Section 11.

Immunities and Priveleges Privilege from Arrest PEOPLE VS JALOSJOS FACTS: Jalosjos, herein respondent, is a member of the Congress who is now confined at the national penitentiary while his conviction for 2 counts of statutory rape and 6 counts of acts of lasciviousness is pending appeal. ISSUE: 1. Whether or not, Jalosjos, as a member of the Congress, is exempt from statutes and rules which apply to validly incarcerated persons in general. 2. Whether or not, Jalosjos, is required to attend sessions or committee hearings. HELD: First Issue: The Supreme Court ruled that Jalosjos is not exempt from such statutes. The history of provision of immunity of arrest or detention of Senators and Congressmen shows that it has always been granted in a restrictive sense. 1935 Constitution granted immunity only to Civil cases. Jalosjos, convicted under the Revised Penal Code, could not claim immunity from arrest. 1973 and 1987 Constitution granted immunity for offenses punishable by less than six years. Second Issue: The requirement that he should be attending sessions or committee meetings has been removed. Article 6 of the Constitution 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. The members of Congress cannot compel absent members to attend sessions if the reason for the absence is a legitimate one. The confinement of Jalosjos is deemed a legitimate one. TRILLANES IV VS PIMENTEL, SR. FACTS: OAKWOOD MUTINY a group of more than 300 heavily armed soldiers led by junior officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) stormed into the Oakwood Premier Apartments in Makati City and publicly demanded the resignation of President Arroyo.

 PROCLAMATION NO 427 AND GENERAL ORDER NO 4 issued by President Arroyo; declared a state of rebellion and calling out the AFP to suppress the rebellion. A series of negotiations resolved eventually resulted to the surrender of the militant soldiers that evening. Antonio Trillanes IV was charged with coup detat before the Regional Trial Court of Makati. After almost 4 years, despite his detention, Trillanes won seat in the Senate. OMNIBUS MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO BE ALLOWED TO ATTEND SENATE SESSIONS AND RELATED SESSIONS was filed by petitioner with RTC Makati before the commencement of his term. Petition was denied. A motion for reconsideration, with the exclusion of some of rights from the original petition, was likewise denied. Hence, this present for certiorari and for prohibition and mandamus. ISSUE: Whether or not, Trillanes can invoke immunity from suit HELD: JIMENEZ, ET AL VS CABANGBANG FACTS: This is an ordinary civil action originally instituted in CFI Rizal for damages for the publication of an allegedly libelous letter against Cabangbang, a member of the House of Representatives. Said letter was an open letter addressed to the President regarding Cabangbangs information about the coup detat attempts which include, among others, herein petitioners; Jimenez, Albert and Lukban in their capacities as officers of the AFP and PN. ISSUE: Whether or not, the letter was covered by the parliamentary freedom of speech and debate. HELD: The Supreme Court that the subject letter was not covered by the privilege. ARTICLE VI, SECTION 15 states that The Senators and Members of the House of Representatives shallbe privileged from arrestfor any speech or debate therein, they shall not be questioned in any other place. Said expression refers to utterances made by Congressmen in the performance of their official functions while the Congress is in session and other acts performed in the official discharge of their duties. The letter does not belong to this category being an open letter published in several newspapers of general circulation and issued when Congress was presumably not in session. It is also obvious that he was not performing his official duty when he issued said letter. Thus, contrary to the finding made by His Honor, the trial Judge, said communication is not privileged.

PUYAT VS DE GUZMAN, JR. FACTS: An election for the eleven Directors of the International Pipe Industries Corporation (IPI) was held, with Puyat (an elected director) in control of the Board and management of IPI. Said election was questioned by Acero (another elected director) claiming that the votes were not properly counted. Thus, they filed a quo warranto proceedings at the Securities and Exchange Commission. Fernandez, a member of the Interim Batasang Pambansa entered as a counsel for Acero which was objected by Puyat on constitutional grounds. Assemblymen Fernandez did not continue his appearance as a counsel for Acero. Shortly thereafter, Fernandez purchased 10 shares of stock worth P200 upon request of Acero to qualify him to run for election of Director. Fernandez then filed an Urgent Motion for Intervention. SEC granted said petition. The Supreme Court en banc issued a TRO enjoining respondent SEC Associate Commissioner from allowing the participation as an intervenor, of Assemblyman Fernandez. ISSUE: Whether or not, Assemblyman Fernandez, as a stockholder of IPI may intervene in the SEC Case without violating Sec. 11 Article VIII of the Constitution. HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that the intervention of Assemblyman Fernandez in the SEC case falls within the prohibition provided by Sec. 11 Article VIII of the Constitution. Sec. 11 Article VIII of the Constitution No member of the Batasang Pambansa shall appear as counsel before any court without appellate jurisdictionor before any administrative body. The motion for intervention filed by Fernandez could theoretically be for the protection for his interest in the form of his shares of stock. This cannot be said as appearing as counsel. However, certain circumstances prove the contrary. 1. He acquired a mere P200 worth of stocks after the election, after the suit in SEC was filed and one day before the scheduled hearing of the case. 2. He appeared as a counsel of Acero but was objected by petitioners. 3. He appeared as a counsel of Acero in a different case. Under those facts and circumstances, the Supreme Court ruled that there has been an indirect appearance as counsel before an administrative body considered to be a circumvention of the Constitutional prohibition. SANTIAGO VS GUINGONA determination of majority and minority FACTS:

 The Senate of the Philippines convened for the first regular session of the eleventh Congress. In said session, Senator Fernan was declared the duly elected President of the Senate. The following were likewise elected: Senator Ople as president pro tempore (For the time being; temporary or provisional; used to describe someone holding an office temporarily) and Senator Drilon (Laban ng Masang Pilipino or LAMP, with 10 members) as majority leader. Senator Tatad manifested that he was assuming the position of minority leader. He explained that those who had voted for Senator Fernan comprised the majority, while only those who have voted for him, the losing nominee, belonged to the minority. Meanwhile, Senator Flavier manifested that the Senators belonging to Lakas-NUCD-UMDP (with 7 members) had chosen Senator Guingona as the minority leader. He was recognized by the Senate President. Hence, this petition for quo warranto. ISSUE: Whether or not, the definition of Senator Tatad of majority and minority is correct. HELD: The definition of Senator Tatad is wrong. MAJORITY VS MINORITY Majority the group, party or faction with the larger number of votes, not necessarily more than one half. Minority a group or faction with a smaller number of votes or adherents than the majority. PROBLEM: Between two unequal parts or numbers comprising a whole or totality, the greater number would obviously be the majority, while the lesser would be the minority. But where there are more than two unequal groupings; it is not as easy to say which is the minority entitled to select the leader representing all the minorities. No constitutional or statutory provision prescribes which of the many minority groups or the independents or a combination thereof has the right to select the minority leader. AVELINO VS CUENCO FACTS: In a session of the Senate, Senator Tanada requested that his right to speak on the floor on the next session day to formulate charges against Senate President Avelino be reserved. On the next session day, Senate President Avelino, with the help of his supporters, deliberately delayed the session although a sufficient number of senators to constitute a quorum. Senator Tanada repeatedly stood up to claim his right but the presiding Senate President continuously ignored him. Some disorderly conduct broke out in the Senate gallery thus Senator David, one of petitioners followers, moved to adjourn the session. This was opposed by Senator David and herein

respondent. Suddenly, the petitioner banged the gavel and abandoned the Chair and hurriedly walked out of the session hall with his followers while the other senators remained. Whereupon, Senator Arranz, Senate President Pro tempore, took the Chair so as not to paralyze the functions of the Senate. Senator Tanada was then finally able to deliver his privilege speech. RESOLUTION NO. 67 Resolution declaring vacant the position of the President of the Senate and designating the Honorable Cuenco Acting President of the Senate introduced by Senator Sanidad; approved unanimously. Senator Cuenco took the oath and was recognized by the President. Hence, this present petition. ISSUE: Whether or not, Resolution No 67 and 68 were validly approved by a quorum. HELD: When the Constitution declares that a majority of each house shall constitute a quorum, the House does not mean all the members. Even a majority of all the members constitute the House. Therefore an absolute majority (12) of all the members of the Senate less one (23), constitutes constitutional majority of the Senate for the purpose of a quorum. ARROYO VS DE VENECIA FACTS: HOUSE NO 7198 a bill that originated in the House of Reps; approved on the third reading and likewise approved by the Senate on the third reading but with amendments. Thus, a bicameral conference committee was formed to reconcile the disagreeing provisions. BICAMERAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE. Rep. Javier delivered his sponsorship speech and was interpellated. Rep. Sarmiento was first to interpelate but was interrupted by Rep. Arroyo who moved to adjourn for lack of quorum. After a roll call, the Chair declared a quorum. Rep. Arroyo appealed but was denied. Interpellation continued with Rep. Arroyo as the fourth in order. During his interpellation, he announced that he was going to raise a question on the quorum but he never did. On the same day, the bill was signed by the Speaker of House of Reps and the President of the Senate and was also certified. The enrolled bill was then signed by Pres Ramos. ISSUE: Whether or not, House No 7168 was properly passed for violating House Rules. In corollary, whether the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter. HELD:

Violation of House Rules OSMENA VS PENDATUN: mere failure to conform to parliamentary usage will not invalidate the action (taken by a deliberative body) when the requisite number of members have agreed to a particular measure. UNITED STATES VS BALLIN, JOSEPH & CO.: The power to make rules is not one which once exercised is exhausted. It is a continuous power, always subject to be exercised by the House, and within the limitations suggested, absolute and beyond the challenge of any other body or tribunal. Jurisdiction The Court has no power to look into the internal proceedings of a House than members of a House have to look over our shoulders, as long as no violation of constitutional provisions is shown. OSMENA JR. VS PENDATUN, ET AL. FACTS: PRIVILEGED SPEECH In a privileged speech, Sergio Osmena Jr. made some allegations regarding rampant bribery, which in his words, making the government for sale for favors like a pardon, regardless of its nature. HOUSE RESOLUTION NO 59 created a Special Committee to investigate the truth of the allegations made by Sergio Osmena. They found Osmena guilty of serious disorderly behavior. HOUSE RESOLUTION NO 175 declared Osmena guilty as recommended and suspended him from office for 15 months. ISSUE: Whether or not, the anomalous privileged speech is covered by the immunity from suit accorded to legislators like Osmena, even by the Congress itself. HELD: SECTION 15 ARTICLE VI provides that for any speech or debate in Congress, the Senators or Members of the House of Representatives shall not be questioned in any other place. Construction: The provision has always been understood to mean that although exempt from prosecution or civil actions for their words uttered in Congress, the Congress may, nevertheless, be questioned in Congress itself. Purpose: [T]o enable and encourage a representative of the public to discharge his public trust with firmness and success for it is indispensably necessary that he should enjoy the fullest liberty of speech and that he should be protected from resentment of every one, however powerful, to whom the exercise of that liberty may occasion offense.

 Said article, guarantees the legislator complete freedom of expression without fear of being made responsible in criminal or civil actions before the court or any other forum outside of the congressional hall. But it does not protect him from responsibility before the legislative body itself whenever his words or conduct are considered by the latter disorderly or unbecoming a member thereof. Legislative assemblies practice and are vested with traditional power of legislative assemblies to take disciplinary action against its members, including imprisonment, suspension, or expulsion. SANTIAGO VS SANDIGANBAYAN FACTS: Herein petitioner was charged for alleged violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act by the employees of Commission on Immigration and Deportation (CID). As manifested in the Information filed in the Ombudsman, this is in connection of Santiagos illegal legalization of disqualified aliens. A warrant of arrest was issued but petitioner posted a bail without physical appearance because she was recuperating from a vehicular accident. She then filed a cancellation of her cash bond and prayed for provisional liberty. Concurrently, she filed for certiorari and preliminary injunction in the Supreme Court. The Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order. After the arraignment, the Court dismissed Santiagos petition and lifted the TRO. When the Sandiganbayan denied her motion to defer her arraignment, she filed a new petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction. The Supreme Court granted her petition and directed the Sandiganbayan to reset Santiagos arraignment. After the consolidation of 32 pieces of information and the presentation of a witness, Rodolfo Pedellaga, the Sandiganbayan rendered a decision to suspend Santiago from her position as Senator and from any governmental positions for 90 days. Hence, this present petition. ISSUE: Whether or not Sandiganbayan has the authority to issue a ninety-day preventive suspension of Senator Santiago. HELD: The Sandiganbayan did not err in issuing the preventive suspension. Said act was in line with RA 3019 and jurisprudence. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3019 provided a clear and unequivocal mandate for the Sandiganbayan to issue such preventive suspension. Section 13 states Any incumbent public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid information under this Act or under Title 7, Book 2 of RPC or for any offense involving fraud upon government funds or propertyshall be suspended from office.

 The order of suspension prescribed by RA No 3019 is distinct from the power of Congress to discipline its own ranks. The suspension contemplated in the above constitutional provision is a punitive measure that is imposed upon determination by the Senate and House of Reps, as the case may be, upon an erring member. The doctrine of Separation of Powers by itself may not be deemed to have effectively excluded members of Congress from RA 3019 nor from its sanctions. Republic Act No. 3019 does not exclude from its coverage the members of Congress and that, therefore, the Sandigandayan did not err in thus decreeing the assailed preventive suspension order. UNITED STATES VS PONS FACTS: In separate trials, Juan Pons and Gabino Beliso were found guilty for violating RA 2381 and sentenced to two years and a fine of P1000 for the former and P3000 for the latter. The two were proved beyond reasonable doubt to have concealed and profited from importation of opium. In this present appeal, petitioner allege that, among others, RA 2381 was not passed ISSUE: Whether or not, RA 2381 was passed at the end of special session, February 28.Whether or not, RA 2381 is valid. HELD: The Supreme Court held that RA 2381 is valid for being passed at the end of the Special Session, February 28, as proven by the journal. Legislative Procedure 15 and 16 of the Philippine Commission states, among other things, that the proceedings of the Commission shall be briefly and accurately stated on the journal. Section 275 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the existence of the official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the US and the Philippine Islandsshall be judicially recognized by the court without the introduction of proof; but the court may receive evidence upon any of the subjects in this section stated, when it shall find it necessary for its own information, and may resort for its aid to appropriate books, documents, or evidence. Section 313 [as amended by Sec. 1 of Act No. 2210] of Code of Civil Procedure provides that: Official documents may be proved as follows: the proceeding of the Phil. Commission, or of any legislative body that may be provided for the Phil. Islands, or of Congress, by the journals of those bodies or of either house thereof, or by published statutes or resolutions, or by copies certified by the clerk or secretary or printed by their order The journals say that the legislature adjourned at 12 midnight on Feb 28. This settles the question and the court did not err in declining to go behind these journals.
Casco vs Gimenez (from Jordan)

Facts: This is a petition to review the decision of the Auditor Gen. Rep Act 2609 is Foreign Exchange Margin Law and the Central Bank of the PHIL issued a circular 95 fixing a uniform margin fee of 25% for all foreign transactions. Casco who is engaged with manufacturing resin synthetic glue imported urea and formaldehyde in Nov and Dec 1959 and paid P33, 765.42 and on May 1960 paid P6, 345.72 for another importation. On Nov 3 1959 the Monetary Board passed a resolution 1529 saying that urea formaldehyde is exempt for the said fee. Relying on this resolution the petitioner asked for a refund from the payments they made. But the Auditor of the Bank refused to give them upon the ground that the exemption granted by the monetary board for petitioners separate importations of urea and formaldehyde is not in accordance with the provision which stated urea formaldehyde. Issue: W/n they are just the same? Held:

The Supreme Court held that they are different and affirmed the decision of the Auditor General. Urea formaldehyde is different from Urea and formaldehyde as explained by National Institute of Science and Technology with the latter being a compound product of urea and formaldehyde. The contention of the Petitioner that there was a conjunction and in the original bill based the statements made in Senate as proven by the journals. This contention must fail. Such statements do not reflect the view of the Senate. Much less do they indicate the intent of the House of Reps. The principle of enrolled bill must be applied in this case If there has been any mistake, the remedy is an amendment or curative legislation and not judicial decree. MORALES VS SUBIDO HOUSE BILL 6951 provides: No person may be appointed chief of a city police agency unless he holds a bachelors degree and has served either in the Armed Forces of the Philippines or the National Bureau of Investigation or police department of any city and has held the rank of captain or its equivalent therein for at least 3 years or any high school graduate who has served the police department of a city for at least 8 years with the rank of captain and/or higher. Said bill was amended by Senator Rodrigo by adding the phrase has served as officer in the Armed Forces. No person may be appointed chief of a city police agency unless he holds a bachelors degree and has served either in the Armed Forces of the Philippines or the National Bureau of Investigation or police department of any city and has held the rank of captain or its equivalent therein for at least 3 years or any high school graduate who has served the police department of a city or who has served as officer in the Armed Forces for at least 8 years with the rank of captain and/or higher. Petitioner insists that the Rodrigo version was the one approved by the 3rd reading in the Senate and that when the bill emerged from the conference committee the only change made in the provision was the insertion of the phrase or has served as chief of police with exemplary

record. To support this, petitioner submitted photostatic copies of different drafts of House Bill 6951. However, section 10 of the Police Act of 1996 reads: No person may be appointed chief of a city police agency unless he holds a bachelors degree from a recognized institution of learning and has served either in the Armed Forces of the Philippines or the National Bureau of Investigation or has served as chief of police with exemplary record or has served in the police department of any city and with the rank of captain or its equivalent therein for at least 3 years; or any high school graduate who has served the as officer in the Armed Forces for at least 8 years with the rank of captain and/or higher. The phrase police department of a city was deleted in the final version. The omission whether deliberate or unintended was made not at any stage of legislative proceedings but only in the course of the engrossment of the bill, more specifically in the proofreading thereof; that the change was made not by Congress but only by an employee thereof. ISSUE: Whether or not the Section 10 of the Police Act of 1996 is valid. HELD: The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Section 10 of the Police Act of 1996.. The enrolled act in the office of the legislative secretary of the President of the Philippines shows that Section 10 is exactly as it is in the statute as officially published in the slip by the Bureau of Printing. The Court cannot go behind the enrolled act to discover what has really happened. The Supreme Court, however, clarified that journals always yield to enrolled bills. There are certain matters which the Constitution expressly requires must be entered on the journal of each house. However, with respect to matters not expressly required to be entered on the journal, the enrolled bill prevails in the event of any discrepancy. ASTORGA VS VILLEGAS FACTS: House Bill No. 9266 originated from and approved by Congress on 3rd reading. It was sent to Senate for concurrence. It was then referred to the Senate Committee on Provinces and Municipal Governments and Cities headed by Senator Roxas. It was approved with minor amendment, suggested by Senator Roxas. Upon discussion on the floor of the Senate, substantial amendments were introduced by Senator Tolentino. Those amendments were approved in toto by the Senate. However, the authenticated and approved version of the bill contained the amendment of Senator Roxas and not the amendment of Senator, which was actually the one approved. This obvious error was pointed out by the City Mayor in a press statement. Thus, the Senate

President and the Speaker of House of Reps withdrew their signature. Likewise, the President withdrew his signature. As a result, City Mayor issued circulars to interested parties to disregard the provisions of RA 4065 and to issue an order to the Chief of Police to recall 5 members of City Police who had been assigned to the Vice Mayor under the authority of RA 4065. Hence, this present petition for Mandamus, Injunction and/or Prohibition with Preliminary Mandatory and Prohibitory injunction. ISSUE: Whether or not, the House Bill was duly enacted to become a RA. HELD: The Supreme Court held that the House Bill was not duly enacted and hence, cannot be a RA. Enrolled bill theory us based mainly on the respect due to coequal and independent departments, which requires the judicial departments to accept, as having passed Congress, all bills authenticated in the manner stated. Thus, it has also been stated that in other cases that if the attestation is absent and the same is not required for the validity of the statute, the courts may resort to the journals and records of Congress for proof of its due enactment. The approval by Congress and not the signatures of the presiding officers that is essential. The bill was not duly enacted as manifested by the withdrawal of signatures of both the President and Senate President. PHILIPPINE JUDGES ASSOCIATION VS PRADO FACTS: Section 35 of RA No. 7354 as implemented by the Philippine Postal Corporation through its Circular No. 92-28 withdrew the franking privilege from the Supreme Court, the COA, RTC, Metropolita TC, Municipal TC, and the Land Registration Commission and its Registers of Deeds, along with certain other government offices. Petitioners which are members of the lower courts allege that the bill is unconstitutional for, among others, not repealing laws which granted their franking privilege and that it was not passed on 3 readings. ISSUE: Whether or not, Section 35 of RA No. 7354 is unconstitutional. HELD: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of RA 7354. It is a matter of record that the Conference Committee Report on the bill in question was returned and duly approved by both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Thereafter,

the bill was enrolled with its certification by Senate President Gonzales and Speaker Mitra of House of Reps. It was then presented to and approved by President Aquino. Under the doctrine of Separation of Powers, the Court may not inquire beyond the certification of the approval of a bill from the presiding officers of Congress. Further, the journals are themselves binding on the Supreme Court. Thus, the Supreme Court declined to look into petitioners allegations.