Pre-Finals - Constitutional Law 1

Pre-Finals for Constitutional Law 1 cma
1
Memory Aid for Constitutional Law 1
STATE POLICIES
Article II of the 1987 Constitution: Declaration of Principles
and State Policies
- Intended to lay down the rules underlying our system of
government and must therefore be adhered to in the conduct
of public affairs and the resolution of public issues.
REPUBLICANISM
Section 1, Article 2: The Philippine is a democratic and
republican State. Sovereignty resides in people and all
government authority emanates from them

Republican
- This is a representative government which is run
by the people, for the people.
- It is not a pure democracy where the people
directly govern themselves. Its essence is
representation and renovation.
- Its purpose is the promotion of the common welfare
according to the will of the people themselves.
While we enjoy liberty, our liberty, however is not
unbridled since we are living in a society. We are a
government of laws and not of men.
In an election, the people who will emerge as the
winner will not necessary have the majority votes, it is
enough that he garnered the highest votes casts by the
people.

PEACE AND ORDER
Section 2, Article 2: The Philippine renounces war as an
instrument of national policy
----Vis-a-vis---
Section 23, Paragraph 1, Article 6: Congress has the sole
power to declare the existence of war
The war referred to in Section 2, Article 2 is an offensive war,
while in Section 23, Par. 1, Article 6 refers to a defensive war:
- This means our nation renounces an offensive war
which means we cannot launch an attack to other
nation however when we are going to or under
attack by other nation, then we are justified to put
up a defensive war.

INCORPORATION CLAUSE
Section 2, Article 2: The Philippine renounces war as an
instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted
principles of international law as part of the law of the land and
adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom,
cooperation and amity with all nation
Incorporation
- The generally accepted principles of international
law are applied in our legal system and in our
jurisdiction even if such international law is not
formally adopted in our legal system.
Transformation
- The formal adoption of the international laws or
treaties as part of our legal system.
- In this case, the Congress will enact a law which is
basically a reiteration of an international law or
treaty stipulation.

Kuruda vs. Jalandoni:
The Supreme Court held that we are bound by the Hague
Convention because it is embodied generally accepted
principles of international law binding upon all States.
Pacta Sunt Servanda:
- Treaty obligations must be complied with in Good
Faith
- This also means that we are duty bound to fulfill
our treaty obligations.
Which will govern if a treaty convention and a
domestic law are in conflict?
Where there appears to be a conflict between
international law and municipal law, efforts should be
first exerted to harmonize them, so as to give effect to
both.
However, if the conflict is irreconcilable and a choice
must be made, then the domestic law must be upheld
as against the international law or treaty.
Ichong vs. Hernandez:
The Supreme Court saw no conflict, however, even
assuming that there was, it was the Statute that should be
upheld because it represented an exercise of the police
power which, being inherent, could not be bargained away
or surrendered through the medium of a treaty.
Philip Morris vs. Fortune Tobacco:
The Supreme Court held that under the incorporation
clause set forth in Article 2 of the 1987 Constitution, treaties
should be considered with equal footing with our own
domestic rules. Treaties should not be considered superior
to the domestic laws.

Section 3, Article 2: Civilian authority is at all times supreme
over the military. The Armed Forces of the Philippines is the
protector of the people and the State. Its goal is to secure the
sovereignty of the State and the integrity of the national territory

Laws which accentuates that Civilian Authority is Supreme
over the Military:
Section 18, Article 7
- The President of the Philippines is the commander
in chief of the military notwithstanding that he has
no military training and is a mere civilian.

Section 4, Article 2: The prime duty of the Government is to
serve and protect the people. The Government may call upon the
people to defend the State and in the fulfillment thereof, all
citizens may be required, under conditions provided by law, to
render personal military or civil service
This is based upon the inherent right of every State to
existence and self-preservation. By virtue of this right, a
State may take up all necessary action, including the
use of armed force, to repel any threat
National Defense Act
- The State has the power to compel the people to
render military service.
People vs. Zosa and People vs. Lagman:
The Supreme Court upheld their conviction, holding that the
law in question was based on the afore-cited constitutional
principle.

2

SEPARATION OF CHURCH & STATE
Section 6, Article 2: The separation of Church and State shall
be inviolable
The idea is to make a clear demarcation line between
two institutions and thus avoid encroachments by one
against the other because of misunderstanding.
However, this wall of separation should not be a wall of
hostility since the very members of these religious
organizations are the very members of the State.
Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are
Caesars and unto God the things that are Gods

Other provisions that highlights the separation of Church
and State:
The Non Establishment Clause: Section 5, Article 3
No law shall be made respecting the establishment of
religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
- In this provision, the State is prohibited from
sponsoring religious institutions or discriminating
any of it.
- The State should maintain neutrality in its relation
with religious organization
Section 2, Paragraph 5, Article 9-C
Prohibiting religious organization from registering as
political parties
- Religious institutions are not allowed to be
registered as major political parties
Section 5, Paragraph 2, Article 6
Prohibiting the appointment of any religious organization as
a sectorial representative
- In this provision, the president is prohibited from
appointing a sectorial representative representing a
religious organization.
No public money or property appropriated, applied, paid or
employed directly or indirectly for the use or support of any
sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution or other
system of religion or of any other priest, minister, religious
teacher or dignitaries; except, for such priest, preacher,
minister or religious dignitary is assigned in the armed
forces of the Philippines or to any other penal institution or
any other government orphanage or leprosarium.
- In this provision, the State is prohibited from the
appropriation of public funds or properties for
sectarian purposes, religious organization or
religious person, except where the religious person
is assigned in the Armed Forces or any penal
institution or government orphanage or
leprosarium.
Ebralina vs. The Division Superintendent of the Schools of
Cebu 219 SCRA 256:
The Supreme Court upheld the members of the Jehovahs
Witness for their refusal to salute the Philippine flag
because for them the nations flag is a symbol, and since in
their religion they are prohibited from worshipping any other
symbol. The Supreme Court in this case, upheld their
invocation of freedom of religion.

Provisions which grants favors to the Church:
Except, for such priest, preacher, minister or religious
dignitary is assigned in the armed forces of the Philippines
or to any other penal institution or any other government
orphanage or leprosarium.
- In this case, the religious person may be paid by
the State from public funds therein.
Allows the teaching of religion in a public elementary
school or public high school, as long as there is a written
consent given by the parents or guardian of the students
- This allows the optional teaching of religion in
public schools (elementary or high school)
provided that there is a written consent coming
from the parents or the guardian of the children.
Allows private educational institutions to be owned by
foreign religious groups or missions
Charitable institutions, parsonages, churches, convents and
appurtenant thereto, public cemeteries and all lands and
buildings, improvements, directly and exclusively used by
the religious and charitable institution they are exempt from
realty or property tax
- This exemption is only with respect to realty or
property tax such that when the Church own a land
directly devoted for religious purposes then the
Church is not required to pay realty and property
tax from the land and the building.
- The property to be exempt from tax should be used
exclusively and directly for religious purposes
Is the Church mandated to pay income tax?
No, since under the National Internal Revenue Code
(NIRC) particularly section 30 thereof, the Church
among others, is exempt from paying income tax. In
the same manner, under section 101 of NIRC, the
Church is also exempted from giving taxes or donors
tax when the Church is the recipient of such donation.
If a priest is elected as a mayor can he receive his
salary, or is that violative of Section 29, Par. 2, Article
6 of the 1987 Constitution?
Yes the priest can receive his salary because the
payment of such salary is by reason of them being a
public official and not by reason of them being an
ecclesiastical officer.

NUCLEAR WEAPON
Section 8, Article 2: The Philippines consistent with the
national interest, adopts and pursues a policy of freedom from
nuclear weapons in its territory
- This provision is dubious or vague since this provision can
be interpreted to allow the use of nuclear weapon in the
country if it is consistent with national interest, however, as
for the meantime, nuclear weapon is not allowed in the
Philippines since national interest does not deemed it to be.

SOCIAL JUSTICE
Section 10, Article 2: The State shall promote social justice in
all phases of national development
Social Justice (Calalang vs. Williams)
- This is the humanization of laws and the
equalization of social and economic forces by the
State.
- This is the promotion of the welfare of all the
people, the adoption by the Government of
measures calculated to insure economic stability of
all the component element of society.

REARING OF THE YOUTH
Section 12, Article 2: The State recognizes the sanctity of family
life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous
social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the
life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and
3

duty of parents is in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the
development of moral character shall receive the aid and support of
the Government
Section 14, Article 2: The State recognizes the roles of women in
nation-building and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the
law of men and women
Section 16, Article 2: The State shall protect and advance the
right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with
the rhythm and harmony of nature
Section 18, Article 2: The State shall affirm labor as a primary
social economic force. It shall protect the rights of workers and
promote their welfare
Section 25, Article 2: The State shall promote the autonomy of
local governments
Local Government Code of 1991:
- This gives autonomy or powers to the local
government.

Section 26, Article 2: The State shall guarantee the equal
access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political
dynasties as may be defined by law.
- The framers of the 1987 Constitution left to the
Congress the power to enact a law that would define
political dynasty.

SEPARATION OF POWERS
The three branches of government are distinct and
separate from each other and they are performing distinct
and separate functions.
These branches of government observes the principles of
checks and balances.

Functions the Branches of the Government:
Legislative Department: makes law
Executive Department
- Enforce laws as enacted by the legislative department
Judicial Department
- Interpret the laws enacted by the legislative
department and to determine whether or not the acts
of the other branches of government are in conformity
with the provision of the 1987 Constitution.
Each branch is supposed to operate under its domain or
scheme but under out present set-up, the other branches of
government have their own ways of checking possible abuses
committed by the other branches of government observing the
principles of check and balances.

Executive vs. Legislative:
The president is vested with powers to disapprove any
and all laws enacted by the Congress in the exercise of its
veto power.
The legislative on the other hand, can also check the acts
of the executive branch such that when the President
exercises its power to veto power, the Congress has the
power to override the veto power of the President by a
vote of 2/3 of the members of both houses.

Executive vs. Judiciary vs. Legislative:
Under the present Constitution, the President can exercise
its pardoning power such that the President can free the
person from imprisonment even if the person is validly
convicted by the courts of law.
The Judiciary may check the acts of the legislative by
declaring laws enacted by Congress as unconstitutional.
The legislative department can also check the acts of the
judiciary by passing a law depriving or limiting the
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as well as the jurisdiction
of the lower courts. In fact, the Congress has the power to
abolish any and all courts below the Supreme Court.
In this case, by enacting a law limiting or depriving the powers
of the Supreme Court and the lower courts, then, Congress in
such a situation is therefore merely exercising its power
pursuant to the principle of checks and balances.
While the branches are distinct and separate from
each other, they likewise operate under the principle
of inter-dependence.
Principle of Interdepence:
- These are situations where there are blending
powers by and among the three branches of
government.
Example:
The passage of a general appropriation law allocating the
funds for the operation of the government. Under the present
Constitution, the not clear is prepared by the Office of the
President and once prepared, the same will be submitted to
the House of Representatives and submitted back to the
President for his approval.
In an impeachment case, the Supreme Court Chief Justice
would serve as a presiding officer along with the Senate
President.

NON-DELEGATION OF POWERS
Section 1, Article 2: The Philippines is a democratic and
republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all
government authority emanates from them
- Through election we elect representatives
delegating to them the power to enact laws.
- The rule is that this delegated authority may not
be further delegated otherwise there will be
betrayal of trust.
- The rule is also applicable to the executive and
judicial branches of the government.

PROVISIONS WHICH WOULD ALLOW CONGRESS
TO DELEGATE ITS LEGISLATIVE POWERS

1. TO THE PRESIDENT: TARIFF POWERS
Section 28(2), Article 6:
Tariff rates
Import and export quotas
Tamage and wharfage dues
Other duties or imports within the framework of the
national development program of the government.

2. EMERGENCY POWERS:
In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may
by law, authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to
such restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise powers
necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy,
unless sooner withdrawn by the resolution of the Congress, such
powers shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof
- Where there is such delegation, the President will
become a Constitutional Dictator because the
President in that situation may be given the power to
enact rules and regulations which have the force and
effect of laws.

4

Safeguards:
a. Such delegation may only be made in times of war or
other national emergencies such as typhoon,
epidemic or any other calamities.
b. Must only be for a limited period.
c. Exercise of which must be in accordance with
restrictions that may be prescribed by Congress.
d. Exercise of which should be made to call out a
declared national policy as announced by Congress.
Suppose there is a war, does it necessarily follow that the
President can already automatically exercise its emergency
powers?
- No, the exercise of emergency powers of the President in
times of war or other national emergency may only be done
is such power is delegated to the President by Congress
pursuant to Section 23(2), Article 6.
- Congress may opt to hold on to its legislative powers.
- Congress cannot also be compelled to delegate emergency
powers to the President. It has the discretion whether or not
to delegate emergency powers to the President in times of
National Emergency.
Suppose in times of war, the Congress Delegates Emergency
Powers but for a short duration like for 6 months but the war
lasted for 12 months. Can the President validly continue the
exercise of emergency powers?
- No, the president cannot exercise emergency powers
beyond what is delegated to him.
Suppose the President was granted emergency powers for a
longer period but the emergency situation lasted only for a
shorter period. Can the President continue to exercise his
emergency powers?
- No, in the event that emergency situation has already
ceased, it follows just as surely that the Presidents
emergency power would have to cease.
Suppose the authority is without a fixed duration, can the
president continue to exercise his emergency powers?
- No, since the framers of the 1987 Constitution made a
conscious effort to inject another provision under Section
23(2), Article 6, providing to the end that unless sooner
withdrawn, the exercise of emergency powers by the
President shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof.
David vs. Arroyo
The Supreme Court ruled that while it is true that the
President has the power to declare a State of National
Emergency that does not automatically follow that the
President could thereupon direct the operations or taking
over of the operations of property of public utilities. Any
taking over of public utilities may only be done if there is an
express delegation of such authority from the President to
the Congress.

3. TO THE PEOPLE
This happens when Congress decides a particular
issue via a system called referendum
If the Congress cannot decide on a particular issue,
the Congress can throw that question to the people.
If the people has the power to directly propose amendments
via the system of initiative, would that be a valid delegation
of power to the people?
- No, this power given to the people to propose amendments
to the Constitution is not a delegated authority. Rather, it is
an express authority or power vested to the people pursuant
to the 1987 Constitution.

4. TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:
Congress enacted the Local Government Code of
1991 delegating the power to source its funds or
regulate business or activity.
The Local Government Units may not validly exercise
the power of eminent domain and police powers by
passing an ordinance regulating a particular activity or
business.
Is the power to impose taxes a delegated power from
Congress to the LGU?
- No, this power is expressly conferred upon in the Local
Government Units by virtue of Section 5, Article 10 of the
1987 Constitution.

5. TO VARIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES:
Congress is permitted to delegate to various
administrative bodies and with this grant of legislative
power, these administrative bodies may implement
policies and implementing rules and regulations.

TEST OF DELEGATION

a. THE COMPLETENESS TEST (SUBSTANTIVE TEST)
- The law must be complete in all its essential terms
and conditions when it leaves the legislature so that
there will be nothing left for the delegate to do when it
reaches him except to enforce it.
US vs. Ang Tang Ho
The Supreme Court ruled that the law did not pass the
completeness test because the Governor-General was given
a wide latitude to determine temporary rules and emergency
measures

b. SUFFICIENT STANDARD TEST (SUBSTANTIVE TEST)
- In this test, even if the law is not complete, the
delegation of authority by Congress may still be
sustained as valid if the same is accompanied by
sufficient standard.
- This test is intended to map out the boundaries of the
delegates authority by defining the legislative policy
and indicating the circumstances under which it is to
be pursued and effected.
Ynot vs. IAC
The Supreme Court struck down as invalid E.O. 66-A
because it gave unbridled authority to distribute the
carabaos to the chairman of National Inspection
Commission.

LEGISLATIVE POWER

Philippine Bill of 1902
- Provided for a legislature consisting of a Philippine
Assembly and the Philippine Commission

Jones Law
- House of Representatives and the Senate

Section 1, Article 6:
The legislative Power is vested on the Congress of the Philippines
which constitutes a Senate and a House of Representatives, except to
the extent reserved to the people by the provision on initiative
referendum
- This means that legislative power as not
exclusively vested on Congress alone since a
reservation is made regarding the peoples
initiative referendum.

Non-legislative Powers of Congress:
a. The canvass of the presidential elections
5

b. The declaration of the existence of a state of war
c. Confirmation of amnesties
d. Presidential Appointments (Through Commission on
Appointments)
e. The amendment or revision of the Constitution
f. Impeachment

COMPOSITION OF THE SENATE

Section 2, Article 6: The Senate
The Senate shall be composed of 24 Senators who shall be elected at
large by the qualified voters of the Philippines, as may be provided by
law
Senate:
- More circumspect and broad-minded since they
have a national rather than a district
constituency.
- They will have a broader outlook of the
problems of the country instead of being
restricted by parochial viewpoints and narrow
interests
Membership elected at large:
- This rule intends to make the Senate a training
ground for national leaders and possibly a
spring board to Presidency.

Section 3, Article 6: Qualifications for Senate
Exclusive:
a. Natural born Filipino
- Citizens of the Philippines from birth without
having to perform any act to acquire or perfect
their Philippine Citizenship.
b. On the day of the election is at least 35 years old
- 35 years old at the time when the polls are
opened and the votes are cast and not on the
day of the proclamation of the winners by the
board of canvassers.
c. Able to read and write
d. A registered voter
e. Resident of the Philippines for not less than 2
years immediately preceding the election
- The place where one habitually resides and to
which, when he is absent, he has the intention of
returning.
An intention to abandon his old residence cannot be legally
inferred from his act establishing a home elsewhere or
otherwise conducting his activities therein, in the absence of a
clear showing that he has decided to adopt a new residence.
The qualifications prescribed in this section are continuing
requirements and that they must be possessed for the entire
duration of the members incumbency.
Principle of Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius
- It is not competent for Congress to provide by mere
legislation for additional qualifications no matter
how relevant they may be.
Social Justice Society vs. Dangerous Drugs Board
The Supreme Court held that the provision on Article 6, Section 3 are
exclsuive and that no other qualification may be added to those
aspiring to be members of the Senate, other than those prescribe
under the provision of the 1987 Constitution

COMPOSITION OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

House of Representatives are composed of:
1. District Representatives
2. Party list Representatives
3. Sectoral Representatives: already abolished
- In the passage of R.A. 7941, otherwise known as
the Party List Law, the appointed sectoral
representative has been abolished in the House
of Representative.

DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVES OR
CONGRESSMAN/WOMAN

Section 6, Article 6: Qualification for District Representative
a. Natural born Filipino
b. On the day of the election he/she must be at least
25 years old
c. Able to read and write
d. He must be registered voter in the district where he
wants to be elected
e. He must be resident therein for a period of not less
than 1 year, immediately prior to the election
- Residency should be taken to mean as domicile which
connotes mere intention of returning, so that one may
be physically absent for a given place but for purposes
of election, no particular place may be regarded as
residence, as long as he has the intention of coming
returning to the particular place.

Section 5 (1), Article 6: Composition of District
Representatives
- District Representatives will have to be elected
from the various legislative district apportioned
among the provinces, cities and Metropolitan
Manila in accordance with the number of their
respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a
uniform and progressive ratio.

Section 5 (3), Article 6:
- Each legislative district must comprise as far as
practicable, of contiguous, compact and adjacent
area.
- Each city with a population of at least 250,000, or
each province shall have at least one (1)
representative.
In a nutshell, for a city to have a district representation in the
House of Representatives, it needs to have at least 250,000
inhabitants, but for the province, for as long as a province
created then it necessarily follows that it is entitled to a
representation in the House of Representatives, regardless of
its population.
--------------------------***---------------------------
Aldaba vs. COMELEC
The Supreme Court held that the minimum population requirement for
cities should be met before a particular city is entitled to have a district
representation in the House of Representative
Mariano vs. COMELEC
The Supreme Court ruled that if a particular city has already met the
minimum population requirement, then it may be given additional
places that need district representation in the House of
Representatives and that particular city need not double act its
population before it is entitled for an additional seat or place in the
House of Representatives
Aquino vs. COMELEC
6

The Supreme Court ruled that the 250,000 minimum requirement is
only applicable for cities. It is not a requirement for a district
representation in a province
Sema vs. COMELEC
The Supreme Court in no equivocal terms, proved that only Congress
can create a province and this legislative power to create a province
cannot be validly delegated to another political unit much less to an
autonomous region. The Supreme Court arrived in this conclusion by
applying that the provisions under Section 5, Article 6 of the 1987
Constitution as well as Section 20, Article 10 of the same Constitution.

Section 5(3), Article 6
States that once a province is made only one district
representative is appointed:
- This denoted that once a province is created, a
legislative district is also instituted.
Providing to the end that, there shall be not more than 250
members in the House of Representative, unless otherwise fixed
by law:
- Denoting that it is only Congress which can
increase the membership in the House of
Representatives.
Provides that within 3 years following the return of every census,
Congress re-apportion the legislative district:
- Denoting that it is only Congress who has the
power to create or apportion legislative districts.
--------------------------***---------------------------
Taking into account all this provisions, the Supreme Court
ruled that it is only Congress which has the power to create a
province. The Supreme Court further held that by meticulously
inspecting the provision in Section 20, Article 10, it is not
provided therein that an autonomous region may be given a
power to create a province.
Tobias vs. Abalos; Mariano vs. COMELEC
The Supreme Court validly ruled that re-apportionment of legislative
districts need not always be in a form of a general re-apportionment
law, such that re-apportionment of legislative district may be done
through the enactment of special laws which somehow would create a
city or a province as the case may be..

PARTY-LIST SYSTEM
Party-list Representatives
- These are entities, organizations or parties
registered under the party-list system.

Application Proceeding:
1. Must file for a verified petition for accreditation no later
than 90 days before the Election Day, through its
president or secretary. Attaching a copy of the
following:
a. Its constitution
b. By laws
c. Platforms
d. List of officers
e. Other relevant information as may be required by the COMELEC
2. The petition shall be published in at least 2 newspapers
of general circulation.
3. After due notice and hearing, the petition must be
resolved within 15 days and in no case later than 60
days before the election.
4. Religious sects, foreign organizations and those
advocating violence or unlawful means are disqualified.
5. Sectors included:
i. Labor
ii. Peasants
iii. Fisher-folk
iv. Urban poor
v. Indigenous cultural communities
vi. Elderly handicapped
vii. Women
viii. Youth
ix. Veterans
x. Overseas workers
xi. Professionals
Are Major Political Parties prohibited from participating in the
party-list system?
- The Supreme Court held that while major political parties are
not disqualified merely on the ground that they are political
parties, they must show however, that they represent the
interests of the marginalized and under-represented. It
further held that by reading the provisions of Section 5(1),
Article 6, it likewise includes national and regional parties or
organization.
- Another provision in Section 7, Article 9-C, providing to the
end that votes cast in favor of political parties, organizations
or coalitions are invalid except when those mentioned are
registered in the Party-list system.
Bagong Bayani-OFW vs. COMELEC
Atong Paglaom vs. COMELEC
The Supreme Court held that there are three kinds of groups which
may participate in the party-list system:
National Party-list or Organizations
Regional Party-list or Organizations
Sectoral Party-list or Organizations

The Supreme Court ruled that as far as the national and regional party-
list or organization, they need not be organized for sectoral purposes
and they do need to represent the underprivileged and under-
marginalized sectors, the Supreme Court further held that political
parties may participate in the party-list system as long as they would
not fail in the district representative election. However for those who
failed in the district representative election, they may participate
indirectly as by forming sectoral groups, which are to be considered as
separate sectoral parties.

So clearly in this sense, the Supreme Court does not disqualify political
parties from participating in the party-list system

The Supreme Court further ruled that majority of the members
of the this sectoral group must belong to their respective
sectors and their nominees must also belong to the sectors
they seek to represent or although the nominee did not belong
to that sector but the nominee has a proven track record of
advancing the interest of the particular group or organization.
However for the nominees of the political parties participating
in the party-list group, it is enough that they are members of
such political party or organization participating in the party-
list group. This means that nominees for political parties does
not need to belong to the under-privileged or under-
represented sectors.
The Supreme Court moreover ruled that those national,
regional or sectoral party-list or organization may not be
disqualified by reason that some of their nominees has been
disqualified, since it is enough that only one of their nominees
have qualified.

Requirements for Major Political Parties to participate in the
Party-list System:
a. This requirement must be strictly complied with by
both the organization and its nominees to be
representative.
b. They must not represent sectoral or religious sect
or organization.
c. It must not be among those disqualified under
Section 6 of R.A. 7941.
Underprivileged
or Under-
marginalized
Sectors which
has no well-
defined political
constituency
7

Section 6 of R.A. 7941
Provides for the disqualification for applicants of the Party-list
System:
a) Religious Sectors
b) Any organization advancing violence and unlawful means
to seek goal
c) Any foreign group or organization
d) Any group receiving support from any foreign
government, political party, foundation, organization
whether directly or through any of its officers or members
e) Any groups who committed misrepresentation
f) Any groups who violates of fails to comply with the laws,
rules and regulations relating to elections
g) Groups which has ceased to exist for at least 1 year
h) Groups which fails to participate in the last preceding
elections or fails to obtain at least 2% of the votes cast
under the party-list system in the 2 preceding elections
for the constituency in which it has registered.
May an organization be denied acquisition by COMELEC in
the party-list system?
- The Supreme Court held that while major political parties are
not disqualified merely on the ground that they are political
parties, they must show however, that they represent the
interests of the marginalized and under-represented. It
further held that by reading the provisions of Section 5(1),
Article 6, it likewise includes national and regional parties or
organization.

Proceeding Upon Registration:
1. The political group shall submit to the COMELEC not
later than 45 days before the election at least 5 names
of whom will possibly represent it, in case they obtain
the required number of votes.
The names of the party-list nominees shall not be shown on
the certified list of participants in the party-list system to be
distributed by the COMELEC among all precincts.

2. The political group shall submit to the COMELEC not
later than 45 days before the election at least 5 names
of whom will possibly represent it, in case they obtain
the required number of votes.
3. Only one person who have given their consent in
writing be named as party-list candidates and in one list
only.

Qualifications for Representative Nominees in the Party-
list System under R.A. 7941:
1. Natural born Filipino
2. Registered voter in the Philippines
3. Residence in the Philippines for a period of at least
1 year prior to the election.
4. A bona fide member of the organization who seeks
to represents for at least 90 days preceding the
day of the election.
5. At least 25 years old on the day of the election.
6. Able to read and write
For the nominees of the youth sectors, the nominee should
not be beyond 30 years old. However, if the nominee was put
in office when he is 29 years old and turns 30 during his term,
he is not ipso facto disqualified from office and he can still
continue serving his term.
Bantay Republic Act vs. COMELEC
The Supreme Court said that although it may true that under Section 7
of RA 7941, COMELEC need not include the names of the nominees
of the party-list in the voter's certified list, but there is nothing in law
which prevents COMELEC from disclosing the names of the nominees
in another medium of communication. The Supreme Court based its
ruling on Section 7, Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution dealing with the
right of the people to public information
The party-list members shall account to 20% of the total members in
the House of Representatives, to include the party-list members
Formula to get Allocated Seats for the Party-list
groups:

e.g.
[(233/.80)*.20] = 58.25 58 Seats are available for Party-list
members

Computation for Additional Seats Garnered:
(Veterans Bank vs. COMELEC)
*May not be fully filled up

1
st
Rank:

e.g.
70,000/1,000,000 = 7%
Rule 1: if the result is 6% up then it is entitled
to 2 additional seats in Congress.
Rule 2: if the result is at least 4% but less than
6%, then it is only entitled to only 1 seat in
Congress.
Rule 3: if the result is below 4%, then it cannot
have additional seat in Congress.

Succeeding Ranks:

e.g.
(60,000/70,000) x 2= 1.71
Rule: As long as the succeeding ranking party-list garnered an integer,
then it can have 1 additional seat

Computation for Additional Seats Garnered:
(BANAT vs. COMELEC)
*Fully filled up

1
st
Rank:

Remaining seat = number of seats seats already allocated
e.g.
70,000/1,000,000 = 7% * 52 = 3.6
Rule 1: if the result is 6% up then it is entitled
to 2 additional seats in Congress.
Rule 2: if the result is at least 4% but less than
6%, then it is only entitled to only 1 seat in
Congress.
Rule 3: if the result is below 4%, then it cannot
have additional seat in Congress.

8

TERM OF OFFICE
The senators and Members of the House of
Representatives served for 5 years:
This was done for the purpose of having a
synchronize election in 1998.

The first 12 Senators elected in 1992 would serve for a
full term of 6 years but the other 12 will only be elected
for 3 years:
This is the reason why there is a staggering of
election in the Members of the Senate.

Top 12 Senators -------------------------------------------------------------------------|
1992 1993 1998
Bottom 12 Senators -----------------------|

Section 7, Article 6: Congressmen/woman
No Member of the House of Representatives shall serve for more than
three (3) consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any
length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the
continuity of his service for the full term for which he was elected
- The term of office for Congressmen are fixed at 3
years and not one of them can serve office for
more than 3 consecutive years.

Section 4, Article 6: Senators
No Senator shall serve for more than two (2) consecutive terms.
Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be
considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full
term for which he was elected.

Voluntary renunciation of office for any length of time shall not
be considered as an interruption in the continuity of the
service for which the Congressman or Senator was elected.
Term:
- Refers to the time frame prescribed by law within
which a Congressman or Senator should serve
office.
Tenure:
- Refers to the actual period within which a particular
officer is discharging his function.
Re-election:
- This means running for the same position that the
official previously held in the election immediately
succeeding the expiration of his term.
If Senator A was elected for Senate in the 1995 election and
served for 6 years or until 2001. Subsequently, Senator A run
again for the 2001 election, which he served until 2007. Can
Senator A validly run again for Senate on the 2007 election?
- No, because under the 1987 Constitution, particularly
Section 4, Article 6 thereof, the term limit for senators are
fixed for 2 consecutive terms.
Can Senator A, validly run for another position, like
Congress, Vice-President or President?
- Yes, because it is not considered a re-election anymore.
Since re-election means running for the same position that
the official previously held.
If Senator A, cannot anymore run for the 2007 election, must
he wait for another 6 years or until 2013 so that he can validly
run as Senator or he can already run for Senate on the 2010
election, 3 years after 2007?
- As the Supreme Court held in Socrates vs. COMELEC, in
this case, Senator A need not wait for the 2013 election for
he can validly run for Senate on the 2010 election, this is
because re-election refers to the immediately succeeding
election following the expiration of ones term. And since the
immediate succeeding election as far as Senator A is
concerned, is the 2007 election, and while 2010 is a
subsequent election, it is not the immediately succeeding
election following the expiration of Senator A's term.
It is enough that there is a gap after the expiration of a
Senator or a Congressman's term. An official can validly run
as many times as he wants, as long as he does not go
beyond the term prescribed in the law.
If Senator A ran for Senate in 1995 and served his office until
2001. Then, on the 2001 Election he ran again for Senate,
however, on 2004, Senator A voluntarily resigned from the
Senate. Can he still valid run for senate on 2007?
- No, because under the Constitution, voluntary renunciation
of office is not considered as an interruption in the continuity
of his service for the full term for which he was elected.
Thus, since Senator A voluntary resigned in 2004, then for
all intent and purposes, his second term, should not be
regarded as has been interrupted, it is still considered a full
term up until 2007.
Suppose in 2007, Senator A did not tender a written
resignation but what he did is that he filed a certificate of
candidacy and ran for Congress on 2004. Can it be regarded
as Senator A voluntarily resigned from Senate by filing a
certificate of candidacy for another position?
- Under the Fair's Election Act in 2001, an elective official shall
not be considered to have voluntary resigned from office
upon his filing of candidacy. Whereas appointed official is
ipso facto considered to have voluntary resigned from office
from upon filing a certificate of candidacy.
- However, after an elective official wins the position an
assumed the office then he will be considered already as
having voluntarily resigned from office.
Senator A served 1 full term when he was elected on 1995.
When Senator A was one again elected in 2001, there was a
petition for disqualification filed against him. In 2004, a
decision was rendered disqualifying him from office and he
step down on 2004. Could he validly run for the 2007 election
as Senator?
- According to Lonzanida vs. COMELEC, G.R. 135150, The
Supreme Court held that disqualification is not considered as
a voluntary renunciation of office and that this would not
legitimately interrupt the continuity of service of ones term of
office.
Senator A was elected in 1995 and served for 6 years and got
re-elected again in 2001, a petition for his disqualification
was filed in 2004 and was currently pending. On 2007, he run
again for the same position and was elected. Another
disqualification case was filed against him. On 2008, the case
filed against him on 2004 has reached a final judgment
disqualifying him from office.

Party-
List
Votes
Garnered
Percentage
Seats
Garnered:
2% Rule
Veterans
Bank vs.
COMELEC
Additional
Seats
Total
Seats
Garnered
BANAT
vs.
COMELEC
Additional
Seats
Total
Seats
Garnered
A 70,000 7% 1 7 2 3 3.60% 2 3
B 60,000 6% 1 1.7 1 2 3.10% 2 2
C 50,000 5% 1 1.4 1 2 2.60% 2 2
D 40,000 4% 1 1.1 1 2 2.08% 2 2
E 30,000 3% 1 0.85 0 1 1.56% 1 2
F 20,000 2% 1 0.57 0 1 1.04% 1 2
G 10,000 1% 0 0.28 0 0 0.52% 1 1
H 5,000 0.50% 0 0.14 0 0 0.26% 1 1
I 3,000 0.30% 0 0.0857 0 0 0.16% 1 1
Total 1,000,000
Additional Seats Garnered
For example
purposes, and not
the real sum
9

Senator A's contention is that, since he was already declared
disqualified in the 2004 election complaint, its as if he was never
elected at all in the 2001 elections, such that he should not be
disqualified from running in the 2007 elections? Should we apply
the same ruling in the Lonzanida vs. COMELEC case?
- Senator A's contention is unwarranted and the Lonzanida
ruling would not apply in this case since Senator A has
already served 1 full term before the disqualification was
rendered against him. In this case, the disqualification
decision is considered ineffective as regards to his service in
his second term.
- Base on the pronouncement by the Supreme Court in the
Lonzanida Case, the disqualification based on the term limit
would only apply if:
1. The official got re-elected after the expiration of
the allowable term limit
2. There was full service corresponding to the
allowable term limit.
Suppose Senator A was elected in 1995 and once again re-
elected in 2001. On 2004, Senator A was preventively
suspended by Sandiganbayan from office for 1 year and
resume his function in 2005. Could Senator A validly run for
re-election in 2007, knowing that there has already been an
interruption in his term?
- No, because preventive suspension do not result in the loss
of one's title to the office. In fact as stated, he did not really
lost his title from office. Furthermore, as held in the
Lonzanida vs. COMELEC ruling, preventive suspension
cannot be an effective interruption in the continuity of one's
office.
Suppose Senator A was elected in 1995 and served for 6
years. He was re-elected in 2001 but he died in 2004, a
special election was conducted and Senator B assumed the
position for the remaining years. Senator B ran and won in
the 2007 election and served until 2013. Can he run again for
the 2013 elections?
- No, since it is provided in Section 9, Article 6 in the 1987
Constitution that when there is vacancy in the Senate or in
the House of Representatives and a special election is
called, the person who won in the special election will only
assume the vacant position for the remaining term and
according to the deliberation of the framers of the 1987
Constitution, it shall be regarded as one whole term already.

- Such that Senator B should be disqualified from running in
the 2013 election as senator.

President = 300,000 per annum
Vice President, Senate President, Speaker of the
House of Representatives and Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court: 240,000 per annum
Senators and Members of HR, Associate Justices of
the Supreme Court and the Chairman of the
Constitutional Commissions: 204,000/ annum
Members of the Constitutional Commissions: 108,000
Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the giving of allowances
for the Senators and members of House of Representatives
as well as there is also nothing in the Constitution which
prohibits the diminution of salaries of the members of
Congress.

- Any increase of the salaries of the members of
Congress shall take effect only after the expiration
of full term of the members of Congress who voted
for such measures.

Section 11, Article 6: Parliamentary Immunities
Senators or Members of the House of Representatives:
Privilege from Arrest:
- They privilege from arrest from all offenses not more
than six years imprisonment while Congress is in
session.
- This will only take effect if a person is an incumbent
member of Congress, such that when he is no longer
a member thereof, he can no longer invoke the
privilege of arrest.
Session
- We are referring to the day-to-day session of the Congress
which will take effect even if the Congressman concerned is
attending the session or not.
Section 11, Article 6 refers only to privilege from arrest
and not from immunity from suit, such that if a member of
Congress commits an offense, he is not therefore
immune from suit. Rather he can be prosecuted in court,
only that of if the penalty imposable for the offense does
not exceed imprisonment for 6 years then he is entitled of
this privilege from arrest.
Section 11, Article 6 refers only to privilege from arrest
and not from immunity from suit, such that if a member of
Congress commits an offense, he is not therefore
immune from suit. Rather he can be prosecuted in court,
only that of if the penalty imposable for the offense does
not exceed imprisonment for 6 years then he is entitled of
this privilege from arrest.

Privilege of Speech and Debate:
- They shall not be liable nor questioned in any other
place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in
any committee thereof.
- This extends even beyond the termination of office of
a given member of Congress.
Requirement:
a. The Congress or any committee thereof must be in
session.
b. The speech or utterance made was in the
performance of his duties.
The privilege given in the 2nd sentence of Section 11,
Article 6 is immunity from suit or immunity from
prosecution, they cannot be held liable for any speech or
debate in Congress as well as in any committee thereof
either criminally or civilly.
For the Privilege of Speech and Debate to apply it is
necessary that Congress or any committee thereof must be
in session and that any speech or utterance must be made
in the performance of his duty. Otherwise, even if the
Congress is in session, but a member thereof makes an
utterance which is not in the performance of his function, like
when he just engages in a private conversation with
colleagues gossiping with another member, then that is
actionable. Since although the Congress at that time is in
session, the utterance made was in not in the exercise of
his/her public duties or functions.
Members of Congress will only be made liable or answerable
within the Congress itself. Since Section 16 (3), Article 6 of
the 1987 Constitution, gives each house of Congress the
power to punish any of its members for disorderly behaviors.
So, if a member of Congress gave a speech in Congress
lambasting the President, the President himself cannot
prosecute the member of Congress but nothing can prevent
the other members of the house concerned to punish the
particular member, because such power is given by the
Constitution.

10

Osmea vs. Pendatun
The Supreme Court affirmed the disciplinary action imposed on then
Senator Osmena for maligning the reputaiton of then President Carlos
Garcia.
Alejandrino vs. Dizon
The Supreme Court disapproves the suspension imposed on Senator
Alejandrino noting that he was not an elective member of Congress but
rather an appointed member of the Governor General of the United
States and under the Jones Law, which is in effect at that time,
Congress can only impose disciplinary actions on any elected member
thereof.

LIMITATIONS ON MEMBERS OF CONGRESS:
Section 12, Article 6: Conflict of Interest
Section 20, Article 6: Books of Accounts
Section 17, Article 11: SALN
- All members of Congress are mandated by law to
make a full disclosure of their financial and business
interest. They shall also submit their respective
"Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networths" or
SALN for examination.
- If a Member of Congress will sponsor a bill and he
foresee that there is a conflict of interest for that
particular bill, then he/she is under obligation and
pursuant to the second sentence of Article 6, Section
12 of the 1897 Constitution, to inform the house
concerned.
Members of Congress are not mandated by the Constitution
to relinquish their business interest in any Corporation,
unlike the members of the cabinets, president and vice-
president who are mandated by the Constitution to divest
themselves in any financial interest. So for the members of
the Congress, it is sufficient that they divulge the full
disclosure of their financial and business interest and they
are not required to relinquish any financial interests.
Section 13, Article 6: Incompatible & Forbidden Offices
No members of Congress may hold any other office or
employment in the Government, or any subdivision, agency or
instrumentality, including GOCC w/out forfeiting his seat
- This provision is not absolute
- If a member of Congress would hold another office of
the Government, then he may validly do so provided
that he will relinquish his position in Congress.
Adaza vs. Pacaa
The Supreme Court did not justify the complaint filed by Adaza
questioning the office given to Pacaa, holding that he held the
position already in Congress may be deemed to have forfeited his seat
as Governor applying the provision on Article 6, Section 13 of the 1987
Constitution.

Situations wherein a Member of Congress can hold another office in
Government without violating the Constitution:
1. The other office is but an adjunct to the performance to
his legislative functions
2. A result of a designation
3. The other office is incidental to his being member of
Congress.

No members of Congress shall be appointed to any office which
may have been created or the emoluments thereof increased
during the term for which he was elected
- This provision is absolute
Senator A was elected in 2007 elections, served for office for
6 years until 2013. In 2010, Congress created an office or an
office which has already been established but the
emoluments of such office has been increased. Can Senator
A be appointed to assume this particular office?
- Under the second sentence of Article 6, Section 13, Senator
A cannot validly hold the office as an appointment
designated to him.
Suppose that the office assumed by Senator A was not an
appointment office but rather an elective office. Can Senator
A validly run so he can assume the elective office?
- Yes, because the prohibition on the second sentence of
Article 6, Section 13 of the 1987 Constitution only apply to
appointments and never election. However, if Senator A won
and was appointed in the office, by applying the provision in
the first sentence of Article 6, section 13, then Senator A
would have to relinquish his post as member of Congress.
Suppose, the term of Senator A expired and in the following
election, he did not seek for re-election, can he be appointed
in that particular office?
- Yes, because his term already expired and the prohibition as
enshrined in section 13, article 6 would only apply to term
where he was elected and Senator A in this case, did not
anymore seek re-election for Congress.
The provision in the 2nd sentence of section 13, article 6
is absolute in a sense that when a Senator is appointed
for an office which was made during his term or the
emoluments thereof is increased, he cannot assume the
office even if he will relinquish his post as a member of
Congress.
Section 14, Article 6: Inhibitions and Disqualifications
No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may
personally appear as counsel before any court of justice or before
the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other administrative
bodies.
- Such that any Member of Congress which is a lawyer
can still validly practice his profession but he is barred
from appearing as counsel before any court of justice,
electoral tribunal or quasi-judicial and other
administrative bodies.
Prohibits any members of congress to aquire any financial
interest in contracts, franchise, or any special privilege granted by
the Government.
- While this provision exists in the Constitution, nothing
can prohibit a member of Congress from entering into
a contract with the government provided that he will
not reap any pecuniary advantage out of that contract.
What if Senator Duran enters into a contract with the
government, giving her land to them, is this contract invalid?
- No, since Senator Duran in this case is not reaping
pecuniary benefits out of the contract but instead the
government inures benefit from it.

He shall not intervene in any matter before any office of the
Government for his pecuniary benefit or where he may be called
upon to act on account of his office
- Any member of Congress cannot intervene in any
Governmental matters just so he could reap
pecuniary benefits therefrom.

Section 15, Article 6: Session
Unless a different time is fixed by law, Congress shall convene
once a year on the 4th Monday of July and it shall continue for
such number of days as Congress may determine, until 30 days
prior to the opening of its next regular session
- Exclusive of Saturday, Sunday and Holidays

General Rule: Each house shall conduct separate
sessions.
Except:
There are situations wherein the two houses are called to
make joint sessions.

11

SITUATIONS WHERE BOTH HOUSES ARE MANDATED TO HOLD
JOINT SESSIONS BUT ARE VOTING SEPARATELY:
1. When there is a tie in the canvassing of votes for
the Presidential elections, such that has to break
the tie. The votes required are majority votes of each
house
2. Section 11, Article 7:
- When there is a need for Congress to
determine the fitness of the President.
- When there is a need for Congress to
determine the fitness of the President. The
required votes is 2/3.
If majority of the cabinet members wrote a
letter to Congress, expressing their belief that
the President is unable to perform his
functions, then in such case that the vice-
president will be assume his office.
However, if the President will the dispute the
allegations, then Congress should determine
the fitness of the President. In this situation,
the Congress is mandated to have a joint
session to determine the President's fitness.
- The Congress will confirm or affirm the
nomination of the President, of who would
become the Vice-President in the event that
there will be vacancy in the position.
5. Section 23 (1), Article 6:
- When Congress will declare the existence of
war. And the voting requirement is 2/3 of the
members of each house.
- When Congress will propose amendments in
the Constitution or revision thereof.

SITUATIONS WHERE BOTH HOUSES ARE MANDATED TO HOLD
JOINT SESSIONS BUT ARE VOTING JOINTLY:
- Congress will revoke the proclamation of
Martial Law or the revocation of the
suspension of writ of habeas corpus.
- The voting requirement is only majority of both
houses.

While Congress is in session neither house can adjourn for more than
3 days or meet in another place, other than the place where the two
houses are sitting
- This is requirement wherein each house should
inform the other house if it has to convene or adjourn
for more than 3 days or if it has to convene in another
place. Only for the purpose of sufficiently informing
the other house regarding the whereabouts of the
other chamber.
- This is important specially in making bills.

The President may call for special session at any time.
- This usually happens in times of emergency.
- In this Congress is mandated to convene even if
it is on recess.

SITUATIONS WHEREIN CONGRESS ARE MANDATED TO
CONDUCT SPECIAL SESSIONS EVEN WITHOUT A SPECIAL
CALL FROM THE PRESIDENT
- Congress would act as canvassers on the
Presidential and Vice-Presidential elections.

- When there is vacancy in the office of the
President and the Vice-President.
- Congress would decide to impeach the president.
- When the president calls for a martial law or a
suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.

The Senate will elect its officers:
Senate President
Senate Pro Tempore
Senate majority & minority floor leaders
Chairmen of the various standing and special
committees
Secretary and the sergeant-at-arms (non-
members)

The House of Representatives:
Speaker of the House
Speak Pro Tempore
Majority & minority floor leaders
Sergeant-at-arms who may not be members of the
House of Representatives.

Section 16(2), Article 6: Transactions of every house
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.

Majority Each House to Constitute a Quorum:
- This is arrived dividing the total membership of
the House concerned and adding 1 to constitute
a quorum.
Avelino vs. Cuenco
In this case, the Supreme Court determined the quorum on the basis
the number of members who are at that time in the Philippines. In other
words, the Supreme Court held that in order to get the quorum, it is
sufficient to factor in only the members who are at that time in
jurisdiction boundaries of the Philippines. Because if they are in the
Philippines, then they can be compelled to appear in the compulsory
session of the Senate or House of Representative and if there are
outside our jurisdiction, then we cannot validly compel them to appear
in the session.
Section 16(3), Article 6: Discipline of Members
Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its
Members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-
thirds of all its Members, suspend or expel a Member. A penalty of
suspension, when imposed, shall not exceed sixty days
Arroyo vs. De Venecia
The Supreme Court ruled that in as much as each house has the
power to determine its rules on proceedings, then it follows that each
house has its power to relax the application of its own rules and
procedures.

12

Each house has its powers to discipline any of its
members for disorderly behaviors, in concurrence of
2/3 of all its members:
In our jurisdiction, the Supreme Court is powerless to
determine what would constitute as disorderly behavior.
It is up to the House of Senate or House of
Representatives as to what would constitute as a
disorderly behavior. However the Supreme Court may
review if in the extortion or suspension of members has
acquired the required number of votes has been
complied with since for any punishment of disorderly
behaviors, it shall be done in concurrence of 2/3 of its
members.

Public officers who are not considered impeachable may be
removed as provided by law.
- Denoting that if a law provides of Congress is
suspended or removed, then such law may be
enforced.
Santiago vs. Sandiganbayan
The In this case, Sen. Santiago said that only senate can validly
suspend her. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, it held that
instances where members of Congress may be expelled or suspend
are not mutually exclusive, such that applying Section 13, R.A. 3019,
the Supreme Court held that Sen. Santiago could well be suspended.
Dimaporo vs. Mitra
The Supreme Court held that provision in the old election law section
87 of B.P. 8781, is another mode of terminating the tenure of an
elective public official.

Section 16(4), Article 6: Journals
It is required in each house to maintain the journal of its
proceedings which shall be published from time to time
exempting public matter that would somehow affect
public security.
Each is also required to keep the record of each
proceeding.

JOURNALS
- The minutes of the proceedings.
- This records the summary of the proceedings.
RECORDS OF PROCEEDINGS
- This contains the blow by blow account, the recording
of each and every word spoken in the deliberation of
particular measures would have to be recorded in
their record of proceedings.

MATTERS THAT MUST BE STATED IN THE JOURNAL:
Voting of the "YES" and the "NAYS", if it is requested
by 1/5 of the house concerned.
The "YES" and "NO" votes on the third and final reading of
the bill, must also be recorded in the journal.
If a bill was vetoed by the President, the veto message or
the reason given by the President in disapproving the bill
would have to be recorded in the journal.
If Congress decides to override the veto power of the
President via a vote of 2/3 of each house thereof, then the
voting pertaining to the re-passage of the bill as well as the
names who voted for and against the overriding the power
of the President.
ENROLLED BILL
- Refers to a bill which is approved with finality of both
Houses of Congress and is signed by the Senate
President, Speaker of the House as well as the
respective Secretaries of both Houses and signed into
law by the President.

JOURNAL vs. ENROLLED BILL
ENROLLED BILL:
- If there is a conflict between enrolled bill and a
journal and the subject matter of the inquiry is a
provision of a law or a bill, then in this case the
Enrolled bill will prevail.
Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito
JOURNAL:
- If there is conflict between the entries of the journal
and the ones in an enrolled bill and the subject
matter of the inquiry pertains to those which under
the Constitution are mandated to be recorded in
the journal; then in such situation the journal
shall prevail.
US vs. Pons
The Supreme Court upheld the entry in the journal because in this
case there was no actual conflict between a journal and an enrolled
bill, because in this case the enrolled bill was never presented in
evidence, since what was presented was only the journal.
Astorga vs. Villegas
- The Supreme Court took into consideration and gave
credence on what appears in the journal since the Senate
President and the Speaker of the House withdrew their
signatures on the law, such that in actuality there was no
longer an enrolled bill to speak of.

Section 17, Article 6: Electoral Tribunals
Each House of Congress, the Senate or the House of
Representatives, shall each have its own Electoral Tribunal:
SET : Senate Electoral Tribunal
HRET House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL
- Shall be the sole of judge of all protest relating to
the election, qualification and returns of the
members of the house concerned.
COMPOSITION:
3 members from the Supreme Court
6 members coming from the house concerned
- The members shall be chosen on the basis of the
proportional representation of the various political
parties and the organizations registered in the
party-list system.
In an election, if there is a question regarding the
qualification of nominee for Congress, the case shall be
first lodge on COMELEC however after a winner has
already been proclaimed and the same has already
taken his oath and assumed office as a member of the
Congress, any such complaint shall already be decided
by either the SET or HRET, as the case may be. The
COMELEC shall already be divested of its jurisdiction to
hear and decide.
Lim Cai Chong vs. COMELEC
The Supreme Court held that once an election for the House of
Representative is concerned and the winner is proclaimed and the
winner as already taken his oath of office and assumed his duties as a
13

member of Congress, then any questions pertaining to his/her election
should be already be taken cognizance by the SET or HRET.
Codilla vs. COMELEC
The Supreme Court sustained or upheld as valid the decision rendered
by the COMELEC en banc, notwithstanding the fact that there has
already been a winner proclaimed and that Congressman Locsin has
already allowed to take his oath and that he already performed his
function. The reason for which is that there was a patent anomaly
committed by the division concerned of the COMELEC and that
Congressman Codilla was not given a day in court to defend himself in
the disqualification case filed against him which resulted to Locsin
being declared as the winner.

The Supreme Court sustained the validity of the decision made by the
COMELEC en banc noting that in the first place, there was a denial of
due process committed against Codilla. This case is an exemption to
the rule where if there is already a winner the election complaint will be
in the jurisdiction of the SET or HRET.
Abas vs. SET
Abas was a candidate for Senate who lost and protested the
proclaimed winners. Abas also sought the disqualification of Members
of the Senate Electoral Tribunal, holding that the members of the SET,
were also the protestees of the action. Abas would have wanted that
only those members of the Supreme Court will hear his election protest
in SET

The Supreme Court disagreed noting that under Section 17, Article 6
of the 1987 Constitution, that the members of the Electoral Tribunal
shall be composed of the 3 members of the Supreme Court and 6
members coming from the house concerned. The legislative
component of SET or HRET cannot just be disregarded.
Bondoc vs. Pineda
While the Supreme Court said that if a member of congress is chosen
as a member of SET or HRET, that person is expected to vote
independently of his partisan or political affiliations. He has to decide in
a given particular case on the evidence obtained and the facts of the
case.
Taada vs. COMELEC
The Supreme Court held in this case that the 6 membership in the
SET or HRET need not be fully filled up, since what is important is
in the selection of the members thereof must be done in
accordance to the rational proportion of the political parties and
organizations registered under the party-list.

Section 18, Article 6: Commission on Appointments
Commission on Appointments
- The duty of this commission is to confirm the
nominations made by the President.
- The commission on appointment shall only hold
session when the Congress is also in session and
it has to act on nominations submitted to the
commission within 30 session days of Congress,
which shall be reckoned from the date of
submission.
e.g. When Congress is in recess the commission will also be in recess.
Composed of 25 members:
1. Senate President ex officio chairman
- He need not vote except when there is a tie.
2. 12 Senators
3. 12 Members of the House of Representatives
They shall be chosen in accordance with the
proportional ratio of the various political parties
and the various organizations registered under
the party-list.
The Commission on Appointments need not
be fully filled up if it cannot be in accordance
with the ratio and proportion as provided in the
Constitution.
The Electoral Tribunal and the Commission on
appointment shall be organized within 30 days after the
organization of Congress following the election of their
respective officers.

Ad Interim Appointment:
- This is an appointment made by the President
during the recess of the Commission on
Appointment which will be subject to the
commissions approval once the Congress and the
Commission on Appointment reconvenes.

General Rule:
The primary function of the government is to enact laws except
those which may be performed by themselves in using the
people's initiative.

FUNCTIONS OF CONGRESS WHICH IS NON-LEGISLATIVE IN
CHARACTER:
When Congress will canvass the votes in the
Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections.
When Congress will held a trial for an
impeachment proceeding.

ENACTING LAWS
Exclusive Bills or Laws from HR Section 24, Article 6
- This only means that the following bills should only be
initiated in HR
Appropriation Bills
- These are bills which allows the disbursing of funds from
the national treasury
Revenue and Tariff Bills
- These are bills which involves import and export
Public bills increasing public debts
Bills of local application
- These are bills which creates provinces or cities
Bills of Private Application
- These are bills which would grant citizenship to a
particular person
Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance
The Supreme Court held that it is enough that the measure was
initiated in the House of Representatives. Moreover, the Supreme
Court said that it is not violative of Section 24, Article 6 because the
house of representative has already initiated the bill and therefore the
Senate can already draft their own version of the bill however, the
Senate must defer its own action of the bill until such time that the bill,
coming from the House of Representatives has been forwarded to the
Senate.
The senate is not duty bound to accept the version
coming from the House of Representatives. The
Senate can make an amendment to the bill or even
substitute the same to its own version.

a. Any member of Congress may introduce or sponsor a
bill to the Secretary of the House, who will calendar the
same for the first reading.
b. In the first reading, the bill is read by its number and
title only.
The bill shall only embrace one subject matter which shall be
evident in its title.
Tobias vs. Abalos & Mariano vs. COMELEC
14

The Supreme Court held that the title of the bill need not indexed or
catalog anything or every contents thereof. It is enough that the
contents of the bill are germane to the purpose on which that bill is
particularly authored, sponsored or enacted.

c. After the first hearing, the bill is referred by the
Speaker of the House to the appropriate committee for
study. At this stage, the appropriate committee will
conduct public hearings.
- If there are other bills pertaining to the same subject
matter, those bills should be consolidated to become
one bill.
- The committee concerned has the power to make any
amendments or reject it.
d. After the public hearing, the committee shall decide
whether or not to report the bill favorably or whether a
substitute bill should be considered.
- Should there be an unfavorable report of the
committee, then the proposed bill is dead.
e. Upon favorable action, the bill is returned to the
National Assembly and shall be calendared for the
second reading.
f. In the second reading, the bill is read in its entirety.
g. Immediately after the second reading, the bill is set
for open debates where members of the assembly may
propose amendments and insertions to the bill.
h. After the approval of the bill, in its second reading
and at least 3 calendar days before its passage, the bill
in its final form and copies thereof will distributed to
each of the members.
Is there an instance where the 3 readings on 3 separate days
as well as the printing of final version of the bill and
distribution of copies thereof may be dispensed with?
- This can only happen when the President certifies the
urgency of enacting the particular bill only to meet a public
calamity or emergency.

i. The bill is then calendared for the third and final
reading. At this stage, no amendment shall be
allowed. Only the title of the bill is read and the House
concerned will then vote on the bill.
j. Under the 1987 Constitution, after the third and final
reading at the house it originated, it will go to the other
House where it will undergo the same process.
What will happen if the Senate offered another version of the
bill or would want to incorporate some amendments to the
bill? What shall be done if there is a conflict proposed by the
HR and the version adopted by the Senate?
- If a conflict would arise, the bill shall be referred to the
Conference Committee, composed of members of coming
from the HR and the senate. This committee is only in
tasked to resolve the conflict in the bill sponsored by HR and
the ones advanced by the senate.
The Conference Committee has the power to
introduce some amendments in the bill and once the
C.C. has come up with a concrete resolution, it will
submit its report to the House of Representatives and
to the senate. Meaning to say it shall therefore come
up with a revised bill.
Will the revised bill as submitted by the Conference
Committee be subjected again to three separate committee?
- No, the bill shall just be voted upon by the HR or the Senate
in plenary sessions, it does not have to pass through 3
separate readings again.

k. After the bill has been passed, it will be submitted to
the President for approval.
l. If the President disapproves, he shall veto it and
return the same with this objections to the house where
it originated and if approved by 2/3 of all its members, it
shall become a law.
Pocket Veto:
- This is the case, when the President is given a period
of time to sign the bill, however when the President
does not approve the bill within a given period of time,
and within the given period the Congress will adjourn,
the bill will be deemed dead.

President Disapproves the Bill:
- It shall be returned to the house where it originated
together with the vet message.
- The veto message will be entered in the journal
and the house considered override the veto by 2/3
of all the members thereof.
- It will also be transmitted to the other house, where
they will choose to override the same.

m. Under the present set-up, if the originating house will
agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the
objections to the other house by which it shall be
likewise be considered and must be approved by 2/3 of
the votes.
n. Every bill passed by Congress shall be acted upon by
the President within 30 days thereof. Otherwise, it shall
become a law.

Instances where a bill becomes a law without the
signature of the President:
Override by the Congress
When there is vacancy in the President and Vice-
President position, the special election law will be
approved without the signature of the president.

PARTIAL VETO or LINE ITEM VETO of the
PRESIDENT
General Rule:
The President will approve the bill in its entirety or
disapproves the same in its entirety.

Exemption: ART
When the bill is regarded as an:
Appropriation Bill
Revenue Bill
Tariff Bill

Conditional Veto:
General Rule:
The President cannot veto a particular condition which is
attached to a provision in the bill without disapproving the
provision which the condition pertains.

Exemption:
The condition imposed in a particular provision in an
appropriation, tariff or revenue bill, is considered an
inappropriate condition, which can already be considered
as a separate provision subject to the veto power of the
President.
15

Suppose in the general appropriations bill, that item contains
a condition. Can the President veto the condition alone
without disapproving the entire provision in which it
pertains?
- No, the president as a rule cannot veto a condition without
disapproving the provision where it pertains or is attached.
Except if the condition given is invalid.
Bolinao vs. Valencia
The Supreme Court ruled that the veto was invalid since the rule is that
even if the bill was an appropriation, revenue or tariff bill, the President
cannot just veto a condition in a particular provision without necessarily
disapproving the entire provision in which the condition is attached.
Is there an instance when the President can validly veto a
condition without necessarily disapproving the provision
where it pertains? In the general appropriations bill, that item
contains a condition. Can the President veto the condition
alone without disapproving the entire provision in which it
pertains?
- No, the president as a rule cannot veto a condition without
disapproving the provision where it pertains or is attached.
Except if the condition given is invalid.
PhilConsa vs. Enriquez:
The Supreme Court held the partial veto made by the President on the
condition as a valid veto since the condition was inappropriate as it
was legal and it can already be considered as a separate item which
can be validly "vetoed" by the President.

POWER OF CONGRESS

RESTRICTION ON CONGRESS IN A PASSING A LAW
1) Section 24, Article 6:
- All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills authorizing the increase of
public debt, bills of local application and private bills shall originate
exclusively in the House of Representatives but the Senate may
propose or concur with amendments.
- Every bill by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall
be expressed in the title thereof.
- Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it becomes a law, be
presented to the President. If he approves the same, he shall sign it;
otherwise, he shall veto it and return the same with his objections to
the House where it originated, which shall enter the objections at
large in its Journal and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such
reconsideration, two-thirds of all the Members of such House shall
agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to
the other House by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if
approved by two-thirds of all the Members of that House, it shall
become a law. In all such cases, the votes of each House shall be
determined by yeas or nays, and the names of the Members voting
for or against shall be entered in its Journal. The President shall
communicate his veto of any bill to the House where it originated
within thirty days after the date of receipt thereof; otherwise, it shall
become a law as if he had signed it.
- No law impairing the obligations of contracts shall be passed.
- No ex post fact law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.
- No law shall be passed granting title of royalty or nobility shall be
enacted by Congress.

POWER OF APPROPRIATION
- No money shall be paid out of the treasury except in
pursuant to an appropriation law made by Congress.
Appropriation Law:
a. General Appropriation Law
- Provides for funds for the organization of national
government in a given fiscal period.
b. Special Appropriation Law
- Funds for special purpose like for the rehabilitation
of a particular place or funds raised for the victims
of a typhoon.
- This is enacted for a specific or special purpose.

LIMITATION IN THE APPROPRIAITON POWER OF
CONGRESS:
Inherent Limitations:
- Appropriation of funds should be for public purpose
- Funds to be appropriated should be determined or
the specific amount should be stated
Express Limitations:
- All appropriations, revenue or tariff bills, bills
authorizing the increase of public debts, bills of
local application and private bills shall originate
exclusively in the House of Representatives but the
Senate may propose or concur amendments.
2. Section 25(1), Article 6:
- The Congress may not increase the appropriation
recommended by the President for the operation of
Government as specified in the budget. The form,
content and manner of preparation of the budget
shall be prescribed by law.
Can Congress decrease the budget for the Executive
Department?
- Yes, because what is only prohibited is the increase of
the appropriation as recommended by the President.
Can Congress decrease the budget for the Judiciary?
- No, because we have the provision under Section 3,
Article 8 of the 1987 Constitution which States that the
judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy appropriations and
it cannot be reduced by the legislature below the
amount appropriated for the previous year and after
approval, shall be automatically and regularly released.
Although, increases are allowed.
- No provision or enactment shall be embraced in
the general appropriations bill unless it relates
specifically to some particular appropriations
therein. Any such provision or enactment shall be
limited in its operation to the appropriation to which
it relates
- The procedure in approving appropriations for the
Congress shall strictly follow the procedure for
approving appropriations for other departments
and agencies.
- No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of
appropriations, however, the President, the Senate
President, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court and the heads of Constitutional Commission
may by law be authorized to augment any time in
the general appropriations law for their respective
offices from savings in other items of their
respective appropriations.

General Rule: There shall be no realignment of funds.
Except:
- When there is a law enacted by Congress
authorizing the persons enumerated under Section
25(5), Article 6 to make a re-alignment of funds
provided that such re-alignment of funds must be
16

for augmentation purposes and provided
furthermore that the funds to be re-aligned to the
departments should come from the savings from
other departments for their appropriations.
PhilConsa vs. Enriquez:
The Supreme Court ruled as invalid the provision under the
questioned general appropriations act which authorize the
Chief of Staff of AFP to make re-alignment of funds out of
the savings of that particular department since only the
President may be entitled by law to make re-alignment of
funds in so far as the exclusive department is concerned.
May there be a law authorizing the President to transfer
funds from the savings in one of the item for DepEd to
be transferred to DPWH?
- Yes, because what is prohibited is the transfer of funds
from another branch to another branch of government.
- Discretionary funds appropriated for particular
officials shall be disbursed only for the public
purposes to be supported by appropriate vouchers
and subject to such guidelines as may be
prescribed by law.
- If, by the end of any fiscal year, the Congress shall
have failed to pass the general appropriation bill for
the ensuing fiscal year, the general appropriations
law for the preceding fiscal year shall be deemed
to be re-enacted and shall remain in force and
effect until the general appropriations bill is passed
by the Congress.
- Prohibiting disbursement of public funds for
sectarian purposes.

TAXING POWER OF CONGRESS
Constitutional Limitations:
- The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable.
The Congress shall evolve a progressive system of
taxation.
Uniform Taxation:
All persons or things belonging to same
shall be subject to the same tax.
Equity:
The assessment of tax should be based
on ones capacity to pay.
- Tax exemption in favor of charitable institutions,
churches and educational institutions.
- No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed
without the occurrence of a majority of all Members
of the Congress.
- All money collected on any tax levied for a special
purpose shall be treated as a special fund and paid
out for such purpose only.
- If the purpose for which a special fund was enacted
has been fulfilled or abandoned, the balance, if any
shall be transferred to the general funds of the
Government.
- Assets of non-stock, non-profit educational
institution shall be exempt from taxes and duties.

POWER TO MAKE AN INQUIRY:
- The Senate or the House of Representatives or
any of its representatives committees may conduct
inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its
duty published rules of procedures. The rights of
persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries
shall be respected.
- Power of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of
legislation is inherent in its power to enact laws.
Can Congress conduct inquiries in aid of legislation for
matter which are already pending before the courts of
law or sangidanbayan?
- Yes, unless, if the purported inquiry is not actually an
inquiry in aid of legislation, the Congress cannot
Can the person validly refuse to appear? Can a person
invoke his right against self-incrimination?
- No.
Can the right against self-incrimination be invoke in
investigations conducted by the Senate and any
committee thereof?
- Yes, but you can only invoke that when the
incriminating question is already being asked. You
cannot invoke that right if only to disobey the subpoena
issued by the Senate or HOR. In other words, you
should appear but if the incriminating question is
already being asked, thats the time to invoke that right.
Is there an instance whereby a person is justified in not
appearing before the senate or HOR in the event that
there is an inquiry in aid of legislation?
- Yes, when there is a proper invocation of the so-called
executive privilege.

Executive Privilege:
Presidential communication privilege
- Refers to the decision making of the President
Military
Diplomatic
National Interest
Discussion during the close-door meetings
with the President
Information
Confidential information given by/between the
President and his subordinates.
Deliberate process privilege
- The decision-making of the other executive
officers.

Those who can invoke Executive Privilege:
1. The President
2. Executive Secretary acting in behalf of the President
for the benefit of the subordinate or lower cabinet
member.
3. Supreme Court Chief Justice and Associate Justices

Limitations in the Power of the Senate to Conduct Inquiries
in Aid of Legislation:
Inquiry should be in aid of legislation.
Automatically in accordance with the rules duly published
of Senate, HOR or any committee thereof.
The invitation never against to a purported must already
obtain a proposed legislation.
The rights of any person must be respected.
The invitation must expressly divulge the person to be
invited and the subject matter of his investigation the
questions to be profound
17

Pre-Finals - Constitutional Law 1

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Pre-Finals - Constitutional Law 1

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Pre-Finals for Constitutional Law 1 cma

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi