disposition in the Bondoc case and deprive Bondoc of the fruits of the favorable decision
• The tribunal should not be hampered to perform its duty specifically granted by the Constitution by reasons which have nothing to do with the merits before it.
• The tribunal was created to function as a nonpartisan court although 2/3 of its members are politicians. • It is established by the constitution and prevailing jurisprudence that the tribunal must be independent
from any other body, especially the legislature • Cited Suanes and Angara cases
28 Codilla v De Venecia Three branches of the government Congress Electoral tribunals
Who has jurisdiction? COMELEC has jurisdiction, not HRET, because there was still a pending Motion for Reconsideration. There was no valid proclamation. Case was still in the COMELEC. Having been not duly proclaimed, there was no case.
29 Pimentel v HRET Three branches of the government
Congress Electoral tribunals
Fast facts
Petitioners pray that the respondents be ordered to “alter, reorganize, reconstitute, and reconfigure” the composition of the HRET and the CA to include party-list representatives.
Contention c/o petitioners
• Present composition of the HRET violates the Constitution in that it lacks representation from party-list representatives
• Locus standi requirement, as a procedural technicality, should be brushed aside because of the issue’s transcendental importance
Held & Ratio
Petition dismissed. The Constitution expressly grants to the HOR the prerogative, within defined limits, to choose from among its district and party-list representatives those who may occupy the seats allotted to the house in the HRET. Even assuming that party-list representatives comprise a sufficient number and have agreed to designate common nominees to the HRET, their primary recourse rests with the HOR, not with the SC. It is only if the HOR fails to comply with the constitutional directives on proportional representation can this court have jurisdiction over the matter.
Page 11 of 36
its representatives in the HRET.
Case lacks merit in that party-list representatives were not deprived of their participation in the election of members of the HRET. They simply refused to participate therein. In this light, petitioners’ locus standi is not recognized, since they do not have personal stake in the matter.
Case is academic as the composition of the house has already been changed as a result of the May 14, 2001 elections.
30 Daza v Singson Three branches of the government
Congress Commission on Appointments
Commission on Appointments
CA confirms the nominees of the President. Composed of twelve (12) senators, twelve (12) congressmen. Appointees include heads of agencies, ambassadors, public ministers, consuls, AFP (naval captain up), members of the judiciary and bar council. Legislators, in the CA, are still acting as such, unlike in electoral tribunals where they lose their personality as legislators.
Contention c/o Daza (pet) He cannot be removed from CA There is nothing Daza can do. 31 Coseteng v Mitra Three branches of the government
Congress Commission on Appointments
32 Guingona v Gonzales Three branches of the government Congress Commission on Appointments
33 Tio v Videogram Regulatory Board
Three branches of the government Congress Legislative process Requirements as to bills
As to titles of bills
Constitutional requirements as to title of bills
1. every bill shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof (Article 6, Section 26)
2. titles should not be so narrowly construed as to cripple or impede the power of legislation (Governemnt v Hongkong Shanghai Banking Corporation, Cordero v Cabatuando)
3. titles should be given practical rather than technical construction (Public Service Co., Recktenwald) PD No. 1987
An Act Creating the Videogram Regulatory Board, with broad powers to regulate and supervise the videogram industry
Rationale of decree (preambular clauses)
1. distribution of videogram materials has greatly prejudiced the operations of movie houses and theaters, decreasing government revenues by an estimated P450M per annum
2. earnings of videogram established are not taxed appropriately, depriving the government P180M per annum
3. unregulated videogram activities have affected the movie industry, which has resulted to the closing down of more than 1,200 movie houses and theaters
4. to ensure national economic recovery, the government has to create conducive to growh and development of all business industries (regulation of such)
5. proper taxes should be imposed to these establishments to alleviate financial condition of the industry; taxation being the primary rationale of regulating videogram activities
6. rampant and unregulated showing of obscene videgram is immoral especially as regards the youth 7. civic-minded citizens and groups have called for remedial measures to curb these blatant
malpractices which have flaunted our censorship and copyright laws
8. in view of the aforementioned, bold emergency measures must be adopted with dispatch Contention c/o petitioner
Decree is unconstitutional because Section 10 of said decree, which imposes a tax of 30% on the gross receipts payable to the local government, is a RIDER and the same is not related to the subject matter of the decree.
Rider
Said to have occurred when provisions of the bill do not relate with the subject matter as contemplated by the title of the bill. These provisions are inserted and are made to “ride” on the bill, such that when the bill is made into law, the provision which is not directly connected with it is nonetheless made into law. Held & Ratio
Decree is constitutional. Section 10 is allied and related to, and is reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the general object of the decree, which is the regulation of the video industry through the VRB. The express purpose of the decree to include taxation is evident in the preambular clauses (5). Those preambles explain the motives of the lawmaker in presenting the measure. The title of the decree is comprehensive enough to include in its subject matter all the provisions contained in the decree.
Tio v VRB
34 Lidasan v COMELEC Three branches of the government Congress Legislative process Requirements as to bills
As to titles of bills
RA 4790
An Act Creating the Municipality of Dianaton in the Province of Lanao del Sur. Said act involved the formation of the new municipality that will be composed of the following barrios:
Barrios from Lanao del Sur Barrios from Cotabato (P-Parang, B-Buldon)
Kapatagan Losain Togaig (B) Sarakan (P)
Bongabong Matimos Madalum (B) Kat-bo (P)
Aipang Magolatung Bayanga (P) Digakapan (P)
Dagowan Langkong (P) Magabo (P)
Bakikis Tabangao (P) Tiongko (P)
Bungabung Colodan (P) Kabamakawan (P)
Bara Lidasan
Petitioner. Resident and taxpayer of the detached portion of Parang, Cotabato. Limitations of constitutional provision for the titles of bills
1. Congress is to refrain from conglomeration, under one statute, of heterogenous subjects 2. the title is to be couched in a language sufficient to notify the legislators and the public and those
concerned of the import of the single subject thereof Meeting the constitutional requirements: What is sufficient
• title serves the purpose of the constitutional demand that it informs the legislators, the persons interested in the subject matter, and the public, of the nature, scope, and consequences of the proposed law and operation
• title leads legislators to inquire into the body of the bill, study and discuss the same, take appropriate action thereon, and, thus, prevent surprise or fraud upon them
Guidelines
• sufficiency of the title is established when it is determined WON the same is misleading • technical accuracy is not essential
• title is considered bad if: (1) uncertain that the average person will not be sufficiently informed of the subject matter (2) misleading; title pertains to one subject, when, in truth, something else is embraced by its contents
• substance over form
• constitutional requirement of giving notice to all persons interested, should be kept in mind by the court
Held & Ratio
RA 4790 is unconstitutional—null and void. Title failed to give notice to all persons interested (i.e. legislators, residents, etc.). It is misleading in that it gives the impression that the barrios which will form the new municipality are all from Lanao del Sur. The transfer of barrios from Cotabato to Lanao constitutes a change in the boundaries, a significant detail that the title failed to communicate. 35 De la Cruz v Paras Three branches of the government
Congress Legislative process Requirements as to bills
As to titles of bills
RA 938
An Act granting municipal or city boards and councils the power to regulate the establishment, maintenance and operation of certain places of amusement within their respective territorial jurisdictions May 21, 1954
The first section of the Act was amended to include not merely the power to regulate, but likewise, “prohibit…” The title remained the same.
Contention c/o petitioners
To construe RA 938 as allowing the prohibition of the operation of night clubs would give rise to a constitutional question.
Held & Ratio
Statute is invalid. The title did not reflect the true subject matter of the Act. The power granted remains that of a regulation, not prohibition.
De la Cruz v Paras
36 Tobias v Abalos Three branches of the government
Congress Legislative process Requirements as to bills
As to titles of bills
Fast facts
Before the enactment of RA 7675, San Juan and Mandaluyong formed a single legislative district, electing just one set of local government officials, including congressman.
RA 7675
An Act Converting the Municipality of Mandaluyong into a Highly Urbanized City to be known as City of Mandaluyong
Article 8, Section 49 of RA
Mandaluyong City shall have its won legislative district. San Juan, being part of the old legislative district to which Mandaluyong formerly belonged to, shall remain in the old legislative district. In the next elections, two separate representatives shall be voted for.
Contention c/o petitioners
The inclusion of Section 49 in the subject law resulted in the latter embracing two principal subjects: (1) the conversion of Mandaluyong into a highly urbanized city and; (2) the division of the congressional district of San Juan/Mandaluyong into two separate districts. The second one does not relate with the subject matter of the RA as expressed in its title.
Held & Ratio
Abovementioned contention is devoid of merit. The creation of a separate congressional district for Mandaluyong is a natural logical consequence of its conversion into a highly urbanized city. The title, presumptively, necessarily includes and contemplates the subject and treated under Section 49.
37 Demetria v Alba Three branches of the government
Congress Legislative process Requirements as to bills Requirements as to certain laws
Appropriation laws
PD No. 1177
Budget reform decree of 1977. Authorizes the President to transfer any fund that has already been appropriated for a given department to another program, both of which are included in the General Appropriations Act.
Constitutional requirement
No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations. The President…may be authorized to do augment any item in the general appropriations law…from savings in other items of their respective appropriations. (Article 6, Section 25[5])
Held & Ratio as to complying
PD 1177 is unconstitutional. It fails to specify the objectives and purposes for which the proposed transfer of funds are to be made. The prohibition to transfer an appropriation for one item to another was explicit and categorical under the 1973 Constitution. The purpose and conditions for which funds may be transferred may be specified. The PD makes no regard as to WON the funds to be transferred are actually savings in the item from which the same are to be taken or WON the transfer is for the purpose of augmenting the item to which said transfer is to be made.
Demetria v Alba
38 Guingona v Caraque Three branches of the government Congress Legislative process Requirements as to bills Requirements as to certain laws
Appropriation laws
Fast facts
The 1990 budget consists, among others, an automatic appropriation of P98.4 billion, P86.8 of which goes to debt service. The automatic appropriation is authorized by PD 81, PD 1177, and PD 1967.
Contention c/o petitioners
Abovementioned PDs are contrary to the constitution (Article 6, Section 24 of 1987). Bills have to be approved by the president, then a law must be passed by Congress to authorize said automatic appropriation.
Held & Ratio
Aforementioned contention is untenable. The framers of the constitution did not intend to say that long-established statutes, like PDs, have to go again through the legislative process of bill passage in order to be properly enacted. The Constitution simply implies that what has to go through a process is if there are any bills relating with the appropriation measures still to be passed by Congress.
Guingona v Caraque
39 Tolentino v Secretary of Finance
Three branches of the government Congress Legislative process Requirements as to bills Requirements as to certain laws
Appropriation laws Procedure for the passage of bills
RA 7716
An Act Restructuring the Value-Added Tax (Vat) System, Widening its Tax Base and Enhancing its Administration, and for These Purposes Amending and Repealing the Relevant Provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code, as Amended, and For Other Purposes.
Timeline
July 22, 1992 – August 31, 1993: Several bills were introduced in the HOR seeking to amend certain provisions in the NIRC related with VAT. All were referred to House Committee on Ways and Means which recommended for approval a substitute measure, H.No. 11197 (bill).
November 6 and 17, 1993: The bill was considered on a second reading and was subsequently approved by the HOR after the third and final reading.
November 23, 1993: Bill was sent to the Senate. Transmitted to Senate Committee on Ways and Means.
