Compilation 2.03 - Article VI, Sections 21-26

Political(Law(Review(A/2015(|(Dean(Sedfrey(Candelaria(|(Case(Digest(Compilation(2.
3((Article(VI(,(Sections(21/26((( ( ( ( ( ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((Page(1(of(53(
'
Sec. 21 Senate' President' Drilon,' however,' wrote Executive' Secretary' Ermita' that' the'
Senators'"are'unable'to'accede'to'[his'request]"'as'it'"was'sent'belatedly"'and'"[a]ll'
1. Senate v. Ermita (MT)
'
G.R.'No.'169777 April'20,'2006'
preparations' and' arrangements' as' well' as' notices' to' all' resource' persons' were'
Petitioners:'SENATE'OF'THE'PHILIPPINES,'represented'by'FRANKLIN'M.'DRILON,'in'his'capacity'as'Senate' completed'[the'previous]'week."'
'
President,'JUAN'M.'FLAVIER,'in'his'capacity'as'Senate'President'Pro'Tempore,'FRANCIS'N.'PANGILINAN,'in' Senate' President' Drilon' likewise' received' on' September' 28,' 2005' a' letter from' the'
his'capacity'as'Majority'Leader,'AQUILINO'Q.'PIMENTEL,'JR.,'in'his'capacity'as'Minority'Leader,'SENATORS' President'of'the'North'Luzon'Railways'Corporation'Jose'L.'Cortes,'Jr.'requesting'that'
RODOLFO' G.' BIAZON,' "COMPANERA"' PIA' S.' CAYETANO,' JINGGOY' EJERCITO' ESTRADA,' LUISA' "LOI"' the'hearing'on'the'NorthRail'project'be'postponed'or'cancelled'until'a'copy'of'the'
EJERCITO'ESTRADA,'JUAN'PONCE'ENRILE,'RICHARD'J.'GORDON,'PANFILO'M.'LACSON,'ALFREDO'S.LIM,'M.' report'of'the'UP'Law'Center'on'the'contract'agreements'relative'to'the'project'had'
A.'MADRIGAL,'SERGIO'OSMENA'III,'RALPH'G.'RECTO,'and'MAR'ROXAS' been'secured.'
Respondents:'EDUARDO'R.'ERMITA,'in'his'capacity'as'Executive'Secretary'and'alter\ego'of'President'Gloria'
On'September'28,'2005,'the'President'issued'E.O.'464,'"Ensuring'Observance'of'the'
Macapagal\Arroyo,' and' anyone' acting' in' his' stead' and' in' behalf' of' the' President' of' the'
Philippines,'Respondents.'
Principle'of'Separation'of'Powers,'Adherence'to'the'Rule'on'Executive'Privilege'and'
' Respect'for'the'Rights'of'Public'Officials'Appearing'in'Legislative'Inquiries'in'Aid'of'
'
Summary:' Legislation' Under' the' Constitution,' and' For' Other' Purposes," which,' pursuant' to'
This'case'raises'the'constitutionality'of'EO'464'as'issued'by'the'Pres.'as'it'prohibits'executive' Section'6'thereof,'took'effect'immediately.'The'salient'provisions'of'the'Order'are'as'
officials' from' going' to' senate' inquiries' or' investigations' on' the' ground' that' they' need' follows:'
authority'from'the'Pres.'The'SC'ruled'that'section'1'valid'as'to'question'hour'but'not'as'to'in' SECTION' 1.' Appearance' by' Heads' of' Departments' Before' Congress.' ' In' accordance' with'
aid'of'legislation,'section'2a'valid.'While,'section'2b'and'section'3'are'void.'(see'ratio)' Article' VI,' Section' 22' of' the' Constitution' and' to' implement' the' Constitutional' provisions' on'
' the' separation' of' powers' between' co\equal' branches' of' the' government,' all' heads' of'
Facts:' departments' of' the' Executive' Branch' of' the' government' shall' secure' the' consent' of' the'
This'case'includes'6'consolidated'petitions'for'certiorari'and'prohibition'proffer'that' President'prior'to'appearing'before'either'House'of'Congress.'
the'President'has'abused'such'power'by'issuing'E.O.'464'last'September'28,'2005.' When'the'security'of'the'State'or'the'public'interest'so'requires'and'the'President'so'states'in'
They'thus'pray'for'its'declaration'as'null'and'void'for'being'unconstitutional.' writing,'the'appearance'shall'only'be'conducted'in'executive'session.'
In' the' exercise' of' its' legislative' power,' the' Senate' of' the' Philippines,' through' its' SECTION.'2.'Nature,'Scope'and'Coverage'of'Executive'Privilege.'(see'full'text)'
various'Senate'Committees,'conducts'inquiries'or'investigations'in'aid'of'legislation' Executive'privilege'covers'all'confidential'or'classified'information'between'the'President'and'
which'call'for,'inter'alia,'the'attendance'of'officials'and'employees'of'the'executive' the'public'officers'covered'by'this'executive'order,'including:'
department,'bureaus,'and'offices'including'those'employed'in'Government'Owned' 1'Conversations'and'correspondence'between'the'President'and'the'public'official'covered'by'
and' Controlled' Corporations,' the' Armed' Forces' of' the' Philippines' (AFP),' and' the' this' executive' order' 2' Military,' diplomatic' and' other' national' security' matters' which' in' the'
Philippine'National'Police'(PNP).' interest'of'national'security'should'not'be'divulged'3'Information'between'inter\government'
On' September' 21' to' 23,' 2005,' the' Committee' of' the' Senate' as' a' whole' issued' agencies' prior' to' the' conclusion' of' treaties' and' executive' agreements' 4' Discussion' in' close\
invitations' to' various' officials' of' the' Executive' Department' for' them' to' appear' on' door'Cabinet'meetings'5'Matters'affecting'national'security'and'public'order.'
September'29,'2005'as'resource'speakers'in'a'public'hearing'on'the'railway'project' (b)'Who'are'covered.''The'following'are'covered'by'this'executive'order:'
of' the' North' Luzon' Railways' Corporation' with' the' China' National' Machinery' and' Senior'officials;'Generals'and'flag'officers'of'the'Armed'Forces'of'the'Philippines;'
Equipment'Group'(hereinafter'North'Rail'Project).'The'public'hearing'was'sparked'by' Philippine'National'Police'(PNP)'officers'with'rank'of'chief'superintendent'or'higher;'
a'privilege'speech'of'Senator'Juan'Ponce'Enrile'urging'the'Senate'to'investigate'the' Senior' national' security' officials;' and' Such' other' officers' as' may' be' determined' by' the'
alleged'overpricing'and'other'unlawful'provisions'of'the'contract'covering'the'North' President.'
Rail'Project.' Also' on' September' 28,' 2005,' Senate' President' Drilon' received' from' Executive'
'
The'Senate'Committee'on'National'Defense'and'Security'likewise'issued'invitations
' Secretary'Ermita'a'copy'of'E.O.'464,'and'another'letter informing'him'"that'officials'
dated' September' 22,' 2005' to' the' following' officials' of' the' AFP:' the' Commanding' of' the' Executive' Department' invited' to' appear' at' the' meeting' [regarding' the'
General'of'the'Philippine'Army,'Lt.'Gen.'Hermogenes'C.'Esperon;'Inspector'General' NorthRail' project]' will' not' be' able' to' attend' the' same' without' the' consent' of' the'
of'the'AFP'Vice'Admiral'Mateo'M.'Mayuga;'etc'(see'full'text)'' President,' pursuant' to' [E.O.' 464]"' and' that' "said' officials' have' not' secured' the'
On'September'28,'2005,'Senate'President'Franklin'M.'Drilon'received'from'Executive' required'consent'from'the'President."''
'
Secretary' Eduardo' R.' Ermita' a' letter dated' September' 27,' 2005' "respectfully' On' even' date' which' was' also' the' scheduled' date' of' the' hearing' on' the' alleged'
'
request[ing]'for'the'postponement'of'the'hearing'[regarding'the'NorthRail'project]' wiretapping,' Gen.' Senga' sent' a' letter to' Senator' Biazon,' Chairperson' of' the'
to'which'various'officials'of'the'Executive'Department'have'been'invited"'in'order'to' Committee'on'National'Defense'and'Security,'informing'him'"that'per'instruction'of'
"afford' said' officials' ample' time' and' opportunity' to' study' and' prepare' for' the' [President'Arroyo],'thru'the'Secretary'of'National'Defense,'no'officer'of'the'[AFP]'is'
various' issues' so' that' they' may' better' enlighten' the' Senate' Committee' on' its' authorized'to'appear'before'any'Senate'or'Congressional'hearings'without'seeking'a'
investigation."' written'approval'from'the'President"'and'"that'no'approval'has'been'granted'by'the'
Bautista'Caguioa'Chavez'Cupin'Dulay'Enguio'Feble'Galon'Gammad'Gan'Gerona'Giltendez'Gonzales'Lambino'Lukban'Macabulos'Magbanua'Nitura'Oducado'Pabilane'Quintos'Ramos'Remollo'Rivera'Santos'Tan'Taylo'Uy'
! !
Political(Law(Review(A/2015(|(Dean(Sedfrey(Candelaria(|(Case(Digest(Compilation(2.3((Article(VI(,(Sections(21/26((( ( ( ( ( ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((Page(2(of(53(
President' to' any' AFP' officer' to' appear' before' the' public' hearing' of' the' Senate' SECTION'21.'The'Senate'or'the'House'of'Representatives'or'any'of'its'respective'committees'
Committee'on'National'Defense'and'Security'scheduled'[on]'28'September'2005."' may' conduct' inquiries' in' aid' of' legislation' in' accordance' with' its' duly' published' rules' of'
Despite' the' communications' received' from' Executive' Secretary' Ermita' and' Gen.' procedure.'The'rights'of'persons'appearing'in'or'affected'by'such'inquiries'shall'be'respected.''
Senga,' the' investigation' scheduled' by' the' Committee' on' National' Defense' and'
'
In' Arnault' v.' Nazareno, a' case' decided' in' 1950' under' that' Constitution,' the' Court'
Security'pushed'through,'with'only'Col.'Balutan'and'Brig.'Gen.'Gudani'among'all'the' already' recognized' that' the' power' of' inquiry' is' inherent' in' the' power' to' legislate.'
AFP'officials'invited'attending.' Arnault'involved'a'Senate'investigation'of'the'reportedly'anomalous'purchase'of'the'
For' defying' President' Arroyos' order' barring' military' personnel' from' testifying' Buenavista' and' Tambobong' Estates' by' the' Rural' Progress' Administration.' Arnault,'
before'legislative'inquiries'without'her'approval,'Brig.'Gen.'Gudani'and'Col.'Balutan' who' was' considered' a' leading' witness' in' the' controversy,' was' called' to' testify'
were' relieved' from' their' military' posts' and' were' made' to' face' court' martial' thereon' by' the' Senate.' On' account' of' his' refusal' to' answer' the' questions' of' the'
proceedings.' senators' on' an' important' point,' he' was,' by' resolution' of' the' Senate,' detained' for'
On' October' 3,' 2005,' three' petitions' docketed' for' certiorari' and' prohibition,' were' contempt.'Upholding'the'Senates'power'to'punish'Arnault'for'contempt,'Thus,'the'
filed'before'this'Court'challenging'the'constitutionality'of'E.O.'464.' Court'found'that'the'Senate'investigation'of'the'government'transaction'involved'in'
All' the' petitions' pray' for' the' issuance' of' a' Temporary' Restraining' Order' enjoining' Arnault'was'a'proper'exercise'of'the'power'of'inquiry.'Besides'being'related'to'the'
respondents'from'implementing,'enforcing,'and'observing'E.O.'464.' expenditure'of'public'funds'of'which'Congress'is'the'guardian,'the'transaction,'the'
In' the' oral' arguments' on' the' petitions' conducted' on' February' 21,' 2006,' the' Court' held,' "also' involved' government' agencies' created' by' Congress' and' officers'
following' substantive' issues' were' ventilated:' (1)' whether' respondents' committed' whose'positions'it'is'within'the'power'of'Congress'to'regulate'or'even'abolish."'
grave' abuse' of' discretion' in' implementing' E.O.' 464' prior' to' its' publication' in' the' Since'Congress'has'authority'to'inquire'into'the'operations'of'the'executive'branch,'
Official' Gazette' or' in' a' newspaper' of' general' circulation;' and' (2)' whether' E.O.' 464' it' would' be' incongruous' to' hold' that' the' power' of' inquiry' does' not' extend' to'
violates' the' following' provisions' of' the' Constitution:' Art.' II,' Sec.' 28,' Art.' III,' Sec.' 4,' executive' officials' who' are' the' most' familiar' with' and' informed' on' executive'
Art.'III,'Sec.'7,'Art.'IV.'Sec.'1,'Art.'VI,'Sec.'21,'Art.'VI,'Sec.'22,'Art.'XI,'Sec.'1,'and'Art.' operations.'
XIII,'Sec.'16.'The'procedural'issue'of'whether'there'is'an'actual'case'or'controversy' Section' 21,' Article' VI' likewise' establishes' crucial' safeguards' that' proscribe' the'
that'calls'for'judicial'review'was'not'taken'up;'instead,'the'parties'were'instructed'to' legislative' power' of' inquiry.' The' provision' requires' that' the' inquiry' be' done' in'
discuss'it'in'their'respective'memoranda.' accordance' with' the' Senate' or' Houses' duly' published' rules' of' procedure,'
After'the'conclusion'of'the'oral'arguments,'the'parties'were'directed'to'submit'their' necessarily'implying'the'constitutional'infirmity'of'an'inquiry'conducted'without'duly'
respective'memoranda,'paying'particular'attention'to'the'following'propositions:'(1)' published' rules' of' procedure.' Section' 21' also' mandates' that' the' rights' of' persons'
that' E.O.' 464' is,' on' its' face,' unconstitutional;' and' (2)' assuming' that' it' is' not,' it' is' appearing'in'or'affected'by'such'inquiries'be'respected,'an'imposition'that'obligates'
unconstitutional' as' applied' in' four' instances,' namely:' (a)' the' so' called' Fertilizer' Congress'to'adhere'to'the'guarantees'in'the'Bill'of'Rights.'
scam;' (b)' the' NorthRail' investigation' (c)' the' Wiretapping' activity' of' the' ISAFP;' and' Even'where'the'inquiry'is'in'aid'of'legislation,'there'are'still'recognized'exemptions'
22
(d)'the'investigation'on'the'Venable'contract. ' to' the' power' of' inquiry,' which' exemptions' fall' under' the' rubric' of' "executive'
Petitioners'submit'that'E.O.'464'violates'the'following'constitutional'provisions:'Art.' privilege."''
VI,'Sec.'21,'Art.'VI,'Sec.'22,'Art.'VI,'Sec.'1,'Art.'XI,'Sec.'1,'Art.'III,'Sec.'7,'Art.'III,'Sec.'4,' !
Art.'XIII,'Sec.'16,'Art.'II,'Sec.'28' Executive!privilege'
Respondents' Executive' Secretary' Ermita' et' al.,' on' the' other' hand,' pray' in' their' Schwartz'defines'executive'privilege'as'"the'power'of'the'Government'to'withhold'
'
consolidated'memorandum on'March'13,'2006'for'the'dismissal'of'the'petitions'for' information'from'the'public,'the'courts,'and'the'Congress."''
lack'of'merit.' The' entry' in' Blacks' Law' Dictionary' on' "executive' privilege"' is' similarly' instructive'
' regarding' the' scope' of' the' doctrine:' This' privilege,' based' on' the' constitutional'
Issue/Held:' doctrine' of' separation' of' powers,' exempts' the' executive' from' disclosure'
1.' Whether' E.O.' 464' contravenes' the' power' of' inquiry' vested' in' Congress\YES' but' not' all' requirements' applicable' to' the' ordinary' citizen' or' organization' where' such'
provisions'see'ratio.' exemption' is' necessary' to' the' discharge' of' highly' important' executive'
2.' Whether' E.O.' 464' violates' the' right' of' the' people' to' information' on' matters' of' public' responsibilities' involved' in' maintaining' governmental' operations,' and' extends' not'
concern\YES.' only' to' military' and' diplomatic' secrets' but' also' to' documents' integral' to' an'
3.' Whether' respondents' have' committed' grave' abuse' of' discretion' when' they' implemented' appropriate' exercise' of' the' executive' domestic' decisional' and' policy' making'
E.O.'464'prior'to'its'publication'in'a'newspaper'of'general'circulation.\YES.'' functions,' that' is,' those' documents' reflecting' the' frank' expression' necessary' in'
Ratio:' intra\governmental'advisory'and'deliberative'communications.'
Constitutionality!of!E.O.!464' That'a'type'of'information'is'recognized'as'privileged'does'not,'however,'necessarily'
The!power!of!inquiry! mean'that'it'would'be'considered'privileged'in'all'instances.'For'in'determining'the'
The'Congress'power'of'inquiry'is'expressly'recognized'in'Section'21'of'Article'VI'of' validity'of'a'claim'of'privilege,'the'question'that'must'be'asked'is'not'only'whether'
the'Constitution'which'reads:'
! !
the' requested' information' falls' within' one' of' the' traditional' privileges,' but' also' xxx'MR.'DAVIDE.'We'confirm'that,'Madam'President,'because'Section'20'refers'only'
whether'that'privilege'should'be'honored'in'a'given'procedural'setting.' to' what' was' originally' the' Question' Hour,' whereas,' Section' 21' would' refer'
The'leading'case'on'executive'privilege'in'the'United'States'is'U.S.'v.'Nixon,'decided' specifically' to' inquiries' in' aid' of' legislation,' under' which' anybody' for' that' matter,'
in'1974.'In'issue'in'that'case'was'the'validity'of'President'Nixons'claim'of'executive' may' be' summoned' and' if' he' refuses,' he' can' be' held' in' contempt' of' the' House.' A'
privilege' against' a' subpoena' issued' by' a' district' court' requiring' the' production' of' distinction' was' thus' made' between' inquiries' in' aid' of' legislation' and' the' question'
certain'tapes'and'documents'relating'to'the'Watergate'investigations.'The'claim'of' hour.'While'attendance'was'meant'to'be'discretionary'in'the'question'hour,'it'was'
privilege' was' based' on' the' Presidents' general' interest' in' the' confidentiality' of' his' compulsory'in'inquiries'in'aid'of'legislation.xxx'
conversations'and'correspondence.'The'U.S.'Court'held'that'while'there'is'no'explicit' Sections' 21' and' 22,' therefore,' while' closely' related' and' complementary' to' each'
reference' to' a' privilege' of' confidentiality' in' the' U.S.' Constitution,' it' is' other,'should'not'be'considered'as'pertaining'to'the'same'power'of'Congress.'One'
constitutionally' based' to' the' extent' that' it' relates' to' the' effective' discharge' of' a' specifically'relates'to'the'power'to'conduct'inquiries'in'aid'of'legislation,'the'aim'of'
Presidents' powers.' The' Court,' nonetheless,' rejected' the' Presidents' claim' of' which' is' to' elicit' information' that' may' be' used' for' legislation,' while' the' other'
privilege,'ruling'that'the'privilege'must'be'balanced'against'the'public'interest'in'the' pertains'to'the'power'to'conduct'a'question'hour,'the'objective'of'which'is'to'obtain'
fair'administration'of'criminal'justice.'Notably,'the'Court'was'careful'to'clarify'that'it' information'in'pursuit'of'Congress'oversight'function.'
was'not'there'addressing'the'issue'of'claims'of'privilege'in'a'civil'litigation'or'against' When' Congress' merely' seeks' to' be' informed' on' how' department' heads' are'
congressional'demands'for'information.' implementing'the'statutes'which'it'has'issued,'its'right'to'such'information'is'not'as'
The'court'went'on'to'citing'Philippine'cases'wherein'the'court'applied'the'privilege' imperative' as' that' of' the' President' to' whom,' as' Chief' Executive,' such' department'
refer'to'the'original'case'na'lang.'' heads'must'give'a'report'of'their'performance'as'a'matter'of'duty.'In'such'instances,'
! Section'22,'in'keeping'with'the'separation'of'powers,'states'that'Congress'may'only'
Validity!of!Section!1!of!EO!464! request'their'appearance.'Nonetheless,'when'the'inquiry'in'which'Congress'requires'
Section'1'is'similar'to'Section'3'in'that'both'require'the'officials'covered'by'them'to' their' appearance' is' "in' aid' of' legislation"' under' Section' 21,' the' appearance' is'
secure' the' consent' of' the' President' prior' to' appearing' before' Congress.' There' are' mandatory'for'the'same'reasons'stated'in'Arnault.'In'fine,'the'oversight'function'of'
significant' differences' between' the' two' provisions,' however,' which' constrain' this' Congress' may' be' facilitated' by' compulsory' process' only' to' the' extent' that' it' is'
Court'to'discuss'the'validity'of'these'provisions'separately.' performed'in'pursuit'of'legislation.''
Section' 1' specifically' applies' to' department' heads.' It' does' not,' unlike' Section' 3,' When'Congress'exercises'its'power'of'inquiry,'the'only'way'for'department'heads'to'
require'a'prior'determination'by'any'official'whether'they'are'covered'by'E.O.'464.' exempt'themselves'therefrom'is'by'a'valid'claim'of'privilege.'They'are'not'exempt'by'
The' President' herself' has,' through' the' challenged' order,' made' the' determination' the' mere' fact' that' they' are' department' heads.' Only' one' executive' official' may' be'
that' they' are.' Further,' unlike' also' Section' 3,' the' coverage' of' department' heads' exempted' from' this' power' ' the' President' on' whom' executive' power' is' vested,'
under'Section'1'is'not'made'to'depend'on'the'department'heads'possession'of'any' hence,'beyond'the'reach'of'Congress'except'through'the'power'of'impeachment.'It'
information' which' might' be' covered' by' executive' privilege.' In' fact,' in' marked' is' based' on' her' being' the' highest' official' of' the' executive' branch,' and' the' due'
contrast'to'Section'3'vis\\vis'Section'2,'there'is'no'reference'to'executive'privilege' respect'accorded'to'a'co\equal'branch'of'government'which'is'sanctioned'by'a'long\
at'all.'Rather,'the'required'prior'consent'under'Section'1'is'grounded'on'Article'VI,' standing'custom.'
Section'22'of'the'Constitution'on'what'has'been'referred'to'as'the'question'hour.' Having' established' the' proper' interpretation' of' Section' 22,' Article' VI' of' the'
SECTION'22.'The'heads'of'departments'may'upon'their'own'initiative,'with'the'consent'of'the' Constitution,'the'Court'now'proceeds'to'pass'on'the'constitutionality'of'Section'1'of'
President,' or' upon' the' request' of' either' House,' as' the' rules' of' each' House' shall' provide,' E.O.'464.'
appear' before' and' be' heard' by' such' House' on' any' matter' pertaining' to' their' departments.' Section' 1,' in' view' of' its' specific' reference' to' Section' 22' of' Article' VI' of' the'
Written' questions' shall' be' submitted' to' the' President' of' the' Senate' or' the' Speaker' of' the' Constitution'and'the'absence'of'any'reference'to'inquiries'in'aid'of'legislation,'must'
House' of' Representatives' at' least' three' days' before' their' scheduled' appearance.' be'construed'as'limited'in'its'application'to'appearances'of'department'heads'in'the'
Interpellations' shall' not' be' limited' to' written' questions,' but' may' cover' matters' related' question' hour' contemplated' in' the' provision' of' said' Section' 22' of' Article' VI.' The'
thereto.'When'the'security'of'the'State'or'the'public'interest'so'requires'and'the'President'so' reading' is' dictated' by' the' basic' rule' of' construction' that' issuances' must' be'
states'in'writing,'the'appearance'shall'be'conducted'in'executive'session.' interpreted,'as'much'as'possible,'in'a'way'that'will'render'it'constitutional.'
Determining'the'validity'of'Section'1'thus'requires'an'examination'of'the'meaning'of' The'requirement'then'to'secure'presidential'consent'under'Section'1,'limited'as'it'is'
Section' 22' of' Article' VI.' Section' 22' which' provides' for' the' question' hour' must' be' only'to'appearances'in'the'question'hour,'is'valid(on(its(face.'For'under'Section'22,'
interpreted' vis\\vis' Section' 21' which' provides' for' the' power' of' either' House' of' Article'VI'of'the'Constitution,'the'appearance'of'department'heads'in'the'question'
Congress'to'"conduct'inquiries'in'aid'of'legislation."' hour'is'discretionary'on'their'part.'
As' the' following' excerpt' of' the' deliberations' of' the' Constitutional' Commission' Section( 1( cannot,( however,( be( applied( to( appearances( of( department( heads( in(
shows,'the'framers'were'aware'that'these'two'provisions'involved'distinct'functions' inquiries(in(aid(of(legislation.'Congress'is'not'bound'in'such'instances'to'respect'the'
of'Congress.'(for'full'flow'see'full'text)' refusal' of' the' department' head' to' appear' in' such' inquiry,' unless' a' valid' claim' of'
! !
privilege' is' subsequently' made,' either' by' the' President' herself' or' by' the' Executive' Significant' premises' in' this' letter,' however,' are' left' unstated,' deliberately' or' not.'
Secretary.' The' letter' assumes' that' the' invited' officials' are' covered' by' E.O.' 464.' As' explained'
! earlier,'however,'to'be'covered'by'the'order'means'that'a'determination'has'been'
Validity!of!Sections!2!and!3! made,' by' the' designated' head' of' office' or' the' President,' that' the' invited' official'
Section' 3' of' E.O.' 464' requires' all' the' public' officials' enumerated' in' Section' 2(b)' to' possesses'information'that'is'covered'by'executive'privilege.''
secure' the' consent' of' the' President' prior' to' appearing' before' either' house' of' Inevitably,' Executive' Secretary' Ermitas' letter' leads' to' the' conclusion' that' the'
Congress.' The' enumeration' is' broad.' It' covers' all' senior' officials' of' executive' executive' branch,' either' through' the' President' or' the' heads' of' offices' authorized'
departments,' all' officers' of' the' AFP' and' the' PNP,' and' all' senior' national' security' under' E.O.' 464,' has' made' a' determination' that' the' information' required' by' the'
officials'who,'in'the'judgment'of'the'heads'of'offices'designated'in'the'same'section' Senate' is' privileged,' and' that,' at' the' time' of' writing,' there' has' been' no' contrary'
(i.e.'department'heads,'Chief'of'Staff'of'the'AFP,'Chief'of'the'PNP,'and'the'National' pronouncement' from' the' President.' In' fine,' an' implied' claim' of' privilege' has' been'
Security'Adviser),'are'"covered'by'the'executive'privilege."' made'by'the'executive.'
The' enumeration' also' includes' such' other' officers' as' may' be' determined' by' the' Section'3'of'E.O.'464,'therefore,'cannot'be'dismissed'outright'as'invalid'by'the'mere'
President.'Given'the'title'of'Section'2''"Nature,'Scope'and'Coverage'of'Executive' fact'that'it'sanctions'claims'of'executive'privilege.'This'Court'must'look'further'and'
Privilege"','it'is'evident'that'under'the'rule'of'ejusdem'generis,'the'determination' assess'the'claim'of'privilege'authorized'by'the'Order'to'determine'whether'it'is'valid.'
by'the'President'under'this'provision'is'intended'to'be'based'on'a'similar'finding'of' While' the' validity' of' claims' of' privilege' must' be' assessed' on' a' case' to' case' basis,'
coverage'under'executive'privilege.' examining' the' ground' invoked' therefor' and' the' particular' circumstances'
The'Court'notes'that'Section'2(b)'of'E.O.'464'virtually'states'that'executive'privilege' surrounding' it,' there' is,' in' an' implied' claim' of' privilege,' a' defect' that' renders' it'
actually' covers' persons.' Such' is' a' misuse' of' the' doctrine.' Executive' privilege,' as' invalid'per'se.'By'its'very'nature,'and'as'demonstrated'by'the'letter'of'respondent'
discussed'above,'is'properly'invoked'in'relation'to'specific'categories'of'information' Executive'Secretary'quoted'above,'the'implied'claim'authorized'by'Section'3'of'E.O.'
and'not'to'categories'of'persons.' 464'is'not'accompanied'by'any'specific'allegation'of'the'basis'thereof'(e.g.,'whether'
Upon'a'determination'by'the'designated'head'of'office'or'by'the'President'that'an' the' information' demanded' involves' military' or' diplomatic' secrets,' closed\door'
official' is' "covered' by' the' executive' privilege,"' such' official' is' subjected' to' the' Cabinet'meetings,'etc.).'While'Section'2(a)'enumerates'the'types'of'information'that'
requirement' that' he' first' secure' the' consent' of' the' President' prior' to' appearing' are'covered'by'the'privilege'under'the'challenged'order,'Congress'is'left'to'speculate'
before' Congress.' This' requirement' effectively' bars' the' appearance' of' the' official' as'to'which'among'them'is'being'referred'to'by'the'executive.'The'enumeration'is'
concerned'unless'the'same'is'permitted'by'the'President.'The'proviso'allowing'the' not'even'intended'to'be'comprehensive,'but'a'mere'statement'of'what'is'included'in'
President' to' give' its' consent' means' nothing' more' than' that' the' President' may' the' phrase' "confidential' or' classified' information' between' the' President' and' the'
reverse'a'prohibition'which'already'exists'by'virtue'of'E.O.'464.' public'officers'covered'by'this'executive'order."'
Thus,'underlying'this'requirement'of'prior'consent'is'the'determination'by'a'head'of' Certainly,'Congress'has'the'right'to'know'why'the'executive'considers'the'requested'
office,'authorized'by'the'President'under'E.O.'464,'or'by'the'President'herself,'that' information'privileged.'It'does'not'suffice'to'merely'declare'that'the'President,'or'an'
such' official' is' in' possession' of' information' that' is' covered' by' executive' privilege.' authorized' head' of' office,' has' determined' that' it' is' so,' and' that' the' President' has'
This' determination' then' becomes' the' basis' for' the' officials' not' showing' up' in' the' not'overturned'that'determination.'Such'declaration'leaves'Congress'in'the'dark'on'
legislative'investigation.' how'the'requested'information'could'be'classified'as'privileged.'That'the'message'is'
In' view' thereof,' whenever' an' official' invokes' E.O.' 464' to' justify' his' failure' to' be' couched'in'terms'that,'on'first'impression,'do'not'seem'like'a'claim'of'privilege'only'
present,' such' invocation' must' be' construed' as' a' declaration' to' Congress' that' the' makes' it' more' pernicious.' It' threatens' to' make' Congress' doubly' blind' to' the'
President,'or'a'head'of'office'authorized'by'the'President,'has'determined'that'the' question'of'why'the'executive'branch'is'not'providing'it'with'the'information'that'it'
requested' information' is' privileged,' and' that' the' President' has' not' reversed' such' has'requested.'
determination.' Such' declaration,' however,' even' without' mentioning' the' term' A' claim' of' privilege,' being' a' claim' of' exemption' from' an' obligation' to' disclose'
"executive' privilege,"' amounts' to' an' implied' claim' that' the' information' is' being' information,'must,'therefore,'be'clearly'asserted.''
withheld' by' the' executive' branch,' by' authority' of' the' President,' on' the' basis' of' Absent'then'a'statement'of'the'specific'basis'of'a'claim'of'executive'privilege,'there'
executive'privilege.'Verily,'there'is'an'implied'claim'of'privilege.' is'no'way'of'determining'whether'it'falls'under'one'of'the'traditional'privileges,'or'
The' letter' dated' September' 28,' 2005' of' respondent' Executive' Secretary' Ermita' to' whether,'given'the'circumstances'in'which'it'is'made,'it'should'be'respected.'
'
Senate' President' Drilon' illustrates' the' implied' nature' of' the' claim' of' privilege' Black'v.'Sheraton'Corp.'of'America amplifies,'thus:'
authorized'by'E.O.'464.'(see'full'text)'The'letter'does'not'explicitly'invoke'executive' A'formal'and'proper'claim'of'executive'privilege'requires'a'specific'designation'and'description'
privilege' or' that' the' matter' on' which' these' officials' are' being' requested' to' be' of'the'documents'within'its'scope'as'well'as'precise'and'certain'reasons'for'preserving'their'
resource'persons'falls'under'the'recognized'grounds'of'the'privilege'to'justify'their' confidentiality.'Without'this'specificity,'it'is'impossible'for'a'court'to'analyze'the'claim'short'of'
absence.' Nor' does' it' expressly' state' that' in' view' of' the' lack' of' consent' from' the' disclosure'of'the'very'thing'sought'to'be'protected.'As'the'affidavit'now'stands,'the'Court'has'
President'under'E.O.'464,'they'cannot'attend'the'hearing.' little'more'than'its'sua'sponte'speculation'with'which'to'weigh'the'applicability'of'the'claim.'
An'improperly'asserted'claim'of'privilege'is'no'claim'of'privilege.'Therefore,'despite'the'fact'
! !
that' a' claim' was' made' by' the' proper' executive' as' Reynolds' requires,' the' Court' can' not' which' means' that' he' personally' consulted' with' her.' The' privilege' being' an'
recognize' the' claim' in' the' instant' case' because' it' is' legally' insufficient' to' allow' the' Court' to' extraordinary'power,'it'must'be'wielded'only'by'the'highest'official'in'the'executive'
make' a' just' and' reasonable' determination' as' to' its' applicability.' To' recognize' such' a' broad' hierarchy.' In' other' words,' the' President' may' not' authorize' her' subordinates' to'
claim' in' which' the' Defendant' has' given' no' precise' or' compelling' reasons' to' shield' these' exercise'such'power.'There'is'even'less'reason'to'uphold'such'authorization'in'the'
documents'from'outside'scrutiny,'would'make'a'farce'of'the'whole'procedure.' instant'case'where'the'authorization'is'not'explicit'but'by'mere'silence.'Section'3,'in'
Upon'the'other'hand,'Congress'must'not'require'the'executive'to'state'the'reasons' relation'to'Section'2(b),'is'further'invalid'on'this'score.'
for'the'claim'with'such'particularity'as'to'compel'disclosure'of'the'information'which' It' follows,' therefore,' that' when' an' official' is' being' summoned' by' Congress' on' a'
103 matter'which,'in'his'own'judgment,'might'be'covered'by'executive'privilege,'he'must'
the' privilege' is' meant' to' protect. 'A' useful' analogy' in' determining' the' requisite'
degree'of'particularity'would'be'the'privilege'against'self\incrimination.'' be' afforded' reasonable' time' to' inform' the' President' or' the' Executive' Secretary' of'
The(claim(of(privilege(under(Section(3(of(E.O.(464(in(relation(to(Section(2(b)(is(thus( the'possible'need'for'invoking'the'privilege.'This'is'necessary'in'order'to'provide'the'
invalid(per(se.'It'is'not'asserted.'It'is'merely'implied.'Instead'of'providing'precise'and' President' or' the' Executive' Secretary' with' fair' opportunity' to' consider' whether' the'
certain' reasons' for' the' claim,' it' merely' invokes' E.O.' 464,' coupled' with' an' matter' indeed' calls' for' a' claim' of' executive' privilege.' If,' after' the' lapse' of' that'
announcement' that' the' President' has' not' given' her' consent.' It' is' woefully' reasonable' time,' neither' the' President' nor' the' Executive' Secretary' invokes' the'
insufficient' for' Congress' to' determine' whether' the' withholding' of' information' is' privilege,'Congress'is'no'longer'bound'to'respect'the'failure'of'the'official'to'appear'
justified' under' the' circumstances' of' each' case.' It' severely' frustrates' the' power' of' before'Congress'and'may'then'opt'to'avail'of'the'necessary'legal'means'to'compel'
inquiry'of'Congress.' his'appearance.'
In( fine,( Section( 3( and( Section( 2(b)( of( E.O.( 464( must( be( invalidated.' No( infirmity,( In' light' of' the' above' discussion' of' Section' 3,' it' is' clear' that' it' is' essentially' an'
however,(can(be(imputed(to(Section(2(a)(as(it(merely(provides(guidelines,'binding' authorization' for' implied' claims' of' executive' privilege,' for' which' reason' it' must' be'
only' on' the' heads' of' office' mentioned' in' Section' 2(b),' on' what' is' covered' by' invalidated.' That' such' authorization' is' partly' motivated' by' the' need' to' ensure'
executive' privilege.' It' does' not' purport' to' be' conclusive' on' the' other' branches' of' respect' for' such' officials' does' not' change' the' infirm' nature' of' the' authorization'
government.' It' may' thus' be' construed' as' a' mere' expression' of' opinion' by' the' itself.'
President'regarding'the'nature'and'scope'of'executive'privilege.' !
Petitioners,'however,'assert'as'another'ground'for'invalidating'the'challenged'order' Right!to!Information!
the'alleged'unlawful'delegation'of'authority'to'the'heads'of'offices'in'Section'2(b).' E.O' 464' is' concerned' only' with' the' demands' of' Congress' for' the' appearance' of'
Petitioner'Senate'of'the'Philippines,'in'particular,'cites'the'case'of'the'United'States' executive' officials' in' the' hearings' conducted' by' it,' and' not' with' the' demands' of'
where,' so' it' claims,' only' the' President' can' assert' executive' privilege' to' withhold' citizens' for' information' pursuant' to' their' right' to' information' on' matters' of' public'
information'from'Congress.' concern.'Petitioners'are'not'amiss'in'claiming,'however,'that'what'is'involved'in'the'
Section'2(b)'in'relation'to'Section'3'virtually'provides'that,'once'the'head'of'office' present' controversy' is' not' merely' the' legislative' power' of' inquiry,' but' the' right' of'
determines'that'a'certain'information'is'privileged,'such'determination'is'presumed' the'people'to'information.'
to' bear' the' Presidents' authority' and' has' the' effect' of' prohibiting' the' official' from' There' are,' it' bears' noting,' clear' distinctions' between' the' right' of' Congress' to'
appearing' before' Congress,' subject' only' to' the' express' pronouncement' of' the' information' which' underlies' the' power' of' inquiry' and' the' right' of' the' people' to'
President' that' it' is' allowing' the' appearance' of' such' official.' These' provisions' thus' information'on'matters'of'public'concern.'For'one,'the'demand'of'a'citizen'for'the'
allow'the'President'to'authorize'claims'of'privilege'by'mere'silence.' production' of' documents' pursuant' to' his' right' to' information' does' not' have' the'
Such' presumptive' authorization,' however,' is' contrary' to' the' exceptional' nature' of' same'obligatory'force'as'a'subpoena'duces'tecum'issued'by'Congress.'Neither'does'
the'privilege.'Executive'privilege,'as'already'discussed,'is'recognized'with'respect'to' the' right' to' information' grant' a' citizen' the' power' to' exact' testimony' from'
information' the' confidential' nature' of' which' is' crucial' to' the' fulfillment' of' the' government'officials.'These'powers'belong'only'to'Congress'and'not'to'an'individual'
'
unique'role'and'responsibilities'of'the'executive'branch, or'in'those'instances'where' citizen.'
exemption' from' disclosure' is' necessary' to' the' discharge' of' highly' important' Thus,'while'Congress'is'composed'of'representatives'elected'by'the'people,'it'does'
'
executive'responsibilities. The'doctrine'of'executive'privilege'is'thus'premised'on'the' not'follow,'except'in'a'highly'qualified'sense,'that'in'every'exercise'of'its'power'of'
fact'that'certain'informations'must,'as'a'matter'of'necessity,'be'kept'confidential'in' inquiry,'the'people'are'exercising'their'right'to'information.'
pursuit'of'the'public'interest.'The'privilege'being,'by'definition,'an'exemption'from' The'impairment'of'the'right'of'the'people'to'information'as'a'consequence'of'E.O.'
the'obligation'to'disclose'information,'in'this'case'to'Congress,'the'necessity'must'be' 464'is,'therefore,'in'the'sense'explained'above,'just'as'direct'as'its'violation'of'the'
of'such'high'degree'as'to'outweigh'the'public'interest'in'enforcing'that'obligation'in' legislatures'power'of'inquiry.'
a'particular'case.' !
In'light'of'this'highly'exceptional'nature'of'the'privilege,'the'Court'finds'it'essential' Implementation!of!E.O.!464!prior!to!its!publication!
to' limit' to' the' President' the' power' to' invoke' the' privilege.' She' may' of' course' While' E.O.' 464' applies' only' to' officials' of' the' executive' branch,' it' does' not' follow'
authorize'the'Executive'Secretary'to'invoke'the'privilege'on'her'behalf,'in'which'case' that'the'same'is'exempt'from'the'need'for'publication.''
the'Executive'Secretary'must'state'that'the'authority'is'"By'order'of'the'President,"'
! !
As' explained' above,' E.O.' 464' has' a' direct' effect' on' the' right' of' the' people' to' injunctive'relief'against'a'pending'preliminary'investigation'against'them'for'possible'
information'on'matters'of'public'concern.'It'is,'therefore,'a'matter'of'public'interest' court'martial'proceedings'(because'they'violated'the'directive'aforementioned).'
which'members'of'the'body'politic'may'question'before'this'Court.'Due'process'thus' 2. In'2005,'Senator'Biazon'invited'several'senior'officers'of'the'AFP'to'a'public'hearing'
requires' that' the' people' should' have' been' apprised' of' this' issuance' before' it' was' before'the'Senate'Committee'on'National'Defense'and'Security,'scheduled'on'Sept'
implemented.' 28,' 2005.' The' hearing' was' meant' to' investigate' allegations' of' massive' cheating' in'
! the' 2004' elections' and' an' audio' excerpt' of' a' phone' conversation' between' PGMA'
Conclusion! and'COMELEC'Commissioner'Garcillano'(Garci).'
Congress' undoubtedly' has' a' right' to' information' from' the' executive' branch' 3. In'2004,'Gen'Gudani'was'a'commander,'and'Col.'Balutan'a'member,'of'Joint'Task'
whenever' it' is' sought' in' aid' of' legislation.' If' the' executive' branch' withholds' such' Force' Ranao' by' the' AFP' Southern' Command.' The' said' task' force' was' tasked' with'
information' on' the' ground' that' it' is' privileged,' it' must' so' assert' it' and' state' the' the'maintenance'of'peace'and'order'in'Lanao'del'Norte'and'Lanao'del'Sur'during'the'
reason'therefor'and'why'it'must'be'respected.' 2004'elections.'
The' infirm' provisions' of' E.O.' 464,' however,' allow' the' executive' branch' to' evade' 4. Gudani,'Balutan'and'AFP'Chief'of'Staff'Senga'were'among'those'invited'by'Biazon.'
congressional'requests'for'information'without'need'of'clearly'asserting'a'right'to'do' Senga' declined' the' invitation' as' he' had' previous' commitments' in' Brunei' but'
so' and/or' proffering' its' reasons' therefor.' By' the' mere' expedient' of' invoking' said' directed' all' other' officers' of' the' AFP' who' were' invited' to' attend' the' hearing.' The'
provisions,' the' power' of' Congress' to' conduct' inquiries' in' aid' of' legislation' is' office' of' the' Chief' of' Staff' issued' a' memorandum' (Sept' 26' 2005)' directing' Gudani'
frustrated.'That'is'impermissible.'' and'Balutan'to'attend.'
Resort'to'any'means'then'by'which'officials'of'the'executive'branch'could'refuse'to' 5. The' day' after' (Sept' 27,' 2005)' ' the' memo' was' issued,' Chief' of' Staff' Senga' wrote' a'
divulge'information'cannot'be'presumed'valid.'Otherwise,'we'shall'not'have'merely' letter'to'Biazon'asking'for'the'postponement'of'the'hearing'since'he'cannot'be'there'
nullified'the'power'of'our'legislature'to'inquire'into'the'operations'of'government,' and'because'the'other'officers'of'the'AFP'are'attending'to'other'urgent'operational'
but'we'shall'have'given'up'something'of'much'greater'value''our'right'as'a'people' matters.'By'this'time,'Gudani'and'Senga'(who'were'then'assigned'in'the'Philippine'
to'take'part'in'government.' Military'Academy,'Baguio'City)'had'already'departed'Baguio'for'Manila.'
' 6. That'evening,'around'10:10pm,'a'message'was'transmitted'from'the'office'of'Gen.'
WHEREFORE,'the'petitions'are'PARTLY'GRANTED.'Sections'2(b)'and'3'of'Executive'Order'No.' Senga' stating' PER' INSTRUCTION' OF' HER' EXCELLENCY' PGMA,' NO' AFP' PERSONNEL'
464' (series' of' 2005),' "Ensuring' Observance' of' the' Principle' of' Separation' of' Powers,' SHALL'APPEAR'BEFORE'AN'Y'CONGRESSIONAL'OR'SENATE'HEARING'WITHOUT'HER'
Adherence'to'the'Rule'on'Executive' APPROVAL.'INFORM'BGEN'FRANCISCO'F'GUDANI'AND'LTC'ALEXANDER'BALUTAN'PA'
Privilege'and'Respect'for'the'Rights'of'Public'Officials'Appearing'in'Legislative'Inquiries'in'Aid' (GSC)'ACCORDINGLY.'
of'Legislation'Under'the'Constitution,'and'For'Other'Purposes,"'are'declared'VOID.'Sections'1' 7. The' following' day,' on' the' day' of' the' hearing,' Gen' Senga' wrote' another' letter' to'
and'2(a)'are,'however,'VALID.' Biazon'this'time'stating'that'no'approval'has'been'granted'by'the'President'to'any'
SO(ORDERED.' AFP'officer'to'appear'before'the'Senate'Hearing.'Nonetheless,'Gudani'and'Balutan'
were'present'when'the'hearing'started'and'they'both'testified'as'to'the'conduct'of'
' the'2004'elections.'
2. Gudani v. Senga (JM) 8. The'Office'of'the'Solicitor'General'(OSG),'representing'the'respondents'before'this'
GR'170165'|'August'15'2006' Court,'has'offered'additional'information'surrounding'the'testimony'of'Gen.'Gudani'
Keywords:'Power'of'Inquiry;'Hello'Garci;'Executive'Privilege'vs.'Commander\in\chief'powers' and' Col.' Balutan.' The' OSG' manifests' that' the' couriers' of'
' the'AFP'Command'Center'had' attempted' to' deliver' the' radio' message' to' Gen.'
Summary' Doctrine:' The' Court' ruled' in'Senate'that' the' President' may' not' issue' a' blanket' Gudanis' residence' in' a' subdivision' in'Paraaque'City'late' in' the' night' of'27'
requirement'of'prior'consent'on'executive'officials'summoned'by'the'legislature'to'attend'a' September'2005,'but'they'were'not'permitted'entry'by'the'subdivision'guards.'The'
congressional' hearing.' In' doing' so,' the' Court' recognized' the' considerable' limitations' on' next'day,'28'September'2005,'shortly'before'the'start'of'the'hearing,'a'copy'of'Gen.'
executive' privilege,' and' affirmed' that' the' privilege' must' be' formally' invoked' on' specified' Sengas' letter' to' Sen.' Biazon' sent' earlier' that' day' was' handed' at' the' Senate' by'
grounds.'However,( the( ability( of( the( President( to( prevent( military( officers( from( testifying( Commodore' Amable' B.' Tolentino' of' the' AFP' Office' for' Legislative' Affairs' to' Gen.'
before(Congress(does(not(turn(on(executive(privilege,(but(on(the(Chief(Executives(power(as( Gudani,' who' replied' that' he' already' had' a' copy.''Further,' Gen.' Senga' called'
commander/in/chief(to(control(the(actions(and(speech(of(members(of(the(armed(forces.(The( Commodore'Tolentino'on'the'latters'cell'phone'and'asked'to'talk'to'Gen.'Gudani,'
Presidents( prerogatives( as( commander/in/chief( are( not( hampered( by( the( same( limitations( but'Gen.'Gudani'refused.'In'response,'Gen.'Senga'instructed'Commodore'Tolentino'
as(in(executive(privilege.( to'inform'Gen.'Gudani'that'it'was'an'order,'yet'Gen.'Gudani'still'refused'to'take'
' Gen.'Sengas'call.'
FACTS:' 9. 'A'few'hours'after'Gen.'Gudani'and'Col.'Balutan'had'concluded'their'testimony,'the'
1. Petitioners'(high\ranking'military'officers'of'the'AFP,'Marines)'seek'the'annulment'of' office' of' Gen.' Senga' issued' a' statement' which' noted' that' the' two' had' appeared'
a'directive'issued'by'P.'Gloria'Macapagal\Arroyo'(PGMA)'which'enjoined'them'from' before' the' Senate' Committee' in' spite' of' the' fact' that' a' guidance' has' been' given'
testifying' before' Congress' without' the' Presidents' consent.' They' also' pray' for' that' a' Presidential' approval' should' be' sought' prior' to' such' an' appearance;' that'
! !
such' directive' was' in' keeping' with' the' time[\]honored' principle' of' the' Chain' of' those'public'officials'required'in'Section'3'of'E.O.'464'to'secure'prior'consent'of'the'
Command;' and' that' the' two' officers' disobeyed' a' legal' order,' in' violation' of' President'prior'to'appearing'before'either'House'of'Congress.''
Articles' of' War' 65' (Willfully' Disobeying' Superior' Officer),' hence' they' will' be' 3. Ruling' in' Senate' v.' Ermita' and' what' it' means:' The' Court' in'Senate'declared' both'
subjected' to' General' Court' Martial' proceedings' x' x' x' Both' Gen.' Gudani' and' Col.' Section' 2(b)' and' Section' 3' void,'and' the' impression' may' have' been' left'
Balutan'were'likewise'relieved'of'their'assignments'then.' following'Senate'v.!Ermita!that'it'settled'as'doctrine,'that'the'President'is'prohibited'
10. 'On' the' very' day' of' the' hearing,'28' September' 2005,' President' Gloria\Macapagal\ from' requiring' military' personnel' from' attending' congressional' hearings' without'
Arroyo' issued' Executive' Order' No.' 464' (E.O.' 464).' The' OSG' notes' that' the' E.O.' having'first'secured'prior'presidential'consent.'That(impression(is(wrong.'
enjoined'officials'of'the'executive'department'including'the'military'establishment' 4. Senate(v.(Ermita('looked'into'the'nature'of'the'executive'privilege,'insofar'as'EO'464'
from' appearing' in' any' legislative' inquiry' without' her' approval.' The' Court' tackles' compelled'officials'of'the'executive'branch'to'seek'prior'presidential'approval'before'
the' constitutionality' of' this' E.O.' in' Senate! v! Ermita' (this' will' be' discussed' in' the' appearing'in'Congress.'The( ability( of( the( President( to( require( a( military( official( to(
ratio).' secure( prior( consent( before( appearing( in( Congress( pertains( to( a( DIFFERENT( and(
11. When' the' petitioners' were' investigated' by' the' Office' of' the' Provost' Marshall' INDEPENDENT(kind(of(presidential(authoritythe(Commander/In/Chief(powers(of(
General' (OPMG),' they' both' invoked' their' right' to' remain' silent.' The' following' day,' the( president.' By' tradition' and' jurisprudence,' the' Commander\in\chief' powers' are'
Gudani' was' compulsorily' retired' from' service,' having' reached' the' age' of' 56.' The' not' subject' to' the' same' degree' of' restriction' as' that' attaching' to' the' executive'
OPMG' recommended' that' they' be' charged' with' violation' of' Article' of' War' 65,' on' privilege'or'executive'control.'
willfully' disobeying' a' superior' officer,' in' relation' to' Article' of' War' 97,' on' conduct' 5. While(the(deliberations(for(Senate&v.&Ermita(were(ongoing,(the(Court(was(aware(of(
prejudicial' to' the' good' order' and' military' discipline.' The' case' was' referred' to' Pre\ the( pendency( of( this( case.( The( decision( in( Senate& v& Ermita( was( rendered( by( the(
Trial'Investigation,'preparatory'for'a'trial'by'the'General'Court'Martial.' court( with( the( comfort( that( the( nullification( of( some( portions( of( EO( 464( would(
12. The' petitioners' characterize' PGMAs' directive' as' a' gag( order' which' violates' the' bear( no( impact( on( this( case( ( since( the( petitioners( here( were( not( called( for( a(
principles' of' separation' of' powers' in' government' as' it' interferes' with' the' violation( of( an( EXECUTIVE( order.( The( legal( issues( are( different( and( separate.(
investigation'of'the'Senate'Committee'conducted'in'aid'of'legislation.'According'to' Senate& v& Ermita( did( not( rule( on( the( faculty( of( the( President( as( a( commander/in/
them,' this' gag' order' also' violates' the' Constitution,' particularly' in' relation' to' the' chief( to( require( military( officials( from( securing( prior( consent( before( appearing( in(
publics' constitutional' right' to' information' and' transparency' in' matters' of' public' Congress.'
concern.' 6. ''In'Senate,'the'Court'ruled'that'the'President'could'not'impose'a'blanket'prohibition'
' barring' executive' officials' from' testifying' before' Congress' without' the' Presidents'
ISSUE:' consent' notwithstanding' the' invocation' of' executive' privilege' to' justify' such'
Whether'the'President'has'the'authority'to'issue'an'order'requiring'military'officials'to'seek' prohibition.'The'Court'did'not'rule'that'the'power'to'conduct'legislative'inquiry'ipso!
prior' approval' before' appearing' in' Congress' and' whether' such' an' order' is' subject' to' facto!superseded' the' claim' of' executive' privilege,' acknowledging' instead''that' the'
limitations.' viability'of'executive'privilege'stood'on'a'case'to'case'basis.'Should'neither'branch'
' yield'to'the'other'branchs'assertion,'the'constitutional'recourse'is'to'the'courts,'as'
HELD:'We'hold'that'the'President'has'constitutional'authority'to'do'so,'by'virtue'of'her'power' the' final' arbiter' if' the' dispute.' It' is' only' the' courts' that' can' compel,' with'
as' commander\in\chief,' and' that' as' a' consequence' a' military' officer' who' defies' such' conclusiveness,'attendance'or'non\attendance'in'legislative'inquiries.'
injunction'is'liable'under'military'justice.'At'the'same'time,'we'also'hold'that'any'chamber'of' 7. Following'these'principles,'it'is'clear'that'if'the'President'or'the'Chief'of'Staff'refuses'
Congress'which'seeks'the'appearance'before'it'of'a'military'officer'against'the'consent'of'the' to' allow' a' member' of' the' AFP' to' appear' before' Congress,' the' legislative' body'
President'has'adequate'remedies'under'law'to'compel'such'attendance.'Any'military'official' seeking' such' testimony' may' seek' judicial' relief' to' compel' the' attendance.' Such'
whom'Congress'summons'to'testify'before'it'may'be'compelled'to'do'so'by'the'President.'If' judicial'action'should'be'directed'at'the'heads'of'the'executive'branch'or'the'armed'
the'President'is'not'so'inclined,'the'President'may'be'commanded'by'judicial'order'to'compel' forces,'the'persons'who'wield'authority'and'control'over'the'actions'of'the'officers'
the'attendance'of'the'military'officer.'Final'judicial'orders'have'the'force'of'the'law'of'the'land' concerned.' The' legislative' purpose' of' such' testimony,' as' well' as' any' defenses'
which'the'President'has'the'duty'to'faithfully'execute.' against' the' same' ' whether' grounded' on' executive' privilege,' national' security' or'
' similar'concerns''would'be'accorded'due'judicial'evaluation.'All'the'constitutional'
RATIO:' considerations' pertinent' to' either' branch' of' government' may' be' raised,' assessed,'
' and'ultimately'weighed'against'each'other.'And'once'the'courts'speak'with'finality,'
EFFECT'OF'E.O.'464'AND'RULING'IN'SENATE'V.'ERMITA' both'branches'of'government'have'no'option'but'to'comply'with'the'decision'of'the'
1. It' must' be' noted' that' petitioners' are' not' called' for' violation' of' E.O.' 464' but' of' courts,'whether'the'effect'of'the'decision'is'to'their'liking'or'disfavor.''
violating'a'direct'order'of'General'Senga'not'to'appear'before'a'Senate'Committee '
an'order'that'stands'independent'of'E.O.'464.' THE'PRESIDENT'AS'COMMANDER\IN\CHIEF'OF'THE'ARMED'FORCES'
2. Distinctions' are' called' for,' since' Section' 2(b)' of' E.O.' 464' listed' generals' and' flag' 1. The'vitality'of'the'tenet'that'the'President'is'the'commander\in\chief'of'the'Armed'
officers' of' the' Armed' Forces' of' the' Philippines' and' such' other' officers' who' in' the' Forces'is'most'crucial'to'the'democratic'way'of'life,'to'civilian'supremacy'over'the'
judgment' of' the' Chief' of' Staff' are' covered' by' the' executive' privilege,' as' among' military,' and' to' the' general' stability' of' our' representative' system' of' government.'
! !
The' Constitution' reposes' final' authority,' control' and' supervision' of' the' AFP' to' the' This' case' stems' from' an' attempt' by' the' respondent'Ad! Hoc'Committee' of' the'
President,'a'civilian'who'is'not'a'member'of'the'armed'forces,'and'whose'duties'as' respondent'Sangguniang! Panlungsod!of' Dumaguete' to' punish' non\members' for'
commander\in\chief' represent' only' a' part' of' the' organic' duties' imposed' upon' the' legislative' contempt' which' was' halted' by' a' special' civil' action' of' certiorari'
office,'the'other'functions'being'clearly'civil'in'nature.' and'Prohibition'with'Preliminary'Injunction'and/or'Restraining'Order'questioning'the'
2. Outside' explicit' constitutional' limitations,' such' as' those' found' in' Section' 5,' Article' very'existence'of'the'power'in'that'local'legislative'body'or'in'any'of'its'committees.''
XVI,'the'commander\in\chief'clause'(Article'VII,'Section'18)'vests'on'the'President,'as' Assailed'is'the'validity'of'a'subpoena'dated'October'25,'1985'sent'by'the'respondent'
commander\in\chief,' absolute' authority' over' the' persons' and' actions' of' the' Committee' to' the' petitioners' Paterio' Torres' and' Arturo' Umbac,' Chairman' of' the'
members'of'the'armed'forces.'Such'authority'includes'the'ability'of'the'President'to' Board' of' Directors' and' the' General' Manager,' respectively,' of' petitioner' Negros'
restrict' the' travel,' movement' and' speech' of' military' officers,' activities' which' may' Oriental' II' Electric' Cooperative' (NORECO' II),' requiring' their' attendance' and'
otherwise'be'sanctioned'under'civilian'law.'' testimony'at'the'Committee's'investigation'on'October'29,'1985.'Similarly'under'file'
3. Critical' to' military' discipline' is' obeisance' to' the' military' chain' of' command.' Willful' is' the' Order' issued' by' the' same' Committee' on' the' latter' date,' directing' said'
disobedience'of'a'superior'officer'is'punishable'by'court\martial'under'Article'65'of' petitioners'to'show'cause'why'they'should'not'be'punished'for'legislative'contempt'
[45]
the'Articles'of'War. 'An'individual'soldier'is'not'free'to'ignore'the'lawful'orders'or' due'to'their'failure'to'appear'at'said'investigation.'
duties' assigned' by' his' immediate' superiors.' For' there' would' be' an' end' of' all' The' investigation' to' be' conducted' by' respondent' Committee' was' "in' connection'
discipline'if'the'seaman'and'marines'on'board'a'ship'of'war'[or'soldiers'deployed'in' with' pending' legislation' related' to' the' operations' of' public' utilities"'in' the' City' of'
the' field],' on' a' distant' service,' were' permitted' to' Dumaguete' where' petitioner' NORECO' II,' an' electric' cooperative,' had' its' principal'
act''upon''their''own''opinion'of''their''rights' [or''their''opinion' of' the' Presidents' place'of'business.''
intent],'and'to'throw'off'the'authority'of'the'commander'whenever(they(supposed( Specifically,' the' inquiry' was' to' focus' on' the' alleged' installation' and' use' by' the'
it(to(be(unlawfully(exercised.' petitioner' NORECO' II' of' inefficient' power' lines' in' that' city.' Respondent' Antonio' S.'
4. As' a' general' rule,' the' discretion' of' a' military' officer' to' restrain' the' speech' of''a' Ramas'Uypitching,'as'Chairman'of'the'Committee'on'Public'Utilities'and'Franchises'
soldier'under'his/her'command'will'be'accorded'deference,'with'minimal'regard'if'at' and'Co\Chairman'of'the'respondent'Ad'Hoc'Committee,'signed'both'the'subpoena'
all' to' the' reason' for' such' restraint.' It' is' integral' to' military' discipline' that' the' and'the'Order'complained'of.'
soldiers'speech'be'with'the'consent'and'approval'of'the'military'commander.' Petitioners' contend' that' the' respondent'Sangguniang! Panlungsod!of' Dumaguete' is'
5. Members' of' the' military' cannot' engage' in' direct' partisan' politics,' except' to' vote.' bereft'of'the'power'to'compel'the'attendance'and'testimony'of'witnesses,'nor'the'
Certainly,' no' constitutional' provision' or' military' indoctrination' will' eliminate' a' power' to' order' the' arrest' of' witnesses' who' fail' to' obey' its'subpoena.'It' is' further'
soldiers'ability'to'form'a'personal'political'opinion,'yet'it'is'vital'that'such'opinions' argued' that' assuming' the' power' to' compel' the' attendance' and' testimony' of'
be'kept'out'of'the'public'eye.'For'one,'political'belief'is'a'potential'source'of'discord' witnesses' to' be' lodged' in' said' body,' it' cannot' be' exercised' in' the' investigation' of'
among' people,' and' a' military' torn' by' political' strife' is' incapable' of' fulfilling' its' matters' affecting' the' terms' and' conditions' of' the' franchise' granted' to' NORECO' II'
constitutional'function'as'protectors'of'the'people'and'of'the'State.'For'another,'it'is' which'are'beyond'the'jurisdiction'of'the'Sangguniang'Panlungsod.'
ruinous' to' military' discipline' to' foment' an' atmosphere' that' promotes' an' active' Respondents,' for' their' part,' claim' that' inherent' in' the' legislative' functions'
dislike' of' or' dissent' against' the' President,' the' commander\in\chief' of' the' armed' performed' by' the' respondent'Sangguniang! Panlungsod'is' the' power' to' conduct'
forces.'Soldiers'are'constitutionally'obliged'to'obey'a'President'they'may'dislike'or' investigations'in'aid'of'legislation'and'with'it,'the'power'to'punish'for'contempt'in'
distrust.'This'fundamental'principle'averts'the'country'from'going'the'way'of'banana' inquiries'on'matters'within'its'jurisdiction.'It'is'also'the'position'of'the'respondents'
republics.' that' the' contempt' power,' if' not' expressly' granted,' is' necessarily' implied' from' the'
' powers'granted'the'Sangguniang!Panlungsod.'Furthermore,'the'respondents'assert'
3. Neg. O. II Elec. Coop v. Sangguniang Panlungsod (MT) that'an'inquiry'into'the'installation'or'use'of'inefficient'power'lines'and'its'effect'on'
G.R.'No.'72492'November'5,'1987' the'power'consumption'cost'on'the'part'of'Dumaguete'residents'is'well\within'the'
Petitioner:'Negros'Oriental'II'Electric'Cooperative,'Inc.,'Paterio'Torres'and'Arturo'Umbac' jurisdiction'of'the'Sangguniang!Panlungsodand'its'committees.'
Respondent:' Sangguniang' Panlungsod' of' Dumaguete,' The' Ad' Hoc' Committee' of' the' Sangguniang' Issue/Held:'WON'respondents'had'such'legislative'functions'express'or'implied?'NO.'
Panlunsod'of'Dumaguete'and'Antonio'S.'Ramas'Uypitching' Ratio:'
' 1. A' line' should' be' drawn' between' the' powers' of' Congress' as' the' repository' of'
Summary:' the'legislative!power'under'the'Constitution,'and'those'that'may'be'exercised'by'the'
Respondents' in' this' case' want' to' punish' for' legislative' contempt' non\members' of' their' legislative' bodies' of' local' government' unit,' e.g.' the'Sangguniang! Panlungsod'of'
committee' for' failure' to' appear' at' the' said' investigation' wherein' they' were' summoned.' Dumaguete' which,' as' mere' creatures' of' law,' possess'delegated! legislative!
Petitioners'counter'that'respondents'are'without'power'to'compel'attendance'and'testimony' power.'While' the' Constitution' does' not' expressly' vest' Congress' with' the' power' to'
of'witnesses'nor'the'power'to'arrest'them'for'failure'to'obey'their'subpoena.'Issue'is'whether' punish' non\members' for' legislative' contempt,' the' power' has' nevertheless' been'
or'not'respondents'have'the'power.'The'SC'ruled'that'they'do'not'have'such'power.'See'ratio.'' invoked'by'the'legislative'body'as'a'means'of'preserving'its'authority'and'dignity,'in'
' the' same' way' that' courts' wield' an' inherent' power' to' "enforce' their' authority,'
Facts:'
! !
preserve' their' integrity,' maintain' their' dignity,' and' ensure' the' effectiveness' of' the' functions' per' se' but' to' the' character' of' the' legislature' as' one' of' the' three'
administration' of' justice."' The' exercise' by' Congress' of' this' awesome' power' was' independent' and' coordinate' branches' of' government.' The' same' thing' cannot' be'
questioned'for'the'first'time'in'the'leading'case'of'Arnault!v.!Nazareno,(87'Phil.'29' said'of'local'legislative'bodies'which'are'creations'of'law.'
[1950])' where' this' Court' held' that' the' legislative' body' indeed' possessed' the' 3. To'begin'with,'there'is'no'express'provision'either'in'the'1973'Constitution'or'in'the'
contempt'power.' Local'Government'Code'(Batas'Pambansa'Blg.'337)'granting'local'legislative'bodies,'
a. That' case' arose' from' the' legislative' inquiry' into' the' acquisition' by' the' the' power' to' subpoena' witnesses' and' the' power' to' punish' non\members' for'
Philippine' Government' of' the' Buenavista' and' Tambobong' estates' contempt.' Absent' a' constitutional' or' legal' provision' for' the' exercise' of' these'
sometime' in' 1949.' Among' the' witnesses' called' and' examined' by' the' powers,' the' only' possible' justification' for' the' issuance' of' a' subpoena' and' for' the'
special' committee' created' by' a' Senate' resolution' was' Jean' L.' Arnault,' a' punishment'of'non\members'for'contumacious'behaviour'would'be'for'said'power'
lawyer' who' delivered' a' portion' of' the' purchase' price' to' a' representative' to'be'deemed'implied'in'the'statutory'grant'of'delegated'legislative'power.'But,'the'
of' the' vendor.' During' the' Senate,' investigation,' Amault' refused' to' reveal' contempt'power'and'the'subpoena'power'partake'of'a'judicial'nature.'They'cannot'
the' Identity' of' said' representative,' at' the' same' time' invoking' his' be'implied'in'the'grant'of'legislative'power.'Neither'can'they'exist'as'mere'incidents'
constitutional' right' against' self\incrimination.' The' Senate' adopted' a' of' the' performance' of' legislative' functions.' To' allow' local' legislative' bodies' or'
resolution'committing'Arnault'to'the'custody'of'the'Sergeant'at'Arms'and' administrative' agencies' to' exercise' these' powers' without' express' statutory' basis'
imprisoned' "until' he' shall' have' purged' the' contempt' by' revealing' to' the' would'run'afoul'of'the'doctrine'of'separation'of'powers.'
Senate'.'.'.'the'name'of'the'person'to'whom'he'gave'the'P440,000,'as'wen' a. There'being'no'provision'in'the'Local'Government'Code'explicitly'granting'
as' answer' other' pertinent' questions' in' connection' therewith.' In' local' legislative' bodies,' the' power' to' issue' compulsory' process' and' the'
upholding' the' power' of' Congress' to' punish' Arnault' for' contumacy' the' power' to' punish' for' contempt,' the' Sanggunian' Panlungsod' of'
Court' began' with' a' discussion' of' the' distribution' of' the' three' powers' of' Dumaguete'is!devoid!of!power!to!punish!the!petitioners!Torres!and!Umbac!
government'under'the'1935'Constitution.'Further,'the'Court'held:' for!contempt.!The'Ad\Hoc'Committee'of'said'legislative'body'has'even'less'
xxx'xxx'xxx...'(T)he'power'of'inquiry\with'process'to'enforce'it\is'an'essential'and'appropriate' basis'to'claim'that'it'can'exercise'these'powers.'
auxiliary'to'the'legislative'function.'A'legislative'body'cannot'legislate'wisely'or'effectively'in' '
the'absence'of'information'respecting'the'conditions'which'the'legislation'is'intended'to'affect' 4. Even' assuming' that' the' respondent' Sangguniang' Panlungsod' and' the' respondent'
or'change;'and'where'the'legislative'body'does'not'itself'possess'the'requisite'information'' Ad\Hoc'Committee'had'the'power'to'issue'the'subpoena'and'the'order'complained'
which'is'not'infrequently'true''recourse'must'be'had'to'others'who'possess'it.'Experience' of,'such'issuances'would'still'be'void'for'being'ultra!vires.'The'contempt'power'(and'
has' shown' that' mere' requests' for' such' information' are' often' unavailing,' and' also' that' the'subpoena'power)'if'actually'possessed,'may'only'be'exercised'where'the'subject'
information' which' is' volunteered' is' not' always' accurate' or' complete;' so' some' means' of' matter' of' the' investigation' is' within' the' jurisdiction' of' the' legislative' body.' As'
compulsion'is'essential'to'obtain'what'is'needed.'The'fact'that'the'Constitution'expressly'gives' admitted' by' the' respondents' in' their' Comment,' the' investigation' to' be' conducted'
to'Congress'the'power'to'punish'its'Members'for'disorderly'behaviour,'does'not'by'necessary' by'the'Ad\Hoc'Committee'was'to'look'into'the'use'by'NORECO'II'of'inefficient'power'
implication' exclude' the' power' to' punish' for' contempt' by' any' person.' But' no' person' can' be' lines' "of' pre\war' vintage"' which' the' latter' had' acquired' from' the' Visayan' Electric'
punished'for'contumacy'as'a'witness'before'either'House,'unless'his'testimony'is'required'in'a' Com.'company,'and'"to'hear'the'side'of'the'petitioners".'It'comes'evident'that'the'
matter'into'which'that'House'has'jurisdiction'to'inquire.'' inquiry' would' touch' upon' the' efficiency' of' the' electric' service' of' NORECO' II' and,'
b. When'the'framers'of'the'Constitution'adopted'the'principle'of'separation' necessarily,'its'compliance'with'the'franchise.'Such'inquiry'is'beyond'the'jurisdiction'
of' powers,' making' each' branch' supreme' within' the' real' of' its' respective' of'the'respondent'Sangguniang'Panlungsod'and'the'respondent'committee.'
authority,' it' must' have' intended' each' department's' authority' to' be' full' a. There' is' no' doubt' that' a' city' government' has' the' power' to' enact'
and'complete,'independently'of'the'other's'authority'or'power.'And'how' ordinances' regulating' the' installation' and' maintenance' of' electric' power'
could'the'authority'and'power'become'complete'if'for'every'act'of'refusal' lines' or' wires' within' its' territorial' jurisdiction.' The' power' subsists'
every' act' of' defiance,' every' act' of' contumacy' against' it,' the' legislative' notwithstanding'the'creation'of'the'National'Electrification'Administration'
body' must' resort' to' the' judicial' department' for' the' appropriate' remedy,' (NEA),'to'which'body'the'franchise'powers'of'local'government'units'were'
because' it' is' impotent' by' itself' to' punish' or' deal' therewith,' with' the' transferred' by' Presidential' Decree' No.' 269.' Section' 42' of' the' Decree'
affronts'committed'against'its'authority'or'dignity.'.'' states:'
' SEC.' 42.' Repeal! of! Franchise! Powers! of! Municipal! City! and! Provincial! Governments.! !The'
2. The' exercise' by' the' legislature' of' the' contempt' power' is' a' matter' of' self\ powers' of' municipal,' city' and' provincial' governments' to' grant' franchises,' as' provided' for' in'
preservation' as' that' branch' of' the' government' vested' with' the' legislative' power,' Title'34'of'the'Philippines'Statutes'or'in'any'special'law,'are'hereby'repealed;'Provided,'That'
independently' of' the' judicial' branch,' asserts' its' authority' and' punishes' contempts' this'section'shall'not'impair'or'invalidate'any'franchise'heretofore'lawfully'granted'by'such'a'
thereof.' The' contempt' power' of' the' legislature' is,' therefore,'sui! generis,'and' local' government'or!repeal!any!other!subsisting!power!of!such!governments!to!require!that!electric!
legislative'bodies'cannot'correctly'claim'to'possess'it'for'the'same'reasons'that'the' facilities!and!related!properties!be!so!located,!constructed!and!operated!and!maintained!as!to!
national' legislature' does.' The' power' attaches' not' to' the' discharge' of' legislative' be!safe!to!the!public'and'not'to'unduly'interfere'with'the'primary'use'of'streets,'roads,'alleys'
! !
and' other' public' ways,' buildings' and' grounds' over,' upon' or' under' which' they' may' be' built.' Respondents:'THE'SENATE'BLUE'RIBBON'COMMITTEE'AND'ITS'MEMBERS,'represented'by'and'through'the'
(This'Section'was'not'among'those'amended'by'Pres.'Dec.'Nos.'1370'[May'2,'1978]'and'1645' CHAIRMAN,'HON.'WIGBERTO'TAADA,'respondents,'JOSE'S.'SANDEJAS,'intervenor.'
[October'8,'1979]).' Padilla,'J.'
''
b. This' particular' power' of' the' city' government' is' included' in' the'
Summary'
enumeration'of'powers'and'duties'of'a'Sangguniang'Panlungsod'in'Section'
A'case'was'filed'against'Kokoy'Romualdez'in'the'SB'and'herein'petitioners'were'impleaded.'It'
177'of'the'Local'Government'Code'(Batas'Pambansa'Blg.'337,'February'10,'
concerned'among'other'things'the'sale'of'the'equity'of'Kokoy'in'36'or'39'corps'and'eventual'
1983),'to'wit:'
sale'to'Lopa'(brother\in\law'of'Marcos)'for'Php5'million.'In'a'privilege'speech'in'the'Senate,'
SEC.'177.'Powers!and!Duties.!!The'Sangguniang'Panlungsod'shall:'xxx'xxx'xxx'(j)'.'.'.'regulate' JPE' urged' the' Sente' to' look' into' these' transactions' for' a' possible' violation' of' RA' 3019.' The'
the' digging' and' excavation' for' the' laying' of' gas,' water,' power,' and' other' pipelines,' the' matter'was'referred'to'the'SBRC'for'investigation.'The'latter'subpoenaed'petitioners'to'testify'
building'and'repair'of'tunnels,'sewers'and'drains,'and'all'structures'thereunder;'the'placing,'
and'produce'documents.'The'petitioners'here'allege'that'the'investigation'will'prejudice'their'
stringing,'attaching,installing,!repair!and!construction!of!all!gas!mains,!electric,!telegraph!and! rights'in'the'case'before'the'SB.'SC'ruled'that'upon'examination'of'the'speech'of'JPE,'there'
telephone! wires,'conduits' meters' and' other' apparatus,' and'the! correction,! condemnation! of! can'be'discerned'no'legislative'purpose.'The'inquiry'must'be'done'in'aid'of'legislation'and'all'
the!same!when!dangerous!or!defective;!xxx'xxx'xxx' that' the' called' for' is' an' investigation' to' check' for' violation' of' RA' 3019.' That' is' more' for' the'
c. The'Sangguniang! Panlungsod!of' Dumaguete' may,' therefore,' enact' jurisdiction'of'the'courts.'It'further'ruled'that'Sec.'21,'Art.'VI'must'respect'the'Bill'of'Rights,'
ordinances'to'regulate'the'installation'and'maintenance'of'electric'power' among'those'are'the'rights'to'due'process'and'against'self\incrimination.'Under'the'latter,'the'
lines,'e.g.'prohibit'the'use'of'inefficient'power'lines,'in'order'to'protect'the' accused'in'a'criminal'case'is'absolutely'free'from'compulsion'from'testifying'at'all.'This'same'
city' residents' from' the' hazards' these' may' pose.' In' aid' of' this' ordinance' rule'can'apply'to'an'administrative'proceeding'which'bears'the'earmarks'of'a'criminal'case.''
making' power,' said' body' or' any' of' its' committees' may' conduct' '
investigations'similar'to,'but'not'the'same'as,'the'legislative'investigations' Facts'
conducted'by'the'national'legislature.'As'already'discussed,'the'difference' This' is' a' petition' for' prohibition' with' prayer' for' TRO' to' enjoin' the' Senate' Blue'
lies' in' the' lack' of' subpoena' power' and' of' the' power' to' punish' for' Ribbon' Committee' (SBRC)' from' requiring' the' petitioners' to' testify' and' produce'
contempt' on' the' part' of' the' local' legislative' bodies.' They' may' evidence' as' its' inquiry' into' the' alleged' sale' of' the' equity' of' Benjamin' Kokoy'
only'invite!resource' persons' who' are' willing' to' supply' information' which' Romualdez'to'the'Lopa'Group'in'36'or'39'corporations''
may' be' relevant' to' the' proposed' ordinance.' The' type' of' investigation' The'Republic'of'the'PH'repped'by'the'PCGG'and'assisted'by'the'SolGen'filed'with'the'
which'may'be'conducted'by'the'Sangguniang'PanLungsod'does'not'include' Sandiganbayan'(SB)'a'Civil'Case'0035'entitled'RP'v.'Benjamin'Kokoy'Romualdez,'
within' its' ambit' an' inquiry' into' any' suspected' violation' by' an' electric' et.al..' it' was' amended' several' times' and' in' its' second' amendement,' herein'
cooperative'of'the'conditions'of'its'electric'franchise.' petitioners'were'impleaded'
d. The'power'to'inquire'into'the'efficiency'of'the'service'supplied'by'electric' The' complaint' there' alleges' many' things' but' the' main' that' you' will' need' here' is'
cooperatives'is'within'the'franchising'powers'of'the'NEA'under'Sec.'43'of' quoted'below.'If'you'want'to'see'the'complete'list,'please'refer'to'the'original'kasi'
Pres.'Dec.'No.'269,'i.e.:'' ang'DAMI:'
(2)' to' repeal' and' cancel' any' franchise' if' the' NEA' finds' that' the' holder' thereof' is'not! then! o)! maneuvered,! with! the! technical! knowWhow! and! legalistic! talents! of! the! FMMC! senior!
furnishing,! and! is! unable! to! or! unailling! within! reasonable! time! to! furnish! adequate! and! managers! and! some! of! the! Bengzon! law! partners,! such! as! Attys.! Jose! F.S.! Bengzon,! Jr.,!
dependable!service!on!an!area!coverage!within!such!area;!xxx'xxx'xxx' Edilberto!S.!Narciso,!Jr.,!Amando!V.!Faustino,!Jose!Vicente!E.!Jimenez!and!Leonardo!C.!Cruz,!the!
e. In' the' exercise' of' this' power,' the' NEA' may' conduct' hearings' and' purported!sale!of!defendant!Benjamin!Romualdezs!interests!in!the!(i)!Professional!Managers,!
investigations,'issue'subpoenas'and'invoke'the'aid'of'the'courts'in'case'of' Inc.,! (ii)! A! &! E! International! Corporation! (A! &! E),! (iii)! First! Manila! Management! Corporation!
disobedience'to'its'subpoenas'(Sec.'47'&'Sec.'54,'P.D.'269).'Clearly,'then,' (FMMC),! (iv)! Maguindanao! Navigation! (MNI),! (v)! SOLOIL,! Inc.! (SOLOIL),! (vi)! Philippine! World!
the' Sangguniang' Panlungsod' of' Dumaguete' cannot' look' into' a' suspected' Travel!Inc.!(PWTI)!and!its!subsidiaries!consisting!of!36!corporations!in!all,!to!PNI!Holdings,!Inc.!
failure' of' NORECO' II' to' comply' with' the' standards' of' electric' service' (whose!purported!incorporators!are!all!members!of!Atty.!Jose!F.S.!Bengzons!law!firm)!for!only!
prescribed' by' law' and' in' its' franchise.' The' proper' recourse' is' to' file' a' P5!million!on!March!3,!1986!or!three!days!after!the!creation!of!the!Presidential!Commission!on!
complaint' with' the' NEA' against' NORECO' II' if' there' be' sufficient' basis' Good!Government!on!February!28,!1986,!for!the!sole!purpose!of!deceiving!and!preWempting!the!
therefor.' Government,!particularly!the!PCGG,!and!making!it!appear!that!defendant!Benjamin!Romualdez!
'' had! already! divested! himself! of! his! ownership! of! the! same! when! in! truth! and! in! fact,! his!
4. Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee (MR) interests!are!well!intact!and!being!protected!by!Atty.!Jose!F.S.!Bengzon,!Jr.!and!some!of!his!law!
G.R.'No.'89914.'November'20,'1991.' partners,!together!with!the!FMMC!senior!managers!who!still!control!and!run!the!affairs!of!said!
Petitioners:' JOSE' F.S.' BENGZON' JR.,' ABELARDO' TERMULO,' JOSE' MANTECON,' VICENTE' MILLS' JR.,' corporations,! and! in! order! to! entice! the! PCGG! to! approve! the! said! fictitious! sale,! the! aboveW
LEONARDO'GAMBOA,'KURT'BACHMANN'JR.,'JOSE'V'.E.'JIMENEZ,'ERNESTO'CALUY'A,'AGERICO'UNGSON,' named!defendants!offered!P20!million!as!donation!to!the!Government;!
SUSAN'ROXAS,'ELVIE'CASTILLO,'and'CYNTHIA'SABIDO'LIMJAP' '
! !
Respondents'filed'their'answers.'Meanwhile,'conflicting'reports'in'newspapers'came' that'the'rights'of'persons'under'the'Bill'of'Rights'must'be'respected,'including'the'
out'about'the'Romualdez'corporations.'One'was'to'the'effect'that'the'firms'were' right'to'due'process'and'the'right'not'to'be'compelled'to'testify'against'ones'self.'
not' sequestered' because' of' the' opposition' of' several' PCGG' officials' who' worked' Sec.'1'of'the'Senate!Rules!of!Procedure!Governing!Inquiries!in!Aid!of!Legislation.!Such'
previously' for' Marcos.' Another' was' that' shortly' after' EDSA' I,' the' companies' were' inquiries' may' refer' to' the' implementation' or' re\examination' of' any' law' or' in'
sold' for' Php' 5milllion' without' PCGG' approval' to' a' holding' company' controlled' by' connection' with' any' proposed' legislation' or' the' formulation' of' future' legislation.'
Romualdez,'and'that'Ricardo'Lopa,'brother\in\law'of'Marcos,'had'taken'over'them' They'may'also'extend'to'any'and'all'matters'vested'by'the'Constitution'in'Congress'
On'Sept.'13,'1988'Senate'Minority'Floor'Leader'Juan'Ponce'Enrile'(JPE)'delivered'a' and/or'in'the'Senate'alone'
speech'on'matter'of'personal'privilege'before'the'Senate'on'the'alleged'take'over' The'inquiry'must'be'material'or'necessary'to'the'exercise'of'a'power'in'it'vested'by'
of'SOLOIL'Inc.,'the'flagship'of'the'First'Manila'Management'Companies'(FMMC)'by' the' Constitution,' such' as' to' legislate' or' to' expel' a' member.' (Jean' Arnault' v.' Leon'
Ricardo' Lopa' and' he' called' upon' the' Senate' to' look' into' the' possible' violation' of' Nazareno,'et,al)'
the'law'in'the'case,'particularly'RA'3019'(Anti\Graft'and'Corrupt'Practices'Act)' Under'Sec.'4'of'the'Rules,'the'Senate'may'refer'to'any'committee'or'committees'any'
The' matter' was' referred' to' the' Committee' on' Accountability' of' Public' Officers' (or' speech' or' resolution' filed' by' any' Senator' which' in' its' judgment' requires' an'
the' Senate' Blue' Ribbon' Committee).' So' the' SBRC' started' investigation' and' it' appropriate'inquiry'in'aid'of'legislation.'In'order'therefore'to'ascertain'the'character'
subpoenaed'herein'petitioners'and'Lopa'to'testify'on'what'they'know'regarding'the' or'nature'of'an'inquiry,'resort'must'be'had'to'the'speech'or'resolution'under'which'
sale'of'the'36'or'39'corporations'belonging'to'Romualdez' such'an'inquiry'is'proposed'to'be'made.'
At'the'hearing,'Lopa'declined'to'testify'on'the'ground'that'his'testimony'may'unduly' Looking'at'Enriles'speech:'
prejudice'the'defendants'in'Civil'Case'0035'before'the'SB.'Bengzon'likewise'refused' o He'made'a'statement'accusing'Mr.'Ricardo'Baby'Lopa'of'having'taken'
invoking'his'right'to'due'process'and'the'same'thing'that'Lopa'also'said' over'the'FMMC'Group'of'Companies.'As'a'consequence'thereof,'Mr.'Lopa'
SBRC'suspended'its'inquiry'and'directed'the'petitioners'to'file'memorandum.'It'then' wrote'a'letter'to'Senator'Enrile'on'4'September'1988'categorically'denying'
decided'to'reject'their'plea'to'be'excused'from'testifying' that'he'had'taken'over'the'FMMC'
Thus,' this' petition.' Meanwhile,' Sandejas' filed' a' motion' for' intervention' (hes' not' o That'Ramon'Diaz'(Lopa)'himself'categorically'stated'in'a'telecast'interview'
mentioned'again).'Court'required'SBRC'to'filed'Comment' by' Mr.' Luis' Beltran' on' Channel' 7' that' he' denies' the' takeover' allegations'
SBRC' comment:' this' Court' cannot' properly' inquire' into' the' motives' of' the' and'they'are'baseless'and'malicious'
lawmakers' in' conducting' legislative' investigations,' much' less' can' it' enjoin' the' o The' Lopa' reply' prompted' JPE' to' avail' of' the' privilege' hour' to' respond' to'
Congress'or'any'of'its'regular'and'special'committeeslike'what'petitioners'seek the'Lopa'letter'and'to'vindicate'his'rep'as'a'Senator'
from'making'inquiries'in'aid'of'legislation' o JPE' quoted' several' portions' of' the' Memorandum' of' PCGG' stating:' when'
' he' and' the' members' of' his' task' force' sought' to' serve' a' sequestration'
Issue(s)& order' on' the' management' of' SOLOIL' in' Tanauan,' Leyte,' management'
Does'the'Court'have'jurisdiction?'YES' officials'assured'him'that'relatives'of'the'President'of'the'Philippines'were'
Can( the( petitioners( be( required( to( testify( in( this( inquiry( in( aid( of( legislation( personally' discussing' and' representing' SOLOIL' so' that' the' order' of'
according(to(Sec.(21,(Art.(VI?(NO( sequestration'would'be'lifted'and'that'the'new'owner'was'Mr.'Ricardo'A.'
( Lopa'They'even'assured'us'that'Mr.'Ricardo'Lopa'and'Peping'Cojuangco'
Ratio' were' personally' discussing' and' representing' SOLOIL,' so' the' order' of'
ON(JURISDICTION( sequestration'will'finally'be'lifted'In'fact'it'was'obviously'clear'that'they'
Consti'has'provided'for'an'elaborate'system'of'checks'and'balances.'The'overlapping' will' meet' us' with' force' the' moment' we' insist' on' doing' normally' our'
and'interlacing'of'functions'and'duties'between'the'several'departments,'however,' assigned'task.'
sometimes'makes'it'hard'to'say'just'where'the'one'leaves'off'and'the'other'begins.' o Another' impt' part' of' the' Memo:' President' of' SOLOIL,' and' the' Plant'
The'Constitution'is'a'definition'of'the'powers'of'government.'Who'is'to'determine' Superintendent,'Mr.'Jimenez'including'their'chief'counsel,'Atty.'Mandong'
the'nature,'scope'and'extent'of'such'powers?'The'judiciary'has'this'task' Mendiola' are' now' saying' that' there' have' been' divestment,' and' that' the'
The' Court' is' thus' of' the' considered' view' that' it' has' jurisdiction' over' the' present' new'owner'is'now'Mr.'Ricardo'Lopa'who'according'to'them,'is'the'brother\
controversy'for'the'purpose'of'determining'the'scope'and'extent'of'the'power'of'the' in\law' of' the' President.' They' even' went' further' by' telling' us' that' even'
SBRC'to'conduct'inquiries'in'aid'of'legislation'' Peping' Cojuangco' who' we' know' is' the' brother' of' her' excellency' is' also'
' interested'in'the'ownership'and'management'of'SOLOIL.'
ON(THE(INQUIRY(IN(AID(OF(LEGISLATION( o And'then'he'quoted'part'of'a'letter'Lopa'himself'wrote'to'the'newspaper'
Read'the'provision.'It'provides'that'the'investigation'must'be'in'aid'of'legislation'in' Malaya:' As' of' this' writing,' the' sales' agreement' is' under' review' by' the'
accordance' with' its' duly' published' rules' of' procedure' and' that' the' rights' of' PCGG' solely' to' determine' the' appropriate' price.' The' sale' of' these'
persons'appearing'in'or'affected'by'such'inquiries'shall'be'respected.'It'follows'then' companies'and'our'prior'right'to'reacquire'them'have'never'been'at'issue.'
! !
o So' his' point' was' that' its' very' clear' that' he' was' not' making' just' baseless' Another'impt'note'is'that'the'inquiry'right'of'Congress'is'subject'to'respect'for'the'
and'malicious'statements'and'then'he'called'on'the'Senate'to'look'into'a' Bill'of'Rights.'The'Court'differentiated'in'Romeo'Chavez'v.'CA'the'right'of'an'accused'
possible'violation'of'sec.'5,'RA'3019' against' self\incrimination' with' the' right' of' a' witness' against' self\incrimination:'
Verily,' the' speech' of' Senator' Enrile' contained' no' suggestion' of' contemplated' Whereas'an'ordinary'witness'may'be'compelled'to'take'the'witness'stand'and'claim'
legislation;'he'merely'called'upon'the'Senate'to'look'into'a'possible'violation'of'Sec.' the' privilege' as' each' question' requiring' an' incriminating' answer' is' shot' at' him,' an'
5'of'RA'No.'3019,' accused'may'altogether'refuse'to'take'the'witness'stand'and'refuse'to'answer'any'
In' other' words,' the' purpose' of' the' inquiry' to' be' conducted' by' respondent' Blue' and'all'questions.'
Ribbon'Committee'was'to'find'out'whether'or'not'the'relatives'of'President'Aquino,' Moreover,' this' right' of' the' accused' is' extended' to' respondents' in' administrative'
particularly' Mr.' Ricardo' Lopa,' had' violated' the' law' in' connection' with' the' alleged' investigations' but' only' if' they' partake' of' the' nature' of' a' criminal' proceeding' or'
sale'of'the'36'or'39'corporations'belonging'to'Benjamin'Kokoy'Romualdez'to'the' analogous' to' a' criminal' proceeding.' It' is' not' the' character' of' the' suit' involved' but'
Lopa'Group.'No'legislation'is'involved' the'nature'of'the'proceedings'that'controls''
SBRC' argued' that' the' inquiry' is' in' aid' of' Senate' Resolution' 212,' which' was' '
introduced'by'Jose'Lina'in'view'of'representations'made'by'leaders'of'school'youth,' 5. Standard v. Senate (NO)
community' groups' and' youth' of' non\governmental' organizations' to' the' Senate' G.R.(No.(No.(167173(||(December(27,(2007(||(J.&Nachura&
Committee'on'Youth'and'Sports'Development,'to'look'into'the'charges'against'the' Petitioner:( Paul' Simon' Morris,' Sundara' Ramesh,' Owen' Belman,' Sanjay' Aggarwal,' Rajamani'
PCGG'filed'by'three'(3)'stockholders'of'Oriental'Petroleum,'i.e.,'that'it'had'adopted'a' Chandrashekar,' Marivel' Gonzales,' Ma.' Ellen' Victor,' Chona' G.' Reyes,' Zenaida' Iglesias,' Ramona' Bernad,'
get\' rich\quick' scheme' for' its' nominee\directors' in' a' sequestered' oil' exploration' Michaelangelo' Aguilar,' and' Fernand' Tansingco' are' the' Chief' Executive' Officer,' Chief' Operations' Officer,'
firm.' The' Court' then' quotes' the' whereas' clauses' (you' can' check' the' orig' but' not' Country'Head'of'Consumer'Banking,'General'Manager'for'Credit'Card'and'Personal'Loans,'Chief'Financial'
impt)' Officer,' Legal' and' Compliance' Officer,' former' Trust' and' Investment' Services' Head,' Country' Tax' Officer,'
Head'of'Corporate'Affairs,'Head'of'Banking'Services,'Head'of'Client'Relationships,'and'the'Head'of'Global'
The'inquiry'under'Senate'Resolution'No.'212'is'to'look'into'the'charges'against'the'
Markets'of'SCB\Philippines,'respectively(
PCGG' filed' by' the' three' (3)' stockholders' of' Oriental' Petroleum' in' connection' with' Respondent:(SENATE'COMMITTEE'ON'BANKS,'FINANCIAL'INSTITUTIONS'AND'CURRENCIES,'as'represented'
the'implementation'of'Section'26,'Article'XVIII'of'the'Constitution.' by'its'Chairperson,'HON.'EDGARDO'J.'ANGARA.'
Thus,' it' has' nothing' to' do' with' the' JPE' privilege' speech' contents' because' firstly,' (
Senator'Enrile'did'not'indict'the'PCGG,'and,'secondly,'neither'Mr.'Ricardo'Lopa'nor' Summary:(
the'herein'petitioners'are'connected'with'the'government'but'are'private'citizens.' Sen.'Enrile'submitted'P.S.'Resolution'No.'166'to'conduct'an'inquiry'in'aid'of'legislation'on'the'
It'appears'then,'that'this'matter'is'more'within'the'province'of'the'courts.'It'can'not' high'risk'securities'of'the'Standard'Charter.'The'whereas'clauses'of'the'resolution'highlights'
be' overlooked' that' when' respondent' Committee' decided' to' conduct' its' that' existing' laws' including' the' Securities' Regulation' Code' seem' to' be' inadequate' in'
investigation' of' the' petitioners,' the' complaint' in' Civil' Case' No.' 0035' had' already' preventing'the'sale'of'unregistered'securities'and'in'effectively'enforcing'the'registration'rules'
been'filed'with'the'Sandiganbayan.' intended'to'protect'the'investing'public'from'fraudulent'practices;'the'inadequacy'of'BSP'and'
A'perusal'of'that'complaint'shows'that'one'of'its'principal'causes'of'action'against' SEC' in' regulating' it;' and' the' need' for' a' remedial' legislation' to' address' the' issue.' It' was'
herein' petitioners,' as' defendants' therein,' is' the' alleged' sale' of' the' 36' (or' 39)' followed' by' a' privilege' speech' entitled' Arrogance! of! Wealth! before' the' Senate' based' on' a'
corporations' belonging' to' Benjamin' Kokoy' Romualdez.' Since' the' issues' in' said' letter'from'Atty.'Bocobo'denouncing'SCB\Philippines'for'selling'unregistered'foreign'securities'
complaint' had' long' been' joined' by' the' filing' of' petitioners' respective' answers' in'violation'of'the'Securities'Regulation'Code.'Petitioners'sent'a'letter,'arguing'that'there'are'
thereto,' the' issue' sought' to' be' investigated' by' the' respondent' Committee' is' one' already' pending' cases' regarding' the' same' issue.' On' Feb' 28,' 2005,' the' hearing' date,' Enrile'
over'which'jurisdiction'had'been'acquired'by'the'Sandiganbayan.' moved' that' subpoenae' be' issued' to' those' who' did' not' attend' the' hearing.' Hence,' this'
To' allow' the' respondent' Committee' to' conduct' its' own' investigation' of' an' issue' petition.''
already'before'the'Sandiganbayan'would'not'only'pose'the'possibility'of'conflicting' Issue:'W/N'the'Senate'has'the'authority'to'hear'the'said'issue'in'aid'of'legislation.'Yes.'
judgments' between' a' legislative' committee' and' a' judicial' tribunal,' but' if' the' '
Committees' judgment' were' to' be' reached' before' that' of' the' Sandiganbayan,' the' Rebutting' petitioners' main' argument,' the' Court' said' that,' In' Bengzon,' the' Court' found' that'
possibility' of' its' influence' being' made' to' bear' on' the' ultimate' judgment' of' the' the'speech'of'Senator'Enrile,'which'sought'such'investigation'contained'no'suggestion'of'any'
Sandiganbayan'can'not'be'discounted.'Jurisdiction'of'the'SB'has'already'set'in' contemplated'legislation;'it'merely'called'upon'the'Senate'to'look'into'possible'violations'of'
Baremblatt' v.' US:' Since' Congress' may' only' investigate' into' those' areas' in' which' it' Section'5,'Republic'Act'No.'3019.'(Thus,'it'failed'to'comply'with'Sec.'7,'Art.'VI)'
may' potentially' legislate' or' appropriate,' it' cannot' inquire' into' matters' which' are' ' '
within' the' exclusive' province' of' one' of' the' other' branches' of' the' government.' The'mere'filing'of'a'criminal'or'an'administrative'complaint'before'a'court'or'a'quasi\judicial'
Lacking'the'judicial'power'given'to'the'Judiciary,'it'cannot'inquire'into'matters'that' body'should'not'automatically'bar'the'conduct'of'legislative'investigation.'P.S.'Resolution'No.'
are'exclusively'the'concern'of'the'Judiciary.'Neither'can'it'supplant'the'Executive'in' 166'is'explicit'on'the'subject'and'nature'of'the'inquiry'to'be'(and'already'being)'conducted'by'
what'exclusively'belongs'to'the'Executive.' the'respondent'Committee.'The'unmistakable'objective'of'the'investigation,'as'set'forth'in'the'
said' resolution,' exposes' the' error' in' petitioners' allegation' that' the' inquiry,' as' initiated' in' a'
! !
privilege'speech'by'the'very'same'Senator'Enrile,'was'simply'to'denounce'the'illegal'practice' did'not'attend'the'hearing'and'that'the'Senate'request'the'Department'of'Justice,'
committed'by'a'foreign'bank'in'selling'unregistered'foreign'securities'x'x'x.'Mere'filing'of'a' through'the'Bureau'of'Immigration'and'Deportation,'to'issue'an'HDO'against'them'
complaint' should' not' bar' the' senate' from' exercising' this' power,' otherwise,' it' would' be' and/or'include'them'in'the'Bureaus'Watch'List.'
extremely' easy' to' subvert' any' intended' inquiry' by' Congress' through' the' convenient' ploy' of' Towards' the' end' of' the' hearing,' petitioners,' through' counsel,' made' an' Opening'
instituting'a'criminal'or'an'administrative'complaint' Statement' that' brought' to' the' attention' of' respondent' the' lack' of' proper'
' authorization' from' affected' clients' for' the' bank' to' make' disclosures' of' their'
As'succinctly'stated'in'the'landmark'case'Arnault!v.!Nazareno,![T]he'power'of'inquiry''with' accounts' and' the' lack' of' copies' of' the' accusing' documents' mentioned' in' Senator'
process' to' enforce' it'' is' an' essential' and' appropriate' auxiliary' to' the' legislative' function.''A' Enrile's' privilege' speech,' and' reiterated' that' there' were' pending' court' cases'
legislative'body'cannot'legislate'wisely'or'effectively'in'the'absence'of'information'respecting' regarding' the' alleged' sale' in' the' Philippines' by' SCB\Philippines' of' unregistered'
the'conditions'which'the'legislation'is'intended'to'affect'or'change;'and'where'the'legislative' foreign'securities.(
body' does' not' itself' possess' the' requisite' information' ' which' is' not' infrequently' true' ' The' hearing' was' adjourned' but' subpoena' was' served' to' petitioners,' hence' this'
recourse'must'be'had'to'others'who'possess'it.' petition.(
( (
Facts:( Issue:(
On' February' 1,' 2005,' Senator' Juan' Ponce' Enrile,' delivered' a' privilege' speech' Whether'or'not'the'Senate'Committee'committed'GADALEJ.'No.'
entitled'Arrogance! of! Wealth! before' the' Senate' based' on' a' letter' from' Atty.' (
Bocobo' denouncing' SCB\Philippines' for' selling' unregistered' foreign' securities' in' Held:(
violation'of'the'Securities'Regulation'Code'(R.A.'No.'8799)'and'urging'the'Senate'to' WHEREFORE,' the' Petition' for' Prohibition' is'DENIED'for' lack' of' merit.''The' Manifestation' and'
immediately'conduct'an'inquiry,'in'aid'of'legislation,'to'prevent'the'occurrence'of'a' Motion'dated'June'21,'2006'is,'likewise,'DENIED'for'being'moot'and'academic.'
similar'fraudulent'activity'in'the'future.'' (
Prior'to'the'privilege'speech,'Senator'Enrile'had'introduced'P.S.'Resolution'No.'166,' Ratio:(
which'was'entitled,'TO'CONDUCT'AN'INQUIRY,'IN'AID'OF'LEGISLATION,'INTO'THE' Petitioners(Argument(
ILLEGAL'SALE'OF' UNREGISTERED' AND' HIGH\RISK' SECURITIES' BY' STANDARD' Petitioners' argue' that' 3' cases' pending' in' the' Court' of' Appeals,' 2' Criminal' cases' in'
CHARTERED' BANK' One' of' the' preambular' clauses' state,' WHEREAS,' there' are' RTC' of' Pasig' and' MTC' of' Makati,' respectively,' and' 1' civil' case' where' the' same'
complaints' against' Standard' Chartered' Bank' whose' actions' have' reportedly' subject' is' being' investigated.' Thus,' they' argue' that' senate' has' no' jurisdiction' to'
defrauded' hundreds' of' Filipino' investors' of' billions' of' pesos' through' the' sale' of' conduct'the'inquiry'because'its'subject'matter'is'the'very'same'subject'matter'of'the'
unregistered'securities'in'the'form'of'high\risk'mutual'funds'falsely'advertised'and' following'cases'
marketed'as'safe'investment'havens' Citing'Bengzon,!Jr.!v.!Senate!Blue!Ribbon!Committee,!the'petitioners'claim'that'since'
The' preambular' clauses' also' state' that' there' are' violations' of' the' General' Banking' the' issue' of' whether' or' not' SCB\Philippines' illegally' sold' unregistered' foreign'
1 2
act'of'2000 ,'and'the'securities'and'regulations'code .'' securities'is'already'preempted'by'the'courts'that'took'cognizance'of'the'foregoing'
Chairperson,' Senator' Edgardo' J.' Angara,' set' the' initial' hearing' on'February' 28,' cases,' the' respondent,' by' this' investigation,' would' encroach' upon' the' judicial'
2005'to' investigate,' in' aid' of' legislation,' the' subject' matter' of' the' speech' and' powers'vested'solely'in'these'courts.'
resolution' filed' by' Senator' Enrile.' Thereafter,' the' Senate' committee' invited' the' The' argument' of' petitioner' is' misplaced.' 'It' is' true' that' in'Bengzon,' the' Court'
petitioners.' declared' that' the' issue' to' be' investigated' was' one' over' which' jurisdiction' had'
Petitioners,' submitted' a' letter' to' the' Senate' Committee' stressing' that' there' were' already'been'acquired'by'the'Sandiganbayan,'and'to'allow'the'[Senate'Blue'Ribbon]'
cases'pending'in'court'allegedly'involving'the'same'issues'subject'of'the'legislative' Committee' to' investigate' the' matter' would' create' the' possibility' of' conflicting'
inquiry,'thereby'posing'a'challenge'to'the'jurisdiction'of'respondent'to'continue'with' judgments;' and' that' the' inquiry' into' the' same' justiciable' controversy' would' be' an'
the'inquiry.' encroachment'on'the'exclusive'domain'of'judicial'jurisdiction'that'had'set'in'much'
On'February' 28,' 2005,' the' investigation' commenced.' Senator' Enrile' inquired' who' earlier.'The'present'case'is'similar'to'Bengzon,'in'the'sense'that'there'are'pending'
among' those' invited' as' resource' persons' were' present' and' who' were' cases'in'the'courts,'but'the'semblance'ends'here.'
absent.''Thereafter,' Senator' Enrile' moved' that' subpoenae' be' issued' to' those' who' Central' to' the' Courts' ruling' in'Bengzon'\\' that' the' Senate' Blue' Ribbon' Committee'
was' without' any' constitutional' mooring' to' conduct' the' legislative' investigation' \\'
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' was' the' Courts' determination' that' the' intended' inquiry' was'not'in( aid( of(
1
'"Section!56.2!!The!act!or!omission!has!resulted!or!may!result!in!material!loss!or!damage!or!abnormal!risk!
legislation.(('
to!the!institution's!depositors,!creditors,!investors,!stockholders!or!to!the!Bangko!Sentral!or!to!the!public!in!
general."' In' Bengzon,' the' Court' found' that' the' speech' of' Senator' Enrile,' which' sought' such'
2
'!"Section!8.1!!Securities!shall!not!be!sold!or!offered!for!sale!or!distribution!within!the!Philippines,!without! investigation' contained' no' suggestion' of' any' contemplated' legislation;' it' merely'
a!registration!statement!duly!filed!with!and!approved!by!the!Commission.!!Prior!to!such!sale,!information! called'upon'the'Senate'to'look'into'possible'violations'of'Section'5,'Republic'Act'No.'
on!the!securities,!in!such!form!and!with!such!substance!as!the!Commission!may!prescribe,!shall!be!made! 3019.'(Thus,'it'failed'to'comply'with'Sec.'7,'Art.'VI)'
available!to!each!prospective!purchaser."'
! !
( In'Sabio!v.!Gordon,'we'have'held'that'the'right'of'the'people'to'access'information'
The(mere(filing(of(a(criminal(or(an(administrative(complaint(before(a(court(or(a(quasi/judicial( on'matters'of'public'concern'generally'prevails'over'the'right'to'privacy'of'ordinary'
body(should(not(automatically(bar(the(conduct(of(legislative(investigation.( financial' transactions.''In' that' case,' we' declared' that' the' right' to' privacy' is' not'
P.S.'Resolution'No.'166'is'explicit'on'the'subject'and'nature'of'the'inquiry'to'be'(and' absolute'where'there'is'an'overriding'compelling'state'interest.'
already'being)'conducted'by'the'respondent'Committee,'as'found'in'the'last'three' 'Employing'the'rational!basis!relationship!test,'as'laid'down'in'Morfe!v.!Mutuc,'!there'
Whereas'clauses'thereof,'viz.:' is' no' infringement' of' the' individuals' right' to' privacy' as' the' requirement' to'
' disclosure' information' is' for' a' valid' purpose,' in' this' case,' to' ensure' that' the'
''''''''''WHEREAS,' existing' laws' including' the' Securities' Regulation' Code' seem' to' be' government'agencies'involved'in'regulating'banking'transactions'adequately'protect'
inadequate' in' preventing' the' sale' of' unregistered' securities' and' in' effectively' the' public' who' invest' in' foreign' securities.''Suffice' it' to' state' that' this' purpose'
enforcing' the' registration' rules' intended' to' protect' the' investing' public' from' constitutes' a' reason' compelling' enough' to' proceed' with' the' assailed' legislative'
fraudulent'practices;' investigation'
'' Neither(can(the(petitioners(claim(that(they(were(singled(out(by(the(respondent(Committee.(
''''''''''''WHEREAS,' the' regulatory' intervention' by' the' SEC' and' BSP' likewise' appears' These' officials' (SEC' and' BSP)' were' subjected' to' the' same' critical' scrutiny' by' the'
inadequate'in'preventing'the'conduct'of'proscribed'activities'in'a'manner'that'would' respondent' relative' to' their' separate' findings' on' the' illegal' sale' of' unregistered'
protect'the'investing'public;' foreign' securities' by' SCB\Philippines.''It' is' obvious' that' the' objective' of' the'
'' investigation' was' the' quest' for' remedies,' in' terms' of' legislation,' to' prevent' the'
''''''''''''WHEREAS,' there' is' a' need' for' remedial' legislation' to' address' the' situation,' recurrence'of'the'allegedly'fraudulent'activity.'
having' in' mind' the' imposition' of' proportionate' penalties' to' offending' entities' and' The(exercise(is(not(in(aid(of(collection(
their' directors,' officers' and' representatives' among' other' additional' regulatory' Petitioners' insist' that' the' inquiry' conducted' by' respondent' was,' in' fact,' in' aid' of'
measures;'' collection.'They'claim'that'Atty.'Bocobo'and'Manuel'Baviera,'the'latter'a'party'to'
The' unmistakable' objective' of' the' investigation,' as' set' forth' in' the' said' resolution,' the'pending'court'cases'cited'by'petitioners,'were'only'seeking'a'friendly'forum'so'
exposes'the'error'in'petitioners'allegation'that'the'inquiry,'as'initiated'in'a'privilege' that' they' could' recover' their' investments' from' SCB\Philippines;' and' that' the'
speech'by'the'very'same'Senator'Enrile,'was'simply'to'denounce'the'illegal'practice' respondent' has' allowed' itself' to' be' used' as' the' conveniently' available' vehicle' to'
committed'by'a'foreign'bank'in'selling'unregistered'foreign'securities'x'x'x.' effect'this'purpose.'
This' fallacy' is' made' more' glaring' when' we' consider' that,' at' the' conclusion' of' his' Atty.'Bocobo'did'not'file'a'complaint'before'the'Senate'for'the'purpose'of'recovering'
privilege' speech,' Senator' Enrile' urged' the' Senate' to( immediately( conduct( an( his' investment.''On' the' contrary,' and' as' confirmed' during' the' initial' hearing,' his'
inquiry,(in(aid(of(legislation,(so(as(to(prevent(the(occurrence(of(a(similar(fraudulent( letter\complaint' humbly' requested' the' Senate' to' conduct' an' inquiry' into' the'
activity(in(the(future.' purportedly'illegal'activities'of'SCB\Philippines,'with'the'end'view'of'preventing'the'
'
Mere' filing' of' a' complaint' should' not' bar' the' senate' from' exercising' this' power,' future'occurrence'of'any'similar'fraudulent'activity'by'the'banks'in'general. '
otherwise,'it'would'be'extremely'easy'to'subvert'any'intended'inquiry'by'Congress' Baviera,' on' the' other' hand,' was' not' a' complainant' but' merely' a' witness' in' the'
through' the' convenient' ploy' of' instituting' a' criminal' or' an' administrative' investigation,' invited' to' testify' on' the' alleged' illegal' sale' of' unregistered' foreign'
complaint.''' securities'by'SCB\Philippines,'being'one'of'the'supposed'victims'thereof.'
Surely,' the' exercise' of' sovereign' legislative' authority,' of' which' the' power' of' Contempt(powers(of(the(Senate(
legislative' inquiry' is' an' essential' component,' cannot' be' made' subordinate' to' a' Petitioners' filed' a' TRO' for' the' March' 14,' 2005' hearing,' when' it' was' denied' by' the'
criminal'or'an'administrative'investigation.' court,' they' were' outraged' and' they' were' held' in' contempt' by' the' senate.' (They,'
As' succinctly' stated' in' the' landmark' case'Arnault! v.! Nazareno,! [T]he' power' of' together'with'their'counsel,'detained'for'6'hours)'
inquiry''with'process'to'enforce'it''is'an'essential'and'appropriate'auxiliary'to'the' They'filed'an'MR'only'with'respect'to'the'denial'of'the'prayer'for'the'issuance'of'a'
legislative' function.''A' legislative' body' cannot' legislate' wisely' or' effectively' in' the' TRO,'alleging'that'their'being'held'in'contempt'was'without'legal'basis,'as'the'phrase'
absence'of'information'respecting'the'conditions'which'the'legislation'is'intended'to' in'aid'of'collection'partakes'of'an'absolutely'privileged'allegation'in'the'petition.'
affect'or'change;'and'where'the'legislative'body'does'not'itself'possess'the'requisite' The' Court' has' already' expounded' on' the' essence' of' the' contempt' power' of'
information''which'is'not'infrequently'true''recourse'must'be'had'to'others'who' Congress' and' its' committees' in' this' wise,' when' the' framers' of' the' Constitution'
possess'it.' adopted'the'principle'of'separation'of'powers,'making'each'branch'supreme'within'
Right(to(privacy(in(in/aid(of(legislation(inquiries( the' realm' of' its' respective' authority,' it' must' have' intended' each' departments'
Suffice'it'to'state'that'privacy'is'not'an'absolute'right.''While'it'is'true'that'Section' authority' to' be' full' and' complete,' independently' of' each' others' authority' or'
21,' Article' VI' of' the' Constitution,' guarantees' respect' for' the' rights' of' persons' power.''And'how'could'the'authority'and'power'become'complete'if'for'every'act'of'
affected'by'the'legislative'investigation,'not'every'invocation'of'the'right'to'privacy' refusal,'every'act'of'defiance,'every'act'of'contumacy'against'it,'the'legislative'body'
should'be'allowed'to'thwart'a'legitimate'congressional'inquiry.'' must' resort' to' the' judicial' department' for' the' appropriate' remedy,' because' it' is'
! !
impotent' by' itself' to' punish' or' deal' therewith,' with' affronts' committed' against' its' 10/6/2008' ' a' Philippine' delegation' of' 8' senior' PNP' officers' arrived' in' Moscow,'
th
authority'or'dignity' Russia' to' attend' the' 77 ' Gen.' Assembly' Session' of' the' Intl' Criminal' Police'
The' exercise' by' Congress' or' by' any' of' its' committees' of' the' power' to' punish' Organization'[ICPO]\INTERPOL'in'St.'Petersburg'from'Oct.'6\10,'2008.'
contempt' is' based' on' the' principle' of' self\preservation.''As' the' branch' of' the' o With' the' delegation' was' Gen.' Dela' Paz,' then' comptroller' and' special'
government'vested'with'the'legislative'power,'independently'of'the'judicial'branch,' disbursing'officer'of'the'PNP.'Gen.'Dela'Paz,'however,'was'to'retire'from'
it'can'assert'its'authority'and'punish'contumacious'acts'against'it.' the'PNP'on'October'9,'2008.'
Such' power' is'sui! generis,!as' it' attaches' not' to' the' discharge' of' legislative' 10/11/2008'\'Gen.'Dela'Paz'was'apprehended'by'the'local'authorities'at'the'Moscow'
functions'per!se,'but'to'the'sovereign'character'of'the'legislature'as'one'of'the'three' airport' departure' area' for' failure' to' declare' in' written' form' the' 105,000' euros'
independent'and'coordinate'branches'of'government' [approximately'P6,930,000.00]'found'in'his'luggage.'In'addition,'he'was'also'found'
' to'have'in'his'possession'45,000'euros'(roughly'equivalent'to'P2,970,000.00).'
Petitioners' were' detained' in' Moscow' for' questioning.' After' a' few' days,' Gen.' Dela'
6. Dela Paz v. Senate (RS) Paz' and' the' PNP' delegation' were' allowed' to' return' to' the' Philippines,' but' the'
GR'NO'184849'|'Feb'13'2009'|'Nachura'
Russian'government'confiscated'the'euros.'
Petitioners:'Sps.'PNP'Dir.'Eliseo'Dela'Paz'(retired)'and'Maria'Fe'Dela'Paz'
Respondents:'Senate'Committee'on'Foreign'Relations,'Senate'Sergeant\at\Arms'Balajadia' 10/21/2008' \' Gen.' Dela' Paz' arrived' in' Manila,' a' few' days' after' Mrs.' Dela' Paz.'
' Awaiting' them' were' subpoenae' earlier' issued' by' respondent' Committee' for' the'
SUMMARY( investigation'it'was'to'conduct'on'the'Moscow'incident'on'October'23,'2008.'
Petitioners'were'in'Moscow'to'attend'a'conference.'Gen.'Dela'Paz'was'apprehended'by'the' 10/23/2008''respondent'Committee'held'its'first'hearing.'Instead'of'attending'the'
local' authorities' at' the' Moscow' airport' departure' area' for' failure' to' declare' in' written' form' hearing,' petitioners' filed' with' respondent' Committee' a' pleading' denominated'
the'105,000'euros'[approximately'P6,930,000.00]'found'in'his'luggage.'In'addition,'he'was'also' Challenge! to! Jurisdiction! with! Motion! to! Quash! Subpoena.' Senator' Santiago'
found' to' have' in' his' possession' 45,000' euros' (roughly' equivalent' to' P2,970,000.00).' emphatically' defended' respondent' Committees' jurisdiction' and' commanded'
apprehended' by' the' local' authorities' at' the' Moscow' airport' departure' area' for' failure' to' Balajadia'to'arrest'petitioners.'
declare'in'written'form'the'105,000'euros'[approximately'P6,930,000.00]'found'in'his'luggage.' Petitioners' argue' that' respondent' Committee' is' devoid' of' any' jurisdiction' to'
In'addition,'he'was'also'found'to'have'in'his'possession'45,000'euros'(roughly'equivalent'to' investigate' the' Moscow' incident' as' the' matter' does' not' involve' state\to\state'
P2,970,000.00).'Petitioners'argue'that'respondent'Committee'is'devoid'of'any'jurisdiction'to' relations' as' provided' in' paragraph' 12,' Section' 13,' Rule' 10' of' the' Senate' Rules' of'
investigate' the' Moscow' incident' as' the' matter' does' not' involve' state' to' state' relations' as' Procedure'(Senate'Rules).'
provided'in'paragraph'12,'Section'13,'Rule'10'of'the'Senate'Rules'of'Procedure'(Senate'Rules).' o They' further' claim' that' respondent' Committee' violated' the' same' Senate'
The'petition'should'not'be'granted.'Even(if(it(is(within(our(power(to(inquire(into(the(validity( Rules'when'it'issued'the'warrant'of'arrest'without'the'required'signatures'
of( the( exercise( of( jurisdiction( over( the( petitioners( by( the( Senate( Foreign( Relations( of'the'majority'of'the'members'of'respondent'Committee.'
Committee,( we( are( convinced( that( respondent( Committee( has( acted( within( the( proper( o They(likewise(assail(the(very(same(Senate(Rules(because(the(same(were(
sphere( of( its( authority.( A( reading( of( the( Senate( Rules( unmistakably( shows( that( the( not(published(as(required(by(the(Constitution,(and(thus,(cannot(be(used(
investigation( of( the( Moscow( incident( involving( petitioners( is( well( within( the( respondent( as( the( basis( of( any( investigation( involving( them(relative( to( the( Moscow(
Committees(jurisdiction.(The(Moscow(incident(could(create(ripples(in(the(relations(between( incident.(
the( Philippines( and( Russia.( Gen.( Dela( Paz( went( to( Moscow( in( an( official( capacity,( as( a( '
member(of(the(Philippine(delegation(to(the(INTERPOL(Conference(in(St.(Petersburg,(carrying( ISSUE:'WN'petition'should'be'granted.''NO,'but'see'the'SIXTH'part'of'the'ratio.'
a( huge( amount( of( public( money( ostensibly( to( cover( the( expenses( to( be( incurred( by( the( '
delegation.( For( his( failure( to( comply( with( immigration( and( currency( laws,( the( Russian( HELD:( Having' submitted' himself' to' the' jurisdiction' of' the' Senate' Committees,' there' was' no'
government(confiscated(the(money(in(his(possession(and(detained(him(and(other(members( longer' any' necessity' to' implement' the' order' of' arrest.' Furthermore,' in' the' same' hearing,'
of(the(delegation(in(Moscow.( Senator'Santiago'granted'the'motion'of'Gen.'Dela'Paz'to'dispense'with'the'presence'of'Mrs.'
' Dela' Paz' for' humanitarian' considerations.' Consequently,' the' order' for' her' arrest' was'
FACTS( effectively'withdrawn.'
Petition' for' certiorari' and' prohibition' under' R65' of' the' ROC' filed' by' petitioners' on' '
10/28/2008' assailing' allegedly' for' having' been' rendered' with' grave' abuse' of' RATIO(
discretion' amounting' to' lack' or' excess' of' jurisdiction,' the' orders' of' respondent' FIRST.' Section' 16(3),' Article' VI' of' the' Philippine' Constitution' states:' Each! House!
Committee,' through' its' Chairperson,' Senator' Defensor\Santiago' (1)' denying' shall!determine!the!rules!of!its!proceedings.'
petitioners' Challenge' to' Jurisdiction' with' Motion' to' Quash' Subpoenae' and' (2)' o This' provision' has' been' traditionally' construed' as' a' grant' of' full'
commanding' respondent' Sergeant\at\Arms' Balajadi' to' immediately' arrest' discretionary' authority' to' the' Houses' of' Congress' in' the' formulation,'
petitioners'during'the'Senate'committee'hearing'last'October'23,'2008.' adoption' and' promulgation' of' its' own' rules.' As' such,' the' exercise' of' this'
power' is' generally' exempt' from' judicial' supervision' and' interference,'
! !
except' on' a' clear' showing' of' such' arbitrary' and' improvident' use' of' the' respondent(Committee(can(properly(inquire(into(this(matter,(particularly(
power'as'will'constitute'a'denial'of'due'process.' as(to(the(source(and(purpose(of(the(funds(discovered(in(Moscow(as(this(
o The' challenge' to' the' jurisdiction' of' the' Senate' Foreign' Relations' would(involve(the(Philippines(commitments(under(these(conventions.(
Committee,' raised' by' petitioner' in' the' case' at' bench,' in' effect,' asks' this' THIRD.' The' Philippine' Senate' has' decided' that' the' legislative' inquiry' will' be' jointly'
Court' to' inquire' into' a' matter' that' is' within' the' full' discretion' of' the' conducted' by' the' respondent' Committee' and' the' Senate' Committee' on'
Senate.' Accountability'of'Public'Officers'and'Investigations'(Blue'Ribbon'Committee).'
o The'issue'partakes'of'the'nature'of'a'political'question'that,'in'Taada!v.! o Pursuant' to' paragraph' 36,' Section' 13,' Rule' 10' of' the' Senate' Rules,' the(
Cuenco,'was'characterized'as'a'question'which,'under'the'Constitution,'is' Blue( Ribbon( Committee( may( conduct( investigations( on( all( matters(
to' be' decided' by' the' people' in' their' sovereign' capacity,' or' in' regard' to' relating( to( malfeasance,( misfeasance( and( nonfeasance( in( office( by(
which'full'discretionary'authority'has'been'delegated'to'the'legislative'or' officers( and( employees( of( the( government,( its( branches,( agencies,(
executive' branch' of' the' government.' Further,' pursuant' to' this' subdivisions( and( instrumentalities,( and( on( any( matter( of( public( interest(
constitutional'grant'of'virtually'unrestricted'authority'to'determine'its'own' on(its(own(initiative(or(brought(to(its(attention(by(any(of(its(members.'
rules,'the'Senate'is'at'liberty'to'alter'or'modify'these'rules'at'any'time'it' o It'is,'thus,'beyond'cavil'that( the( Blue( Ribbon( Committee( can( investigate(
may' see' fit,' subject' only' to' the' imperatives' of' quorum,' voting' and' Gen.( Dela( Paz,( a( retired( PNP( general( and( member( of( the( official( PNP(
publication.' delegation( to( the( INTERPOL( Conference( in( Russia,( who( had( with( him(
o Thus,' it' is' not' for' this' Court' to' intervene' in' what' is' clearly' a' question' of' millions(which(may(have(been(sourced(from(public(funds.(
policy,' an' issue' dependent' upon' the' wisdom,' not' the' legality,' of' the' FOURTH.' Subsequent' to' Senator' Santiagos' verbal' command' to' Balajadia' to' arrest'
Senates'action.' petitioners,'the'Philippine'Senate'issued'a'formal'written'Order'of'arrest,'signed'by'
SECOND.'Even(if(it(is(within(our(power(to(inquire(into(the(validity(of(the(exercise(of( ten'(10)'senators,'with'the'Senate'President'himself'approving'it,'in'accordance'with'
jurisdiction( over( the( petitioners( by( the( Senate( Foreign( Relations( Committee,( we( the'Senate'Rules.'
are( convinced( that( respondent( Committee( has( acted( within( the( proper( sphere( of( FIFTH.'The'Philippine'Senate'has'already'published'its'Rules'of'Procedure'Governing'
its(authority.' Inquiries'in'Aid'of'Legislation'in'two'newspapers'of'general'circulation.'
o Paragraph' 12,' Section' 13,' Rule' 10' of' the' Senate' Rules' provides:' 12)' SIXTH.'The'arrest'order'issued'against'the'petitioners'has'been'rendered'ineffectual.'
Committee! on! Foreign! Relations.Fifteen' (15)' members.' All' matters' In' the' legislative' inquiry' held' on' November' 15,' 2008,' jointly' by' the' respondent'
relating' to' the' relations' of' the' Philippines' with' other' nations' generally;' Committee' and' the' Senate' Blue' Ribbon' Committee,' Gen.' Dela' Paz' voluntarily'
diplomatic' and' consular' services;' the' Association' of' Southeast' Asian' appeared' and' answered' the' questions' propounded' by' the' Committee' members.'
Nations;' the' United' Nations' Organization' and' its' agencies;' multi\lateral' Having'submitted'himself'to'the'jurisdiction'of'the'Senate'Committees,'there'was'no'
organizations,'all'international'agreements,'obligations'and'contracts;'and' longer' any' necessity' to' implement' the' order' of' arrest.' Furthermore,' in' the' same'
overseas'Filipinos.' hearing,'Senator'Santiago'granted'the'motion'of'Gen.'Dela'Paz'to'dispense'with'the'
o A( reading( of( the( above( provision( unmistakably( shows( that( the( presence'of'Mrs.'Dela'Paz'for'humanitarian'considerations.'Consequently,'the'order'
investigation(of(the(Moscow(incident(involving(petitioners(is(well(within( for'her'arrest'was'effectively'withdrawn.'
the(respondent(Committees(jurisdiction.( '
o The( Moscow( incident( could( create( ripples( in( the( relations( between( the(
Philippines(and(Russia.(
7. Romero v. Estrada (HQ)
G.R.'No.'174105'|'April'2,'2009'
o Gen.(Dela(Paz(went(to(Moscow(in(an(official(capacity,(as(a(member(of(the( Petitioners:'Reghis'M.'Romero'II'(Romero(II),'Edmond'Q.'Sese,'Leopoldo'T.'Sanchez,'Reghis'M.'Romero'III'
Philippine( delegation( to( the( INTERPOL( Conference( in( St.( Petersburg,( (Romero'III),'Michael'L.'Romero,'Nathaniel'L.'Romero'and'Jerome'R.'Canlas'
carrying( a( huge( amount( of( public( money( ostensibly( to( cover( the( Respondents:' Sen.' Jinggoy' E.' Estrada' and' Senate( Committee( on( Labor,( Employment( and( Human(
expenses(to(be(incurred(by(the(delegation.(For(his(failure(to(comply(with( Resources(Development((Committee)(
immigration(and(currency(laws,(the(Russian(government(confiscated(the( Velasco,!Jr.,!J.!
money( in( his( possession( and( detained( him( and( other( members( of( the( (
delegation(in(Moscow.( SUMMARY:'Petitioners'were'invited'to'a'Senate'Hearing'to'answer'questions'concerning'the'
o Also,'the(matter(affects(Philippine(international(obligations.(The'SC'takes' investments' of' OWWA' funds' in' the' Smokey' Mountain' project.' This' was' done' by' the' Senate'
judicial'notice'of'the'fact'that'the'Philippines'is'a'state\party'to'the'United' Committee' in' aid' of' legislation' ' to' determine' propriety' of' amending' Migrant' Workers' Act'
Nations'Convention'Against'Corruption'and'the'United'Nations'Convention' and' enactment' of' laws' to' protect' OWWA' funds.' Petitioners' filed' this' petition' to' assail' the'
Against' Transnational' Organized' Crime.' The' two' conventions' contain' constitutionality'of'the'invitations'and'subpoenas'issued'by'the'Senate'on'the'ground'that'the'
provisions' dealing' with' the' movement' of' considerable' foreign' currency' subject'matter'of'the'inquiry'is'sub!judice'because'of'the'pendency'of'Chavez'v.'NHA'case.'
across'borders.' W/N( the( subject( matter( of( the( Committees( Inquiry( is( sub& judice?( NO.'SC'held'that'it'is'no'
o The( Moscow( incident( reflect( on( our( countrys( compliance( with( the( longer' sub' judice' because' the' Chavez' case' (which' petitioners' say' has' the' same' issue' as' the'
obligations(required(of(state/parties(under(these(conventions.(Thus,(the( subject' matter' of' the' Senate' inquiry)' was' already' decided' with' finality' last' 2008.' Moreover,'
! !
even'assuming'it'was'still'pending,'mere'pendency'of'any'prosecution'or'administrative'action' 2days'after,'Romero'II'filed'a'Manifestation'with'Urgent'Plea'for'a'TRO,'he'alleges'
(or'while'it'is'on'appeal)'shall'not'bar'any'inquiry'in'aid'of'legislation.'Reason'is'that'inquiry' that:'
and' court' proceedings' have' different' purposes.' (note:' sub' judice' means' before' a' court' for' (1) He'answered'questions'concerning'the'investments'of'OWWA'funds'in'the'
consideration,' sub' judice' rules' purpose' is' to' avoid' disclosure/comments' etc.' to' avoid' Smokey'Mountain'project'and'how'much'of'OWWAs'original'investment'
prejudgment/bias'or'influence'in'the'decision)' had'already'been'paid'
( (2) When(Sen.(Estrada(called(on(Atty.(Francisco(Chavez,(as(resource(person,(
FACTS:( the(latter(spoke(of(the(facts(and(issues(he(raised(with(the(Court(in(Chavez&
Petition'for'prohibition,'TRO'and'Prelim.'Injunction'assailing(the(Constitutionality(of( v.&National&Housing&Authority,(none(of(which(were(related(to(the(subject(
the(invitations(and(other(compulsory(processes(issued'by'the'Senate(Committee(in' of(the(inquiry;'and'
connection' with' its' investigation( on( the( investment' of' Overseas' Workers' Welfare' (3) When' Sen.' Estrada' adjourned' the' investigation,' he' asked' petitioners'
Administration'(OWWA)(funds'in'the'Smokey(Mountain(Project' Romero'II'and'Canlas'to'return'at'the'resumption'of'the'investigation.''
Aug.' 15,' 3006:' Petitioner' Romero' II' (owner' of' R\II' Builders,' Inc.)' received' an' Note:'This'was'followed'by'the'filing'of'another'urgent'motion'for'a'TRO'(petitioners'
invitation'from'the'Committee'asking'him'to'go'to'the'hearing'and'answer'inquiries' imputed' to' the' Committee' the' intention' to' harass' them' as' none' of' them' except'
by'the'Senate'involving'the'investment'of'OWWA'funds.'It'reads:' Romero'II'had'even'been'mentioned'in'relation'to'the'subject'of'the'investigation)'
Pursuant' to' P.S.( Resolution( No.( 537,' entitled:' RESOLUTION! DIRECTING! THE! LABOR! Respondents'Comments'on'the'TRO:'
COMMITTEE! TO! INVESTIGATE,! IN! AID! OF! LEGISLATION,! THE! LIABILITY! FOR! PLUNDER! OF! THE! o Senates'motives'in'calling'for'an'investigation'in'aid'of'legislation'were'a'
FORMER!PRESIDENT!RAMOS!AND!OTHERS,!FOR!THE!ILLEGAL!INVESTMENT!OF!OWWA!FUNDS! political'question'
IN!THE!SMOKEY!MOUNTAIN!PROJECT,!CAUSING!A!LOSS!TO!OWWA!OF!P550.86!MILLION'and' o Pendency(of(Chavez(is(not(sufficient(ground(to(divest(the(respondents(of(
P.S.& Resolution& No.& 543,!entitled:!RESOLUTION!DIRECTING!THE!COMMITTEE!ON!LABOR!AND! their( jurisdiction( to( conduct( an( inquiry( into( the( matters( alleged( in( the(
EMPLOYMENT,! IN! ITS! ONGOING! INQUIRY! IN! AID! OF! LEGISLATION,! ON! THE! ALLEGED! OWWA! petition.((
LOSS! OF! P480! MILLION! TO! FOCUS! ON! THE! CULPABILITY! OF! THEN! PRESIDENT! FIDEL! RAMOS,! Petitioners(GROUNDS(in(this(petition:(
THEN! OWWA! ADMINISTRATOR! WILHELM! SORIANO,! AND! RWII! BUILDERS! OWNER! REGHIS! (1) Subject(matter(of(the(investigation(is(sub&judice(owing(to(the(pendency(of(
ROMERO! II,' the' Committee' on' Labor,' Employment' and' Human' Resources' Development' the(Chavez&petition(
chaired'by'Sen.'Jinggoy'Estrada'will'conduct'a'public'hearing'at'1PM'on'8/23/06'at'the'Sen.' (2) Investigation' has' been' intended' to' ascertain' petitioners' criminal' liability'
nd
G.T.'Pecson'Room,'2 'floor,'Senate'of'the'Phil.,'Pasay'City.' for'plunder'='it'is'not'in'aid'of'legislation(
' (3) Inquiry'is'in'violation'of'their'rights'against'self\incrimination(
The'inquiry/investigation'is'specifically'intended(to(aid(the(Senate(in(the(review(and(possible( (4) Petitioners'would'be'in'danger'of'being'arrested,'detained,'and'forced'to'
amendments(to(the(pertinent(provisions(of(RA(8042,(the(Migrant(Workers(Act'and'to'craft' give'testimony'against'their'will,'before'the'Court'could'resolve'the'issues'
a' much' needed' legislation' relative' to' the' stated' subject' matter' and' purpose' of' the' raised'in'Chavez!v!NHA(
aforementioned'Resolutions.' Respondents'Comments:'
' (1) Made(a(distinction(between(the(issues(raised(in( Chavez(and(the(subject(
By'virtue'of'the'power'vested'in'Congress'by'Art.(VI,(Sec.(21,(Consti'regarding'inquiries(in(aid( matter(of(the(inquiry(!(it(is(not(sub&judice&
of(legislation,(may'we'have'the'privilege'of'inviting'you'to'the'said'hearing'to'shed'light'on'any' (2) Subject'matter'of'the'investigation'!'alleged'dissipation'of'OWWA'funds;'
matter,'within'your'knowledge'and'competence,'covered'by'the'subject'matter'and'purpose' Purpose' !' aid' the' Senate' determine' the' propriety' of' amending' The!
of'the'inquiry.'Rest'assured'that'your(rights,(when(properly(invoked(and(not(unfounded,(will( Migrant! Workers! Act! and' enacting' laws' to' protect' OWWA' funds' in' the'
be(duly(respected.( future.'
Aug.18,' 2006:' Romero' II' requested( that( he( be( excused( from( appearing' and' (3) Proposed'resolutions'were'a'proper'subject'of'legislative'inquiry'
testifying'before'the'Committee.'DENIED'by'the'Committee'on'Aug.'28.' (4) Petitioners' right' against' self\incrimination' was' well\protected' and' could'
Aug.' 28,' 2006:' Invitations' (to' attend' the' hearing' on' Sept.' 4)' were' also' sent' to' the' be'invoked'when'incriminating'questions'were'propounded.''
other'6'petitioners'(former'members'of'the'BOD'of'R\II'Builders'Inc.)' (
The'next'day,'Sen.'Estrada'also'caused'the'service(of(subpoena(ad(testificandum(on( ISSUE:(Whether(or(not(the(subject(matter(of(the(Committees(inquiry(is(sub&judice?&
Romero( II( directing( him( to( appear( and( testify( before' the' Committee.' Separate' HELD:'Petition'DISMISSED.'
subpoenas'were'also'issued'to'other'petitioners.' (
Aug.' 30,' 2006:' Petitioners' filed' this' instant' petition' (on' the' basis' of' the' grounds' RATIO:(
stated'below)'to'enjoin'the'Committee'from'compelling'petitioners'to'appear'before' SUBJECT(MATTER(OF(THE(SENATE(INQUIRY(IS(NO(LONGER(SUB(JUDICE(
it.' *SUB(JUDICE(literally(means(before(a(court(or(judge(for(consideration(
No'TRO'was'issued'!'Romero'II'appeared'at'the'Committee'investigation'
! !
The' sub! judice' rule' restricts' comments' and' disclosures' pertaining' to' judicial' Standard! Chartered! Bank! v.! Senate! Committee! on! Banks,! Financial! Institutions! and!
proceedings'to'avoid'prejudging'the'issue,'influencing'the'court,'or'obstructing'the' Currencies:' The' mere' filing' of' a' criminal' or' an' administrative' complaint' before' a'
administration'of'justice.'' court'or'quasi\judicial'body'should'not(automatically(bar(the(conduct(of(legislative(
A'violation'of'the'sub!judice!rule'may'render'one'liable'for'indirect'contempt'(Sec.' investigation.'Otherwise,'it'would'be'extremely'easy'to'subvert'any'intended'inquiry'
3(d),'Rule'71'Rules'of'Court)' by' Congress' through' the' convenient' ploy' of' instituting' a' criminal' or' an'
Rationale(for(the(sub(judice(rule:(( administrative'complaint.'Surely,'the'exercise( of( sovereign( legislative( authority,( of(
o It'is'a'traditional'conviction'of'civilized'society'everywhere'that'courts'and' which(the(power(of(legislative(inquiry(is(an(essential(component,(cannot(be(made(
juries,' in' the' decision' of' issues' of' fact' and' law' should' be' immune' from' subordinate(to(a(criminal(or(administrative(investigation.(
every' extraneous' influence;' that' facts' should' be' decided' upon' evidence' Arnault! v.! Nazareno:' The' power' of' inquirywith' process' to' enforce' itis' an'
produced' in' court;' and' that' the' determination' of' such' facts' should' be' essential' and' appropriate' auxiliary' to' the' legislative' function.'' A' legislative' body'
uninfluenced' by' bias,' prejudice' or' sympathies.' (Nestle& Philippines& v.& cannot' legislate' wisely' or' effectively' in' the' absence' of' information' respecting' the'
Sanchez)' conditions' which' the' legislation' is' intended' to' affect' or' change;' and' where' the'
Chavez!case'(assuming'it'involves'issues'subject'of'the'Senate'inquiry)'is'no( longer( legislative' body' does' not' itself' possess' the' requisite' informationwhich' is' not'
sub&judice(or(before(a(court(or(judge(for(consideration.( infrequently'truerecourse'must'be'had'to'others'who'possess'it.'
By' an' en! banc' Resolution' dated' July' 1,' 2008,' the' Court,' in' GR' No.' 164527,' denied( Note:!Although!the!above!cases!pertain!only!to!pending!criminal!and!administrative!
with( finality'the'motion'of'Chavez'for'reconsideration'of'the'Decision'of'the'Court' case! before! lower! courts,! such! doctrine/pronouncements! by! SC! can! be! logically!
dated'August'15,'2007.' applied/extended!to!appealed!cases!and!SCA!awaiting!final!disposition!before!the!SC!
The! sub& judice( issue( has( been( rendered( moot( and( academic' by' the' supervening( ''
issuance(of(the(en&banc(Resolution'of'July'1,'2008'in'GR'No.'164527'(Chavez'v.'NHA' OTHER(MATTERS:(
case)'(Note:!see!above,!this!case!was!decided!only!on!April!2,!2009!meh)' On'the'termination'of'legislative'inquiry'|'Separability'of'past'and'present'Congress'
An' issue' or' a' case' becomes' moot' and' academic' when' it' ceases' to' present' a' SC' also' said' that' this' petition' has' also' been' mooted' due' to' the' fact' that' the'
justiciable' controversy,' so' that' a' determination' of' the' issue' would' be' without' resolutions'and'invitations'were'sent'out'last'Aug'2006'or'in'the'past(Congress.'
practical'use'and'value'as'there'is'no'actual'substantial'relief'to'which'the'petitioner' On' the' postulate' that' the' Senate' of' each' Congress' acts' separately' and'
would'be'entitled' independently'of'the'Senate'before'and'after'it,'the'invitations(and(subpoenas(are(
'' considered( functos& oficio& and( the( related( legislative( inquiry( conducted( is'
Even& assuming& hypothetically& that& Chavez& is& still& pending& final& adjudication& by& the& Court,& TERMINATED.'
still,&such&circumstance&would&NOT&bar&the&continuance&of&the&committee&investigation.' Neri!v.!Senate!Committee!on!Accountability!of!Public!Officers!and!Investigations:'The'
Sabio!v.!Gordon:'The'same'directors'and'officers'contend'that'the'Senate'is'barred' Senate'as'an'institution'is'continuing,'as'it'is'not'dissolved'as'an'entity'with'each'
from'inquiring'into'the'same'issues'being'litigated'before'the'Court'of'Appeals'and' national' election' or' change' in' the' composition' of' its' members.' However,' in' the'
the'Sandiganbayan.'Suffice'it'to'state'that'the'Senate(Rules(of(Procedure(Governing( conduct'of'its'day\to\day'business,'the'Senate'of'each'Congress'acts'separately'and'
3
Inquiries(in(Aid(of(Legislation'provide'that'the'filing(or(pendency(of(any(prosecution( independently'of'the'Senate'before'it. ''
or( administrative( action( should( NOT( stop( or( abate( any( inquiry( to( carry( out( a( Hence,' all( pending( matters( and( proceedings,( unpassed' bills' and( even( legislative(
legislative(purpose.( investigations,(of(the(Senate(of(a(particular(Congress(are(considered(TERMINATED'
'' upon'the(expiration(of(that(Congress'
LEGISLATIVE(INVESTIGATION((in(aid(of(legislation)(vs.(COURT(PROCEEDINGS( It'is'merely'OPTIONAL(on(the(Senate(of(the(succeeding(Congress(to(take(up(such(
They'have'different'purposes.' unfinished(matters,'not'in'the'same'status,'but'as(if(presented(for(the(first(time.'
Courts' conduct' hearings' or' like' adjudicative' procedures' to' settle,' through' the' Succeeding'Congress'(which'will'typically'have'a'different'composition)'should'not'
application' of' a' law,' actual' controversies' arising' between' adverse' litigants' and' be'bound'by'the'acts'and'deliberations'of'the'Senate'of'which'they'had'no'part.'
involving'demandable'rights.' '
Inquiries(in(aid(of(legislation'are'undertaken'as'tools'to'enable'the'legislative'body' On'the'right'against'self\incrimination'
to' gather' information' and,' thus,' legislate' wisely' and' effectively' and' to' determine'
whether' there' is' a' need' to' improve' existing' laws' or' enact' new' or' remedial'
legislation,'albeit'the'inquiry'need'not'result'in'any'potential'legislation.'
On/going( judicial( proceedings( do( NOT( preclude( congressional( hearings( in( aid( of( ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
legislation.' 3
'Rule' of' Senate' \' SEC.' 123.' Unfinished' business' at' the' end' of' the' session' shall' be' taken' up' at' the' next'
' session'in'the'same'status.'
Some'cases'cited:' All'pending'matters'and'proceedings'shall'terminate'upon'the'expiration'of'one'(1)'Congress,'but'may'be'
taken'by'the'succeeding'Congress'as'if'present[ed]'for'the'first'time.'
'
! !
This' may' be' invoked' only( when( the( incriminating( question( is( being( asked,( since( 8. On' September' 2007,' two' retired' Justices' of' the' Court' of' Appeals' (Ranada' and'
they(have(no(way(of(knowing(in(advance(the(nature(or(effect(of(the(questions(to( Agcaoili)'filed'a'Petition'for'Prohibition'with'prayer'for'issuance'of'TRO'and/or'writ'
be(asked(of(them.' of' P.I.' seeking' to' bar' the' Senate' from' conducting' the' inquiry,' contending' that' it'
That' this' right' may' possibly' be' violated' or' abused' is' no' ground' for' denying' violates'the'Anti\Wiretapping'Law'and'Sec.'3,'Article'III'of'the'Consti.'
respondent'Senate'Committees'their'power'of'inquiry.'' 9. The'Court'did'not'issue'an'injunctive'writ'so'the'Senate'proceeded'with'the'inquiry'
So'long' as' the' constitutional' rights' of' witnesses' will' be' respected' by' Senate' on'the'Hello'Garci'tapes.'
Committees,' it' is' their' duty' to' cooperate' with' them' in' their' efforts' to' obtain' the' 10. The' court' consolidated' the' petitions' of' Garcillano' and' that' of' the' two' retired'
facts'needed'for'intelligent'legislative'action.' Justices.'Note'the'difference'in'objectives'though:'
The( unremitting( obligation( of( every( citizen( is( to( respond( to( subpoena,( to( respect( a. Garcis'PetitionPrevent'playing'of'tapes'and'subsequent'inclusion'in'the'
the(dignity(of(the(Congress(and(its(Committees,(and(to(testify(fully(with(respect(to( committee'reports'
matters(within(the(realm(of(proper(investigation.' b. CA' Justices' PetitionProhibit' and' stop' the' conduct' of' the' Senate' inquiry'
'' on'the'wiretapped'conversation.'
'
8. Garcillano v. House (JM) '
GR'Nos'170338'&'179275|'23'DEC'2008'
Nachura,!J.'
ISSUES:'
' 1. W/N'the'petitioners'have'locus!standiYES'to'both'petitions.'
FACTS:' 2. W/N'Garcillanos'petition'is'moot'and'academicYES.'Garcillanos'petition'is'dismissed.'
1. Hello! GarciTapes' of' a' recorded' wiretapped' conversation' purportedly' between' 3. W/N(the(Senate(can(be(allowed(to(continue(the(legislative(inquiryNO.(SC'granted'the'
GMA' and' Commissioner' Garcillano' surfaced' in' 2005.' In' the' tapes,' GMA' allegedly' second'petition'(Retired'CA'justices).'The(Senate(cannot(be(allowed(to(continue(with(the(
ordered' Comm.' Garci' to' manipulate' the' results' of' the' 2004' elections' in' her' favor.' conduct( of( the( legislative( inquiry( without( DULY( PUBLISHED( RULES( OF( PROCEDURE,( in(
The'tapes'became'the'subject'of'heated'legislative'hearings'in'the'Senate'and'House' clear(derogation(of(the(constitutional(requirement.(
of'Representatives.' (
2. Say!ChizOn!'June'2005,'Minority'Floor'Leader'Chiz'Escudero''delivered'a'privilege' RATIO:'
speech'entitled'Tale'of'Two'Tapes'and'set'in'motion'a'congressional'investigation' 1. Section' 21,' Article' VI' states:' the' Senate' or' the' House' of' Representatives,' or' any' of' its'
jointly'conducted'by'the'Committees'on'Public'Information,'Public'Order'and'Safety,' respective'committees,'may'conduct'inquiries'in'aid'of'legislation'in&accordance&with&its&
National'Defense'and'Security,'Information'and'Communications'Technology,' 'and' duly&published&rules&of&procedure.'
Suffrage' and' Electoral' Reforms' (hereinafter' referred' to' as' the' respondent( 2. This' requisite' is' intended' to' satisfy' the' requirement' of' due' process.' PUBLICATION' is'
Committees).'Several'versions'of'the'wiretapped'conversations'emerged'but'on'July' imperative'for'it'will'be'an'injustice'to'punish'someone'for'the'transgression'of'a'law'or'
2005,' alleged' original' tape' recordings' of' the' three\hour' conversation' were' rule'of'which'he'had'no'notice'whatsoever,'not'even'a'constructive'one.'
presented' in' the' House.' After' a' debate' as' to' the' admissibility' and' authenticity' of' 3. What' constitutes' publication?' Article' 2' of' the' Civil' Code.' Laws' shall' take' effect' 15' days'
recordings,'they'were'played'in'the'Chambers'of'the'House.' following' the' completion' of' their' publication' either' in' the' Official' Gazette,' or' in' a'
3. On'August'3,'the'House'decided'to'suspend'the'hearings'indefinitely'but'decided'to' newspaper'of'general'circulation'in'the'Philippines.'
prepare'committee'reports'based'on'the'recordings'and'testimonies'of'witnesses.' 4. Senate'Rules'of'Procedure'Governing'Inquiries'in'Aid'of'Legislation'had'been'published'in'
th
4. Alarmed,' Garci' filed' a' Petition' for' Prohibition' and' Injunction,' with' Prayer' for' TRO' 1995' and' 2006.' But' with' respect' to' the' 14 ' Congress,' of' which' the' term' of' half' of' its'
and/or' Writ' of' Prelim.' Injunction' with' the' SC.' He' prayed' that' the' Committees' be' members'commenced'in'June'2007,'no'effort'was'undertaken'for'the'publication'of'these'
restrained' from' using' the' tape' recordings' of' the' illegally' obtained' wiretapped' rules'when'they'first'opened'their'session.'
conversations'in'the'committee'reports'and'for'whatever'purpose.'He'also'asked'the' 5. In' Neri! v.! Senate! Committee! on! Accountability! of! Public! Officers! and! Investigations,' the'
court'for'any'reference'to'the'recordings'to'be'stricken'off'the'records'of'the'inquiry' Court'ruled'on'the'same'question'and'said:'We'find'merit'in'the'argument'of'the'OSG'
and'for'the'Committees'to'further'desist'using'them'in'the'house'proceedings.'' that'respondent'Committees'likewise'violated'Section'21'of'Article'VI'of'the'Constitution,'
5. Without'reaching'a'resolution,'the'proceedings'and'debates'on'the'Hello'Garci'tapes' requiring'that'the'inquiry'be'in'accordance'with'the'"duly(published(rules(of(procedure."'
stopped.' We'quote'the'OSGs'explanation:''
6. Two' years' after,' eager' beaver' Sen.' Lacson' caused' the' issue' to' rise' from' the' dead,' The' phrase' "duly' published' rules' of' procedure"' requires' the' Senate' of' every'
with' his' privilege' speech' The' Lighthouse' That' Brought' Darkness' (our! legislators! Congress' to' publish' its' rules' of' procedure' governing' inquiries' in' aid' of' legislation'
have!a!flair!for!the!dramatic).'He'promised'to'provide'the'unvarnished'truth'of'the' because' every' Senate' is' distinct' from' the' one' before' it' or' after' it.' Since' Senatorial'
wiretapping' and' sought' an' inquiry' into' the' willingness' of' telecommunications' elections'are'held'every'three'(3)'years'for'one\half'of'the'Senates'membership,'the'
providers'in'wiretapping'activities.' composition'of'the'Senate'also'changes'by'the'end'of'each'term.'Each'Senate'may'
7. On'motion'from'Chiz'(senator'na'siya'by'then),'Lacsons'speech'was'referred'to'the' thus'enact'a'different'set'of'rules'as'it'may'deem'fit.'Not(having(published(its(Rules&
Senate'Committee'on'National'Defense'and'Security.'
! !
of& Procedure,( the( subject( hearings( in( aid( of( legislation( conducted( by( the( subsequent' Congresses' or' until' they' are' amended' or' repealed' to' sufficiently' put' public' on'
th
14 (Senate,(are(therefore,(procedurally(infirm.' notice.If'it'was'the'intention'of'the'Senate'for'its'present'rules'on'legislative'inquiries'to'be'
6. Justice'Carpios'dissenting'and'concurring'opinion'in'the'aforementioned'case'reinforces' effective' even' in' the' next' Congress,' it' could' have' easily' adopted' the' same' language' it' had'
the'ruling:' used'in'its'main'rules'regarding'effectivity.'
The'present'Senate'under'the'1987'Constitution'is'no'longer'a'continuing'legislative' 9. The' respondent' Senators' tried' to' justify' theirnon\observance' of' the' publication'
body.' The' present' Senate' has' twenty\four' members,' twelve' of' whom' are' elected' requirement'in'the'Constitution'by'saying'that'the'rules'have'never'been'amended'since'
every' three' years' for' a' term' of' six' years' each.' Thus,' the' term' of' twelve' Senators' 1995' and' despite' this,' they' are' published' in' a' booklet' available' to' everyone,' and'
expires'every'three'years,'leaving'less'than(a(majority(of(Senators(to(continue(into( accessible'via'the'Senates'web'page.'The'Court'rejected'this'argument.'The'Constitution'
the( next( Congress.' The' 1987' Constitution,' like' the' 1935' Constitution,' requires' a' instructs'that'the'Senate'or'its'committees'may'conduct'inquiries'in'aid'of'legislation'only(
majority' of' Senators' to' "constitute' a' quorum' to' do' business."' Applying' the' same' in( accordance( with( duly( published( rules( of( procedure,( and( does( not( make( any(
reasoning' in' Arnault! v.! Nazareno,' the' Senate' under' the' 1987' Constitution' is' not' a' distinction( whether( or( not( these( rules( have( undergone( amendments( or( revision.( This(
continuing' body' because' less' than' majority' of' the' Senators' continue' into' the' next' constitutional(mandate(prevails(over(any(custom,(practice(or(tradition(followed(by(the(
Congress.' The' consequence' is' that' the'Rules! of! Procedure'must' be' republished' by' Senate.'
the'Senate'after'every'expiry'of'the'term'of'twelve'Senators.' 10. Justice' Carpio' also' explained' that' the' booklet' in' the' website' is' not' sufficient' under'
7. But' the' Court' explained' further' in' its' Resolution' in' the' Neri! case:' On' the' nature' of' the' the'Taada!v.!Tuvera'ruling'which'requires'publication'either'in'the'Official'Gazette'or'in'
Senate'as'a'"continuing'body,"'this'Court'sees'fit'to'issue'a'clarification.'Certainly,'there'is' a'newspaper'of'general'circulation.'The'Rules!of!Procedure!(of!the!Senate)'even'provide'
no' debate' that' the' Senate'as( an( institution'is' "continuing,"' as' it' is' not' dissolved' as' an' that'the'rules'"shall'take'effect'seven'(7)'days'after'publication'in'two'(2)'newspapers'of'
entity'with'each'national'election'or'change'in'the'composition'of'its'members.(However,( general'circulation,"'precluding'any'other'form'of'publication.'Publication'in'accordance'
in( the( conduct( of( its( day/to/day( business( the( Senate( of( each( Congress( acts( separately( with'Taada'is'mandatory'to'comply'with'the'due'process'requirement'because'the'Rules!
and(independently(of(the(Senate(of(the(Congress(before(it.'The'Rules'of'the'Senate'itself' of! Procedure'put' a' persons' liberty' at' risk.' A' person' who' violates' the'Rules! of!
confirms'this'when'it'states:' Procedure'could'be'arrested'and'detained'by'the'Senate.'
11. The' Senators' also' argue' that' the' E\Commerce' Act' of' 2000' applies' to' them' (Lol!)' and'
makes'their'internet'publication'of'the'booklet'acceptable.'The'E\Commerce'Act'makes'
RULE'XLIV'
electronic' documents' a' functional' equivalent' of' written' ones' only( for( evidentiary(
UNFINISHED'BUSINESS'
purposes.'IT'DOES'NOT'MAKE'THE'INTERNET'A'MEDIUM'FOR'PUBLISHING'LAWS,'RULES'
and'REGULATIONS.'
SEC.'123.'Unfinished'business'at'the'end'of'the'session'shall'be'taken'up'at'the'next' '
session'in'the'same'status.' Senate!caused!the!publication!of!the!Senate!Rules!of!Procedure!Governing!Inquiries!in!Aid!of!
Legislation! in! the! October! 31,! 2008! issues! of!Manila! Bulletin!and!Malaya.! While! we! take!
All(pending(matters(and(proceedings(shall(terminate(upon(the(expiration(of(one((1)( judicial! notice! of! this! fact,! the! recent! publication! does! not! cure! the! infirmity! of! the! inquiry!
Congress,' but' may' be' taken' by' the' succeeding' Congress' as' if' present' for' the' first' sought! to! be! prohibited! by! the! instant! petitions.! Insofar! as! the! consolidated! cases! are!
time.' concerned,! the! legislative! investigation! subject! thereof! still! could! not! be! undertaken! by! the!
respondent!Senate!Committees,!because!no!published!rules!governed!it,!in!clear!contravention!
Undeniably'from'the'foregoing,'all'pending'matters'and'proceedings,'i.e.,'unpassed'bills'and' of!the!Constitution.!
even' legislative' investigations,' of' the' Senate' of' a' particular' Congress' are' !
considered'terminated'upon'the'expiration'of'that'Congress'and'it'is'merely'optional'on'the' 9. Neri v. Senate (VG & JT [separate opinions])
Senate'of'the'succeeding'Congress'to'take'up'such'unfinished'matters,'not(in(the(same(status,' Petitioner:'ROMULO'L.'NERI(
but' as' if' presented'for( the( first( time.' The' logic' of' such' a' rule:' the' Senate' of' the' succeeding' Respondents:( SENATE' COMMITTEE' ON' ACCOUNTABILITY' OF' PUBLIC' OFFICERS' AND' INVESTIGATIONS,'
Congress'(which'will'typically'have'a'different'composition'as'that'of'the'previous'Congress)' SENATE'COMMITTEE'ON'TRADE'AND'COMMERCE,'AND'SENATE'COMMITTEE'ON'NATIONAL'DEFENSE'AND'
SECURITY'
should'not'be'bound'by'the'acts'and'deliberations'of'the'Senate'of'which'they'had'no'part.'If'
G.R.'No.'180643''|'September'4,'2008'|'LEONARDO\DE'CASTRO,'J.:'
the'Senate'is'a'continuing'body'even'with'respect'to'the'conduct'of'its'business,'then'pending'
'
matters' will' not' be' deemed' terminated' with' the' expiration' of' one' Congress' but' will,' as' a'
In' the' syllabus,' it' is' under' respect! for! the! rights! of! persons! appearing! in! or! affected! by! such!
matter'of'course,'continue'into'the'next'Congress'with'the'same'status.'
inquires! (executive! privilege),! so' in' the' summary' I' just' focused' on' that' issue.' Sorry' kung'
th
mahaba,'I'had'to'put'everything'in'just'in'case'he'asks.'If'you'want,'just'go'directly'to'the'4 '
8. The'language'of'Section'21,'Article'VI'of'the'Constitution'requiring'that'the'inquiry' issue.'
be' conducted' in' accordance' with' the' duly' published' rules' of' procedure' is' categorical.' It' is' (
incumbent'upon'the'Senate'to'publish'the'rules'for'its'legislative'inquiries'in'each'Congress' Summary:( Sec.' Neri' testified' before' the' Senate' committee' about' the' NBN' project' being'
or' otherwise' make' the' published' rules' clearly' state' that' the' same' shall' be' effective' in' awarded' by' the' DOTC' to' ZTE.' He' said' that' Abalos' offered' him' 200M' php' to' approve' NBN'
! !
project.' He' informed' PGMA' but' she' told' him' to' refuse.' When' probed' further' on' President' BUT(Court(said(no:(His'only'request'was'that'he'be'furnished'a'copy'of'the'new'
Arroyo' and' Neris' discussions' relating' to' the' NBN' Project,' he' refused' to' answer,' invoking' questions' in' advance' to' enable' him' to' adequately' prepare' as' a' resource'
"executive' privilege."' Neri' refused' to' answer' questions' on:' (a)' whether' or' not' President' person.' He' did' not' attend' the' November' 20,' 2007' hearing' because' Executive'
Arroyo'followed'up'the'NBN'Project,'(b)'whether'or'not'she'directed'him'to'prioritize'it,'and' Secretary' Ermita' requested' respondent' Committees' to' dispense' with' his'
(c)'whether'or'not'she'directed'him'to'approve'it.'Ermita'wrote'a'letter'to'the'Senate'telling' testimony' on' the' ground' of' executive' privilege.' They' could' have' informed'
them'essentially'that'the'conversation'was'within'the'executive'privilege.'Neri'did'not'attend' petitioner'of'their'ruling'and'given'him'time'to'decide'whether'to'accede'or'file'
the'next'hearing.'Upon'reply'to'the'show\cause'letter'of'the'Senate,'Neri'requested'them'to' a'motion'for'reconsideration.'After'all,'he'is'not'just'an'ordinary'witness;'he'is'a'
send'him'in'advance'to'question'yet'to'be'clarified.'Senate'cited'him'in'contempt.'He'filed'for' high\'ranking'official'in'a'co\equal'branch'of'government.''
a'petition'for'certiorari.'Court'granted,'hence,'this'MR.'' '
' Facts:(
MAIN:'WON'respondent'Committees'committed'grave'abuse'of'discretion'in'issuing'the' On' September' 26,' 2007,' Neri' appeared' before' Senate' Committees' and' testified' for' 11'
contempt'order.' hours' on' matters' concerning' the' National' Broadband' Project' (the' "NBN' Project"),' a'
1. Senate( v.( Ermita' required' invitations' or' subpoenas' to' contain' the' "possible' project'awarded'by'the'Department'of'Transportation'and'Communications'("DOTC")'to'
needed'statute'which'prompted'the'need'for'the'inquiry"'along'with'the'"usual' Zhong'Xing'Telecommunications'Equipment'("ZTE").''
indication' of' the' subject' of' inquiry' and' the' questions' relative' to' and' in' Neri'disclosed'that'then'COMELEC'Chairman'Benjamin'Abalos'offered'him'P200'Million'in'
furtherance'thereof"'and'Senate'said'it'is'not'provided'for'by'the'Constitution' exchange'for'his'approval'of'the'NBN'Project.'He'said'that'he'informed'President'Arroyo'
and'is'merely'an'obiter'dictum.'' of'the'bribery'attempt'and'that'she'instructed'him'not'to'accept'the'bribe.''
BUT(Court(said(no:(The'requirements'set'forth'in'Senate'v.'Ermita'are'modest' When' probed' further' on' President' Arroyo' and' Neris' discussions' relating' to' the' NBN'
mechanisms'that'would'not'unduly'limit'Congress'power.'Likewise,(witnesses( Project,' he' refused' to' answer,' invoking' "executive' privilege."' Neri' refused' to' answer'
have( their( constitutional( right( to( due( process.( They' should' be' adequately' questions' on:' (a)' whether' or' not' President' Arroyo' followed' up' the' NBN' Project,' (b)'
informed'what'matters'are'to'be'covered'by'the'inquiry.'Clearly,'Neris'request' whether'or'not'she'directed'him'to'prioritize'it,'and'(c)'whether'or'not'she'directed'him'
to' be' furnished' an' advance' copy' of' questions' is' a' reasonable' demand' that' to'approve'it.'
should'have'been'granted.'( The'Committees'required'him'to'appear'and'testify'once'more.'Later,'Executive'Secretary'
2. Committees'contend'that'their'Rules'of'Procedure'Governing'Inquiries'in'Aid'of' Eduardo'R.'Ermita'wrote'to'the'Committees'and'requested'them'to'dispense'with'Neris'
Legislation'(the'"Rules")'are'beyond'the'reach'of'this'Court.'( testimony'on'the'ground'of'executive'privilege.''
BUT(Court(said(no:(While'it'is'true'that'this'Court'must'refrain'from'reviewing' The'letter'of'Executive'Secretary'Ermita'(excerpt)'stated'that:'
the' internal' processes' of' Congress,' as' a' co\equal' branch' of' government,' o Following' the' ruling' in' Senate! v.! Ermita,' the' foregoing' questions' fall' under'
however,' when' a' constitutional' requirement' exists,' the' Court' has' the' duty' to' conversations'and'correspondence'between'the'President'and'public'officials'which'
look' into' Congress' compliance' therewith.' There' is' a' cloud' of' doubt' as' to' the' are'considered'executive'privilege'(Almonte!v.!Vasquez;'Chavez!v.!PEA).''
validity'of'the'contempt'order'because'during'the'deliberation'of'the'three'(3)' o Maintaining'the'confidentiality'of'conversations'of'the'President'is'necessary'in'the'
respondent' Committees,' only' seven' (7)' Senators' were' present.' Obviously' the' exercise'of'her'executive'and'policy'decision'making'process'and'for'the'protection'
deliberation' of' the' respondent' Committees' that' led' to' the' issuance' of' the' of' the' public' interest' in' candid,' objective,' and' even' blunt' or' harsh' opinions' in'
contempt'order'is'flawed.'' Presidential'decision\making.''
' Section(21,(Article(VI(of(the(Constitution(states(that:(( o Disclosure' of' conversations' of' the' President' will' have' a' chilling' effect' on' the'
The' Senate' or' the' House' of' Representatives' or' any' of' its' respective' President.'
committees'may'conduct'inquiries'in'aid'of'legislation'in'accordance'with' o The' context' in' which' executive' privilege' is' being' invoked' is' that' the' information'
its'duly'published'rules'of'procedure.'The'rights'of'person'appearing'in'or' sought' to' be' disclosed' might' impair' our' diplomatic' as' well' as' economic' relations'
affected'by'such'inquiries'shall'be'respected.'(Emphasis'supplied)' with'the'Peoples'Republic'of'China.''
More' than' anybody' else,' it( is( the( witness( who( has( the( highest( stake( in( the( On'November'20,'2007,'Neri'did(not(appear'before'respondent'Committees'upon'orders'
proper(observance(of(the(Rules.'' of'the'President'invoking'executive'privilege.''
3. The' Committees' argue' that' the' Senate' does' not' have' to' publish' its' Rules' On' November' 22,' 2007,' the' Committees' issued' the' show/cause( letter' requiring' him' to'
because'the'same'was'published'in'1995'and'in'2006.'' explain'why'he'should'not'be'cited'in'contempt.''
BUT(Court(said(no:(The'Rules'simply'state'"(t)hese'Rules'shall'take'effect'seven' On'November'29,'2007,'in'Neris'reply'to'Committees,'he'manifested'that'it'was'not'his'
(7)' days' after' publication' in' two' (2)' newspapers' of' general' circulation."' The' intention'to'ignore'the'Senate,'manifested'his'willingness'to'appear'and'requested'that'
Senate' of' the' next' Congress' may' easily' adopt' different' rules' for' its' legislative' he'be'furnished'"in'advance'as'to'what'else"'he'"needs'to'clarify."''
inquiries'which'come'within'the'rule'on'unfinished'business.'' The' Committees' found' petitioners' explanations' unsatisfactory.' Without( responding( to(
4. The'Committees'last'argument'is'that'their'issuance'of'the'contempt'order'is' his(request(for(advance(notice(of(the(matters(that(he(should(still(clarify,'they'issued'the'
not'precipitate'or'arbitrary.'' Order' dated' January' 30,' 2008;' In( Re:( P.S.( Res.( Nos.( 127,129,136( &( 144;' and' privilege(
! !
speeches( of( Senator( Lacson( and( Santiago' (all' on' the' ZTE\NBN' Project),' citing' Neri' in' - The' Court' articulated' in' these' cases' that' "there' are' certain' types' of' information'
contempt' of' the' Committees' and' ordering' his' arrest' and' detention' at' the' Office' of' the' which'the'government'may'withhold'from'the'public,'"'that'there'is'a'"governmental'
Senate'Sergeant\at\Arms'until'such'time'that'he'would'appear'and'give'his'testimony.'' privilege' against' public' disclosure' with' respect' to' state' secrets' regarding' military,'
On'the'same'date,'Neri'moved'for'the'reconsideration'of'the'above'Order.'' diplomatic'and'other'national'security'matters";'and'that'"the(right(to(information(
The'Court'granted'his'petition'for'certiorari'on'two'grounds:'' does( not( extend( to( matters( recognized( as( privileged( information( under( the(
1. The' communications' elicited' by' the' three' (3)' questions' were' covered' by' executive' separation( of( powers,( by( which( the( Court( meant( Presidential( conversations,(
privilege' ' They' fall' under' the' presidential( communications( privilege' because' (a)' correspondences,(and(discussions(in(closed/door(Cabinet(meetings."''
they'related'to'a'quintessential'and'non\delegable'power'of'the'President,'(b)'they' The' Committees' observation' that' this' Courts' Decision' reversed' the' "presumption' that'
were'received'by'a'close'advisor'of'the'President,'and'(c)'the'Committees'failed'to' inclines' heavily' against' executive' secrecy' and' in' favor' of' disclosure"' arises' from' a'
adequately'show'a'compelling'need'that'would'justify'the'limitation'of'the'privilege' piecemeal'interpretation'of'the'said'Decision.'The'Court'has'repeatedly'held'that'in'order'
and'the'unavailability'of'the'information'elsewhere'by'an'appropriate'investigating' to'arrive'at'the'true'intent'and'meaning'of'a'decision,'no'specific'portion'thereof'should'
authority.' be'isolated'and'resorted'to,'but'the'decision'must'be'considered'in'its'entirety.''
2. The'Committees'committed'grave'abuse'of'discretion'in'issuing'the'contempt'order' While(executive(privilege(is(a(constitutional(concept,'a'claim'thereof'may'be'valid'or'not'
'(a)'there'was'a'valid'claim'of'executive'privilege,'(b)'their'invitations'to'petitioner' depending' on' the' ground' invoked' to' justify' it' and' the' context' in' which' it' is' made.'
did'not'contain'the'questions'relevant'to'the'inquiry,'(c)'there'was'a'cloud'of'doubt' Noticeably'absent'is'any'recognition'that'executive'officials'are'exempt'from'the'duty'to'
as' to' the' regularity' of' the' proceeding' that' led' to' their' issuance' of' the' contempt' disclose' information' by' the' mere' fact' of' being' executive' officials.' Indeed,' the(
order,' (d)' they' violated' Section' 21,' Article' VI' of' the' Constitution' because' their' extraordinary( character( of( the( exemptions( indicates( that( the( presumption( inclines(
inquiry'was'not'in'accordance'with'the'"duly'published'rules'of'procedure,"'and'(e)' heavily(against(executive(secrecy(and(in(favor(of(disclosure.'(Emphasis'and'underscoring'
they'issued'the'contempt'order'arbitrarily'and'precipitately.' supplied)'
The'Committees'filed'the'present'motion'for'reconsideration.'' Obviously,'the'last'sentence'of'the'above\quoted'paragraph'in'Senate'v.'Ermita'refers'to'
Neris'Comment:' the' "exemption"' being' claimed' by' the' executive' officials' mentioned' in' Section' 2(b)' of'
- He' charges' the' Committees' with' exaggerating' and' distorting' the' Decision' of' this' E.O.'No.'464,'solely'by'virtue'of'their'positions'in'the'Executive'Branch.'This'means'that'
Court.'' when'an'executive'official,'who'is'one'of'those'mentioned'in'the'said'Sec.'2(b)'of'E.O.'No.'
- He' Avers' that' there' is' nothing' in' it' that' prohibits' respondent' Committees' from' 464,'claims'to'be'exempt'from'disclosure,'there'can'be'no(presumption(of(authorization(
investigating'the'NBN'Project'or'asking'him'additional'questions.'' to(invoke(executive(privilege(given(by(the(President'to'said'executive'official,'such'that'
- Court'merely'applied'the'rule'on'executive'privilege'to'the'facts'of'the'case.'( the'presumption'in'this'situation'inclines'heavily'against'executive'secrecy'and'in'favor'of'
( disclosure.''
ISSUES:( Senate&v.&Ermita((expounds(on(the(premise(of(the(foregoing(ruling(in(this(wise:(
I. whether'or'not'there'is'a'recognized'presumptive'presidential'communications'privilege' Section'2(b)'in'relation'to'Section'3'virtually'provides'that,'once( the( head( of( office(
in'our'legal'system;'' determines( that( a( certain( information( is( privileged,( such( determination( is(
II. whether'or'not'there'is'factual'or'legal'basis'to'hold'that'the'communications'elicited'by' presumed( to( bear( the( Presidents( authority( and( has( the( effect( of( prohibiting( the(
the'three'(3)'questions'are'covered'by'executive'privilege;' official( from( appearing( before( Congress,' subject' only' to' the' express'
III. whether'or'not'respondent'Committees'have'shown'that'the'communications'elicited'by' pronouncement'of'the'President'that'it'is'allowing'the'appearance'of'such'official.'
the'three'(3)'questions'are'critical'to'the'exercise'of'their'functions;'and' These' provisions' thus' allow' the' President' to' authorize' claims' of' privilege' by' mere'
IV. whether' or' not' respondent' Committees' committed' grave' abuse' of' discretion' in' issuing' silence.'
the'contempt'order.' - Such' presumptive' authorization,' however,' is' contrary' to' the' exceptional' nature' of'
( the'privilege.'Executive'privilege,'as'already'discussed,'is'recognized'with'respect'to'
HELD:'WHEREFORE,'respondent'Committees'Motion'for'Reconsideration'dated'April'8,'2008' information' the' confidential' nature' of' which' is' crucial' to' the' fulfillment' of' the'
is'hereby'DENIED.' unique'role'and'responsibilities'of'the'executive'branch,'or'when'it'necessary'to'the'
' discharge'of'highly!important'executive'responsibilities.''
RATIO:( As' such,' it' was' the' President' herself,' through' Executive' Secretary' Ermita,' who' invoked'
I.'There(Is(a(Recognized(Presumptive(Presidential(Communications(Privilege' executive' privilege' on' a' specific' matter' involving' an' executive' agreement' between' the'
The'Committees'argue'that'the'Courts'declaration'that'presidential'communications'are' Philippines' and' China,' which' was' the' subject' of' the' three' (3)' questions' propounded' to'
presumptively' privileged' reverses' the' "presumption"' laid' down' in' Senate! v.! Ermita! that' petitioner'Neri'in'the'course'of'the'Senate'Committees'investigation.'Thus,( the( factual(
"inclines' heavily' against' executive' secrecy' and' in' favor' of' disclosure."' Respondent' setting(of(this(case(markedly(differs(from(that(passed(upon(in(Senate(v.(Ermita.''
Committees'then'claim'that'the'Court'erred'in'relying'on'the'doctrine'in'Nixon.' Senate!v.!Ermita'explained'why'there'should'be'no'implied'authorization'or'presumptive'
Court:'The'Committees'argue'as'if'this'were'the'first'time'the'presumption'in'favor'of'the' authorization' to' invoke' executive' privilege' by' the' Presidents' subordinate' officials,' as'
presidential(communications(privilege'is'mentioned'and'adopted'in'our'legal'system.'' follows:'
! !
When(Congress(exercises(its(power(of(inquiry,(the(only(way(for(department(heads( It'must'be'stressed'that'the'Presidents'claim'of'executive'privilege'is'not'merely'founded'
to( exempt( themselves( therefrom( is( by( a( valid( claim( of( privilege.( They( are( not( on' her' generalized' interest' in' confidentiality.' The' Letter' dated' November' 15,' 2007' of'
exempt( by( the( mere( fact( that( they( are( department( heads.' Only' one' executive' Executive'Secretary'Ermita'specified'presidential(communications(privilege'in'relation'to'
official'may'be'exempted'from'this'power'\'the'President'on'whom'executive'power' diplomatic( and( economic( relations( with( another( sovereign( nation'as'the'bases'for'the'
is' vested,' hence,' beyond' the' reach' of' Congress' except' through' the' power' of' claim.'Thus,'the'Letter'stated:'
impeachment.' It' is' based' on' he' being' the' highest' official' of' the' executive' branch,' '
and' the' due' respect' accorded' to' a' co\equal' branch' of' governments' which' is' The( context( in( which( executive( privilege( is( being( invoked( is( that( the( information(
sanctioned'by'a'long\standing'custom.'(Underscoring'supplied)' sought(to(be(disclosed(might(impair(our(diplomatic(as(well(as(economic(relations(
Thus,' if' what' is' involved' is' the' presumptive' privilege' of' presidential' communications' with( the( Peoples( Republic( of( China.' Given' the' confidential' nature' in' which' this'
when' invoked' by' the' President' on' a' matter' clearly' within' the' domain' of' the' Executive,' information'were'conveyed'to'the'President,'he'cannot'provide'the'Committee'any'
the' said' presumption' dictates' that' the' same' be' recognized' and' be' given' preference' or' further'details'of'these'conversations,'without'disclosing'the'very'thing'the'privilege'
priority,'in'the'absence'of'proof'of'a'compelling'or'critical'need'for'disclosure'by'the'one' is'designed'to'protect.'(emphasis!supplied)'
assailing'such'presumption.'' Even' in' Senate! v.! Ermita,' it' was' held' that' Congress' must' not' require' the' Executive' to'
' state' the' reasons' for' the' claim' with' such' particularity' as' to' compel' disclosure' of' the'
II' There( Are( Factual( and( Legal( Bases( to( Hold( that( the( Communications( Elicited( by( the' information'which'the'privilege'is'meant'to'protect.''
Three((3)(Questions(Are(Covered(by(Executive(Privilege' On'disclosure:'The'NBN'Project'involves'a'foreign'country'as'a'party'to'the'agreement.'It'
A. The(power(to(enter(into(an(executive(agreement(is(a("quintessential(and(non/delegable( was'actually'a'product'of'the'meeting'of'minds'between'officials'of'the'Philippines'and'
presidential(power."' China.' Whatever' the' President' says' about' the' agreement' \' particularly' while' official'
"Quintessential"' is' defined' as' the' most' perfect' embodiment' of' something,' the' negotiations' are' ongoing' \' are' matters' which' China' will' surely' view' with' particular'
concentrated' essence' of' substance.' On' the' other' hand,' "non\delegable"' means' that' a' interest.'There'is'danger'in'such'kind'of'exposure.'It'could'adversely'affect'our'diplomatic'
power' or' duty' cannot' be' delegated' to' another' or,' even' if' delegated,' the' responsibility' as'well'as'economic'relations'with'the'Peoples'Republic'of'China.''
remains'with'the'obligor.'The'power'to'enter'into'an'executive'agreement'is'in'essence' The'nature'of'foreign'negotiations'requires'caution,'and'their'success'must'often'depend'
an' executive' power.' This' authority' of' the' President' to' enter' into' executive' agreements' on'secrecy,'and'even'when'brought'to'a'conclusion,'a'full'disclosure'of'all'the'measures,'
without'the'concurrence'of'the'Legislature'has'traditionally'been'recognized'in'Philippine' demands,' or' eventual' concessions' which' may' have' been' proposed' or' contemplated'
jurisprudence.'' would' be' extremely' impolitic,' for' this' might' have' a' pernicious' influence' on' future'
' negotiations' or' produce' immediate' inconveniences,' perhaps' danger' and' mischief,' in'
B.(The("doctrine(of(operational(proximity"(was(laid(down(precisely(to(limit(the(scope(of(the( relation'to'other'powers.''
presidential(communications(privilege(but,(in(any(case,(it(is(not(conclusive.' This'Court'did'not'rule'that'the'Senate'has'no'power'to'investigate'the'NBN'Project'in'aid'
It' must' be' stressed' that' the' doctrine' of' "operational' proximity"' was' laid' down' in' In' re:! of' legislation.' There' is' nothing' in' the' assailed' Decision' that' prohibits' respondent'
Sealed!Case'precisely'to'limit'the'scope'of'the'presidential'communications'privilege:'' Committees' from' inquiring' into' the' NBN' Project.' They' could' continue' the' investigation'
Not( every( person( who( plays( a( role( in( the( development( of( presidential( advice,( no( and' even' call' petitioner' Neri' to' testify' again.' He' himself' has' repeatedly' expressed' his'
matter(how(remote(and(removed(from(the(President,(can(qualify(for(the(privilege.( willingness' to' do' so.' Our( Decision( merely( excludes( from( the( scope( of( respondents(
In( particular,( the( privilege( should( not( extend( to( staff( outside( the( White( House( in( investigation(the(three((3)(questions(that(elicit(answers(covered(by(executive(privilege(
executive(branch(agencies.'Only(communications(at(that(level(are(close(enough(to( and(rules(that(petitioner(cannot(be(compelled(to(appear(before(respondents(to(answer(
the(President(to(be(revelatory(of(his(deliberations(or(to(pose(a(risk(to(the(candor(of( the(said(questions.''
his( advisers.( See& AAPS,( 997( F.2d( at( 910( (it( is( "operational( proximity"( to( the( Indeed,'the'constitutional'provisions'cited'by'respondent'Committees'do'not'espouse'an'
President( that( matters( in( determining( whether( "[t]he( Presidents( confidentiality( absolute'right'to'information.''
interests"(is(implicated).'(Emphasis'supplied)' Article(III,(Sec.(7.(The'right'of'the'people'to'information'on'matters'of'public'concern'
Organizational( test:( the' main' consideration' is' to' limit' the' availability' of' executive' shall' be' recognized.' Access' to' official' records,' and' to' documents,' and' papers'
privilege' only' to' officials' who' stand' proximate' to' the' President,' not' only' by' reason' of' pertaining' to' official' records,' and' to' documents,' and' papers' pertaining' to' official'
their' function,' but' also' by' reason' of' their' positions' in' the' Executives' organizational' acts,'transactions,'or'decisions,'as'well'as'to'government'research'data'used'as'basis'
structure.' Thus,' respondent' Committees' fear' that' the' scope' of' the' privilege' would' be' for'policy'development,'shall'be'afforded'the'citizen,'subject(to(such(limitations(as(
unnecessarily'expanded'with'the'use'of'the'operational'proximity'test'is'unfounded.' may(be(provided(by(law.'
& Article( II,( Sec.( 28.( Subject( to( reasonable( conditions( prescribed( by( law,' the' State'
C.(The(Presidents(claim(of(executive(privilege(is(not(merely(based(on(a(generalized(interest;( adopts' and' implements' a' policy' of' full' public' disclosure' of' all' its' transactions'
and( in( balancing( respondent( Committees( and( the( Presidents( clashing( interests,( the( Court( involving'public'interest.'(Emphasis!supplied)'
did( not( disregard( the( 1987( Constitutional( provisions( on( government( transparency,( In'Chavez!v.!Presidential!Commission!on!Good!Government,'it'was'stated'that'there'are'
accountability(and(disclosure(of(information.' no'specific'laws'prescribing'the'exact'limitations'within'which'the'right'may'be'exercised'
! !
or'the'correlative'state'duty'may'be'obliged.'Nonetheless,'it'enumerated'the'recognized' what'matters'relating'to'these'bills'could'not'be'determined'without'the'said'information'
restrictions' to' such' rights,' among' them:' (1)' national' security' matters,' (2)' trade' secrets' sought' by' the' three' (3)' questions.' As' correctly' pointed' out' by' the' Honorable' Justice'
and' banking' transactions,' (3)' criminal' matters,' and' (4)' other' confidential' information.' Dante'O.'Tinga'in'his'Separate'Concurring'Opinion:'
National'security'matters'include'state'secrets'regarding'military'and'diplomatic'matters,' If( respondents( are( operating( under( the( premise( that( the( president( and/or( her(
as'well'as'information'on'inter\government'exchanges'prior'to'the'conclusion'of'treaties' executive( officials( have( committed( wrongdoings( that( need( to( be( corrected( or(
and' executive' agreements.' It( was( further( held( that( even( where( there( is( no( need( to( prevented( from( recurring( by( remedial( legislation,( the( answer( to( those( three(
protect( such( state( secrets,( they( must( be( "examined( in( strict( confidence( and( given( questions(will(not(necessarily(bolster(or(inhibit(respondents(from(proceeding(with(
scrupulous(protection."'' such(legislation.(They(could(easily(presume(the(worst(of(the(president(in(enacting(
Incidentally,' the' right' primarily' involved' here' is' the' right' of' respondent' Committees' to' such(legislation.'
obtain' information' allegedly' in! aid! of! legislation,' not' the' peoples' right' to' public' Interestingly,' during' the' Oral' Argument' before' this' Court,' the' counsel' for' respondent'
information.' This' is' the' reason' why' we' stressed' in' the' assailed' Decision' the' distinction' Committees'impliedly'admitted'that'the'Senate'could'still'come'up'with'legislations'even'
between' these' two' rights.' As' pointed' out,' these' rights' belong' to' Congress,' not' to' the' without' petitioner' answering' the' three' (3)' questions.' In' other' words,' the' information'
individual'citizen.'' being'elicited'is'not'so'critical'after'all.'Thus:'(excerpt)'
For(clarity,(it(must(be(emphasized(that(the(assailed(Decision(did(not(enjoin(respondent( CHIEF(JUSTICE(PUNO'
Committees( from( inquiring( into( the( NBN( Project.( All( that( is( expected( from( them( is( to( How'about'the'third'question,'whether'the'President'said'to'go'ahead'and'
respect(matters(that(are(covered(by(executive(privilege.(' approve'the'project'after'being'told'about'the'alleged'bribe.'How'critical'is'
' that' to' the' lawmaking' function' of' the' Senate?' And' the' question' is' may'
III.(Respondent(Committees(Failed(to(Show(That(the(Communications(Elicited(by(the(Three( they' craft' a' Bill' a' remedial' law' without' forcing' petitioner' Neri' to' answer'
Questions(Are(Critical(to(the(Exercise(of(their(Functions( this'question?'
' ATTY.(AGABIN'
The'jurisprudential'test'laid'down'on'executive'privilege'is'that'the'presumption'of'privilege' Well,'they(can(craft(it,'Your'Honor,'based'on'mere'speculation.'And'sound'
=
can' only' be' overturned' by' a( showing( of( compelling( need' for' disclosure' of' the' information' legislation'requires'that'a'proposed'Bill'should'have'some'basis'in'fact. '
covered'by'executive'privilege.'' The' failure' of' the' counsel' for' respondent' Committees' to' pinpoint' the' specific' need' for'
In'the'MR,'the'Committees'argue'that'the'information'elicited'by'the'three'(3)'questions' the'information'sought'or'how'the'withholding'of'the'information'sought'will'hinder'the'
are'necessary'in'the'discharge'of'their'legislative'functions,'among'them,'(a)'to'consider' accomplishment'of'their'legislative'purpose'is'very'evident'in'the'above'oral'exchanges.'
the'three'(3)'pending'Senate'Bills,'and'(b)'to'curb'graft'and'corruption.'' Due' to' the' failure' of' the' respondent' Committees' to' successfully' discharge' this' burden,'
In' U.S.! v.! Nixon! W! The' Court' weighed' between' presidential' privilege' and' the' legitimate' the'presumption'in'favor'of'confidentiality'of'presidential'communication'stands.''
claims'of'the'judicial'process.'In'giving'more'weight'to'the'latter,'the'Court'ruled'that'the' On'the'graft'and'corruption,'it'must'be'stressed'that'respondent'Committees'need'for'
President's' generalized' assertion' of' privilege' must' yield' to' the' demonstrated,' specific' information'in'the'exercise'of'this'function'is'not'as'compelling'as'in'instances'when'the'
need'for'evidence'in'a'pending'criminal'trial.' purpose'of'the'inquiry'is'legislative'in'nature.'This'is'because'curbing'graft'and'corruption'
We' conclude' that' when' the' ground' for' asserting' privilege' as' to' subpoenaed' is' merely' an' oversight' function' of' Congress.' And' if' this' is' the' primary' objective' of'
materials'sought'for'use'in'a'criminal'trial'is'based'only'on'the'generalized(interest( respondent' Committees' in' asking' the' three' (3)' questions' covered' by' privilege,' it' may'
in(confidentiality,'it'cannot(prevail(over(the(fundamental(demands(of(due(process( even'contradict'their'claim'that'their'purpose'is'legislative'in'nature'and'not'oversight.''
of( law( in( the( fair( administration( of( criminal( justice.' The' generalized' assertion' of' Under'our'Constitution,'it'is'the'Ombudsman'who'has'the'duty'"to(investigate(any(act(or(
privilege' must' yield' to' the' demonstrated,( specific( need' for' evidence' in' a' pending' omission( of( any( public( official,( employee,( office( or( agency( when( such( act( or( omission(
criminal(trial.(' appears(to(be(illegal,(unjust,(improper,(or(inefficient."''
In'the'case'at'bar,'we'are'not'confronted'with'a'courts'need'for'facts'in'order'to'adjudge' '
liability'in'a'criminal'case'but'rather'with'the'Senates'need'for'information'in'relation'to' IV(Respondent(Committees(Committed(Grave(Abuse(of(Discretion(in(Issuing(the(Contempt(
its'legislative'functions.'' Order(
Clearly,' the' need' for' hard' facts' in' crafting' legislation' cannot' be' equated' with' the' (
compelling'or'demonstratively'critical'and'specific'need'for'facts'which'is'so'essential'to' The'Committees'insist'that'they'did'not'commit'grave'abuse'of'discretion'in'issuing'the'
the'judicial'power'to'adjudicate'actual'controversies.'' contempt'order'because'(1)'there'is'no'legitimate'claim'of'executive'privilege;'(2)'they'did'not'
The( presumption( in( favor( of( Presidential( communications( puts( the( burden( on( the( violate'the'requirements'laid'down'in'Senate!v.!Ermita;'(3)'they'issued'the'contempt'order'in'
respondent( Senate( Committees( to( overturn( the( presumption( by( demonstrating( their( accordance'with'their'internal'Rules;'(4)'they'did'not'violate'the'requirement'under'Article'VI,'
specific( need( for( the( information( to( be( elicited( by( the( answers( to( the( three( (3)( Section'21'of'the'Constitution'requiring'the'publication'of'their'Rules;'and'(5)'their'issuance'of'
questions(subject(of(this(case,(to(enable(them(to(craft(legislation.'Here,'there'is'simply'a' the'contempt'order'is'not'arbitrary'or'precipitate.'
generalized' assertion' that' the' information' is' pertinent' to' the' exercise' of' the' power' to' '
legislate' and' a' broad' and' non\specific' reference' to' pending' Senate' bills.' It' is' not' clear' (1) Already'answered.'
! !
(2) The'Committees'second'argument'rests'on'the'view'that'the'ruling'in'Senate!v.!Ermita,' sworn' or' to' testify' or' to' answer' proper' questions' by' the' Committee' or' any' of' its'
requiring'invitations'or'subpoenas'to'contain'the'"possible'needed'statute'which' members."'(Emphasis!supplied)'
prompted'the'need'for'the'inquiry"'along'with'the'"usual'indication'of'the'subject'of' In'the'assailed'Decision,'we'said'that'there'is'a'cloud'of'doubt'as'to'the'validity'of'
inquiry'and'the'questions'relative'to'and'in'furtherance'thereof"'is'not'provided'for'by' the' contempt' order' because' during' the' deliberation' of' the' three' (3)' respondent'
the'Constitution'and'is'merely'an'obiter'dictum.'The'Court'disagress.' Committees,'only'seven'(7)'Senators'were'present.'This'number'could'hardly'fulfill'
- Constant'exposure'to'congressional'subpoena'takes'its'toll'on'the'ability'of'the' the' majority' requirement' needed' by' respondent' Committee! on! Accountability! of!
Executive'to'function'effectively.'The'requirements'set'forth'in'Senate!v.!Ermita'are' Public! Officers! and! Investigations' which' has' a' membership' of' seventeen' (17)'
modest(mechanisms'that'would'not'unduly'limit'Congress'power.'The'legislative' Senators'and'respondent'Committee!on!National!Defense!and!Security'which'has'a'
inquiry'must'be'confined'to'permissible'areas'and'thus,'prevent'the'"roving' membership' of' eighteen' (18)' Senators.' With' respect' to' respondent' Committee! on!
commissions"'referred'to'in'the'U.S.'case,'Kilbourn!v.!Thompson.'' Trade! and! Commerce' which' has' a' membership' of' nine' (9)' Senators,' only' three' (3)'
- Likewise,'witnesses'have'their'constitutional'right'to'due'process.'They'should'be' members'were'present.''
adequately'informed'what'matters'are'to'be'covered'by'the'inquiry.'It'will'also'allow' - Obviously'the'deliberation'of'the'respondent'Committees'that'led'to'the'issuance'of'the'
them'to'prepare'the'pertinent'information'and'documents.'' contempt'order'is'flawed.'Instead'of'being'submitted'to'a'full'debate'by'all'the'members'
- To'our'mind,'these'requirements'concede'too'little'political'costs'or'burdens'on'the' of' the' respondent' Committees,' the' contempt' order' was' prepared' and' thereafter'
part'of'Congress'when'viewed'vis\\vis'the'immensity'of'its'power'of'inquiry.'The' presented'to'the'other'members'for'signing.'As'a'result,'the'contempt'order'which'was'
logic'of'these'requirements'is'well'articulated'in'the'study'conducted'by'William'P.' issued'on'January'30,'2008'was'not'a'faithful'representation'of'the'proceedings'that'took'
Marshall,'to'wit:' place'on'said'date.'Records'clearly'show'that'not'all'of'those'who'signed'the'contempt'
- One(process(solution(addressing(this(concern(is(to(require(each(investigation(be( order'were'present'during'the'January'30,'2008'deliberation'when'the'matter'was'taken'
'
tied( to( a( clearly( stated( purpose. Additionally,( to( the( extent( clear( statements( of( up.''
rules( cause( legislatures( to( pause( and( seriously( consider( the( constitutional( ( Section(21,(Article(VI(of(the(Constitution(states(that:''
implications(of(proposed(courses(of(action(in(other(areas,(they(would(serve(that( The'Senate'or'the'House'of'Representatives'or'any'of'its'respective'committees'may'
goal(in(the(context(of(congressional(investigations(as(well.' conduct'inquiries'in'aid'of'legislation'in(accordance(with(its(duly(published(rules(of(
- The( key( to( this( reform( is( in( its( details.( A( system( that( allows( a( standing( procedure.(The(rights(of(person(appearing(in(or(affected(by(such(inquiries(shall(be(
committee( to( simply( articulate( its( reasons( to( investigate( pro( forma( does( no( respected.'(Emphasis!supplied)'
more( than( imposes( minimal( drafting( burdens.( Rather,( the( system( must( be( All'the'limitations'embodied'in'the'foregoing'provision'form'part'of'the'witness'settled'
designed( in( a( manner( that( imposes( actual( burdens( on( the( committee( to( expectation.' If' the' limitations' are' not' observed,' the' witness' settled' expectation' is'
articulate(its(need(for(investigation(and(allows(for(meaningful(debate(about(the( shattered.' Here,' how' could' there' be' a' majority' vote' when' the' members' in' attendance'
merits(of(proceeding(with(the(investigation.'(Emphasis!supplied)' are'not'enough'to'arrive'at'such'majority?'Petitioner'has'the'right'to'expect'that'he'can'
Clearly,' Neris' request' to' be' furnished' an' advance' copy' of' questions' is' a' reasonable' be' cited' in' contempt' only' through' a' majority' vote' in' a' proceeding' in' which' the' matter'
demand'that'should'have'been'granted.'Unfortunately,'the'Subpoena'Ad!Testificandum' has'been'fully'deliberated'upon.''
dated' November' 13,' 2007' made' no' specific' reference' to' any' pending' Senate' bill.' It' did' There' is' a' greater' measure' of' protection' for' the' witness' when' the' concerns' and'
not'also'inform'petitioner'of'the'questions'to'be'asked.'As'it'were,'the'subpoena'merely' objections' of' the' members' are' fully' articulated' in' such' proceeding.' We' do' not' believe'
commanded' him' to' "testify' on' what' he' knows' relative' to' the' subject' matter' under' that' respondent' Committees' have' the' discretion' to' set' aside' their' rules' anytime' they'
inquiry."'' wish.'This'is'especially'true'here'where'what'is'involved'is'the'contempt'power.'It'must'
(3) Committees' contend' that' their' Rules! of! Procedure! Governing! Inquiries! in! Aid! of! be'stressed'that'the'Rules'are'not'promulgated'for'their'benefit.'More'than'anybody'else,'
Legislation'(the'"Rules")'are'beyond'the'reach'of'this'Court.'While'it'is'true'that'this'Court' it'is'the'witness'who'has'the'highest'stake'in'the'proper'observance'of'the'Rules.''
must'refrain'from'reviewing'the'internal'processes'of'Congress,'as'a'co\equal'branch'of' (4) The' Committees' argue' that' the' Senate' does' not' have' to' publish' its' Rules' because' the'
government,'however,'when'a'constitutional'requirement'exists,'the'Court'has'the'duty' same' was' published' in' 1995' and' in' 2006.' Further,' they' claim' that' the' Senate' is' a'
to'look'into'Congress'compliance'therewith.'' continuing' body;' thus,' it' is' not' required' to' republish' the' Rules,' unless' the' same' is'
- United! States! v.! Ballin,! Joseph! &! Co.,' the' rule' was' stated' thus:' The' Constitution' repealed'or'amended.''
empowers'each'House'to'determine'its'rules'of'proceedings.'It(may(not(by(its(rules( - There' is' no' debate' that' the' Senate' as( an( institution' is' "continuing",' as' it' is' not'
ignore(constitutional(restraints(or(violate(fundamental(rights,(and(there(should(be( dissolved'as'an'entity'with'each'national'election'or'change'in'the'composition'of'its'
a(reasonable(relation(between(the(mode(or(method(of(proceeding(established(by( members.' However,' in' the' conduct' of' its' day\to\day' business' the' Senate' of' each'
the(rule(and(the(result(which(is(sought(to(be(attained."'' Congress'acts'separately'and'independently'of'the'Senate'of'the'Congress'before'it.''
- In'the'present'case,'the'Courts'exercise'of'its'power'of'judicial'review'is'warranted' - The'Rules'of'the'Senate'itself'confirms'this'when'it'states:'
because'there'appears'to'be'a'clear'abuse'of'the'power'of'contempt'on'the'part'of' ( RULE(XLIV(
respondent'Committees.'Section'18'of'the'Rules'provides'that:'' ( UNFINISHED(BUSINESS'
"The'Committee,'by(a(vote(of(majority'of'all'its'members,'may'punish'for'contempt' SEC.(123.'Unfinished'business'at'the'end'of'the'session'shall'be'taken'up'at'the'next'
any' witness' before' it' who' disobey' any' order' of' the' Committee' or' refuses' to' be' session'in'the'same'status.'
! !
All(pending(matters(and(proceedings(shall(terminate(upon(the(expiration(of(one((1)( contempt!when!he!was!merely!directed!by!his!superior?'Besides,'save'for'the'three'
Congress,' but' may' be' taken' by' the' succeeding' Congress' as' if' present' for' the' first' (3)'questions,'he'was'very'cooperative'during'the'September'26,'2007'hearing.''
time.'(emphasis'supplied)' - They' could' have' informed' petitioner' of' their' ruling' and' given' him' time' to' decide'
Undeniably'from'the'foregoing,'all'pending'matters'and'proceedings,'i.e.'unpassed' whether'to'accede'or'file'a'motion'for'reconsideration.''
bills' and' even' legislative' investigations,' of' the' Senate' of' a' particular' Congress' are' - After'all,'he'is'not'just'an'ordinary'witness;'he'is'a'high\'ranking'official'in'a'co\equal'
considered' terminated' upon' the' expiration' of' that' Congress' and' it' is' merely' branch' of' government.' He' is' an' alter' ego' of' the' President.' The' same' haste' and'
optional' on' the' Senate' of' the' succeeding' Congress' to' take' up' such' unfinished' impatience'marked'the'issuance'of'the'contempt'order,'despite'the'absence'of'the'
matters,'not(in(the(same(status,'but'as'if'presented'for(the(first(time.'' majority' of' the' members' of' the' respondent' Committees,' and' their' subsequent'
This'dichotomy'of'the'continuity'of'the'Senate'as'an'institution'and'of'the'opposite' disregard' of' petitioners' motion' for' reconsideration' alleging' the' pendency' of' his'
nature'of'the'conduct'of'its'business'is'reflected'in'its'Rules.'The'Rules(of(the(Senate' petition'for'certiorari'before'this'Court.''
(i.e.' the' Senates' main' rules' of' procedure)' states:' '
AMENDMENTS(TO,(OR(REVISIONS(OF,(THE(RULES' AZCUNA,'.J:'SEPARATE'OPINION'
SEC.(136.'At'the'start'of'each'session'in'which'the'Senators'elected'in'the'preceding' Grant'MR'and'dismiss'the'petition'for'lack'of'merit.'
elections'shall'begin'their'term'of'office,'the'President'may'endorse'the'Rules'to'the' It' was' the' intent' of' the' Constitutional' Commission' to' preserve' the' nature' of' the' Senate' as' a'
continuing'body'to'provide'an'institutional'memory'in'the'legislature.'
appropriate'committee'for'amendment'or'revision.'
QUISUMBING,'.'J:'SEPARATE'OPINION'ON'MR'
The'Rules'may'also'be'amended'by'means'of'a'motion'which'should'be'presented'at' Deny'MR'
least'one'day'before'its'consideration,'and'the'vote'of'the'majority'of'the'Senators' Respondents'had'neglected'to'observe'elements'of'due'process'on'more'than'one'occasion'in'
present'in'the'session'shall'be'required'for'its'approval.'(emphasis'supplied)' their'proceedings,'and'thereby'committed'grave'abuse'of'discretion'which'is'proscribed'by'the'
DATE(OF(TAKING(EFFECT' present'fundamental'law.'
SEC.(137.'These'Rules'shall'take'effect'on'the'date'of'their'adoption'and'shall'remain' Senate'is'constitutionally'required'to'publish'its'rules'of'procedure'on'the'conduct'of'legislative'
in'force'until'they'are'amended'or'repealed.'(emphasis'supplied)' inquiries'in'aid'of'legislation.''
Section'136'of'the'Senate'Rules'quoted'above'takes'into'account'the'new'composition'of' In'the'absence'of'a'published'rule'of'procedure'on'a'matter'which'is'the'subject'of'legislative'
the'Senate'after'an'election'and'the'possibility'of'the'amendment'or'revision'of'the'Rules' inquiry,' any' action' which' affects' substantial' rights' of' persons' would' be' anathema,' and' risks'
unconstitutionality.' Even' if' there' is' such' a' rule' or' statute' duly' published,' if' it' lacks'
at' the' start' of' each' session' in' which' the' newly' elected' Senators' shall' begin' their' term.'
comprehensible' standards' that' men' of' common' intelligence' must' necessarily' guess' at' its'
However,'it'is'evident'that'the'Senate'has'determined'that'its'main'rules'are'intended'to' meaning'and'differ'in'its'application,'the'rule'or'statute'would'be'repugnant'to'the'Constitution'
be'valid'from'the'date'of'their'adoption'until'they'are'amended'or'repealed.'' in' two' respects:' it' violates' due' process' for' failure' to' accord' persons,' especially' the' parties'
Such( language( is( conspicuously( absent( from( the( Rules.' The' Rules' simply' state' "(t)hese' targeted'by'it,'fair'notice'of'what'conduct'to'avoid;'and,'it'leaves'the'law'enforcers'unbridled'
Rules'shall'take'effect'seven'(7)'days'after'publication'in'two'(2)'newspapers'of'general' discretion' in' carrying' out' its' provisions' and' becomes' an' arbitrary' flexing' of' the' Government'
circulation."' The' latter' does' not' explicitly' provide' for' the' continued' effectivity' of' such' muscle.''
rules'until'they'are'amended'or'repealed.'In'view'of'the'difference'in'the'language'of'the' Respondents' did' not' consider' petitioners' request' for' an' advance' copy' of' the' questions' that'
two' sets' of' Senate' rules,' it' cannot' be' presumed' that' the' Rules' (on' legislative' inquiries)' would'be'asked'of'him,'when'in'fact'it'was'not'unreasonable'and'difficult'to'comply'with.''
Neri' was' entitled' to' a' ruling' on' his' claim' of' executive' privilege.' For' initially,' both' sides' had'
would'continue'into'the'next'Congress.'The'Senate'of'the'next'Congress'may'easily'adopt'
agreed' in' open' court' to' allow' more' exhaustive' inquiry' in' the' Senate' on' this' matter.' But' as'
different' rules' for' its' legislative' inquiries' which' come' within' the' rule' on' unfinished' respondents' themselves' admitted,' they' did' not' rule' on' the' claim' of' executive' privilege,' but'
business.'' instead'sanctioned'Neri'for'contempt.'
(5) The' Committees' last' argument' is' that' their' issuance' of' the' contempt' order' is' not' '
precipitate'or'arbitrary.'The'Court'disagress.'
- As' we' have' stressed' before,' petitioner' is' not' an' unwilling' witness,' and' contrary' to' 10. Arnault v. Nazareno (LC)
Petitioner:'Jean'Arnault'
the' assertion' of' respondent' Committees,' petitioner' did' not' assume' that' they' no'
Respondent:'LEON'NAZARENO,'Sergeant\at\arms,'Philippine'Senate,'and'EUSTAQUIO'BALAGTAS,'Director'
longer'had'any'other'questions'for'him.'' of'Prisons'
- He' repeatedly' manifested' his' willingness' to' attend' subsequent' hearings' and' GR'L\3820'
respond'to'new'matters.'' Date:'July'18,'1950'
- His'only'request'was'that'he'be'furnished'a'copy'of'the'new'questions'in'advance'to' (
enable'him'to'adequately'prepare'as'a'resource'person.'' Summary:' This' case' arose' from' the' legislative' inquiry' into' the' acquisition' by' the' Philippine'
- He' did' not' attend' the' November' 20,' 2007' hearing' because' Executive' Secretary' Government' of' the' Buenavista' and' Tambobong' estates' sometime' in' 1949.' Among' the'
Ermita' requested' respondent' Committees' to' dispense' with' his' testimony' on' the' witnesses'called'to'be'examined'by'the'special'committee'created'by'a'Senate'resolution'was'
ground'of'executive'privilege.'Note'that'petitioner'is'an'executive'official'under'the' Jean'L.'Arnault,'a'lawyer'who'delivered'a'partial'of'the'purchase'price'to'a'representative'of'
direct' control' and' supervision' of' the' Chief' Executive.' Why! punish! petitioner! for! the' vendor.' During' the' Senate' investigation,' Arnault' refused' to' reveal' the' identity' of' said'
representative,' at' the' same' time' invoking' his' constitutional' right' against' self\incrimination.'
! !
The'Senate'adopted'a'resolution'committing'Arnault'to'the'custody'of'the'Sergeant\at\Arms' and' the' remainder' in' annual' installments' of' P500K' each.' Failure' would'
and'imprisoned'until'he'shall'have'purged'the'contempt'by'revealing'to'the'Senate'.'.'.'the' result' in' forfeiture' of' the' downpayment,' and' entitling' the' hospital' to'
name' of' the' person' to' whom' he' gave' the' P440,000,' as' well' as' answer' other' pertinent' rescind' the' sale.' BURT( HASNT( PAID( ANYTHING( ELSE( ASIDE( FROM( THE(
questions'in'connection'therewith.'Arnault'petitioned'for'a'writ'of'Habeas'Corpus' DOWNPAYMENT.'
ISSUE:(Can' the' senate' impose' penalty' against' those' who' refuse' to' answer' its' questions' in' a' The'original'owner'of'the'Tambobong'Estate'was'the'Philippine'Trust'Company.'
congressional'hearing'in'aid'of'legislation.' o On'May'14,'1946,'they'sold'the'estate'for'the'sum'of'P1.2M'to'Burt,'who'
HELD:(It' is' the' inherent' right' of' the' Senate' to' impose' penalty' in' carrying' out' their' duty' to' paid' P10K' down,' and' promised' to' pay' P90K' within' 9' months,' and' the'
conduct' inquiry' in' aid' of' legislation.' What' is' important' is' that' the' question' refused' to' be' balance'of'P1.1M'in'ten'successive'installments'of'P110K'each.'Again,'Burt'
answered'is'pertinent!to!the!matter!in!inquiry.!But'it'must'be'herein'established'that'a'witness' hasnt'paid'anything'else.'
who' refuses' to' answer' a' query' by' the' Committee' may' be' detained' during' the' term' of' the' o On' Sep.' 4,' 1947,' the' Philippine' Trust' Company' sold' and' delivered' the'
members' imposing' said' penalty' but' the' detention' should' not' be' too' long' as' to' violate' the' Estate'to'the'Rural'Progress'Administration'for'P750K.''
witness'right'to'due'process'of'law.' o On' Feb' 5,' 1948,' the' RPA' demanded' that' Burts' contract' of' purchase' be'
Summary'taken'from'http://www.uberdigests.info/2011/07/jean\arnault\vs\nazareno/' cancelled' due' to' his' failure' to' pay' the' installment.' The' CFI' of' Rizal'
( cancelled' Burts' Certificate' of' Title' and' issued' a' new' one' in' the' name' of'
Note:(More(important(here,(I(think,(is(the(discussion(on(the(pertinence(of(the(questions(and( the'RPA.'
why( the( Senate( can( commit( him( to( jail.( The( point( is( that( the( intent( of( giving( investigative( So' with' all' this' happening,' the' Philippine' government,' through' the' Secretary' of'
power( to( the( Legislative( must( not( be( frustrated( by( not( allowing( them( to( enforce( their( Justice' (as' Chairman' of' the' Board' of' Directors' of' the' RPA' and' PNB),' accomplished'
investigations.( At( the( same( time,( not( all( questions( are( allowed( ( if( they( are( completely( the'purchase'of'the'two'estates.'
impertinent(and(unrelated(to(the(possible(legislation/purpose(of(the(investigation,(answers( The' Senate' then,' on' Feb.' 27,' 1950,' adopted' Resolution' No.' 8,' which' created' a'
cannot(be(compelled.( special'committee'to'investigate'the'Buenavista'and'Tambobong'Estates'Deal.'
' o Remember,'they'bought'the'Buenavista'Estate'for'P4.5M,'but'apparently'
Facts:( they' didnt' have' to' pay' 5M' ' pwedeng' 3M,' and' in' fact' they' did' tender'
This' case' is' a' petition' for' habeas' corpus' ' Arnault' wants' to' be' liberated' from' his' P3M'during'the'occupation.'
confinement'in'Bilibid.' o Neither' did' they' have' to' pay,' they' said,' for' the' Tambobong' Estate,' since'
o Why'is'he'there?''Senate'Resolution'sent'him'there'because'he'refused' the'PTC'sold'it'to'the'RPA'for'P750K.'
to'reveal'the'identity'of'someone'who'received'P440,000.' o So' the' committee' is' to' determine' whether' the' purchase' was' honest,'
o Thus,' the' Senate' committed' him' to' Bilibid' until' he' revealed' the' name' of' valid,'and'proper,'and'whether'the'pricewas'fair'and'just.'
the'person.' o The' Committee' had' the' power' to' conduct' public' hearings,' issue'
So' what' was' the' P440,000' about?' This' amount' was' involved' in' a' transaction' subpoenas,' and' the' power' to' require' any' official' or' employee' of' any'
regarding' two' estates' ' the' Buenavista( and( Tambobong( Estates.( This' isnt' really' bureau,'office,'branch,'subdivision,'agency,'or'instrumentality'of'the'Govt'
important'for'consti'issues,'but'Ill'include'it'so'we'get'a'clear'view'of'why'this'guy' to'assist'with'the'performance'of'the'Committees'functions.'
was'thrown'in'jail.'Im'also'afraid'that'Dean'will'ask'stuff'about'them.'So'here'we'go!' This' committee' called' Arnault( as' a' witness.' They' wanted' to' know' why' the'
In' October,' 1949,' the' Philippine' Government,' through' the' Rural' Progress' Government'paid'P1.5M'to'Burt,'where'his'interest'in'the'two'estates'was'only'P20K'
Administration,' bought' these' two' estates' for' the' sums' of' P4.5M' and' P500K,' (the'two'downpayments)''they'wanted'to'know'who(were(responsible,(and(who(
respectively.'(Total'of'P5M).' benefited(from(the(transaction(at(the(expense(of(the(government.'
o Of'the'first'sum,'P1M'was'paid'to'Ernest(H.(Burt,(a'nonresident'American,' Arnault(testified'that'two'checks'payable'to'Burt,'totaling'P1.5M,'were'delivered'to'
through' his' attorney' in' fact' in' the' Phils,' the' Associated' Estates,' Inc.' him'on'Oct.'29.'1949.'On'the'same'date,'he'opened'a'new'account'for'Burt'with'the'
Arnault(represents(this(company.'' PNB,'in'which'he'deposited'these'checks.'
o The'second'sum'of'P500K'was'also'paid'to'Burt,'through'another'company,' o On(the(same(occasion,(he(withdrew(two(checks.(One'for'P400K,'which'he'
the'North'Manila'Development'Co,'also'represented'by'Arnault.' transferred'to'the'account'of'the'Associated'Agencies,'inc.,'with'the'PNB.''
The'Buenavista'estate'was'originally'owned'by'the'San'Juan'de'Dios'Hospital.' o And(another,(for(P440K,(payable(to(cash,(which(he(himself(cashed.'
o The' government' held' a' 25\year' lease' contract' on' the' Estate,' with' an' o It'was'the'desire'of'the'committee'to'determine'the'ultimate'recipient'of'
option'to'purchase'it'for'P3M'with'that'period,'counted'from'Jan'1,'1939.' this'sum'of'P440K'that'gave'rise'to'the'present'case.'
o The'occupation'government'wanted'to'exercise'this'option,'tendering'P3M' So'to'recap''the'government'bought'two'estates,'but'realized'that'they'may'have'
to' the' owner' (and' depositing,' along' with' rentals,' it' in' court' on' June' 21,' been' swindled.' They' created' a' Special' Senate' Committee' to' investigate,' and' are'
1944,' since' the' owner' rejected' it).' Since' 1939,' the' government' has' now'asking'Arnault'to'help'them.'Arnault'refuses,'and'thats'why'hes'in'Bilibid.'
remained'in'possession'of'the'estate.'
o In'1946,'the'SJDD'hospital'sold'the'Buenavista'estate'for'P5M'to'Burt,(who'
made'a'downpayment'of'P10K,'and'agreed'to'pay'P500K'within'the'year,'
! !
What' follows' is' a' transcript' of' the' questions' the' Committee' asked' Arnault.' They' o He' says' that' since' the' committee' had' already' rendered' the' report' and'
want' to' know' who' the' P440K' was' given.' He' refuses,' saying' that' hes' invoking' his' made'its'recommendations,'there'is'no'necessity'to'force'the'information'
right'against'self\incrimination,'privacy,'etc.'Read'the'original'for'the'questions.'' out'of'him.'
Anyway,' the' Senate' resolved' that' Arnault' be' arraigned( for( contempt,( and( asked( o SC:'Once'an'inquiry'is'established'to'be'within'the'jd'of'a'legislative'body'
him(what'excuse'he'had'for'refusing'to'reveal'the'name'of'the'person'who'received' to'make,'this'investigating'committee'has'the'power'to'require'a'witness'
the'P440K.' to' answer' any' question' pertinent' to' that' inquiry,' subject' to' the' right'
o Through'his'lawyer,'Arnault'said'that'the'questions'were'incriminatory'in' against'self\incrimination.'
nature,'trying'to'invoke'his'right'against'self'incrimination.' o This' inquiry,' must' be' material' or' necessary' to' the' exercise' of' a' power'
o Anyway,'he'refused'to'answer,'and'the'Senate'threw'him'in'jail'until'he' vested' in' it' by' the' Consti.' A' witness' may' not' be' compelled' to' answer' a'
purged'the'contempt'by'revealing'to'the'Senate'the'name'of'the'person'to' question'which'has'obviously'no'relation'to'the'subject'of'inquiry.''
whom'the'P440K'was'given.' " But'from'this,'it'does'not'follow'that'every'question'that'may'be'
The' SC' said' that' this' was' an' important' case,' because' for' the' first' time,' they' were' propounded'must'be'material'to'the'proposed'legislation.'
called'upon'to'define'the'power'of'either'house'of'Congress'to'punish'a'person,'not' " In' other' words,' the' materiality' of' th' question' must' be'
its'member,'for'contempt.' determined'by'its'direct'relation'to'any'possible'legislation''the'
Issue:'Can'the'Senate'punish'a'person'for'refusing'to'cooperate'with'their'inquiries'in'aid'of' necessity'for'legislative'action'is'determined'by'the'sum'total'of'
legislation?' the' information' gathered' by' the' investigation,' and' not' by' a'
Held:'(Dispositive'Portion)' fraction'of'such'info'elicited'from'a'single'question.'
Ratio:' " Where' the' questions' are' not' pertinent' to' the' matter' under'
Okay,'so'the'SC'first'wanted'to'discuss'some'background'principles.' inquiry,'a'witness'may'refuse'to'answer.'
o Generally,' this' is' a' discussion' on' separation' of' powers.' Ill' put' the' ones' " SC''where'the'alleged'immateriality'of'the'information'is'relied'
pertinent'to'the'legislative'department.' upon' to' contest' the' legislative' bodys' jurisdiction,' the' Court'
o Legislative'power'is'vested'in'Congress,'which'has'two'houses.'(Hice?)' should' pass' upon' this' contention,' it' may' intervene' to' correct'
o Each'house'may'determine'its'internal'rules,'punish'its'members,'and'even' clear'abuse'of'discretion.'
expel'its'members.' o SC' concluded' that' the' question' in' question' (hehe)' is' pertinent( to( the(
o The' power' of' inquiry,' and' the' processes' to' enforce' this' power,' are' matter( under( inquiry.( The( Senate( Resolution( creating( the( Committee(
essential'auxiliaries'to'the'legislative'function.' requires(it(to(determine(the(parties(responsible(for(the(deals.(Obviously,'
" A' legislative' body' cannot' legislate' wisely' in' the' absence' of' the'name'of'the'person'the'P440K'went'is'pertinent'to'that'determination.''
information'about'what'the'law'tries'to'affect'or'change.' o We' have' already' indicated' that' the' body' show' that' every' question' is'
" Where' the' legislative' body' has' no' information,' they' must' be' material'to'possible'legislation,'just'that'it'is'pertinent.'
able' to' ask' for' it' from' others' ' a' means' of' compulsion' is' o Just' because' three' bills' were' already' approved' by' the' Senate,' there' is'
necessary'to'obtain'what'is'needed.' nothing'to'prevent'Congress'from'approving'other'measure''essentially,'
o The' legislative' field' of' the' Philippine' Congress' is' wider' than' that' of' the' theres'nothing'to'say'that'Congress'job'is'already'done.'
States''this'is'because'the'Phil'Congress'alone'has'legislative'power,'not' SC' now' cites' a' US' case,' Re! Chapman! ' similar' case' of' a' guy' not' responding' to'
shared'(as'in'the'case'of'the'US'Congress'and'the'respective'legislatures'of' questions,' was' about' senators' speculating' in' stocks.' Chapman' was' a' member' of' a'
the'individual'States).' firm' of' stockbrokers,' and' was' being' asked' about' their' dealings' with' Senators.' He'
" So'the'field'of'inquiry'should'be'wider'is'well''its'hard'to'put' refused'to'answer,'was'sentto'jail,'and'petition'for'a'writ'of'habeas'corpus'
limits' Generally,' this' is' coextensive' with' the' range' of' the' o The' questions' in' this' case,' were' undoubtedly' pertinent' to' the' subject'
legislative'power.'' matter'of'the'inquiry.'
In'the'present'case,'the'jurisdiction'of'the'Senate'to'investigate'is'not'challenged'by' o US'SC'ruled'that'the'Committee'had'the'right'to'compel'him'to'answer.'
Arnault.' The' transaction' was' for' P5M' of' public' funds,' dapat' lang' i\investigate.' In' IF'the'subject'of'investigation'is'within'range'of'legitimate'legislative'inquiry,'and'the'
fact,'because'of'this'case,'the'Senate'approved'three'bills'to'guard'against'this'kind' proposed' testimony' is' related' to' that' subject,' obedience' to' the' process' may' be'
of'thing.' enforced'by'the'committee'thru'imprisonment.''
Anyway,'the'SC'now'proceeds'to'Arnaults'contentions.' Next( contention' (not' as' important)' is' that' the' Senate' cant' commit' him' for'
First,' he' contends' that' the' Senate' has' no' power' to' punish' him' for' contempt,' contempt'beyond'its'legislative'session.'(didnt'include'the'lengthy'discussion'of'the'
because'the'information'sought'is(immaterial(to,(and(will(not(serve,(any(intended( SC'here,'its'not'super'related'anyway)'
or( purported( legislation,( and( his( refusal( to( answer( has( not( obstructed( the( o We( find( no( sound( reason( to( limit( the( power( of( the( legislative( body( to(
legislative(process.' punish(for(contempt(to(the(end(of(every(session(and(not(to(the(end(of(the(
last(session(terminating(the(existence(of(that(body.'
! !
o To'deny'to'such'commttees'the'power'of'inquiry'with'process'to'enforce'it' Communications' Satellite' Corporation' (PHILCOMSAT),' and' PHILCOMSAT' Holdings'
would'be'to'defeat'the'very'purpose'for'which'the'power'is'recognized'as' Corporation' (PHC)' due' to' the' alleged' improprieties' in' their' operations' by' their'
an'essential.' respective'Board'of'Directors.''
Third(and(last,(the(right(against(self/incrimination.((Again,(not(as(important)' Pursuant'to'this,'on'May'8,'2006,'Sen.'Gordon,'wrote'Chairman'Sabio'of'the'PCGG'
o Arnaults'testimonies'as'to'this'point'were'kinda'shaky''he'claimed'that' inviting' him' to' be' one' of' the' resource' persons' in' the' public' meeting' jointly'
all'the'transactions'were'legal,'but'begged'to'be'excused'from'answering' conducted' by' the' Committee' on' Government' Corporations' and' Public' Enterprises'
because'it'might'be'later'used'against'him..'' and'Committee'on'Public'Services.''
" Thus,'there'is'no'basis'upon'which'to'sustain'that'revealing'the' Chairman' Sabio' declined' the' invitation' because' of' prior' commitment.' At' the' same'
name'would'result'in'self\incrimination.'Sabi'nga'nya'legal'lahat' time,'he'invoked'Section'4(b)'of''E.O.'No.'1'(cited'above).''
eh!' Gordons' Subpoenae' Ad' Testificandum' was' repeatedly' ignored' by' Sabio' hence' he'
o He' then' refused' because' it' violated' his' rights' to' privacy' when' dealing' threatened'Sabio'to'be'cited'with'contempt.''
with'other'people.' Chairman'Sabio,'in'his'Compliance'and'Explanation'reasoned'that'Section'4(b)'of'
o He'claimed'that'he'couldnt'remember'the'name'of'the'person'he'gave'the' E.O.' No.' 1' constitutes' a' limitation' on' the' power' of' legislative' inquiry,' and' a'
check'to''the'SC'was'satisfied'that'this'was'a'lie.'' recognition'by'the'State'of'the'need'to'provide'protection'to'the'PCGG'in'order'to'
o Testimony'which'is'obviously'false'or'evasive'is'equivalent'to'a'refusal'to' ensure'the'unhampered'performance'of'its'duties'under'its'charter.''
testify'and'is'punishable'as'contempt.' He' said' that' E.O.' No.' 1' is' a' law,' Section' 4(b)' of' which' had' not' been' amended,'
The'petition'was'thus'denied.' repealed'or'revised'in'any'way.'
' Thereafter,'an'order'was'issued'directing'Chairman'Sabio'and'his'Commissioners'to'
be'placed'under'arrest'for'contempt'of'the'Senate.''
11. Sabio v. Gordon (JG) This' prompted' Sabio' to' file' a' petition' for'habeas! corpus'against' the'
October(17,(2006'
Sandoval/Gutierrez,(J.:& Senate'Committee! on! Government! Corporations! and! Public!
( Enterprises!and'Committee!on!Public!Services.'
SUMMARY:( Together' with' PCGG' Commissioners,' he' also' filed' a' petition' for' certiorari' and'
Pursuant'to'an'order'by'the'Senate'directing'an'inquiry'in'aid'of'legislation'on'the'anomalous' prohibition.''
losses' incurred' by' POTC,' PHILCOMSTAT,' and' PHC,' Senator' Gordon' invited' PCGG' Chairman' Meanwhile,' Philcomsat' Holdings' Corporation' and' its' officers' and' directors' filed' a'
Sabio' to' appear' before' the' Committee' on' Govt' Corporations' and' Public' Enterprises' and' petition'for'certiorari'and'prohibition'against'the'Senate'Committees!on!Government!
Committee'on'Public'Services.'Chairman'Sabio'declined'and'invoked'Section'4(b)'of'E.O.'No.'1' Corporations! and! Public! Enterprises'and'Public! Services,' their' Chairmen,' Senators'
exempting' the' PCGG' members' and' staff' from' the' Congress' power' of' inquiry.'The' issue' is' Gordon'and'Arroyo,'and'Members.'
whether' or' not' Section' 4(b)' of' E.O.' No.1' limits' power' of' legislative' inquiry' by' exempting' all' (
PCGG'members'or'staff'from'testifying'in'any'judicial,'legislative'or'administrative'proceeding.' ISSUES:(
(NO)'Nowhere'in'the'Constitution'is'any'provision'granting'such'exemption.'Article'VI,'Section' Whether' or' not' Section' 4(b)' of' E.O.' No.1' limits' power' of' legislative' inquiry' by' exempting' all'
21'of'the'1987'Constitution'grants'the'power'of'inquiry'not'only'to'the'Senate'and'the'House' PCGG'members'or'staff'from'testifying'in'any'judicial,'legislative'or'administrative'proceeding.'
of' Representatives,' but' also' to'any( of( their( respective( committees.''Certainly,' a' mere' 'NO(
provision'of'law'cannot'pose'a'limitation'to'the'broad'power'of'Congress,'in'the'absence'of' (
any'constitutional'basis.'' HELD:(
' Petitions(DISMISSED.(
BACKGROUND:( Section'4(b)'of'E.O.'No.'1'is'declared'REPEALED'by'the'1987'Constitution.(
E.O.'No.'1'created'the(Presidential'Commission'on'Good'Government'(PCGG),'which' PCGG' Chairman' Sabio,' his' Commissioners' and' Nominees' are( ordered' to' comply' with'
had' the' task' of' recovering' the' ill\gotten' wealth' accumulated' by' the' deposed' the'Subpoenae'Ad! Testificandum!issued' by' respondent' Senate' Committees' directing' them' to'
President' Ferdinand' E.' Marcos,' his' family,' relatives,' subordinates' and' close' appear'and'testify'in'public'hearings'relative'to'Senate'Resolution'No.'455.'
associates.'( (
Section'4'(b)'of'E.O.'No.'1'provides'that:'"No( member( or( staff( of( the( Commission( RATIO:(
shall( be( required( to( testify( or( produce( evidence( in( any( judicial,( legislative( or( Article'VI,'Section'21'of'the'1987'Constitution'grants'the'power'of'inquiry'not'only'to'
administrative(proceeding(concerning(matters(within(its(official(cognizance."( the' Senate' and' the' House' of' Representatives,' but' also' to'any( of( their( respective(
FACTS:( committees.'''
On' February' 20,' 2006,' Senator' Miriam' Defensor\Santiago' introduced' Senate' Res.' Clearly,'there'is'a'direct( conferral( of( investigatory( power'to'the'committees'and'it'
No.'455'directing'an'inquiry'in'aid'of'legislation'on'the'anomalous'losses'incurred' means' that' the' mechanism' which' the' Houses' can' take' in' order' to' effectively'
by' the' Philippines' Overseas' Telecommunications' Corporation' (POTC),'Philippine' perform'its'investigative'functions'are'also'available'to'the'committees.'
! !
Senate!v.!Ermita!W( the( power( of( inquiry( is( broad( enough( to( cover( officials( of( the( exercise'other'powers'necessary'and'proper'to'carry'out'a'declared'national'policy.'There'was'
executive(branch.''' no'indication'that'the'President'already'exercised'martial'law'powers'which'can'only'be'done'
Arnault!v.!Nazareno!\(the(operation(of(government,(being(a(legitimate(subject(for( after'approval'by'Congress.'
legislation,((is(a(proper(subject(for(investigation'and'(that'the(power(of(inquiry(is( (
co/extensive(with(the(power(to(legislate.' Facts:(
Considering'these'jurisprudential'instructions,'Section'4(b)'is'directly'repugnant'with' During' the' Oakwood' Mutiny' on' July' 23,' 2003,' several' junior' officers' of' the' AFP' seized' the'
Article'VI,'Section'21.'' Oakwood'Premier'Apartments'in'Makati'and'demanded'the'resignation'of'the'President,'the'
o Section' 4(b)'exempts( the( PCGG( members( and( staff( from( the( Congress( Secretary' of' Defense' and' the' Chief' of' the' PNP.' In' reaction,' President' Arroyo' issued'
4 5
power(of(inquiry.''This'cannot'be'countenanced.''' Proclamation'No.'427 ,'which'declared'a'state'of'rebellion,'and'General'Order'No.'4 'which'
o Nowhere'in'the'Constitution'is'any'provision'granting'such'exemption.'
The'Congress'power'of'inquiry,'being'broad,'encompasses'everything'that'concerns' ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
4
the'administration'of'existing'laws'as'well'as'proposed'or'possibly'needed'statutes.'' 'PROCLAMATION'NO.'427''
DECLARING'A'STATE'OF'REBELLION''
It'even'extends(to( government( agencies( created( by( Congress( and( officers( whose(
WHEREAS,'certain'elements'of'the'Armed'Forces'of'the'Philippines,'armed'with'high\powered'
positions(are(within(the(power(of(Congress(to(regulate(or(even(abolish.'' firearms'and'explosives,'acting'upon'the'instigation'and'command'and'direction'of'known'and'unknown'
o PCGG'belongs'to'this'class.' leaders,' have' seized' a' building' in' Makati' City,' put' bombs' in' the' area,' publicly' declared' withdrawal' of'
A' statute' may' be' declared' unconstitutional' because'it( is( not( within( the( legislative( support' for,' and' took' arms' against' the' duly' constituted' Government,' and' continue' to' rise' publicly' and'
power( to( enact;' or' it' creates' or' establishes' methods' or' forms' that' infringe' show' open' hostility,' for' the' purpose' of' removing' allegiance' to' the' Government' certain' bodies' of' the'
constitutional' principles;' or' its' purpose' or'effect( violates( the( Constitution( or( its( Armed' Forces' of' the' Philippines' and' the' Philippine' National' Police,' and' depriving' the' President' of' the'
basic(principles.' Republic'of'the'Philippines,'wholly'or'partially,'of'her'powers'and'prerogatives'which'constitute'the'crime'
of'rebellion'punishable'under'Article'134'of'the'Revised'Penal'Code,'as'amended;''
Moreover,'Sec.'4(b)'of'E.O.'No.'1'has'been'repealed'by'the'Constitution'because'it'is'
WHEREAS,' these' misguided' elements' of' the' Armed' Forces' of' the' Philippines' are' being'
inconsistent' with'the' constitutional' provisions' on' the' Congress' power' of' inquiry' supported,' abetted' and' aided' by' known' and' unknown' leaders,' conspirators' and' plotters' in' the'
(Art.'VI,'Sec.'21),'the'principle'of''public'accountability'(Art.'XI,'Sec.'1),'the'policy'of' government'service'and'outside'the'government;''
full'disclosure'(Art.'II,'Sec.'28),'and'the'right'of''access'to'public'information'(Art.'III,' WHEREAS,' under' Section' 18,' Article' VII' of' the' present' Constitution,' whenever' it' becomes'
Sec.'7).' necessary,'the'President,'as'the'Commander\in\Chief'of'the'Armed'Forces'of'the'Philippines,'may'call'out'
Certainly,' a' mere' provision' of' law' cannot' pose' a' limitation' to' the' broad' power' of' such'Armed'Forces'to'suppress'the'rebellion;''
Congress,'in'the'absence'of'any'constitutional'basis.'' NOW,' THEREFORE,' I,' GLORIA' MACAPAGALARROYO,' by' virtue' of' the' powers' vested' in' me' by'
law,'hereby'confirm'the'existence'of'an'actual'and'ongoing'rebellion,'compelling'me'to'declare'a'state'of'
(
rebellion.''
Sec. 22 In'view'of'the'foregoing,'I'am'issuing'General'Order'No.'4'in'accordance'with'Section'18,'Article'
VII'of'the'Constitution,'calling'out'the'Armed'Forces'of'the'Philippines'and'the'Philippine'National'Police'to'
1. Senate v. Ermita (MT) (Supra, Sec. 21, 1) immediately'carry'out'the'necessary'actions'and'measures'to'suppress'and'quell'the'rebellion'with'due'
regard'to'constitutional'rights.''
'
Sec. 23 5
'GENERAL'ORDER'NO.'4'
1. Sanlakas v. Exec. Sec. (QN) DIRECTING'THE'ARMED'FORCES'OF'THE'PHILIPPINES'AND'THE'PHILIPPINE'NATIONAL'POLICE'TO'SUPPRESS'
G.R.'No.'159085' REBELLION'
February'3,'2004' WHEREAS,'certain'elements'of'the'Armed'Forces'of'the'Philippines,'armed'with'high\powered'
Tinga,'J.' firearms'and'explosives,'acting'upon'the'instigation'and'command'and'direction'of'known'and'unknown'
Petitioners'(consolidated):'SANLAKAS;'Partido'ng'Manggagawa;'Social'Justice'Society;'Rep.'Rolex'Suplico;' leaders,' have' seized' a' building' in' Makati' City,' put' bombs' in' the' area,' publicly' declared' withdrawal' of'
Rep.'Carlos'M.'Padilla;'Rep.'Celso'Lobregat;'Rep.'Hussin'Amin;'Rep.'Abraham'Kalil'Mitra;'Rep.'Emmylou' support' for,' and' took' arms' against' the' duly' constituted' Government,' and' continue' to' rise' publicly' and'
Talino\Santos;'Rep.'Georgilu'Yumul\Hermida;'Sen.'Aquilino'Pimentel' show' open' hostility,' for' the' purpose' of' removing' allegiance' to' the' Government' certain' bodies' of' the'
Respondents'(consolidated):'Exec.'Sec.'Angelo'Reyes;'Gen.'Narciso'Abaya;'Dir.'Gen.'Hermogenes'Ebdane;' Armed' Forces' of' the' Philippines' and' the' Philippine' National' Police,' and' depriving' the' President' of' the'
Alberto'Romulo;'Sec.'Simeon'Datumanong;'Sec.'Jose'Lina;'President'GMA' Republic'of'the'Philippines,'wholly'or'partially,'of'her'powers'and'prerogatives'which'constitute'the'crime'
' of'rebellion'punishable'under'Article'134'et!seq.'of'the'Revised'Penal'Code,'as'amended;'
Summary:( WHEREAS,' these' misguided' elements' of' the' Armed' Forces' of' the' Philippines' are' being'
During'the'Oakwood'Incident'of'July'23,'2003,'President'Arroyo'issued'Proclamation'No.'427' supported,' abetted' and' aided' by' known' and' unknown' leaders,' conspirators' and' plotters' in' the'
and'General'Order'No.'4'which'declared'a'state'of'rebellion'and'called'out'the'Armed'Forces' government'service'and'outside'the'government;'
WHEREAS,' under' Section' 18,' Article' VII' of' the' present' Constitution,' whenever' it' becomes'
and' the' PNP' to' suppress' such' rebellion.' Such' issuances' were' assailed' by' the' petitioners' as'
necessary,'the'President,'as'the'Commander\in\Chief'of'all'Armed'Forces'of'the'Philippines,'may'call'out'
being'unconstitutional.'The'Court'upheld'the'issuances'as'well'within'the'executive'power'and' such'Armed'Forces'to'suppress'the'rebellion;'
Commander\in\Chief' power' of' the' President.' There' was' also' no' usurpation' of' the' power' of' NOW,' THEREFORE,' I,' GLORIA' MACAPAGAL\ARROYO,' by' virtue' of' the' powers' vested' in' me' by'
Congress' in' Article' VI,' Sec.' 23' which' requires' Congressional' approval' for' the' President' to' the'Constitution'as'President'of'the'Republic'of'the'Philippines'and'Commander\in\Chief'of'all'the'armed'
! !
called' out' the' Armed' Forces' to' suppress' the' rebellion.' By' the' evening' of' July' 27,' 2003,' the' o The' last' 2' powers' require' two' conditions:' (1)' that' an' actual' invasion' or'
mutiny' had' ended.' However,' President' Arroyo' only' lifted' the' declaration' of' a' state' of' rebellion' exists' and' (2)' that' public' safety' requires' the' exercise' of' such'
emergency'on'August'1,'2003'through'Proclamation'No.'435.' power.'
' o The' power' to' call' out' the' military' is' subject' only' to' the' criterion' that' it'
In'the'meantime,'several'petitions'which'were'consolidated'into'this'case'were'filed'by'several' becomes' necessary' for' the' President' to' prevent' or' suppress' lawless'
parties' against' the' administration.' All' of' which' challenge' the' constitutionality' of' the' violence,'invasion'or'rebellion.'
Proclamation' and' the' General' Order' which' declared' a' state' of' rebellion' and' called' out' the' The'same'provision'does(not'expressly'prohibit'the'President'from'declaring'a'state'
Armed'Forces'to'suppress'it.' of'rebellion.'Such'power'is'within'the'Presidents'Executive'power'which'is'granted'
' by'Article'VII,'Section'1'of'the'Constitution.'
Issue:(W/N'the'declaration'by'the'President'of'a'state'of'rebellion'is'unconstitutional.'NO' Such' provision' was' copied' from' the' US' Constitution.' (Justice' Tinga' then' gave'
Held:(Petitions'dismissed' examples'in'US'history'when'this'provision'was'invoked'by'the'US'Presidents.'Puro'JJ'
' lang'talaga'ito,'but'for'the'sake'of'completeness,'Ill'summarize'them'anyway.)'
Ratio:( o President'Andrew'Jackson'issued'a'Proclamation'against'South'Carolinians'
ON(MOOTNESS(OF(THE(PETITION' who'refused'to'follow'the'federal'tariff'acts.'He'threatened'them'that'their'
The' Solicitor' General' is' correct' in' saying' that' the' petition' is' moot' considering' that' threat'of'disunion'by'armed'force'is'treason'and'that'such'treason'would'
the'President'has'already'lifted'the'so\called'state'of'rebellion.' have'consequences'for'them.'
However,' the' Court' will' decide' a' question' otherwise' moot' if' it' is' capable' of' o President' Abraham' Lincolns' use' of' war' powers,' without' the' approval' of'
repetition'yet'evading'review'such'as'the'case'at'present.' Congress,'was'upheld'by'the'Supreme'Court.'
A'similar'situation'already'arose'during'President'Arroyos'declaration'of'a'state'of' o President' Grover' Cleveland' sent' federal' troops' to' Illinois' to' quell' striking'
rebellion' during' the' May' 1,' 2001' siege' of' Malacanang' (EDSA' TRES)' although' the' railway' workers' who' defied' a' court' injunction.' The' Supreme' Court' again'
petitions'assailing'it'were'dismissed'for'being'moot.'This'time,'the'Court'decided'to' upheld'the'act'since'the'strike'already'affected'the'public'at'large.'Such'act'
rule'on'it'despite'being'moot'in'order'to'prevent'similar'questions'from'reemerging.' was'done'in'care'of'the'nation.'
o President' Theodore' Roosevelt' threatened' to' use' federal' troops' against'
ON(STANDING(OF(PETITIONERS' coal'miners'who'went'on'strike.'
Only'the'congressmen'and'senator'have'standing'in'the'present'case.'They'are'the' The' lesson' to' be' learned' from' US' constitutional' history' is' that'the' Commander\in\
ones'who'allege'the'usurpation'of'the'power'of'Congress'in'Section'23(2),'Article'VI' Chief' powers' are' broad' enough' as' it' is' and' became' more' so' when' taken' together'
of'the'Constitution.' with'the'provision'on'executive'power'and'the'presidential'oath'of'office.'Thus,'the'
o According' to' the' case' of' Philconsa' v.' Enriquez,' an' act' of' the' Executive' powers'of'the'presidency'equip'the'occupant'with'the'means'to'address'exigencies'
which' injures' the' institution' of' Congress' causes' a' derivative' but' or'threats'which'undermine'the'very'existence'of'government'or'the'integrity'of'the'
nonetheless'substantial'injury'which'can'be'questioned'by'any'member'of' State.'
Congress.' (JJ'din'ito.)'Justice'Irene'R.'Cortes,'in'her'book,'even'theorized'that'the'powers'of'the'
The' other' petitioners' dont' have' standing' because' they' have' not' suffered' any' real' President' of' the' Philippines' are' greater' than' that' of' the' US' President' because' the'
injury'caused'by'the'assailed'proclamation'and'general'order.' Philippine'President'has'the'residual'powers'while'the'US'constitution'reserves'such'
to'the'states'which'make'up'the'union.'Later'on,'Justice'Cortes'put'her'thesis'into'
ON(THE(POWER(OF(THE(PRESIDENT(TO(CALL(OUT(THE(MILITARY(AND(DECLARE(A(STATE(OF(REBELLION' jurisprudence'in'her'ponencia'in'Marcos'v.'Manglapus.'
Sec.'18,'Article'VII'of'the'Constitution'grants'the'president,'as'Commander\in\Chief,' The'Presidents'authority'to'declare'a'state'of'rebellion'springs'from'her'powers'as'
a'sequence'of'graduated'powers.' chief'executive'and,'at'the'same'time,'draws'strength'from'her'Commander\in\Chief'
From' the' most' to' the' least' benign,' these' are:' the' calling' out' power,' the' power' to' powers.''
suspend'the'privilege'of'the'writ'of'habeas!corpus,'and'the'power'to'declare'martial' In' calling' out' the' armed' forces,' a' declaration' of' a' state' of' rebellion' is' an' utter'
law.' superfluity.' At' most,' it' only' gives' notice' to' the' nation' that' such' a' state' exists' and'
that'the'armed'forces'may'be'called'to'prevent'or'suppress'it.'The'Court'finds'that'
such( declaration( is( devoid( of( any( legal( significance.( For( all( legal( intents,( the(
declaration(is(deemed(not(written.'
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
forces'of'the'Philippines'and'pursuant'to'Proclamation'No.'427'dated'July'27,'2003,'do'hereby'call'upon'
(DOCTRINE)(ON(THE(ALLEGED(USURPATION(OF(THE(POWERS(OF(CONGRESS(
the'Armed'Forces'of'the'Philippines'and'the'Philippine'National'Police'to'suppress'and'quell'the'rebellion.'
I' 'hereby'direct'the'Chief'of'the'Armed'Forces'of'the'Philippines'and'the'Chief'of'the'Philippine' The'argument'that'the'declaration'of'a'state'of'rebellion'amounts'to'a'declaration'of'
National' Police' and' the' officers' and' men' of' the' Armed' Forces' of' the' Philippines' and' the' Philippine' martial'law'and,'therefore'is'a'circumvention'of'the'report'requirement'is'a'leap'of'
National'Police'to'immediately'carry'out'the'necessary'and'appropriate'actions'and'measures'to'suppress' logic.'There'is'no'indication'that'the'President'has'exercised'martial'law'powers.'
and'quell'the'rebellion'with'due'regard'to'constitutional'rights.'
! !
Nor' by' any' stretch' of' the' imagination' can' the' declaration' constitute' an' indirect' factual'bases'to'deploy'troops.''
exercise' of' emergency' powers,' which' exercise' depends' upon' a' grant' of' Congress' (
pursuant'to'Section'23(2),'Article'VI'of'the'Constitution.' Facts:(
The'petitions'do'not'cite'a'specific'instance'where'the'President'has'attempted'to'or' After' the' Maguindanao' massacre,' PGMA,' on' 24' November' 2009,' issued' Proclamation(
has' exercised' powers' beyond' her' powers' as' Chief' Executive' or' as' 1946' placing' the' Maguindanao,' Sultan' Kudarat,' and' Cotabato' under' a' state' of'
Commander\in\Chief.' The' President,' in' declaring' a' state' of' rebellion' and' in' calling' emergency.'The'AFP'and'the'PNP'were'directed'to'undertake'such'measures,'as'allowed'
out' the' armed' forces,' was' merely' exercising' a' wedding' of' her' Chief' Executive' and' by'the'Constitution'and'Law,'to!prevent!and!suppress!lawless!violence!in!the!said!places.(
Commander\in\' Chief' powers.' These' are' purely( executive( powers,' vested' on' the' On'27'November'2009,'PGMA'issued'Administrative(Order(273'(AO'273)'transferring'
President'by'Sections'1'and'18,'Article'VII,'as'opposed'to'the'delegated( legislative( supervision' of' the' ARMM' from' the' Office' of' the' President' to' the' DILG.' Later,'
powers'contemplated'by'Section'23'(2),'Article'VI.' Administrative(Order(273/A'(AO273\A)'amended'AO'273'due'to'issues'raised'over'the'
terminology'(the'use'of'transferring)'used'and'was'replaced'by''delegating'under'the'
Separate(Opinions( amending'AO.(
PANGANIBAN,'J.!(Dissenting)' Claiming'encroachment'of'ARMMs'autonomy,'petitioners'who'are'(were)'ARMM'officials'
There'is'no'actual'or'justiciable'controversy'in'the'case.'The'petitions'must'thus'be'dismissed.'
filed'a'petition!for!prohibition.(
YNARES\SANTIAGO,'J.!(Dissenting)'
I'vote'for'Proclamation'No.'427'and'General'Order'No.'4,'issued'on'July'27,'2003'by'Respondent'President' o AUTONOMY:' That' Proclamation' 1946' and' AOs' empowered' DILG' secretary' to'
Gloria' Macapagal\Arroyo,' to' be' declared' NULL' and' VOID' for' having' been' issued' with' grave' abuse' of' take' over' ARMMs' operations' and' seize' regional' power,' in' violation' of' the'
discretion' amounting' to' lack' of' jurisdiction.' All' other' orders' issued' and' action' taken' based' on' those' principle! of! autonomy' under' RA' 9054' (Expanded' ARMM' Act)' and' the'
issuances,'especially'after'the'Oakwood'incident'ended'in'the'evening'of'July'27,'2003,'e.g.,'warrantless' Constitution.(
arrests,'should'also'be'declared'null'and'void.' o CONTROL:' That' the' President' gave' the' DILG' Secretary' the' power' to' exercise,'
SANDOVAL\GUTIERREZ,'J.'(Dissenting)' not! merely' administrative' supervision,' but' control' over' the' ARMM' since' the'
In'fine,'may'I'state'that'every'presidential'claim'to'a'power'must'be'scrutinized'with'caution,'for'what'is'at' latter'could'suspend!ARMM'officials'and'replace'them.(
stake'is'the'equilibrium'established'by'our'constitutional'system.'The'powers'of'the'President'are'not'as'
o EMERGENCY( POWERS:' That' the' President' had' no' factual' basis' for' declaring' a'
particularized'as'are'those'of'Congress.'Enumerated'powers'do'not'include'undefined'powers,'as'what'the'
majority' would' want' to' point' out.' I' state' once' more' that' there' is' no' provision' in' our' Constitution' state'of'emergency,'especially'in'the'Province'of'Sultan'Kudarat'and'the'City'of'
authorizing'the'President'to'declare'"a'state'of'rebellion."'Not'even'the'constitutional'powers'vested'upon' Cotabato,'where'no'critical'violent'incidents'occurred.'Hence,'the'deployment'
her'include'such'power.' of' troops' and' taking' over' ARMM' constitutes' invalid' exercise' of' emergency'
WHEREFORE,'I'vote'to'GRANT'the'petitions.'Proclamation'No.'427'and'General'Order'No.'4'are'declared' power(
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.' o PRAYER:' That' Proclamation' 1946,' AO' 273' &' AO' 273\A' are' unconstitutional;'
' enjoin'the'DILG,'PNP,'and'AFP'from'implementing'them(
2. Ampatuan v. Hon. DILG Sec. Puno (RK) OSGs!Comment:&
DATU(ZALDY(UY(AMPATUAN,(ANSARUDDIN(ADIONG,(REGIE'SAHALI/GENERALE(( o Did!not!deprive!ARMM!of!autonomyrestored!peace!and!order&
versus&&& o Issued! the! proclamation! pursuant! to! calling! out! power! as! CommanderWinW
HON.(RONALDO(PUNO,(in'his'capacity!as'Secretary'of'the'Department'of'Interior!and'Local'Government' ChiefShe!had!the!wisdom!to!call!out!based!on!intel!reports&
and'alter\ego'of!President'Gloria'Macapagal\Arroyo,'and'anyone'acting'in'his'stead'and'on'behalf'of'the' o There! was! proper! delegation! of! supervisory! power! to! the! DILGno! blanket!
President'of'the'Philippines,'ARMED(FORCES(OF(THE(PHILIPPINES'(AFP),(or'any'of'their'units'operating'in' authority! to! replace! and! suspend! officials;! delegation! was! for! facilitation! of!
the'Autonomous'Region'in'Muslim'Mindanao'(ARMM),(and(PHILIPPINE((NATIONAL(POLICE,(or'any'of'their'
investigation&
units'operating'in'ARMM((((((((((((((((((((('
G.R.(No.(190259'|'June'7,'2011((((((((((((((('''
o The!proclamation!and!AOs!did!not!provide!for!exercise!of!emergency!powers.&
ABAD,(J&(yay!).:' (
( Issue(s):(
Summary:( PGMA' issued' Proclamation' 1946' placing' Maguindanao,' Sultan' Kudarat,' and' 1. WON'Proclamation'1946'and'the'AOs'violate'the'principle'of'local'autonomy'
Cotabato'under'a'state'of'emergency'and'calling'out'the'PNP'and'AFP'to'prevent'and'suppress' 2. WON'PGMA'invalidly'exercised'emergency'powers'when'she'called'out'the'AFP'and'
lawless' violence' therein.' ' Later' AO' 273' and' AO' 237\A' were' issued' delegating' supervision' of' PNP'to'prevent'and'suppress'all'incidents'of'lawless'violence.'
ARMM' from' the' President' to' the' DILG.' Petitioners' question' the' issuances' because' (1)' it' 3. WON'PGMA'had'factual'bases'for'her'actions'
violates' ARMM' autonomy;' (2)' there' was' improper' exercise' of' Emergency' Powers;' (3)' there' Held:(WHEREFORE,'the'petition'is'DISMISSED'for'lack'of'merit.(
were' no' factual' bases' for' such' issuances.' SC' dismissed' the' petition.' (1)' It' did' not' violate' Ratio:(
autonomy' of' ARMM' since' the' President' merely' delegated' her' powers' to' facilitate' the' '''
investigations.' (2)' The' deployment' is' not' an' exercise' of' emergency' powers' but' rather' her' 1.(Local(Autonomy'
calling'out'power'vested'in'her'as'the'President.'(3)'The'Court'would'not'normally'review'facts' 'The' DILG' Secretary' did' not' take' over' control' of' the' powers' of' the' ARMM.'' After' law'
since' calling' out' rely' solely' on' the' wisdom' of' the' President.' In' any' case,' there' were' enough' enforcement'agents'took'respondent'Governor'of'ARMM'into'custody'for'alleged'complicity'
! !
in' the' Maguindanao' massacre,' the' ARMM' Vice\Governor,' petitioner' Ansaruddin' Adiong,' personnel'with'about'200'firearms;'(4)'Both'clans'have'Special'Civilian'Auziliary'Army'of'about'
assumed'the'vacated'post'on'December'10,'2009'pursuant'to'the'rule'on'succession'found'in' 500'for'Ampatuans'and'300'for'Mangudadatus;'(5)'Armed'clashes'between'the'two'warring'
Article'VII,'Section'12,'of'RA'9054.''In'turn,'Acting'Governor'Adiong'named'the'then'Speaker'of' clans' and' their' armed' supporters' could' happen;' (6)' intel' reports' suggest' a' possible'
the' ARMM' Regional' Assembly,' petitioner' Sahali\Generale,' Acting' ARMM' Vice\Governor.' 'In' involvement'of'Rebel'Armed'Groups'(RAGs).'(
short,'the'DILG'Secretary'did'not'take'over'the'administration'or'operations'of'the'ARMM.' (
'' In' other' words,' the' imminence' of' violence' and' anarchy' at' the' time' the' President' issued'
' Proclamation'1946'was'too'grave'to'ignore'and'she'had'to'act'to'prevent'further'bloodshed'
2.(Emergency(Powers( and' hostilities' in' the' places' mentioned.' 'Progress' reports' also' indicated' that' there' was'
The'deployment'is'not'by'itself'an'exercise'of'emergency'powers'as'understood'under'Section' movement'in'these'places'of'both'high\powered'firearms'and'armed'men'sympathetic'to'the'
23'(2),'Article'VI'of'the'Constitution,'which'provides:' two'clans.'Thus,'to'pacify'the'peoples'fears'and'stabilize'the'situation,'the'President'had'to'
'' take'preventive'action.''She'called'out'the'armed'forces'to'control'the'proliferation'of'loose'
SECTION(23.(x(x(x((2)(In(times(of(war(or(other(national( firearms'and'dismantle'the'armed'groups'that'continuously'threatened'the'peace'and'security'
emergency,(the(Congress(may,(by(law,(authorize(the(President,(for( in'the'affected'places.(
a( limited( period( and( subject( to( such( restrictions( as( it( may( ''
prescribe,(to(exercise(powers(necessary(and(proper(to(carry(out(a( ''''''''''Notably,'the'present'administration'of'President'Benigno'Aquino'III'has'not'withdrawn'
declared(national(policy.(Unless(sooner(withdrawn(by(resolution(of( the'declaration'of'a'state'of'emergency'under'Proclamation'1946.'''
the(Congress,(such(powers(shall(cease(upon(the(next(adjournment( ''
thereof.' Since' petitioners' are' not' able' to' demonstrate' that' the' proclamation' of' state' of'
'' emergency'in'the'subject'places'and'the'calling'out'of'the'armed'forces'to'prevent'or'suppress'
The'President'did'not'proclaim'a'national'emergency,'only'a'state'of'emergency'in'the'three' lawless' violence' there' have' clearly' no' factual' bases,' the' Court' must' respect' the' Presidents'
places' mentioned.'' And' she' did' not' act' pursuant' to' any' law' enacted' by' Congress' that' actions.'
authorized' her' to' exercise' extraordinary' powers.'' The' calling' out' of' the' armed' forces' to' ''
prevent' or' suppress' lawless' violence' in' such' places' is' a' power' that' the' Constitution' directly' Sec. 24
vests'in'the'President.''She'did'not'need'a'congressional'authority'to'exercise'the'same.'
'' 1. Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance (IE)
G.R.(No.(115455|October(30,(1995|MENDOZA,'J.&
3.(Factual(Bases(
(digest'format'was'based'on'how'the'issues'were'discussed'in'the'decision)(
The'Presidents'call'on'the'armed'forces'to'prevent'or'suppress'lawless'violence'springs'from'
' (
the'power'vested'in'her'under'Section'18, Article'VII'of'the'Constitution,'which'provides'that'
Summary:''This'is'a'consolidation'of'MRs'filed'by'petitioners'assailing'the'constitutionality'of'
the( President( shall( be( the( Commander/in/Chief( of( all( armed( forces( of( the( Philippines( and(
RA7716' or' the' EVAT' Law' ,the' petition' questioned' the' Power' of' the' Senate' to' propose'
whenever(it(becomes(necessary,(he(may(call(out(such(armed(forces(to(prevent(or(suppress(
amendments' to' revenue' bills,' the' President's' certification,' the' Power' of' Conference'
lawless(violence,(invasion(or(rebellion.(x(x(x'
Committee'and'other'issues'not'related'to'Sec.'24.'In'discussing'the'power'of'the'Senate'to'
''
propose' amendments' to' revenue' bills' court' held' that' the' Senate( cannot( enact( revenue(
While'it'is'true'that'the'Court'may'inquire'into'the'factual'bases'for'the'Presidents'exercise'of'
measures(of(its(own(without(bills(originating(from(HR,'but'after'a'revenue'bill'is'passed'and'
the' above' power,' it' would' generally' defer' to' her' judgment' on' the' matter.' 'As' the' Court'
sent' over' to' it' by' the' House,' the( Senate( certainly( can( pass( its( own( version( on( the( same(
acknowledged'in'Integrated!Bar!of!the!Philippines!v.!Hon.!Zamora,!it'is'clearly'to'the'President'
subject( matter.' In' the' case' at' bar,' RA7716' originated' from' H.' No.' 11197' where' it' passed' 3'
that'the'Constitution'entrusts'the'determination'of'the'need'for'calling'out'the'armed'forces'
readings' before' it' was' sent' to' the' Senate,' the' court' further' held' that' S.' No.' 1630' is' an'
to' prevent' and' suppress' lawless' violence.'' Unless' it' is' shown' that' such' determination' was'
amendment' of' H11197.' As' to' the' presidents' certification,' when' a' bill' is' certified,' it' is'
attended' by' grave' abuse' of' discretion,' the' Court' will' accord' respect' to' the' Presidents'
exempted'not'only'from'the'requirement'that'"printed'copies'[of'a'bill]'in'its'final'form'[must'
judgment.'Here,'petitioners'failed'to'show'that'the'declaration'of'a'state'of'emergency'in'the'
be]'distributed'to'the'members'three'days'before'its'passage"'but'also'from'the'requirement'
Provinces' of' Maguindanao,' Sultan' Kudarat' and' Cotabato' City,' as' well' as' the' Presidents'
that'before'a'bill'can'become'a'law'it'must'have'passed'"three'readings'on'separate'days."''
exercise'of'the'calling'out'power'had'no'factual'basis.'They'simply'alleged'that,'since'not'all'
'
areas'under'the'ARMM'were'placed'under'a'state'of'emergency,'it'follows'that'the'take'over'
CASE:'
of'the'entire'ARMM'by'the'DILG'Secretary'had'no'basis'too.'
These'are'MRs'of'our'decision'dismissing'the'petitions'on'declaration'of'unconstitutionality'of'
''
R.A.'No.'7716,'Expanded'Value\Added'Tax'Law.'
But,'apart'from'the'fact'that'there'was'no'such'take'over'to'begin'with,'the'OSG'also'clearly'
''
explained' the' factual' bases' for' the' Presidents' decision' to' call' out' the' armed' forces.' (1)'
I. Power&of&the&Senate&to&propose&amendments&to&revenue&bills.((
Ampatuans'and'Mangudadatu'are'prominent'families'in'Maguindanao'with'arsenal'of'armed'
Contentions:''
followers.' (2)PNP' and' AFP' had' to' prepare' for' any' retaliatory' actions' from' the' Magudadatu'
clan.'(3)'Ampatuan'has'approx.'2,400'people'with'2,000'firearms;'Mangudadatus'have'1,800'
! !
R.A.'No.'7716'did'not'"originate'exclusively"'in'the'House'of'Representatives'as'required' American' version,' according' to' petitioners,' shows' the' intention' of' the' framers' of' our'
by'Art.'VI,'24'of'the'Constitution.'Although'they'admit'that'H.'No.'11197'was'filed'in'the' Constitution' to' restrict' the' Senate's' power' to' propose' amendments' to' revenue' bills.'
House' of' Rep' where' it' passed' 3' readings' and' that' afterward' it' was' sent' to' the' Senate' Petitioner' Tolentino' contends' that' the' word' "exclusively"' was' inserted' to' modify'
ST
where'after'1 'reading'it'was'referred'to'the'Senate'Ways'and'Means'Committee,'they' "originate"'and'"the'words''as'in!any'other'bills''were'eliminated'so'as'to'show'that'these'
ND RD
complain'that'the'Senate'did'not'pass'it'on''2 'and'3 'readings,instead'they'passed'its' bills'were'not'to'be'like'other'bills'but'must'be'treated'as'a'special'kind.'
own'version'(S.'No.'1630)'which'it'approved'on'May'24,'1994.'' o Art.'I,'7,'cl.'1'of'U.S.'Const.:'All'Bills'for'raising'Revenue'shall'originate'in'the'
Tolentino'adds'that'what'the'Senate'committee'should'have'done'was'to'amend'H.'No.' House' of' Representatives;' but' the' Senate' may' propose' or' concur' with'
11197'by'striking'out'the'text'of'the'bill'and'substituting'it'with'the'text'of'S.'No.'1630.' amendments'as'on'other'Bills.'
That'way,'it'is'said,'"the'bill'remains'a'House'bill'and'the'Senate'version'just'becomes'the' o Art.' VI,' 24' of' our' Const.:' All' appropriation,' revenue' or' tariff' bills,' bills'
text'(only!the!text)'of'the'House'bill."' authorizing'increase'of'the'public'debt,'bills'of'local'application,'and'private'bills'
Ratio:'The'contention'has'no'merit.' shall'originate'exclusively'in'the'House'of'Representatives,'but'the'Senate'may'
Enactment' of' S.' No.' 1630' is' not' the' only' instance' in' which' the' Senate' proposed' an' propose'or'concur'with'amendments.'
amendment' to' a' House' revenue' bill' by' enacting' its' own' version' of' a' revenue' bill.' On' 2' It'will'be'recalled'that'the'1935'Constitution'originally'provided'for'a'unicameral'National'
th
occasions' during' 8 ' congress' they' passed' their' own' version' of' revenue' bills,' these' were' RA' Assembly.'When'it'was'decided'in'1939'to'change'to'a'bicameral'legislature,'it'became'
6 7 th 8 9 10 11
7369 ,7549 ,' during' the' 9 ' congress' RA7642 ,' RA7643 ,' RA7649 ,' RA7656 ,' necessary' to' provide' for' the' procedure' for' lawmaking' by' the' Senate' and' the' House' of'
12 13
RA7660 ,RA7717 ' Representatives.''
Amendment'by'substitution'concerns'a'mere'matter'of'form.'Petitioner'has'not'shown'what' The' work' of' proposing' amendments' to' the' Constitution' was' done' by' the' National'
substantial'difference'it'would'make'if,'a'separate'bill'like'S.'No.'1630'is'instead'enacted'as'a' Assembly,' acting' as' a' constituent' assembly,' some' of' whose' members,' jealous' of'
substitute'measure.' preserving' the' Assembly's' lawmaking' powers,' sought' to' curtail' the' powers' of' the'
14
Rules' of' the' Senate'only! provide:' No! amendment! by! substitution! shall! be! entertained! proposed'Senate.'See'provision'below' '
unless!the!text!thereof!is!submitted!in!writing.'' 'The'special'committee'on'the'revision'of'laws'of'the'Second'National'Assembly'vetoed'
o 70\A'also'provides''A'bill'or'resolution'shall'not'be'amended'by'substituting'it' the'proposal.'It'deleted'everything'after'the'first'sentence.''
with'another'which'covers'a'subject'distinct'from'that'proposed'in'the'original' Considering'the'defeat'of'the'proposal,'the'power'of'the'Senate'to'propose'amendments'
bill'or'resolution.' must' be' understood' to' be' full,' plenary' and' complete' "as' on' other' Bills."' Thus,' because'
Nor' is' there' merit' in' petitioners'' contention' that,' with' regard' to' revenue' bills,' the' revenue' bills' are' required' to' originate' exclusively' in' the' House' of' Representatives,' the'
Philippine' Senate' possesses' less' power' than' the' U.S.' Senate' because' of' textual' Senate(cannot(enact(revenue(measures(of(its(own(without(such(bills.'After'a'revenue'bill'
differences' between' constitutional' provisions.' The' addition' of' the' word' "exclusively"' in' is' passed' and' sent' over' to' it' by' the' House,' however,( the( Senate( certainly( can( pass( its(
the'Philippine'Constitution'and'the'decision'to'drop'the'phrase'"as'on'other'Bills"'in'the' own( version( on( the( same( subject( matter.' This' follows' from' the' coequality' of' the' two'
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' chambers'of'Congress.'
6
'An'Act'To'Amend'The'Omnibus'Investments'Code'Of'1987'By'Extending'From'Five'(5)'Years'To'Ten'Years' Book'Authors'also'support'this'interpretation:'
The'Period'For'Tax'And'Duty'Exemption'And'Tax'Credit'On'Capital'Equipment)' o The'power'of'the'Senate'to'propose'or'concur'with'amendments'is'apparently'
7
'An'Act'Granting'Tax'Exemptions'To'Whoever'Shall'Give'Reward'To'Any'Filipino'Athlete'Winning'A'Medal' without'restriction.'It'would'seem'that'by'virtue'of'this'power,'the'Senate'can'
In'Olympic'Games' practically' re\write' a' bill' required' to' come' from' the' House' and' leave' only' a'
8
'An'Act'Increasing'The'Penalties'For'Tax'Evasion,'Amending'For'This'Purpose'The'Pertinent'Sections'Of' trace'of'the'original'bill.''(Tanada'and'CArreon,'Political'Law'of'the'Phil)'
The'National'Internal'Revenue'Code' o The' above\mentioned' bills' are' supposed' to' be' initiated' by' the' House' of'
9
'An'Act'To'Empower'The'Commissioner'Of'Internal'Revenue'To'Require'The'Payment'Of'The'Value\Added'
Representatives'because'they'are'presumed'to'be'more'familiar'with'the'
Tax' Every' Month' And' To' Allow' Local' Government' Units' To' Share' In' Vat' Revenue,' Amending' For' This'
Purpose'Certain'Sections'Of'The'National'Internal'Revenue'Code'
needs' of' the' country' in' regard' to' the' enactment' of' the' legislation'
10
'An' Act' Requiring' The' Government' Or' Any' Of' Its' Political' Subdivisions,' Instrumentalities' Or' Agencies' involved.The' Senate' is,' however,' allowed' much' leeway' in' the' exercise' of'
Including' Government\Owned' Or' Controlled' Corporations' (Goccs)' To' Deduct' And' Withhold' The' Value\
Added'Tax'Due'At'The'Rate'Of'Three'Percent'(3%)'On'Gross'Payment'For'The'Purchase'Of'Goods'And'Six' ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
14
Percent'(6%)'On'Gross'Receipts'For'Services'Rendered'By'Contractors' 'All'bills'appropriating'public'funds,'revenue'or'tariff'bills,'bills'of'local'application,'and'private'bills'shall'
11
'An' Act' Requiring' Government\Owned' Or' Controlled' Corporations' To' Declare' Dividends' Under' Certain' originate'exclusively'in'the'Assembly,'but'the'Senate'may'propose'or'concur'with'amendments.'In'case'of'
Conditions'To'The'National'Government,'And'For'Other'Purposes' disapproval'by'the'Senate'of'any'such'bills,'the'Assembly'may'repass'the'same'by'a'two\thirds'vote'of'all'
12
'An' Act' Rationalizing' Further' The' Structure' And' Administration' Of' The' Documentary' Stamp' Tax,' its'members,'and'thereupon,'the'bill'so'repassed'shall'be'deemed'enacted'and'may'be'submitted'to'the'
Amending' For' The' Purpose' Certain' Provisions' Of' The' National' Internal' Revenue' Code,' As' Amended,' President'for'corresponding'action.'In'the'event'that'the'Senate'should'fail'to'finally'act'on'any'such'bills,'
Allocating'Funds'For'Specific'Programs,'And'For'Other'Purposes' the'Assembly'may,'after'thirty'days'from'the'opening'of'the'next'regular'session'of'the'same'legislative'
13
'An'Act'Imposing'A'Tax'On'The'Sale,'Barter'Or'Exchange'Of'Shares'Of'Stock'Listed'And'Traded'Through' term,'reapprove'the'same'with'a'vote'of'two\thirds'of'all'the'members'of'the'Assembly.'And'upon'such'
The' Local' Stock' Exchange' Or' Through' Initial' Public' Offering,' Amending' For' The' Purpose' The' National' reapproval,' the' bill' shall' be' deemed' enacted' and' may' be' submitted' to' the' President' for' corresponding'
Internal' Revenue' Code,' As' Amended,' By' Inserting' A' New' Section' And' Repealing' Certain' Subsections' action.'
Thereof' '
! !
its'power'to'propose'or'concur'with'amendments'to'the'bills'initiated'by' o If!a!House!bill!is!passed!by!the!House!but!not!passed!by!the!Senate,!and!a!Senate!
the'House'of'Representatives.'('CRUZ,'PHILIPPINE'POLITICAL'LAW)' bill!of!a!similar!nature!is!passed!in!the!Senate!but!never!passed!in!the!House,!can!
o 'In'sum,'while'Art.'VI,'24'provides'that'all'appropriation,'revenue'or'tariff' the! two! bills! be! the! subject! of! a! conference,! and! can! a! law! be! enacted! from!
bills,'bills'authorizing'increase'of'the'public'debt,'bills'of'local'application,' these!two!bills?''
and' private' bills' must' "originate' exclusively' in' the' House' of' " Jose! Laurel! as! chair! replied:' It' is' precisely' in' cases' like' this' where' a'
Representatives,"'it'also'adds,'"but!the!Senate!may!propose!or!concur!with! conference'should'be'had.'If'the'House'bill'had'been'approved'by'the'
amendments."' In' the' exercise' of' this' power,' the' Senate' may' propose' an' Senate,'there'would'have'been'no'need'of'a'conference;'but'precisely'
entirely'new'bill'as'a'substitute'measure.'As'petitioner'Tolentino'states'in' because' the' Senate!passed! another! bill! on! the! same! subject! matter,'
a' high' school' text,' a' committee' to' which' a' bill' is' referred' may' do' any' of' the' conference' committee' had' to' be' created,' and' we' are' now'
the'following:(1)'to'endorse'the'bill'without'changes;'(2)'to'make'changes' considering'the'report'of'that'committee.'
in'the'bill'omitting'or'adding'sections'or'altering'its'language;'(3)'to'make' '
and' endorse' an' entirely' new' bill' as' a' substitute,' in' which' case' it' will' be' III. The!President's!certification.''
known'as'a'committee!bill;'or'(4)'to'make'no'report'at'all.'(Tolentino,'The' Contention:''
Govt.'of'the'Phil.)' 1. That' H.' No.' 11197' and' S.' No.' 1630' are' distinct' and' unrelated' measures' and' that'
To'except'from'this'procedure'the'amendment'of'bills'which'are'required'to'originate'in' because'the'President'separately'certified'to'the'need'for'the'immediate'enactment'
the'House'by'prescribing'that'the'number'of'the'House'bill'and'its'other'parts'up'to'the' of'these'measures,'his'certification'was'ineffectual'and'void.''
enacting'clause'must'be'preserved'although'the'text'of'the'Senate'amendment'may'be' 2. Petitioners' further' contend' that' a' "growing' budget' deficit"' is' not' an' emergency,'
incorporated'in'place'of'the'original'body'of'the'bill'is'to'insist'on'a'mere'technicality.'At' especially' in' a' country' like' the' Philippines' where' budget' deficit' is' a' chronic'
any' rate' there' is' no' rule' prescribing' this' form.' S.' No.' 1630,' as' a' substitute' measure,' is' condition.'Even'if'this'were'the'case,'an'enormous'budget'deficit'does'not'make'the'
therefore'as'much'an'amendment'of'H.'No.'11197'as'any'which'the'Senate'could'have' need'for'R.A.'No.'7716'any'less'urgent'or'the'situation'calling'for'its'enactment'any'
made.' less'an'emergency.'
' (
II. S.'No.'1630'a!mere!amendment!of!H.'No.'11197.'' Ratio:''
Contentions:'' 1.' The' certification' had' to' be' made' of' the' version' of' the' same' revenue' bill' which'at! the!
o Petitioners''basic'error'is'that'they'assume'that'S.'No.'1630'is'an'independent!and!distinct! moment!was'being'considered.'Otherwise,'to'follow'petitioners''theory,'it'would'be'necessary'
bill.'Hence'their'repeated'references'to'its'certification'that'it'was'passed'by'the'Senate' for'the'President'to'certify'as'many'bills'as'are'presented'in'a'house'of'Congress'even'though'
"in'substitution! of! S.B.!No.!1129,! taking! into! consideration'P.S.' Res.' No.' 734' the'bills'are'merely'versions'of'the'bill'he'has'already'certified.'It'is'enough'that'he'certifies'
and'H.B.!No.!11197,"'implying'that'there'is'something'substantially'different'between'the' the'bill'which,'at'the'time'he'makes'the'certification,'is'under'consideration.'Since'on'March'
reference' to' S.' No.' 1129' and' the' reference' to' H.' No.' 11197.' From' this' premise,' they' 22,'1994'the'Senate'was'considering'S.'No.'1630,'it'was'that'bill'which'had'to'be'certified.'For'
conclude'that'R.A.'No.'7716'originated'both'in'the'House'and'in'the'Senate'and'that'it'is' that' matter' on' June' 1,' 1993' the' President' had' earlier' certified' H.' No.' 9210' for' immediate'
the' product' of' two' "half\baked' bills' because' neither' H.' No.' 11197' nor' S.' No.' 1630' was' enactment'because'it'was'the'one'which'at'that'time'was'being'considered'by'the'House.'This'
passed'by'both'houses'of'Congress."' bill'was'later'substituted,'together'with'other'bills,'by'H.'No.'11197.'
Ratio:' o As' to' what' Presidential' certification' can' accomplish,' we' have' already' explained' in' the'
o In' point' of' fact,' in' several' instances' the' provisions' of' S.' No.' 1630,' clearly' appear' to' be' main'decision'that'the'phrase'"except'when'the'President'certifies'to'the'necessity'of'its'
mere' amendments' of' the' corresponding' provisions' of' H.' No.' 11197.' The' very' tabular' immediate' enactment,' etc."' in' Art.' VI,' 26' (2)' qualifies' not' only' the' requirement' that'
comparison'of'the'provisions'of'H.'No.'11197'and'S.'No.'1630'attached'as'Supplement'A' "printed'copies'[of'a'bill]'in'its'final'form'[must'be]'distributed'to'the'members'three'days'
to'the'basic'petition'of'petitioner'Tolentino,'while'showing'differences'between'the'two' before'its'passage"'but'also'the'requirement'that'before'a'bill'can'become'a'law'it'must'
bills,' at' the' same' time' indicates' that' the' provisions' of' the' Senate' bill' were' precisely' have'passed'"three'readings'on'separate'days."''
intended'to'be'amendments'to'the'House'bill.' o The'exception'is'based'on'the'prudential'consideration'that'if'in'all'cases'three'readings'
o Without' H.' No.' 11197,' the' Senate' could' not' have' enacted' S.' No.' 1630.' Because' the' on'separate'days'are'required'and'a'bill'has'to'be'printed'in'final'form'before'it'can'be'
Senate'bill'was'a'mere'amendment'of'the'House'bill,'H.'No.'11197'in'its'original'form'did' passed,' the' need' for' a' law' may' be' rendered' academic' by' the' occurrence' of' the' very'
not'have'to'pass'the'Senate'on'second'and'three'readings.'It'was'enough'that'after'it'was' emergency'or'public'calamity'which'it'is'meant'to'address.'
passed' on' first' reading' it' was' referred' to' the' Senate' Committee' on' Ways' and' Means.' 2.'As'to'the'issue'on'budget'deficit'as'emergency,''the'members'of'the'Senate'(including'some'
Neither' was' it' required' that' S.' No.' 1630' be' passed' by' the' House' of' Representatives' of'the'petitioners'in'these'cases)'believed'that'there'was'an'urgent'need'for'consideration'of'
before'the'two'bills'could'be'referred'to'the'Conference'Committee.' S.' No.' 1630,' because' they' responded' to' the' call' of' the' President' by' voting' on' the' bill' on'
o The'court'used'RA'1405''(Act'prohibiting'the'disclosure'of'bank'deposits')'as'legislative' second'and'third'readings'on'the'same'day.'While'the'judicial'department'is'not'bound'by'the'
precedent'for'this'case.' Senate's'acceptance'of'the'President's'certification,'the'respect'due'coequal'departments'of'
o Cong.'Duran'in'questioning'the'procedure'asked:' the'government'in'matters'committed'to'them'by'the'Constitution'and'the'absence'of'a'clear'
showing'of'grave'abuse'of'discretion'caution'a'stay'of'the'judicial'hand.'
! !
o The( purpose( for( which( three( readings( on( separate( days( is( required( is( said( to( be( two/ o To' subject' the' press' to' its' payment' is' not' to' burden' the' exercise' of' its' right' any' more'
fold:((1)(to(inform(the(members(of(Congress(of(what(they(must(vote(on(and((2)(to(give( than'to'make'the'press'pay'income'tax'or'subject'it'to'general'regulation'is'not'to'violate'
them(notice(that(a(measure(is(progressing(through(the(enacting(process,(thus(enabling( its'freedom'under'the'Constitution.'
them(and(others(interested(in(the(measure(to(prepare(their(positions(with(reference(to( o '
it.(These(purposes(were(substantially(achieved(in(the(case(of(R.A.(No.(7716.( VII. Alleged!violations!of!the!due!process,!equal!protection!and!contract!clauses!and!the!
( rule!on!taxation.''
IV. Power!of!Conference!Committee.'' Contention:'
Contention:' o CREBA' asserts' that' R.A.' No.' 7716' (1)' impairs' the' obligations' of' contracts,' (2)' classifies'
Conference' Committee' violated' the' constitutional' policy' of' full' public' disclosure' and' the' transactions'as'covered'or'exempt'without'reasonable'basis'and'(3)'violates'the'rule'that'
people's' right' to' know' because' they' met' for' two' days' in' executive' session' with' only' the' taxes' should' be' uniform' and' equitable' and' that' Congress' shall' "evolve' a' progressive'
conferees' present.' They' cited' the' rules' of' both' houses' which' provide' that' conference' system'of'taxation."'
committee'reports'must'contain'"a'detailed,'sufficiently'explicit'statement'of'the'changes'in' Ratio:'
or'other'amendments."' Even'though'such'taxation'may'affect'particular'contracts,'as'it'may'increase'the'debt'of'one'
Ratio:'' person'and'lessen'the'security'of'another,'or'may'impose'additional'burdens'upon'one'class'
These' changes' are' shown' in' the' bill' attached' to' the' Conference' Committee' Report.' The' and' release' the' burdens' of' another,' still' the' tax' must' be' paid' unless' prohibited' by' the'
members' of' both' houses' could' thus' ascertain' what' changes' had' been' made' in' the' original' Constitution,'nor'can'it'be'said'that'it'impairs'the'obligation'of'any'existing'contract'in'its'true'
bills'without'the'need'of'a'statement'detailing'the'changes.' legal'sense.'
o Conference' Committee' has' the' power' to' insert' new' provisions' as' long' as' these' are' Equality'and'uniformity'of'taxation'means'that'all'taxable'articles'or'kinds'of'property'of'the'
germane'to'the'subject'of'the'conference.' same'class'be'taxed'at'the'same'rate.'The'taxing'power'has'the'authority'to'make'reasonable'
o In' the' case' of' Phil.' Judge' Assoc.' v' Prado' it' is' said' that' the' jurisdiction' of' the' and'natural'classifications'for'purposes'of'taxation.''
conference' committee' is' not' limited' to' resolving' differences' between' the' WHEREFORE,( the( motions( for( reconsideration( are( denied( with( finality( and( the( temporary(
Senate' and' the' House.' It' may' propose' an' entirely' new' provision,' What' is' restraining(order(previously(issued(is(hereby(lifted.(
important'is'that'its'report'is'subsequently'approved'by'the'respective'houses' '
of'Congress.' 2. Pascual v. Sec. of Public Works (APG)
We'pass'no'judgment'on'the'methods'of'conference'committees.'Under'Art.'VI,'16(3)'each' WENCESLAO( PASCUAL,( in( his( official( capacity( as( Provincial( Governor( of( Rizal( vs.'
house' has' the' power' "to' determine' the' rules' of' its' proceedings,"' including' those' of' its' THE(SECRETARY(OF(PUBLIC(WORKS(AND(COMMUNICATIONS,(ET(AL.'
committees.' Any' meaningful' change' in' the' method' and' procedures' of' Congress' or' its' CONCEPCION,'J.:&|&G.R.(No.(L/10405((|((December(29,(1960(
committees'must'therefore'be'sought'in'that'body'itself.' (
' RRV:' Pascual' questioned' the' constitutionality' of' R.A.' 920' which' appropriated' funds' for' the'
V. The!titles!of!S.'No.'1630!and!H.'No.'11197.' construction' of' feeder' road' terminals' on' the' ground' that' they' do' not' connect' to' any'
'Contention:' government' property' and' are' used' for' private' purpose' only' which' constitutes' a' violation' of'
R.A.'No.'7716'violates'Art.'VI,'26'(1)'of'the'Constitution'which'provides'that'"Every'bill'passed' our' Constitution.' The' said' projected' would' cover' a' subdivision' owned' by' Zulueta' (senate'
by'Congress'shall'embrace'only'one'subject'which'shall'be'expressed'in'the'title'thereof."'PAL' member).' The' test' of' the' constitutionality' of' a' statute' requiring' the' use' of' public' funds' is'
(one'of'the'Petitioners)'contends'that'the'amendment'of'its'franchise'by'the'withdrawal'of'its' whether'the'statute'is'designed'to'promote'the'public'interest,'as'opposed'to'the'furtherance'
exemption'from'the'VAT'is'not'expressed'in'the'title'of'the'law.' of' the' advantage' of' individuals,' although' each' advantage' to' individuals'
Ratio:' To' require' every' end' and' means' necessary' for' the' accomplishment' of' the' general' might'incidentally'serve' the' public.' ' The' legality' of' the' P85,000.00' appropriation' depended'
objectives'of'the'statute'to'be'expressed'in'its'title'would'not'only'be'unreasonable'but'would' upon'whether'said'roads'were'public'or'private'property'when'Republic'Act'920,'was'passed'
actually' render' legislation' impossible.' The' details' of' a' legislative' act' need' not' be' specifically' by' Congress' or' when' approved' by' the' President' and' the' disbursement' of' said' sum' became'
stated'in'its'title,'but'matter'germane'to'the'subject'as'expressed'in'the'title,'and'adopted'to' effective'or'on'June'20,'1953'Inasmuch'as'the'land'on'which'the'projected'feeder'roads'were'
the'accomplishment'of'the'object'in'view,'may'properly'be'included'in'the'act.' to' be' constructed' belonged' then' to' Zulueta,' the' result' is' that' said' appropriation' sought' a'
' private'purpose,'and'hence,'was'null'and'void.''
VI. Claims!of!press!freedom!and!religious!liberty.'' (
Contention:' Facts:'
PPI'(one'of'the'Petitioners)'contended'that'by'removing'the'exemption'of'the'press'from'the' On' August' 31,' 1954,' Wenceslao' Pascual,' as' Provincial' Governor' of' Rizal,' instituted'
VAT'while'maintaining'those'granted'to'others,'the'law'discriminates'against'the'press.'' this'action'for'declaratory'relief,'with'injunction,'upon'the'ground'that'Republic(Act(
Ratio:' No.(920,(entitled("An(Act(Appropriating(Funds(for(Public(Works"(that'the'following'
o Since'the'law'granted'the'press'a'privilege,'the'law'could'take'back'the'privilege'anytime' item' of' P85,000' "for' the' construction,' reconstruction,' repair,' extension' and'
without' offense' to' the' Constitution.' The' reason' is' simple:' by' granting' exemptions,' the' improvement"' of' Pasig' feeder' road' terminals' consisting' the' following' roads' Gen.'
State'does'not'forever'waive'the'exercise'of'its'sovereign'prerogative.' Roxas' ' Gen.' Araneta' ' Gen.' Lucban' ' Gen.' Capinpin' ' Gen.' Segundo' ' Gen.'
! !
Delgado''Gen.'Malvar''Gen.'Lim'which'were'"nothing'but'projected'and'planned' public' purpose",' that' the' instructions' and' improvement' of' the' feeder' roads' in'
subdivision' roads,' not' yet' constructed' within' the' Antonio' Subdivision' situated' at' question,'if'such'roads'where'private'property,'would'not'be'a'public'purpose'and'
Pasig,'Rizal.' should'be'subject'to'the'following'condition:'
o The'said'projected'feeder'roads'"do'not'connect'any'government'property' The'within'donation'is'hereby'made'upon!the!condition!that!the!Government!of!the!
or'any'important'premises'to'the'main'highway"' Republic! of! the! Philippines! will! use! the! parcels! of! land! hereby! donated! for! street!
o Antonio'Subdivision'(as'well'as'the'lands'on'which'said'feeder'roads'were' purposes!only!and!for!no!other!purposes!whatsoever;'it'being'expressly'understood'
to' be' construed)' were' private' properties' of' Zulueta,' who,' at' the' time' of' that'should'the'Government'of'the'Republic'of'the'Philippines'violate'the'condition'
the'passage'and'approval'of'said'Act,'was'a'Senate(member.' hereby' imposed' upon' it,' the' title' to' the' land' hereby' donated' shall,' upon' such'
Acts'which'preceded'the'enactment'of'R.A.'920:' violation,' ipso' facto' revert' to' the' DONOR,' JOSE' C.' ZULUETA.' \' a' contract' (onerous'
o On'May'1953,'Zulueta'addressed'a'letter'to'the'Municipal'Council'of'Pasig,' donation)' ' which' is' "absolutely' forbidden' by' the' Constitution"' and' consequently'
Rizal,'offering'to'donate'said'projected'feeder'roads'to'the'municipality'of' "illegal",' for' Article' 1409' of' the' Civil' Code' of' the' Philippines,' declares' in' existence'
Pasig,' Rizal' which' was' accepted' by' the' council' subject' to' the' condition' and' void' from' the' very' beginning' contracts' "whose' cause,' objector' purpose' is'
"that'the'donor'would'submit'a'plan'of'the'said'roads'and'agree'to'change' contrary'to'law,'morals'.'.'.'or'public'policy"'
the'names'of'two'of'them";'' Zulueta' contended' that' ' A' law' passed' by' Congress' and' approved' by' the' President'
o However,'no'deed'of'donation'was'executed.' can'never'be'illegal'because'Congress'is'the'source'of'all'laws''
On' July' 10,' 1953,' Zulueta' wrote' another' letter' to' said' council,' calling' attention' to' '
the' approval' of' Republic' Act.' No.' 920,' and' the' sum' of' P85,000.00' appropriated' Issue:'Whether'or'not'the'appropriation'of'P85,000''(public'fund)'is'for'public'purpose'\'NO'
therein'for'the'construction'of'the'projected'feeder'roads'in'question' '
o No' endorsement' was' made' up' to' the' present' because' inasmuch' as' the' Dispositive' portion:' Wherefore,' the' decision' appealed' from' is' hereby' reversed,' and' the'
projected' feeder' roads' in' question' were' private' property' at' the' time' of' records' are' remanded' to' the' lower' court' for' further' proceedings' not' inconsistent' with' this'
the' passage' and' approval' of' Republic' Act' No.' 920,' the' appropriation' of' decision,'with'the'costs'of'this'instance'against'respondent'Jose'C.'Zulueta.'It'is'so'ordered.'
P85,000.00' therein' made,' for' the' construction,' reconstruction,' repair,' '
extension' and' improvement' of' said' projected' feeder' roads,' was' illegal' Held:'
and,'therefore,'void'ab!initio"' Incidental(advantage(
o The'appropriation'was'made'by'Congress'because'its'members'were'made' The' contention' of' Zulueta' that' a' law' passed' by' Congress' and' approved' by' the'
to' believe' that' the' projected' feeder' roads' in' question' were' public' roads' President' cannot' be' illegal' because' Congress' is' the' source' of' all' laws' must' be'
and'not'private'streets'of'a'private'subdivision.' rejected.' Such' interpretation' is' inconsistent' with' the' nature' of' the' Government'
o Zulueta' executed' an' alleged' deed' of' donation' of' the' four' (4)' parcels' of' established' under' the' Constitution' and' the' system' of' checks' and' balances.'
land' constituting' said' projected' feeder' roads' and' made' it' appear' that' it' Moreover,' it' is' refuted' by' the' decisions' of' this' Court' invalidating' legislative'
was'accepted'by'the'then'Executive'Secretary'and'it'partook'the'nature'of' enactments'deemed'violative'of'the'Constitution'or'organic'laws.'
a'contract'being'an'onerous'condition.' As'regards'the'legal'feasibility'of'appropriating'public'funds'for'a'public'purpose,'the'
Pascual'alleged'that'the'said'donation'violated'the'provision'prohibiting(members(of( principle'according'to'Ruling'Case'Law,'is'this:'
Congress( from( being( directly( or( indirectly( financially( interested( in( any( contract( It'is'a'general'rule'that!the!legislature!is!without!power!to!appropriate!public!revenue!
with( the( Government,' and,' hence,' is' unconstitutional,' as' well' as' null' and' voidab! for!anything!but!a!public!purpose.''
initio,' for' the' construction' of' the' projected' feeder' roads' in' question' with' public( It' is' the' essential' character' of' the' direct' object' of' the' expenditure' which' must'
funds( would( greatly( enhance( or( increase( the( value( of( the( aforementioned( determine'its'validity'as'justifying'a'tax,'and'not'the'magnitude'of'the'interest'to'be'
subdivision'of'Zulueta,'"aside'from'relieving'him'from'the'burden'of'constructing'his' affected'nor'the'degree'to'which'the'general'advantage'of'the'community,'and'thus'
subdivision' streets' or' roads' at' his' own' expense";' Petitioner' prayed' that' the' the'public'welfare,'may'be'ultimately'benefited'by'their'promotion.'Incidental!to'the'
contested'item'of'Republic'Act'No.'920'be'declared'null'and'void;'that'the'alleged' public'or'to'the'state,'which'results'from'the'promotion'of'private'interest'and'the'
deed'of'donation'of'the'feeder'roads'in'question'be'"declared'unconstitutional'and' prosperity' of' private' enterprises' or' business,' does' not' justify' their' aid' by' the' use'
illegal";' that' a' writ' of' injunction' be' issued' to' prevent' the' continuance' of' the' said' public'money.''
project.' Corpus'Juris'Secundum'\'In'accordance'with'the'rule'that'the'taxing!power!must!be!
Respondents'moved'to'dismiss'the'petition'upon'the'ground'that'petitioner'had'"no' exercised! for! public! purposes! only.' Money' raised' by' taxation' can' be' expended'only!
legal'capacity'to'sue"'and'that'the'petition'did'"not'state'a'cause'of'action"'and'that' for!public!purposes!and!not!for!the!advantage!of!private!individuals.''
"there'is'no'actual'bona!fide'case.'' Generally,' under' the' express' or' implied' provisions' of' the' constitution,!public! funds!
Lower'court''the'petitioners'have'the'capacity'to'question'the'constitutionality'of' may!be!used!only!for!public!purpose.'The'right'of'the'legislature'to'appropriate'funds'
the'disputed'item'of'Republic'Act'No.'920'because'it'involves'public'interest.'It'held' is' correlative' with' its' right' to' tax,' and,' under' constitutional' provisions' against'
"the' legislature' is' without' power' appropriate' public' revenues' for' anything' but' a' taxation' except' for' public' purposes' and' prohibiting' the' collection' of' a' tax' for' one'
! !
purpose' and' the' devotion' thereof' to' another' purpose,'no! appropriation! of! state! has' been' upheld' by' the' Federal' Supreme' Court' ' has' greater' application' in' the'
funds!can!be!made!for!other!than!for!a!public!purpose.' Philippines''
The( test( of( the( constitutionality( of( a( statute( requiring( the( use( of( public( funds( is( In'Province'of'Tayabas'vs.'Perez'(56'Phil.,'257),'involving'the'expropriation'of'a'land'
whether(the(statute(is(designed(to(promote(the(public(interest,(as(opposed(to(the( by'the'Province'of'Tayabas,'two'(2)'taxpayers'thereof'were'allowed'to'intervene'for'
furtherance( of( the( advantage( of( individuals,( although( each( advantage( to( the' purpose' of' contesting' the' price' being' paid' to' the' owner' thereof,' as' unduly'
individuals(might'incidentally'serve(the(public.'' exorbitant.''
The' validity' of' a' statute' depends' upon' the' powers' of' Congress' at' the' time' of' its' In'Custodio'vs.'President'of'the'Senate,'a'taxpayer'and'employee'of'the'Government'
passage' or' approval,' not' upon' events' occurring,' or' acts' performed,' subsequently' was'not'permitted'to'question'the'constitutionality'of'an'appropriation'for'backpay'
thereto,' unless' the' latter' consists' of' an' amendment' of' the' organic' law,' removing,' of'members'of'Congress.'However,'in'Rodriguez'vs.'Treasurer'of'the'Philippines'and'
with'retrospective'operation,'the'constitutional'limitation'infringed'by'said'statute.'' Barredo'vs.'Commission' on' Elections,' we' entertained' the' action' of' taxpayers'
o The'legality'of'the'P85,000.00'appropriation'depended'upon'whether'said' impugning'the'validity'of'certain'appropriations'of'public'funds,'and'invalidated'the'
roads'were'public'or'private'property'when'Republic'Act'920,'was'passed' same.' Moreover,' the' reason' that' impelled' this' Court' to' take' such' position' in' said'
by'Congress'or'when'approved'by'the'President'and'the'disbursement'of' two'(2)'cases''the'importance'of'the'issues'therein'raised''is'present'in'the'case'
said'sum'became'effective'or'on'June'20,'1953'(see'section'13'of'said'Act).' at' bar.' Again,' like' the' petitioners' in' the' Rodriguez' and' Barredo' cases,' petitioner(
o Inasmuch' as' the' land' on' which' the' projected' feeder' roads' were' to' be' herein( is( not( merely( a( taxpayer.( The( Province( of( Rizal,( which( he( represents(
constructed'belonged'then'to'Zulueta,'the'result(is(that(said(appropriation( officially( as( its( Provincial( Governor,( is( our( most( populated( political(
sought(a(private(purpose,(and(hence,(was(null(and(void.'' subdivision,'and,(the(taxpayers(therein(bear(a(substantial(portion(of(the(burden(of(
o The'donation'to'the'Government,'over'five'(5)'months'after'the'approval' taxation,(in(the(Philippines.'
and'effectivity'of'said'Act'did'not'cure'its'basic'defect.'' '
o Consequently,'a'judicial'nullification'of'said'donation'need'not'precede'the'
Sec. 25
declaration'of'unconstitutionality'of'said'appropriation.'
( 1. Farinas v. Exec. Sec (DU)
RODOLFO( C.( FARIAS,( MANUEL( M.( GARCIA,( FRANCIS( G.( ESCUDERO,( and( AGAPITO( A.( AQUINO,( AS(
Legal(Standing(
MEMBERS(OF(THE(HOUSE(OF(REPRESENTATIVES(AND(ALSO(AS(TAXPAYERS,(IN(THEIR(OWN(BEHALF(AND(
Article'1421'of'our'Civil'Code'is'subject'to'exceptions.'For'instance,'the'creditors'of'a' IN( REPRESENTATION( OF( THE( MEMBERS( OF( THE( MINORITY( IN( THE( HOUSE( OF(
party'to'an'illegal'contract'may,'under'the'conditions'set'forth'in'Article'1177'of'said' REPRESENTATIVES,petitioners,''
Code,' exercise' the' rights' and' actions' of' the' latter,' except' only' those' which' are' vs.'
inherent' in' his' person,' including' therefore,' his' right' to' the' annulment' of' said' THE( EXECUTIVE( SECRETARY,( COMMISSION( ON( ELECTIONS,( HON.( FELICIANO( R.( BELMONTE,( JR.,(
contract,'even'though'such'creditors'are'not'affected'by'the'same,'except'indirectly,' SECRETARY(OF(THE(INTERIOR(AND(LOCAL(GOVERNMENT,(SECRETARY(OF(THE(SENATE,(AND(SECRETARY(
in'the'manner'indicated'in'said'legal'provision.' GENERAL(OF(THE(HOUSE(OF(REPRESENTATIVES,'respondents.'
The'validity'of'a'statute'may'be'contested'only'by'one'who'will'sustain'a'direct'injury' G.R.(No.(147387((((((((((((((((
x'\'\'\'\'\'\'\'\'\'\'\'\'\'\'\'\'\'\'\'\'\'\'\'x'
in' consequence' of' its' enforcement.' Yet,' there' are' many' decisions' nullifying,' at' the'
CONG.(GERRY(A.(SALAPUDDIN,(petitioner,''
instance' of' taxpayers,' laws' providing' for( the( disbursement( of( public( funds,'upon( vs.'
the(theory(that("the(expenditure(of(public(funds(by(an(officer(of(the(State(for(the( COMMISSION(ON(ELECTIONS,'respondent.'
purpose( of( administering( an'unconstitutional'act( constitutes( a!misapplication!of( G.R.(No.(152161(
such(funds,"(which(may(be(enjoined(at(the(request(of(a(taxpayer.' December(10,(2003(|''EN'BANC'\'CALLEJO,(SR.,(J(
The' relation' between' the' people' of' the' Philippines' and' its' taxpayers,' on' the' other' TAGS:' Article' VI,' Section' 25,' 26(1);' Riders,' liberal' construction;' Equal' Protection;' Requirement' of'
hand,' and' the' Republic' of' the' Philippines,' on' the' other,' is' not' identical' to' that' Publication'of'Laws;'Enrolled'Bill'Doctrine'
obtaining'between'the'people'and'taxpayers'of'the'U.S.'and'its'Federal'Government.' (
It' is' closer,' from' a' domestic' viewpoint,' to' that' existing' between' the' people' and' SUMMARY:(
taxpayers'of'each'state'and'the'government'thereof,'except'that'the'authority'of'the' RA'9006'was'passed'into'law.'Farinas'et'al'challenge'the'constitutionality'of'the'law.'One'issue'
Republic'of'the'Philippines'over'the'people'of'the'Philippines'is'more!fully!direct!than' of'Farinas'is'on'Section'14'of'RA'9006'which'repealed'Section'67'of'the'Omnibus'Election'Code'
that'of'the'states'of'the'Union,'insofar'as'the'simple!and'unitary!type'of'our'national' (S67).' With' the' repeal,' elected' officials' may' now' file' their' certificate' of' candidacy' for' a'
government'is'not'subject'to'limitations'analogous'to'those'imposed'by'the'Federal' position'other'than'that'they'currently'hold,'without'having'to'resign'for'his'current'position.'
Constitution' upon' the' states' of' the' Union,' and' those' imposed' upon' the' Federal' According'to'Farinas,'this'is'a'rider'since'RA'9006'deals'with'the'fair'use'of'media'for'election'
Government'in'the'interest'of'the'Union.'' campaign.'
For' this' reason,' the' rule' recognizing' the' right' of' taxpayers' to' assail' the' '
constitutionality' of' a' legislation' appropriating' local' or' state' public' funds' ' which' SC'said'that'Section'14'is'not'a'rider'since'the'title'and'the'objectives'of'Rep.'Act'No.'9006'are'
comprehensive' enough' to' include' the' repeal' of' Section' 67' of' the' Omnibus' Election' Code'
within' its' contemplation.' S67' was' deemed' by' the' legislature' to' be' an' unfair' provision' for'
! !
elected' officials' so' repealing' it' was' in' line' with' RA' 9006' which' promotes' fair' elections.' " Reps.' Farias' and' Garcia' expressed( their( belief' that' Section' 14'
Discussion' also' went' to' the' fact' that' this' was' policy' of' the' state' which' the' court' has' thereof'was'a'rider.'
jurisdiction.'Also'the'court'said'that'the'rule'against'rider'was'meant'to'inform'the'legislature' " Escudero,'who'voted'in'the'affirmative,'expressed(his(doubts'on'
about' what' the' bill' that' they' are' discussing' will' be' talking' about.' In' this' case,' clearly' the'
the'constitutionality'of'Section'14'
legislature'knew'that'the'Bill'for'RA'9006'talked'about'repealing'S67'since'they'expressed'their'
reservations'on'the'said'provision'during'the'voting'for'the'bill/law.'' " Rep.' Dilangalen' observed' that' no' senator' signed' the' Bicameral'
There' was' no' violation' of' the' Equal' Protection' Clause' since' there' is' a' substantial' distinction' Conference' Committee' Report' and' asked' if' this' procedure' was'
between' elected' official' and' appointive' officials.' As' to' the' procedure' on' how' the' law' was' regular.'''
passed,' the' matter' is' left' to' the' legislature' since' it' is' internal' matters' of' the' legislature.' " Senate'likewise'approved'the'consolidated'bill'on'the'same'day'
Enrolled' bill' doctrine' was' also' used' to' say' that' proper' procedure' was' followed' by' the' o FACTS'relevant'for'Enrolled'Bill'Doctrine:'
Legislature'in'passing'RA'9006.'As'to'the'effectivity'clause,'the'Court'said'that'it'is'defective' " Rep.'Act'No.'9006'was'duly'signed'by'both'heads'of'each'house'
and'the'law'became'effective'15'days'after'publication'(not'upon'approval)'
(Sen'Pimentel'and'Hon.'Belmonte)'
FACTS:((Skip!the!grey!parts!!just!in!case!sir!ask)(
# Before'the'Court'are'two'Petitions'under'Rule'65'of'the'Rules'of'Court,'as'amended,' " Rep.' Act' No.' 9006' was' duly' certified' by' the' secretaries' of' the'
seeking'to'declare'as'unconstitutional'Section'14'of'Republic'Act'No.'9006'(The'Fair' house'as'the'consolidated'bill''
Election'Act),'insofar'as'it'expressly'repeals'Section'67'of'Batas'Pambansa'Blg.'881' " President'Gloria'Macapagal\Arroyo'signed'Rep.'Act'No.'9006'into'
(The'Omnibus'Election'Code)'which'provides:( law'on'February'12,'2001'
o SEC.'67.'Candidates'holding'elective'office.''Any'elective'official,'whether' Petitioners'Argument'
# Section'14'of'RA'9006'violates'Section'26(1),'Article'VI'of'the'Constitution,'requiring'
national' or' local,' running' for' any' office' other' than' the' one' which' he' is'
every'law'to'have'only'one'subject'which'should'be'expressed'in'its'title.'(Rider'daw'
holding'in'a'permanent'capacity,'except'for'President'and'Vice\President,'
siya)'
shall'be'considered'ipso'facto'resigned'from'his'office'upon'the'filing'of'his'
o They'point'out'the'dissimilarity'in'the'subject'matter'of'Rep.'Act'No.'9006,'
certificate'of'candidacy.(
on' the' one' hand,' and' Section' 67' of' the' Omnibus' Election' Code,' on' the'
# Petitioners'here'are'members'(minority)'of'the'House'of'Representative'(House)'at'
other.'
the'time'of'filing.'
" Rep.' Act' No.' 9006' primarily' deals' with' the' lifting' of' the' ban' on'
Legislative'History'of'RA'9006''
# Title:' An( Act( to( Enhance( the( Holding( of( Free,( Orderly,( Honest,( Peaceful( and( the'use(of(media(for(election(propaganda'and'the'elimination'of'
Credible(Elections(through(Fair(Election(Practices( unfair'election'practices'
o Short'Title:'Fair(Election(Act' " while' Section' 67' of' the' Omnibus' Election' Code' imposes( a(
o Consolidated'of'House'Bill'9000'(HB)'and'Senate'Bill'1742'(SB)' limitation( on( elective( officials'who'run'for'an'office'other'than'
# Two'Bicameral'conferences'(Bicam)'were'formed'to'reconcile'conflicting'provisions' the'one'they'are'holding'in'a'permanent'capacity'by'considering'
of'HB'and'SB.'' them' as' ipso' facto' resigned' therefrom' upon' filing' of' the'
o (One' of' the' grounds' for' constitutionality' raised' by' petitioner' is' that' certificate'of'candidacy.'
nd
forming'the'2 'Bicam'violated'the'rules'of'congress)' o The' repeal' of' Section' 67' of' the' Omnibus' Election' Code' is' thus' not'
o First! Bicam! recommended! on! Nov.! 29,! 2000! to! approve! the! consolidated! embraced'in'the'title,'nor'germane'to'the'subject'matter'of'Rep.'Act'No.'
bill! 9006.'
" Plenary! session! of! the! House! on! Feb! 5,! 2001,! Representative! # Section'14'of'RA'9006'violates'Equal'Protection'Clause'
Jacinto! Paras! proposed! an! amendment! to! the! Bicameral! o RA'9006'lift'the'limitation'on'elected'official'but'not'on'appointive'official'
Conference!Committee!Report.! since'it'did'not'repeal'Sec'66'of'the'Omnibus'Election'Code'
o Despite! objections,! majority! of! the! House! approved! that! the! consolidated! " SEC.! 66.! Candidates! holding! appointive! office! or! position.! ! Any!
nd
bill! be! returned! to! Bicameral! Conference! (2 ! Bicam)! ! so! both! houses! of! person! holding! a! public! appointive! office! or! position,! including!
congress!sent!new!representatives!for!the!2 !Bicam!
nd active! members! of! the! Armed! Forces! of! the! Philippines,! and!
nd
o After' some' proceedings' in' the' 2 ' Bicam,' the' consolidated' bill' was' officers! and! employees! in! governmentWowned! or! controlled!
approved'by'the'House'on'Feb'7,'2001,'(125y\3n\0a)' corporations,! shall! be! considered! ipso! facto! resigned! from! his!
" Negative'votes'explanations:'(IMPORTANT!!!!)' office!upon!the!filing!of!his!certificate!of!candidacy.!
! !
o So!unlike!elective!official,!Appointive!officials!are!still!considered!ipso!facto! its! contents.! It! must! be! deemed! sufficient! that! the! title! be! comprehensive!
resigned!from!their!offices!upon!the!filing!of!their!certificates!of!candidacy.! enough! reasonably! to! include! the! general! subject! which! the! statute! seeks!
# Rep.! Act! No.! 9006! is! null! and! void! in! its! entirety! as! irregularities! attended! its! to! effect! without! expressing! each! and! every! means! necessary! for! its!
enactment!into!law! accomplishment!
o Section!16!of!the!law!which!provides!that!"[t]his!Act!shall!take!effect!upon! # does!not!violate!the!equal!protection!clause!
its!approval"!is!a!violation!of!the!due!process!clause!of!the!Constitution,!as! o distinction! exists! between! these! two! sets! of! officials;! elective! officials!
well! as! jurisprudence,! which! require! publication! of! the! law! before! it! occupy!their!office!by!virtue!of!their!mandate!based!upon!the!popular!will,!
becomes!effective! while! the! appointive! officials! are! not! elected! by! popular! will.! The! latter!
# Section!67!of!the!Omnibus!Election!Code!is!a!good!law;!hence,!should!not!have!been! cannot,! therefore,! be! similarly! treated! as! the! former.! Equal! protection!
repealed.! simply! requires! that! all! persons! or! things! similarly! situated! are! treated!
o Dimaporo!v.!Mitra,!Jr!202!SCRA!779!(1991):! alike,!both!as!to!rights!conferred!and!responsibilities!imposed.!
" Section! 67! of! the! Omnibus! Election! Code! is! based! on! the! # Due!Process!not!violated!
constitutional!mandate!on!the!"Accountability!of!Public!Officers:"! o Section!16,!or!the!"Effectivity"!clause,!of!Rep.!Act!No.!9006!does!not!entail!
# Consequently,! the! respondents! Speaker! and! Secretary! General! of! the! House! of! any!arbitrary!deprivation!of!life,!liberty!and!property!
Representatives!acted!with!grave!abuse!of!discretion!amounting!to!excess!or!lack!of! o the! section! providing! for! penalties! in! cases! of! violations! thereof! presume!
jurisdiction!for!not!considering!those!members!of!the!House!who!ran!for!a!seat!in!the! that!the!formalities!of!the!law!would!be!observed!
Senate!during!the!May!14,!2001!elections!as!ipso!facto!resigned!therefrom,!upon!the! " i.e.! charges! would! first! be! filed,! and! the! accused! would! be!
filing!of!their!respective!certificates!of!candidacy.! entitled!to!a!hearing!
Respondents'Argument'via'SolGen:'(You'may'Skip'this'part,'content'will'just'be'repeated'in' o issue! about! lack! of! due! process! is! premature! as! no! one! has,! as! yet,! been!
the'decision)' charged!with!violation!of!Rep.!Act!No.!9006!
# No!Legal!Standing! # As!to!GADALEJ!by!respondents,!they!just!followed!RA!9006!!(presumed!Valid)!so!no!
o Petitioners!have!not!shown!they!suffered!harm! GADALEJ!
o No!taxpayer!interest!since!this!does!not!involve!the!exercise!by!Congress!of! ISSUE:(
its!taxing!or!spending!power! W/N(petitioner(has(Legal(Standing?(Yes((case(has(overarching(significance(
# Enrolled!Bill!Doctrine!vs!Irregularities!in!enacting!the!RA!9006! W/N(Sec(14(of(RA(9006(is(a(Rider?(NO(
o Signature!by!Senate!President,!Speaker,!certification!of!Secretaries!of!both! W/N(RA(9006(is(Constitutional?(YES(
houses! constitute! proof! beyond! cavil! that! the! bill! was! duly! enacted! into! (
LEGAL(STANDING/(brushed(aside(by(the(court(
law.!
# petitions'were'filed'by'the'petitioners'in'their'capacities'as'members'of'the'House'of'
# Sec!14!not!a!rider!
Representatives,'and'as'taxpayers'and'registered'voters(
o Laws!Title!is!so!broad!that!it!encompasses!all!the!processes!involved!in!an!
# Court,' in' several' cases' involving' issues' of' "overarching' significance' to' our' society,''
election!exercise,!including!the!filing!of!certificates!of!candidacy!by!elective!
had'adopted'a'liberal'stance'on'standing(
officials.!
o Court( cited( cases( where( they( brushed( aside( procedural( requirement( of(
o repeal!of!Section!67!is!germane!to!the!general!subject!of!Rep.!Act!No.!9006!
standing( where( the( petitioners( were( members( of( congress( trying( to(
as! expressed! in! its! title! as! it! eliminates! the! effect! of! prematurely!
impugn(a(law(
terminating!the!term!of!an!elective!official!
# Certainly,' the' principal' issue' posed' by' the' petitions' is' one' of' "overarching'
o when!legislature!repealed!of!Section!67!of!the!Omnibus!Election!Code,!they!
significance"' that' justifies' this' Courts' adoption' of' a' liberal' stance' vis\\vis' the'
deemed!it!fit!to!remove!the!"unfairness"!of!considering!an!elective!official!
procedural'matter'on'standing.'Moreover,'with'the'national'elections'barely'seven'
ipso! facto! resigned! from! his! office! upon! the! filing! of! his! certificate! of!
months'away,'it'behooves'the'Court'to'confront'the'issue'now'and'resolve'the'same'
candidacy!for!another!elective!office!
forthrightly.'((
o With!the!repeal!of!Section!67,!all!elective!officials!are!now!placed!on!equal!
Section(14(of(Rep.(Act(No.(9006(Is(Not(a(Rider((DOCTRINE(
footing! ALERT!!!)((
o repeal! of! Section! 67! need! not! be! expressly! stated! in! the! title! as! the!
legislature!is!not!required!to!make!the!title!of!the!act!a!complete!index!of!
! !
# Const.'ART'VI'SEC.'26'(1).'Every'bill'passed'by'the'Congress'shall'embrace'only'one' o It' is' not' for' this' Court' to' look' into' the' wisdom' or' propriety' of' legislative'
subject'which'shall'be'expressed'in'the'title'thereof.( determination(
o The' proscription' is' aimed' against' the' evils' of' the' so\called' omnibus' bills' # Congress' is' not' precluded' from' repealing' Section' 67' by' the' ruling' of' the' Court' in'
and' log\rolling' legislation' as' well' as' surreptitious' and/or' unconsidered' Dimaporo'v.'Mitra'even'if'it'has'a'laudable'purpose'(
encroaches.'The'provision'merely'calls'for'all'parts'of'an'act'relating'to'its' o Over'time,'Congress'may'find'it'imperative'to'repeal'the'law'on'its'belief'
subject'finding'expression'in'its'title.( that' the' election' process' is' thereby' enhanced' and' the' paramount'
# Guidelines:( objective' of' election' laws' ' the' fair,' honest' and' orderly' election' of' truly'
o Constitutional' provisions' relating' to' the' subject' matter' and' titles' of' deserving'members'of'Congress''is'achieved.(
statutes'should'not(be(so(narrowly(construed'as'to'cripple'or'impede'the' # Moreover,'the'avowed'purpose'of'the'constitutional'directive'that'the'subject'of'a'
power'of'legislation.( bill'should'be'embraced'in'its'title'(Sec'26(1)'of'Art'VI)'is'to'apprise'the'legislators'of'
o The' requirement' that' the' subject' of' an' act' shall' be' expressed' in' its' title' the'purposes,'the'nature'and'scope'of'its'provisions,'and'prevent'the'enactment'into'
should'receive'a(reasonable(and(not(a(technical(construction.( law' of' matters' which' have' not' received' the' notice,' action' and' study' of' the'
o It'is'sufficient'if'the'title(be(comprehensive(enough(reasonably(to(include( legislators'and'the'public.(
the( general( object( which( a( statute( seeks( to( effect,' without' expressing' o 'In'this'case,'it'cannot'be'claimed'that'the'legislators'were'not'apprised'of'
each' and' every' end' and' means' necessary' or' convenient' for' the' the' repeal' of' Section' 67' of' the' Omnibus' Election' Code' as' the' same' was'
accomplishing'of'that'object.( amply' and' comprehensively' deliberated' upon' by' the' members' of' the'
o Mere' details' need' not' be' set' forth.' The' title' need( not( be( an( abstract( or( House.' In' fact,' the' petitioners,' as' members' of' the' House' of'
index(of'the'Act.( Representatives,'expressed'their'reservations'regarding'its'validity'prior'to'
# The' Court' is' convinced' that' the' title' and' the' objectives' of' Rep.' Act' No.' 9006' are' casting'their'votes.(
comprehensive'enough'to'include'the'repeal'of'Section'67'of'the'Omnibus'Election' (
Code'within'its'contemplation.'To'require' that'the'said'repeal'of'Section'67'of'the' Section(14(of(Rep.(Act(No.(9006(
Code' be' expressed' in' the' title' is' to' insist' that' the' title' be' a' complete' index' of' its' Is(Not(Violative(of(the(Equal(
Protection(Clause(of(the(Constitution(
content.(
# Courts( explanation( on( EPC( can( be( summarized:( EPC( is( not( violated( if( there( is( a(
o Title:(An'Act'to'Enhance'the'Holding'of'Free,'Orderly,'Honest,'Peaceful'and'
substantial(distinction(between(classes.((it'merely'requires'that'all'persons'shall'be'
Credible'Elections'through'Fair'Election'Practices(
treated'alike,'under'like'circumstances'and'conditions'both'as'to'privileges'conferred'
o Relevant( portion( of( Declaration( of( principle( of( RA( 9006:( The' State' shall'
and'liabilities'enforced.(
ensure' that' bona' fide' candidates' for' any' public' office' shall' be' free' from'
# Substantial' distinctions' clearly' exist' between' elective' officials' and' appointive'
any'form'of'harassment'and'discrimination.(
officials.'(
# Dissimilarities'of'Section'67'of'Omnibus'Election'Code'to'the'other'provisions'of'RA'
o The'former'occupy'their'office'by'virtue'of'the'mandate'of'the'electorate.'
9006'does'not'Violate'the'"one'subject\one'title"'rule(
They' are' elected' to' an' office' for' a' definite' term' and' may' be' removed'
o This'Court'has'held'that'an'act'having'a'single'general'subject,'indicated'in'
therefrom'only'upon'stringent'conditions.((
the' title,' may' contain' any' number' of' provisions,' no' matter' how' diverse'
o 'On'the'other'hand,'appointive'officials'hold'their'office'by'virtue'of'their'
they' may' be,' so' long' as' they' are' not' inconsistent' with' or' foreign' to' the'
designation'thereto'by'an'appointing'authority.(
general'subject,'and'may'be'considered'in'furtherance'of'such'subject'by'
o Under( the( Administrative( Code,( the( latter( are' strictly' prohibited' from'
providing'for'the'method'and'means'of'carrying'out'the'general'subject.(
engaging' in' any' partisan' political' activity' or' take' part' in' any' election'
# The' legislators' considered' Section' 67' of' the' Omnibus' Election' Code' as' a' form' of'
except'to'vote,'while'the'former'are'not(
harassment' or' discrimination' that' had' to' be' done' away' with' and' repealed.(SC'
(
looked' at' the' transcript' of' the' deliberation' during' the' Bicameral' Conference)' '\' so' The(Enrolled(Bill(Doctrine(
basically'pasok'siya'sa'title'and'declaration'of'principle.'( Is(Applicable(In(this(Case(
# W/n'it'is'a'bad'policy'to'repeal'Section'67'of'the'Ominibus'Election'Code'as'it'would' # Petitioner'cited'10'irregularities'done'by'the'legislature'when'they'enacted'RA'9006'
encourage' political' adventurism,' such' concern' (Government' policy)' is' within' the' o Ex.'Creation'of'two'sets'of'Bicam'Coference'committe','lack'of'records'of'
exclusive'dominion'of'the'political'branches'of'the'government( the'bicams,'disappearance'of'the'cayetano'amendment,'S16'of'the'copy'of'
! !
the'bill'submitted'for'approval'is'different'from'the'one'written'in'the'law,' Respondents:' HON.' MANUEL' ALBA' in' his' capacity' as' the' MINISTER' OF' THE' BUDGET' and' VICTOR'
etc.' MACALINGCAG'in'his'capacity'as'the'TREASURER'OF'THE'PHILIPPINES'
'
# "enrolled'bill'doctrine,"(
SUMMARY:'
o 'the'signing'of'a'bill'by'the'Speaker'of'the'House'and'the'Senate'President' Sec.' 44(1)' of' PD' 1177' (Budget' Reform' Decree' of' 1977)' is' being' assailed' as' unconstitutional'
and'the'certification'of'the'Secretaries'of'both'Houses'of'Congress'that'it' since' it' is' an' unlawful' redistribution' of' funds' in' the' executive.' This' provision' gives' the'
was'passed'are'conclusive'of'its'due'enactment.( executive'the'power'to'indiscriminately'reapportion'funds'in'the'Executive'without'regard'as'
# The' Court' finds' no' reason' to' deviate' from' the' salutary' rule' in' this' case' where' the' to'whether'or'not'the'funds'to'be'transferred'are'actually'savings'in'the'item'from'which'the'
irregularities' alleged' by' the' petitioners' mostly' involved' the' internal' rules' of' same' are' to' be' taken,' or' whether' or' not' the' transfer' is' for' the' purpose' of' augmenting' the'
item' to' which' said' transfer' is' to' be' made.' The' SC' ruled' that' is' indeed' unconstitutional'
Congress,' e.g.,' creation' of' the' 2nd' or' 3rd' Bicameral' Conference' Committee' by' the'
specifically'Sec.'16(5)'(1973'Const.),'similar'to'Sec.'25'Art.'VI'(1987'Const.).'This'is'an'undue'
House.' This' Court( is( not( the( proper( forum( for( the( enforcement( of( these( internal(
delegation'of'legislative'power'since'it'gives'too'much'flexibility'to'the'President/Executive'in'
rules' of' Congress.' Parliamentary' rules' are' merely' procedural' and' with' their' disregard'of'the'General'Appropriations'Act'by'Congress.'
observance'the'courts'have'no'concern.( (
o Arroyo'v.'De'Venecia,( FACTS:(
" Cases','all'deny'to'the'courts'the'power'to'inquire'into'allegations'that,'in' Assailed' in' this' petition' for' prohibition' with' prayer' for' a' writ' of' preliminary'
enacting'a'law,'a'House'of'Congress'failed'to'comply'with'its'own'rules,'in' injunction'is'the'constitutionality'of'the'first'paragraph'of'Section'44'of'Presidential'
Decree'No.'1177,'otherwise'known'as'the'"Budget'Reform'Decree'of'1977'
the' absence' of' showing' that' there' was' a' violation' of' a' constitutional'
Petitioners,' who' filed' the' instant' petition' as' concerned' citizens' of' this' country,' as'
provision'or'the'rights'of'private'individuals(
members'of'the'National'Assembly/Batasan'Pambansa'representing'their'millions'of'
" In'Osmea'v.'Pendatun( constituents,' as' parties' with' general' interest' common' to' all' the' people' of' the'
" rules' adopted' by' deliberative' bodies' are' subject' to' revocation,' Philippines,'and'as'taxpayers'whose'vital'interests'may'be'affected'by'the'outcome'
modification'or'waiver'at'the'pleasure'of'the'body'adopting'them.( of'the'reliefs'prayed'for"'
" Consequently,'mere'failure'to'conform'to'parliamentary'usage'will'not' (
invalidate' the' action' (taken' by' a' deliberative' body)' when' the' requisite' ISSUES:('
I.''''''Whether'petitioners'have'legal'standing.'YES.'(not'impt)'
number'of'members'have'agreed'to'a'particular'measure(
II.''''Whether'Sec.'44'of'P.D.'No.'1177'is'unconstitutional.'YES.'(IMPT'related'to'Sec.'25)'
The(Effectivity(Clause(
'
Is(Defective(
RATIO:(
# Taada'v.'Tuvera'(CivLaw'Review'1)(
On'locus'standi:'It'is'well\settled'that'the'validity'of'a'statute'may'be'contested'only'
o Publication' is' indispensable' in' every' case,' but' the' legislature' may' in' its' by'one'who'will'sustain'a'direct'injury'in'consequence'of'its'enforcement.'Yet,'there'
discretion' provide' that' the' usual' fifteen\period' shall' be' shortened' or' are' many' decisions' nullifying' at' the' instance' of' taxpayers,' laws' providing' for' the'
extended( disbursement'of'public'funds,'upon'the'theory'that'the'expenditure'of'public'funds'
o Following' Article' 2' of' the' Civil' Code'and' the' doctrine' enunciated' in' by' an' officer' of' the' state' for' the' purpose' of' administering' an' unconstitutional! act'
Taada,' Rep.' Act' No.' 9006,' notwithstanding' its' express' statement,' took' constitutes'a'misapplication!of'such'funds'which'may'be'enjoined'at'the'request'of'a'
taxpayer.'
effect' fifteen' days' after' its' publication' in' the' Official' Gazette' or' a'
Paragraph'1'of'Section'44'of'P.D.'No.'1177'unduly'over'extends'the'privilege'granted'
newspaper'of'general'circulation(
under'said'Section'16[5]'(1973'Const).'It'empowers'the'President'to'indiscriminately'
( transfer' funds' from' one' department,' bureau,' office' or' agency' of' the' Executive'
WHEREFORE,'the'petitions'are'DISMISSED.'No'pronouncement'as'to'costs.( Department'to'any'program,'project'or'activity'of'any'department,'bureau'or'office'
' included'in'the'General'Appropriations'Act'or'approved'after'its'enactment,'without'
regard'as'to'whether'or'not'the'funds'to'be'transferred'are'actually'savings'in'the'
2. Demetria v. Alba (KL)
G.R.'No.'71977'|'02/27/1987'|'Fernan,'J.'
item'from'which'the'same'are'to'be'taken,'or'whether'or'not'the'transfer'is'for'the'
' purpose'of'augmenting'the'item'to'which'said'transfer'is'to'be'made.'
Petitioners:( DEMETRIO' G.' DEMETRIA,' M.P.,' AUGUSTO' S.' SANCHEZ,' M.P.,' ORLANDO' S.' MERCADO,' M.P.,' o Sec.'44(1)'PD'No.'1177.'The'President'shall'have'the'authority'to'transfer'
HONORATO' Y.' AQUINO,' M.P.,' ZAFIRO' L.' RESPICIO,' M.P.,' DOUGLAS' R.' CAGAS,' M.P.,' OSCAR' F.' SANTOS,' any'fund,'appropriated'for'the'different'departments,'bureaus,'offices'and'
M.P.,'ALBERTO'G.'ROMULO,'M.P.,'CIRIACO'R.'ALFELOR,'M.P.,'ISIDORO'E.'REAL,'M.P.,'EMIGDIO'L.'LINGAD,' agencies' of' the' Executive' Department,' which' are' included' in' the' General'
M.P.,'ROLANDO'C.'MARCIAL,'M.P.,'PEDRO'M.'MARCELLANA,'M.P.,'VICTOR'S.'ZIGA,'M.P.,'and'ROGELIO'V.' Appropriations'Act,'to'any'program,'project'or'activity'of'any'department,'
GARCIA.'M.P.(
! !
bureau,' or' office' included' in' the' General' Appropriations' Act' or' approved' (Article'19'and'20).'The'constitutionality'of'the'amending'provisions'was'raised'for'violation'of'
after'its'enactment.' Section' VI,' Article' 26(1)' of' the' Constitution' ("No' bill' which' may' be' enacted' into' law' shall'
o Sec.' 16[5].' No' law' shall' be' passed' authorizing' any' transfer' of' embrace'more'than'one'subject'which'shall'be'expressed'in'the'title'of'the'bill).'The'SC'upheld'
appropriations,' however,' the' President,' the' Prime' Minister,' the' Speaker,' its'constitutionality.'The'constitutional'requirement'is'complied'with'as'long'the'law,'as'in'the'
the' Chief' Justice' of' the' Supreme' Court,' and' the' heads' of' constitutional' instant' case,' has' a' single' general' subject' which' is' the' Agricultural' Tenancy' Act' and' the'
commisions'may'by'law'be'authorized'to'augment'any'item'in'the'general' amendatory' provisions' no' matter' how' diverse' they' may' be,' so' long' as' they' are' not'
appropriations'law'for'their'respective'offices'from'savings'in'other'items' inconsistent' with' or' foreign' to' the' general' subject,' will' be' regarded' as' valid.' It' said' that' the'
of'their'respective'appropriations.'(similar'to'the'current'Sec.'25)' provisions' of' sections' 19' and' 20' of' Republic' Act' No.' 2263' are' certainly' germane' to,' and' are'
The'prohibition'to'transfer'an'appropriation'for'one'item'to'another'was'explicit'and' reasonably'necessary'for'the'accomplishment'of'the'one'general'subject,'agricultural'tenancy.'
categorical' under' the' 1973' Constitution.' However,' to' afford' the' heads' of' the' '
different' branches' of' the' government' and' those' of' the' constitutional' commissions' Regala,&J.,:(
considerable' flexibility' in' the' use' of' public' funds' and' resources,' the' constitution' FACTS:'
allowed'the'enactment'of'a'law'authorizing'the'transfer'of'funds'for'the'purpose'of' RA'1199'is'the'Agricultural'Tenancy'Act,'while'RA'2263'is'the'new'law'amending'the'
augmenting' an' item' from' savings' in' another' item' in' the' appropriation' of' the' RA'1199.'
15 16
government'branch'or'constitutional'body'concerned.'The'leeway'granted'was'thus' Basically,'Sections'19 'and'20 'of'the'amending'law'are'being'assailed'for'violating'
limited.' The' purpose' and' conditions' for' which' funds' may' be' transferred' were' Article'VI,'Section'26(1)'of'the'Constitution.'
specified,' i.e.' transfer' may' be' allowed' for' the' purpose' of' augmenting' an' item' and' Antecedent'Facts:'The'Tenancy'Counsel'Unit'of'the'Agricultural'Tenancy'Commission'
such' transfer' may' be' made' only' if' there' are' savings' from' another' item' in' the' of' the' DOJ,' through' its' Trial' Attorney' (herein' petitioner' Cordero)' filed' a' case' with'
nd
appropriation'of'the'government'branch'or'constitutional'body.' the'2 'Regional'District'of'the'Court'of'Agrarian'Relations.''Cordero'was'the'counsel'
It' does' not' only' completely' disregard' the' standards' set' in' the' fundamental' law,' of'Vicente'Salazar,'the'tenant'petitioner'in'that'case,'against'landlord'Leonardo'Sta.'
thereby'amounting'to'an'undue'delegation'of'legislative'powers,'but'likewise'goes' Romana.'The'case'was'for'"for'reinstatement'and'reliquidation'of'past'harvests."'
beyond' the' tenor' thereof.' Indeed,' such' constitutional' infirmities' render' the' Landlord' Leonardo' subsequently' filed' a' "Motion' to' Disqualify' Counsel' and' To' Set'
provision'in'question'null'and'void.' Hearing' at' Cabanatuan' City,' praying' among' others' for' the' disqualification' of'
Indeed,'where'the'legislature'or'the'executive'branch'is'acting'within'the'limits'of'its' petitioner' Manuel' A.' Cordero' to' act' as' counsel' tenant' Vicente' Salazar.' The' judge'
authority,'the'judiciary'cannot'and'ought'not'to'interfere'with'the'former.'But'where' granted'the'said'petition.'MR'was'filed'but'was'denied.'
the'legislature'or'the'executive'acts'beyond'the'scope'of'its'constitutional'powers,'it' In' its' order,' the' Court' of' Agrarian' Relations' upheld' landlord' Leonardos' claims' and'
becomes' the' duty' of' the' judiciary' to' declare' what' the' other' branches' of' the' held,'among'others:'(a)(that'the'representation'of'indigent'tenants'should'be'done'
government'had'assumed'to'do'as'void.' by'the'DOLE'as'provided'in'Section'54'of'RA'1199;' (b)( Circular'No.'5'(1957)'of'the'
The'nation'has'not'recovered'from'the'shock,'and'worst,'the'economic'destitution' Agricultural'Tenancy'Commission,'as'approved'by'the'Secretary'of'Justice,'creating'a'
brought' about' by' the' plundering' of' the' Treasury' by' the' deposed' dictator' and' his' Tenancy'Unit'Counsel'in'the'Mediation'Division,'is'ultra!vires'and'has'no'legal'force;'
cohorts.'A'provision'which'allows'even'the'slightest'possibility'of'a'repetition'of'this' (c)(the'Mediation'Division'has'been'existing'without'the'sanction'of'any'statute.'
sad'experience'cannot'remain'written'in'our'statute'books.' o Section'54'of'RA'1199'(old'law):'representation'of'indigent'tenants'should'
' be' done' by' the' DOLE.' Here,' representation' by' Cordero' is' under' the'
Tenancy'Unit'Council'of'the'DOJ'
Sec. 26 A'writ'of'preliminary'injunction'was'issued,'enjoining'the'execution'of'the'said'order.'
1. Cordero v. Cabatuando (PR) Meanwhile,'RA'2263,'amending'the'Agricultural'Tenancy'Act'of'the'Philippines'(RA'
G.R.'L\'14542/'6'SCRA'418''|((October'31,'1962' 1199)'was'passed.'It'provided,'among'others,'that:'
Petitioners:( Manuel' A.' Cordero,' Trial' Attorney' of' the' Tenancy' Unit,' Mediation' Division,' Agricultural'
Tenancy'Commission'DOJ'and'Vicente'Salazar'
Respondents:(Hon.'Jose'R.'Cabatuando,'Associate'Judge'of'the'Court'of'Agrarian'Relations,'and'Leonardo'
Sta.'Romana((
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
15
'Section(19.'Section'fifty\three'of'the'same'Act'is'hereby'amended'to'read'as'follows:' '
(
' ' '''''''''''"Sec.' 53.' Duties' of' Secretary' of' Justice.' The' Secretary' of' Justice,' acting'
Summary:( A' case' was' filed' by' the' Agricultural' Tenancy' Commission' of' the' DOJ' through' its' through' a' tenancy' mediation' commission' shall' carry' out' a' rational' enforcement' program,' which' shall'
lawyer,' Cordero.' The' case' is' against' landlord' Romana,' and' was' for' reinstatement' and' include'among'other'things,'mediation'of'tenancy'disputes."'
reliquidation'of'past'harvests.'At'this'time,'the'law'in'force'was'RA'1199.'Landlord'Romana' 16
'Section(20.'Section'fifty\four'of'the'same'act'is'hereby'amended'to'read'as'follows:' '
filed'a'motion'to'disqualify'Cordero'from'representing'the'tenant'Salazar'because'under'the' ' ' ''''''''''''"Sec.' 54.' Representation' by' Counsel.' In' all' cases' herein' a' tenant' cannot'
law'in'force'at'the'time,'representation'of'indigent'tenants'should'be'made'by'the'DOLE.'This' afford' to' be' represented' by' counsel,' it' shall' be' the' duty' of' the' trial' attorney' of' the' tenancy' mediation'
was' granted' by' the' Court.' Meanwhile,' RA' 2262' was' passed,' amending' RA' 1199.' Under' the' commission'to'represent'him,'upon'proper'notification'by'the'party'concerned,'or'the'court'of'competent'
new' law,' the' Tenancy' Mediation' Commission' (of' the' DOJ)' is' to' represent' indigent' tenants' jurisdiction'shall'assign'or'appoint'counsel'de'oficio'for'the'indigent'tenant.'
'
! !
o In'all'cases'wherein'a'tenant'cannot'afford'to'be'represented'by'counsel,'it' details'need'not'be'set'forth.'The'title'need'not'be'an'abstract'or'index'of'the'
shall'be'the'duty'of'the'trial'attorney'of'the'tenancy'mediation'commission' Act.'
to'represent'him,'upon'proper'notification'by'the'party'concerned,'or'the' Sumulong!v.!Commission!on!Elections,'73'Phil.'288'
court'of'competent'jurisdiction'shall'assign'or'appoint'counsel'de!oficio'for' o The'Constitutional'requirement'that'the'subject'of'an'act'shall'be'expressed'in'
the' indigent' tenant.' (Section' 54,' Republic' Act' No.' 1199,' as' amended' by' its'title'should'be'reasonably'construed'so'as'not'to'interfere'unduly'with'the'
Section'20'of'Republic'Act'No.'2263).' enactment' of' necessary' legislation.' It' should' be' given' a' practical' rather' than'
Because'of'the'new'law,'Cordero'filed'a'Manifestion'contending'that'the'case'is'now' technical' construction.' It' should' be' a' sufficient' compliance' with' such'
moot'and'academic.'As'required'by'this'Court,'respondent'judge,'thru'counsel,'filed' requirement'if'the'title' expresses'the'general'subject'and'all'the'provisions'of'
his' Comment' on' the' said' Manifestation;' it' was' alleged' therein' that' before' the' the'statute'are'germane'to'that'general'subject''
enactment'of'RA'2263,'there'was'no'Tenancy'Mediation'Division,'nor'was'there'any' People!v.!Carlos,'78'Phil.'535\'basically'said'the'same'thing.'
law'creating'the'same'and'defining'its'functions.' The'only'amendment'brought'about'by'Republic'Act'No.'2263'is'the'transfer'of'the'
He'said'that'its'only'basis'for'existence,'therefore,'are'sections'19'and'20'of'Republic' function' of' representing' these' indigent' tenants' to' the' Department' of' Justice,'
Act'No.'2263'which'are'null'and'void'because'the'Constitution'provides'that'"no'bill' apparently' to' consolidate' in' the' latter' Department' the' functions' relative' to' the'
which'may'be'enacted'into'law'shall'embrace'more'than'one'subject'which'shall'be' enforcement'of'tenancy'laws.'In'essence,'therefore,'there'is'no'change'in'the'set\
expressed'in'the'title'of'the'bill."'He'further'contended'that'nowhere'in'the'titles'of' up'established'by'Republic'Act'No.'1199'and'that'provided'for'by'Republic'Act'No.'
Republic' Act' No.' 1199' and' Republic' Act' No.' 2263' is' the' creation' of' the' Tenancy' 2263.'There'is'only'a'transfer'of'functions'from'one'department'of'the'government'
Mediation'Division'ever'mentioned,'thereby'indicating'that'section'19,'Republic'Act' to'another.'
No.'2263'falls'under'the'first'class'of'prohibited'bills.' *Greenbook' comment:' (quoting' other' cases)!' Of' course,' the' Constitution' does'
' not' require' Congress' to' employ' in' the' title' of' an' enactment' language' of' such'
ISSUE:' W/N' Sections' 19' and' 20' of' RA' 2263,' amending' Sections' 53' and' 54' of' RA' 1199' are' precision' as' to' mirror,' fully' index' or' catalogue' all' the' contents' and' last' minute'
constitutional'under'Article'VI,'Section'21(1)?'YES.' details'therein.'It'suffices'if'the'title'should'serve'the'purpose''of'the'constitutional'
' demand' that' it' inform' the' legislators,' persons' interested' in' the' subject' of' the' bill'
HELD:' and'the'public,'of'the'nature,'scope'and'consequences'of'the'proposed'law'and'its'
Article'VI,'Section'21(1)'of'the'Philippine'Constitution'reads:' operation' ' Thus,' the' title' An' Act' Amending' Certain' Sections' of' RA' 1169,'
o No' bill' which' may' be' enacted' into' law' shall' embrace' more' than' one' subject' otherwise'known'as'the'Agricultural'Tenancy'Act'of'the'Philippines'was'sufficient'
which'shall'be'expressed'in'the'title'of'the'bill.' to'include'a'provision'authorizing'the'Secretary'of'Justice,'acting'through'a'tenancy'
It' is' to' be' noted' that' the' basic' law,' Republic' Act' 1199,' is' called' "The' Agricultural' mediation' division,' to' carry' out' a' national' enforcement' program,' including' the'
Tenancy'Act'of'the'Philippines."' mediation'of'disputes.'
The' constitutional' requirement' in' question' is' satisfied' if' all' parts' of' the' law' are' Shortly' after' the' enactment' of' the' amending' law,' DOLE' issued' a' circular'
related,'and'are'germane'to'subject'matter'expressed'in'the'title'of'the'bill.'' transferring'to'the'Tenancy'Mediation'Division'of'the'DOJ'the'formers'function'of'
The'title'of'Republic'Act'No.'2263'reads'as'follows:'"AN'ACT'AMENDING'CERTAIN' representing'indigents,'through'its'public'defenders,'before'the'Agrarian'Court.'
SECTIONS' OF' REPUBLIC' ACT' NUMBERED' ONE' THOUSAND' ONE' HUNDRED' NINETY\ To' declare' sections' 19' and' 20' of' Republic' Act' No.' 2' null' and' void' would' in' effect'
NINE,' OTHERWISE' KNOWN' AS' THE' AGRICULTURAL' TENANCY' ACT' OF' THE' upset' the' transfer' of' duty' of' representing' indigent' tenants' from' the' public'
PHILIPPINE."'The'constitutional'requirement'is'complied'with'as'long'the'law,'as'in' defenders' of' the' DOLE' to' the' trial' attorney' in' the' Mediation' Division' of' the'
the'instant'case,'has'a'single'general'subject'which'is'the'Agricultural'Tenancy'Act' Agricultural' Tenancy' Commission' of' the' Department' of' Justice.' In' other' words,' a'
and'the'amendatory'provisions'no'matter'how'diverse'they'may'be,'so'long'as'they' declaration'of'nullity'of'these'provisions'of'Republic'Act'No.'2263'would'do'harm'
are'not'inconsistent'with'or'foreign'to'the'general'subject,'will'be'regarded'as'valid'' to,'and'would'be'nugatory'of,'intention'of'Congress'to'consolidate'the'function'of'
The( provisions( of( sections( 19( and( 20( of( Republic( Act( No.( 2263( are( certainly( enforcing'our'tenancy'laws'in'the'DOJ.'
germane( to,( and( are( reasonably( necessary( for( the( accomplishment( of( the( one( For'these'reasons,'We'hereby'declare'sections'19'and'20'of'Republic'Act'No.'2263'
general(subject,(agricultural(tenancy.( valid'and'constitutional.'
Government!v.!Hongkong!&!Shanghai!Banking!Corporation,'66'Phil.'483' WHEREFORE,' the' petition' is' hereby' granted' and' writ' of' preliminary' injunction'
o Constitutional' provisions' relating' to' the' subject' matter' and' titles' of' statutes' heretofore'issued,'made'permanent.'
should' not' be' so' narrowly' construed' as' to' cripple' or' impede' the' power' of' '
legislation.'The'requirement'that'the'subject'of'an'act'shall'be'expressed'in'its'
2. Philconsa v Gimenez (RC)
title'should'receive'a'reasonable'and'not'a'technical'construction.'It'is'sufficient' G.R.'No.'L\23326'|'December'18,'1965'|'Regala,'J.'
if'the'title'be'comprehensive'enough'reasonably'to'include'the'general'object' '
which' a' statute' seeks' to' effect,' without' expressing' each' and' every' end' and' SUMMARY:'
means' necessary' or' convenient' for' the' accomplishing' of' the' object.' Mere'
! !
Basically'this'case'is'questioning'the'constitutionality'of'RA'3836,'which'granted'the'Senators' Houses' of' Congress' from' "passing' in' audit' the' vouchers,' and' from' countersigning'
and' House' Reps' retirement' benefits' and' sick' leave/vacay' leave.' The' SC' held' that' this' was' the' checks' or' treasury' warrants' for' the' payment' to' any' former' Senator' or' former'
unconstitutional,' saying' that' it' violates' three' constitutional' provisions,' namely:' (1)' the' Member' of' the' House' of' Representatives' of' retirement' and' vacation' gratuities'
prohibition'regarding'increase'in'the'salaries'of'Members'of'Congress'because'retirement'is'a' pursuant' to' Republic' Act' No.' 3836;' and' likewise' restraining' the' respondent'
form' of' emoluments' and' Congress' cant' pass' a' bill' increasing' their' salaries/emoluments' disbursing' officers' of' the' House' and' Senate,' respectively,' and' their' successors' in'
during' their' term;' (2)' the' equal' protection' clause,' because' bakit' Senators' and' House' Reps' office'from'paying'the'said'retirement'and'vacation'gratuities."'
lang???'BAKIIIT!?;'and'(3)'the'prohibition'that'the'title'of'a'bill'shall'not'embrace'more'than' ! As'finally'approved,'the'law'(subsection'[c],'paragraph'2,'Section'1,'R.A.'3836)'allows'
one' subject,' because' CA' 168' (the' orig' law)' is' about' benefits' of' people' with' GSIS' a' Senator' or' a' Member' of' the' House' of' Representatives' and' an' elective' officer' of'
contributions'eh'walang'ganyan'ang'Senators/House'Reps'so'why'are'they'suddenly'in'this' either'House'of'Congress'to'retire'regardless'of'age.'To'be'eligible'for'retirement,'he'
bill!?'Provision'is'not'germane'to'the'title'(Rider).' must'have'served'for'at'least'twelve'years'as'such'Senator'and/or'as'member'of'the'
' House' of' Representatives.' For' an' elective' officer' of' either' House,' he' must' have'
FACTS:' served' the' government' for' at' least' twelve' years,' of' which' not' less' than' four' years'
! This' case' is' about' the' grave' and' fundamental' problem' of' the' constitutionality' of' must' have' been' rendered' as' such' elective' officer.' The' gratuity' payable' by' the'
17
Republic' Act' No.' 3836 '"insofar' as' the' same' allows' retirement( gratuity( and( employer'or'office'concerned'is'equivalent'to'one'year's'salary'for'every'four'years'
commutation( of( vacation( and( sick( leave( to( Senators( and( Representatives,( and( to( of' service' in' the' government.' Said' gratuity' is' exempt' from' taxation,' not' liable' to'
the(elective(officials(of(both(Houses.'The'suit'was'instituted'by'Philconsa'(Philippine' attachment'or'execution,'and'not'refundable'in'case'of'reinstatement'or're\election'
Constitution' Association,' Inc.),' a' non\profit,' civic' organization,' duly' incorporated' of'the'retiree.'
under'Philippine'laws,'by'way'of'petition'for'prohibition'with'preliminary'injunction' '
to'restrain'the'Auditor'General'of'the'Philippines'and'the'disbursing'officers'of'both' ISSUES:'
1. The'grant'of'retirement'or'pension'benefits'under'Republic'Act'No.'3836'to'the'officers'
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' objected'to'by'the'petitioner'does'not'constitute'"forbidden'compensation"'within'the'
17
'AN'ACT'AMENDING'SUBSECTION'(c),'SECTION'TWELVE'OF'COMMONWEALTH'ACT'NUMBERED'ONE'
meaning' of' Section' 14' of' Article' VI' of' the' Philippine'Constitution.' YES,( forbidden(
HUNDRED'EIGHTY\SIX'AS'AMENDED'BY'REPUBLIC'ACT'NUMBERED'THIRTY'HUNDRED'NINETY\SIX:'
Be'it'enacted'by'the'Senate'and'House'of'Representatives'of'the'Philippines'in'Congress'assembled:'
compensation'
' 2. The' title' of' the' law' in' question' sufficiently' complies' with' the' provisions' of' Section' 21,'
SECTION' 1,' Subsection' (c),' Section' twelve' of' Commonwealth' Act' Numbered' One' Hundred' eighty\six' as' Article'VI,'of'the'Constitution'that'"no'bill'which'may'be'enacted'into'law'shall'embrace'
amended'by'Republic'Act'Numbered'Thirty'hundred'ninety\six,'is'further'amended'to'read'as'follows:' more'than'one'subject'which'shall'be'expressed'in'the'title'of'the'bill."'NO,(rider(shiz'
c)' Retirement' is' likewise' allowed' to' a' member,' regardless' of' age,' who' has' rendered' at' least' 3. Violates'EPC.'YES,(discriminatory.'
twenty'years'of'service.'The'benefit'shall'in'addition'to'the'return'of'his'personal'contributions' 4. The'petitioner'has'no'standing'to'institute'this'suit.'YES'
plus'interest'and'the'payment'of'the'corresponding'employer's'premiums'described'in'subsection' '
(a)'of'Section'five'hereof,'without'interest,'be'only'a'gratuity'equivalent'to'one'month's'salary'for'
HELD:'
every' year' of' service,' based' on' the' highest' rate' received,' but' not' to' exceed' twenty\four'
IN'VIEW'OF'THE'FOREGOING'CONSIDERATIONS,'Republic'Act'No.'3836'is'hereby'declared'null'
months;'Provided,That' the' retiring' officer' or' employee' has' been' in' the' service' of' the' said'
employer'or'office'for'at'least'four'years'immediately'preceding'his'retirement.' and' void,' in' so' far' as' it' refers' to' the' retirement' of' Members' of' Congress' and' the' elected'
Retirement'is'also'allowed'to'a'senator'or'a'member'of'the'House'of'Representatives'and'to'an' officials' thereof,' as' being\unconstitutional.' The' restraining' order' issued' in' our' resolution' on'
elective'officer'of'either'House'of'the'Congress,'regardless'of'age,'provided'that'in'the'case'of'a' December'6,'1965'is'hereby'made'permanent.'No'costs.'
Senator'or'Member,'he'must'have'served'at'least'twelve'years'as'a'Senator'and/or'as'a'member' '
of'the'House'of'Representatives,'and,'in'the'case'of'an'elective'officer'of'either'House,'he'must' RATIO:'
have'served'the'government'for'at'least'twelve'years,'not'less'than'four'years'of'which'must'have' On'Standing:'
been'rendered'as'such'elective'officer:'Provided,'That'the'gratuity'payable'to'a'retiring'senator,'
! In' rejecting' the' motion' to' dismiss' in' the' case' of'Pascual! v.!Secretary,' this' Court'
member'of'the'House'of'Representatives,'or'elective'officer,'of'either'House,'shall'be'equivalent'
to' one' year's' salary' for' every' four' years' of' service' in' the' government' and' the' same' shall' be'
stated,'among'other'things,'that'"there'are'many'decisions'nullifying,'at'the'instance'
exempt' from' any' tax' whatsoever' and' shall' be' neither' liable' to' attachment' or' execution' nor' of'the'taxpayers,'laws'providing'the'disbursement'of'public'funds,'upon'the'theory'
refundable'in'case'of'reinstatement'or're\election'of'the'retiree.' that' the' expenditures' of' public' funds' by' an' officer' of' the' State' for' the' purpose' of'
This' gratuity' is' payable' by' the' employer' of' office' concerned' which' is' hereby' authorized' to' administering'an'unconstitutional'act'constitutes'a'misappropriation'of'such'funds,'
provide' the' necessary' appropriation' or' pay' the' same' from' any' unexpended' items' of' which'may'be'enjoined'at'the'request'of'the'taxpayers."'Republic'Act'3836'involves'
appropriations'or'savings'in'its'appropriations.' the'disbursement'of'public'funds.'
Elective'or'appointive'officials'and'employees'paid'gratuity'under'this'subsection'shall'be'entitled' '
to' the' commutation' of' the' unused' vacation' and' sick' leave,' based' on' the' highest' rate' received,' 18
Violates'Art.'VI,'14 '
which'they'may'have'to'their'credit'at'the'time'of'retirement."'
' ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
18
SECTION'2.This'Act'shall'take'effect'upon'its'approval.' '"The' senators' and' the' Members' of' the' House' of' Representatives' shall,' unless' otherwise' provided' by'
Approved,'June'22,'1963.' law,' receive' an' annual' compensation' of' seven' thousand' two' hundred' pesos' each,' including' per' diems'
! !
! Most'of'the'authorities'and'decided'cases'have'regarded'"emolument"'as'"the(profit( retirement( benefits( for( Members( of( Congress( and( elected( officers,( such( as( the(
arising( from( office( or( employment;( that( which( is( received( as( compensation( for( Secretary(and(Sergeant/at/arms(for(each(House)(is(not(related(in(any(manner(to(the(
services( or( which( is( annexed( to( the( possession( of( an( office,( as( salary,( fees( and( subject( of( Commonwealth( Act( 186'establishing'the'Government'Service'Insurance'
perquisites."' System' and' which' provides' for' both' retirement' and' insurance' benefits' to' its'
! It'retirement'benefit'is'a'form'or'another'species'of'emolument,'because'it'is'a'part' members.'
of'compensation'for'services'of'one'possessing'any'office.' ! [DOCTRINE(ALERT](The'purpose'of'the'requirement'that'the'subject'of'an'act'should'
' be'expressed'in'its'title'is'fully'explained'by'Cooley,'thus:'(1)(to(prevent(surprise(or(
Equal'Protection'Clause' fraud( upon( the( Legislature;' and' (2)' to( fairly( apprise( the( people,( through( such(
! First,'the'law'grants'retirement'benefits'to'Senators'and'Members'of'the'House'of' publication( of( legislation( that( are( being( considered,( in( order( that( they( may( have(
Representatives'who'are'elective'officials,'it'does'not'include'other'elective'officials' the( opportunity( of( being( heard( thereon( by( petition( or( otherwise,( if( they( shall( so(
such'as'the'governors'of'provinces'and'the'members'of'the'provincial'boards,'and' desire.(
the'elective'officials'of'the'municipalities'and'chartered'cities.' (
! Secondly,' all' members' of' Congress' under' Republic' Act' 3836' are' given' retirement' ! In'short,'Republic'Act'3836'violates'three'constitutional'provisions,'namely:'first,'the'
benefits' after' serving' twelve' years,' not' necessarily' continuous,' whereas,' most' prohibition' regarding' increase' in' the' salaries' of' Members' of' Congress;' second,' the'
government'officers'and'employees'are'given'retirement'benefits'after'serving'for'at' equal' protection' clause;' and' third,' the' prohibition' that' the' title' of' a' bill' shall' not'
least'twenty'years.'In'fact,'the'original'bill'of'Act'3836'provided'for'twenty'years'of' embrace'more'than'one'subject.'
service.' '
! Third,'all'government'officers'and'employees'are'given'only'one'retirement'benefits' 3. Alalayan v. NPC (RR)
irrespective' of' their' length' of' service' in' the' government,' whereas,' under' Republic' GR'L\24396'|'7/29/1968'|'FERNANDO,'J.'
Act' 3836,' because' of' no' age' limitation,' a' Senator' or' Member' of' the' House' of' Petitioner/s:'SANTIAGO'P.'ALALAYAN,'ET'AL.,'suing'in'his'behalf'and'for'the'benefit'of'all'other'persons'
Representatives'upon'being'elected'for'24'years'will'be'entitled'to'two'retirement' having' common' or' general' interest' with' him' in' accordance' with' Sec.' 12,' Rule' 3,' Rules' of'
benefits'or'equivalent'to'six'years''salary.' Court,'petitioners\appellants'
! Lastly,'it'is'peculiar'that'Republic'Act'3836'grants'retirement'benefits'to'officials'who' Respondent/s:' NATIONAL' POWER' CORPORATION' and' ADMINISTRATOR' OF' ECONOMIC'
are' not' members' of' the' Government' Service' Insurance' System.' Lost' grantees' of' COORDINATION,'respondents\appellees.'
retirement'benefits'under'the'various'retirement'laws'have'to'be'members'or'must' '
at'least'contribute'a'portion'of'their'monthly'salaries'to'the'system.' SUMMARY:( Alalayan' is' a' franchise' holder' of' an' electric' plant' in' Laguna.' He' is' assailing' the'
' validity'of'Sec.'3'of'RA'3043'(an'amendatory'act)'on'the'ground'that'being'a'rider,'it'is'violative'
ITO(NA(UNDER(THE(SYLLABUS!(GERMANE(TO(THE(TITLE(( of' the' constitutional' provision' requiring' that' a' bill' cannot' embrace' more' than' one' subject.'
! SEC.'26'(1)'(now'then'it'was'Sec.'21):'"No'bill'which'may'be'enacted'into'law'shall' However,' the' SC' sustained' the' validity' of' the' questioned' provision.' It' must' be' deemed'
embrace'more'than'one'subject'which'shall'be'expressed'in'the'title'of'the'bill."' sufficient' that' the' title' be' comprehensive' enough' reasonably' to' include' the' general' object'
! It'is'to'be'observed'that'under'Republic'Act'3836,'amending'the'first'paragraph'of' which'the'statute'seeks'to'effect'without'expressing'each'and'every'end'and'means'necessary'
section' 12,' subsection' (c)' of' Commonwealth' Act' 186,' as' amended' by' Republic' Act' for'its'accomplishment.'Mere'details'need'not'be'set'forth.'The'legislature'is'not'required'to'
Nos.' 660' and' 3096,' the' retirement' benefits' are' granted' to' members' of' the' make'the'title'of'the'act'a'complete'index'of'its'contents.'(guys!for!this!part,!nagdiscuss!lang!
Government'Service'Insurance'System,'who'have'rendered'at'least'twenty'years'of' siya!talaga!ng!concepts,!but!the!concepts!werent!applied!to!the!facts!of!the!case!itself,!sorry!)'
service' regardless' of' age.' This' paragraph' is' related' and' germane' to' the' subject' of' (
Commonwealth'Act'No.'186.' FACTS(
! On' the' other' hand,' the' succeeding( paragraph( of( Republic( Act( 3836( refers( to( This' declaratory' relief' proceeding' was' started' in' the' lower' court' by' petitioners,'
members(of(Congress(and(to(elective(officers(thereof(who(are(not(members(of(the( Alalayan'and'Philippine'Power'and'Development'Company,'both'franchise'holders'of'
Government( Service( Insurance( System.' To' provide' retirement' benefits,' therefore,' electric'plants'in'Laguna.'
for' these' officials,' would' relate' to' subject' matter' which' is' not' germane' to' They'are'questioning'the'validity'of'the'provision'of'an'amendatory(act'(NOTE:'for'a'
Commonwealth' Act' No.' 186.' In( other( words,( this( portion( of( the( amendment( (re( case'discussing'bill'titles'and'riders,'wala'man'lang'mention'nung'law'sa'main'text.'
Haha'nasa'footnote!lang'siya,'lol).'
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' !' Sec.' 3' of' RA' 3043' (An' Act' to' Further' Amend' Commonwealth' Act' Numbered'
and'other& emoluments(or' allowances,' and' exclusive' only' of' travelling' expenses' to' and' from' their' One'Hundred'Twenty,'as'Amended'by'Republic'Act'Numbered'Twenty'Six'Hundred'
respective'district'in'the'case'of'Members'of'the'House'of'Representatives'and'to'and'from'their'places'of' and'Forty'One)'
residence' in' the' case' of' Senators,' when' attending' sessions' of' the' Congress.' No' increase' in' said' The'questioned'provision'empowers'NPC'"in'any'contract'for'the'supply'of'electric'
compensation'shall'take'effect'until'after'the'expiration'of'the'full'term'of'all'the'Members'of'the'Senate'
power'to'a'franchise'holder,"'receiving'at'least'50%'of'its'electric'power'and'energy'
and' of' the' House' of' Representatives' approving' such' increase.' Until' otherwise' provided' by' law,' the'
from' it' to' require' as' a' condition' that' such' franchise' holder' "shall' not' realize' a' net'
President' of' the' Senate' and' the' Speaker' of' the' House' of' Representatives' shall' each' receive' an' annual'
compensation'of'sixteen'thousand'pesos."''
! !
profit' of' more' than' twelve' percent' annually' of' its' investments' plus' two\month' charge'would'be'P10.00'per'kilowatt'per'month'and'the'energy'
operating'expenses."' charge'would'be'P0.02'per'kilowatt'hour'
The'following'were'alleged:' " Another' letter' by' NPC' to' petitioner' that' it' deferred' the'
o NPC'has'for'some'years'now'servicing'and'serving'electric'power'energy'to' effectivity'of'the'new'rates'
some'137'natural'persons'and'corporations'all'over'the'country' " A' 1963' letter' once! again! deferring' the' implementation' of' the'
o That'petitioners'are'included'among'said'persons' new'rates'
o Contracts'between'petitioners'and'respondents'stating'that'the'same'shall' o Congressional'transcripts'of'what'is'now'RA'3043(
continue''indefinitely'unless'and'until'either'party'would'give'to'the'other' 1965:'Lower'court'!'sustained'the'validity'of'the'challenged'provision(
two'years'previous'notice'in'writing'of'its'intention'to'terminate'the'same' (
o 1960:' an' act' authorizing' the' increase' of' the' capital' stock' of' the' National' ISSUE(
Power'Corporation'to'P100'million'took'effect' SYLLABUS( ISSUE:( WN' the' questioned' provision' is' violative' of' the' constitutional' provision'
o 1961:' the' challenged' legislation' became' a' law,' purportedly' to' increase' against'riders''NO.(
further' the' authorized' capital' stock,' but' including' the' alleged' rider' '
referred' to' above,' which,' in' the' opinion' of' petitioners,' transgressed' the' WN' there' was' a' violation' of' due' process' ' NO.( The' challenged' provision' does' not' deprive'
constitutional' provision' on' the' subject' matter' and' title' of' bills' as' well' as' petitioner'of'his'liberty'to'contract'without'due'process'of'law,'nor'is'there'a'violation'of'the'
the'due'process'clause' constitutional' provision' on' non\impairment' of' contracts.' (Will! not! be! discussed! extensively!
(NOTE:!Hindi!rin!nakaWexplain!sa!decision!yung!arguments!nung!petitioner! anymore!since!irrelevant!to!our!main!topic)!!
supporting!his!allegations!:W/!)! '
o NPC'then'approved'a'rate'increase'of'17.5%,'the'implementation'of'which' HELD:' WHEREFORE,' there' being' no' showing' that' Section' 3' of' Republic' Act' No.' 3043' is'
was'deferred'to'1962' unconstitutional,' the' decision' of' the' lower' court,' dismissing' the' petition,' is' AFFIRMED.' With'
o 1963:'hreat'that'in'case'petitioners'would'fail'to'sign'the'revised'contract' COSTS'AGAINST'PETITIONER'Alalayan.'
providing' for' the' increased' rate,' respondent' National' Power' Corporation' RATIO(
would' then' cease' "to' supply,' distribute' and' service' electric' power' and' (
energy'to'them' SYLLABUS(TOPIC(!(ON(RIDERS(
Soon' after,' petitioner' Philippine' Power' and' Development' Company' moved' that' Art.( VI,( Sec.( 21( (1)( 1935( Constitution:( constitutional' provision' that' no' bill' "which'
insofar'as'it'was'concerned,'the'case'be'dismissed' may' be' enacted' into' law' shall' embrace' more' than' one' subject' which' shall' be'
The'sole'petitioner'is'therefore'Santiago'P.'Alalayan,'suing'in'his'behalf'and'for'the' expressed'in'[its]'title'...'"'
benefit'of'all'other'persons'having'common'or'general'interest'with'him.'' This'provision'is'similar'to'those'found'in'many'American'State'Constitutions.''
March'21,'1963:'Lower'court'!'no'sufficient'ground'for'the'issuance'of'the'writ'for' o It'is'aimed'against(the(evils(of(the(so/called(omnibus(bills(and(log/rolling(
preliminary'injunction' legislation'as'well'as'surreptitious'or'unconsidered'enactments.'
March' 29,' 1963:' there' was,' in' an' answer,' an' admission' of' the' main' facts' alleged,' o Where'the'subject'of'a'bill'is'limited'to'a'particular'matter,'the'lawmakers'
with' a' denial' of' the' legal' conclusion' which' petitioner' would' deduce' therefrom,' along' with' the' people' should' be' informed' of' the' subject' of' proposed'
respondent'NPC'upholding'the'validity'of'the'challenged'provision.' legislative'measures.''
1964:'there'was'a'partial'stipulation'of'facts'consisting'of:( o This' thus' precludes( the( insertion( of( riders( in( legislation,' a' rider' being' a!
o a'resolution'of'the'Philippine'Electric'Plant'Owners'Association'to'take'the' provision!not!germane!to!the!subject!matter!of!the!bill.''
necessary' steps' to' stop' respondent' National' Power' Corporation' from' To'lend'approval'to'such'a'plea'is'to'construe'the'above'constitutional'provision'as'
enforcing'its'announced'increase' to'cripple'or'impede'proper'legislation.'
o samples'of'contracts'between'electric'plant'operators'and'NPC' o It' must' be' deemed' sufficient( that( the( title( be( comprehensive( enough(
o contract'with'petitioner'Alalayan,'dated'May'26,'1956,'showing'that'he'did' reasonably(to(include(the(general(object(which(the(statute(seeks(to(effect'
purchase'and'take'power'and'energy'as'follows:' without' expressing' each' and' every' end' and' means' necessary' for' its'
" (60)'kilowatts'and'of'not'less'than'140,000'kilowatt\hours'in'any' accomplishment.''
contract' year' at' the' rate' of' P120.00' per' kilowatt' per' year"' o Thus,'mere(details(need(not(be(set(forth.''
payable'in'twelve'equal'monthly'installments' o The'legislature'is'not'required'to'make'the'title'of'the'act'a'complete'index'
" energy'charge'of'P0.013'per'kilowatt'hour,'payable'on'the'basis' of'its'contents.''
of'monthly'delivery' o (REMEMBER' THIS' ONE' KASI' THIS' IS' THE' ONE' NA' APPLICABLE' SA'
" 1962' letter' of' NPC' to' petitioner' approving' his' 17.5%' rate' QUESTIONED'PROVISION)'More'specifically,'if(the(law(amends(a(section(or(
increase' of' power' so' that' beginning' July' 1,' 1962,' the' demand' part( of( a( statute,' it' suffices! if! reference! be! made! to! the! legislation! to! be!
! !
amended,! there! being! no! need! to! state! the! precise! nature! of! the! 4. Insular Lumber Company v. CTA (KF)
amendment.' G.R.'No.'L\31057'May'29,'1981'
Petitioner:'Insular'Lumber'Company'
Government! v.! Hongkong! &! Shanghai! Bank:' held' that' the' Reorganization'
Respondents:'CTA'and'CIR'
Law,'providing' for' the' mode' in' which' the' total' annual' expenses' of' the' Bureau' of' G.R.'No.'L\31137'May'29,'1981'
Banking' could' be' reimbursed' through' assessment' levied' upon' all' banking' Petitioner:'CIR'
institutions'subject'to'inspection'by'the'Bank'Commissioner'was'not'violative'of'such' Respondents:'Insular'Lumber'Company'and'CTA'
a'requirement.' De'Castro,'J.!
o J.'Laurel'dissent:'while'the'main'subject'of'the'act'was'reorganization,'the' !
provision'assailed'did'not'deal'with'reorganization'but'with'taxation' SUMMARY:(
o Vote:'4''3' Insular'purchased'manufactured'oil'and'motor'fuel'which'it'used'in'the'operation'of'its'forest'
o It' would' appear' that' the' constitutional' requirement' is' to' be' given' the' concession,'sawmill,'etc.'on'which'specific'tax'was'paid.'It'filed'a'claim'for'refund'of'19k'to'the'
liberal'test'as'indicated'in'the'majority'opinion' CIR.'CIR'denied'such'claim'on'the'ground'that'the'privilege'of'partial'tax'refund'granted'by'Sec'
Such'a'trend'is'made'manifest'in'the'cases'beginning'with'Sumulong!v.!Commission! 5'of'RA'No.'1435'to'those'using'oil'in'the'operation'of'forest'and'mining'concessions'is'limited'
on!Elections,'up'to'and'including'Felwa!v.!Salas,'a'1966'decision,'the'opinion'coming' to'a'period'of'5'years,'hence,'oil'used'after'5'years'are'subject'to'full'tax.'Insular'filed'petition'
from'Chief'Justice'Concepcion.' for' review' before' the' CTA.' CTA' allowed' only' 10k' refund.' ISSUE:' WON' Sec' 5' of' RA' 1435' is'
J.'Sanchez'in'one'of'the'previous'cases:'The'Constitution(does(not(require(Congress( unconstitutional'
to( employ( in( the( title( of( an( enactment,( language( of( such( precision( as( to( mirror,( SC:'Constitutional.'RA'1435'deals'with'only'one'subject'and'proclaims'just'one'policy,'namely,'
fully(index(or(catalogue(all(the(contents(and(the(minute(details(therein.'It'suffices'if' the'necessity'for'increasing'the'Highway'Special'Fund'through'the'imposition'of'an'increased'
the' title' should' serve' the' purpose' of' the' constitutional' demand' that' it' inform' the' specific' tax' on' manufactured' oils.' The' proviso' in' Sec' 5' of' the' law' is' in' effect' a' partial'
legislators,' the' persons' interested' in' the' subject' of' the' bill,' and' the' public,' of' the' exemption'from'the'imposed'increased'tax.'Said'proviso,'is'not'a'deviation'from'the'general'
nature,'scope'and'consequences'of'the'proposed'law'and'its'operation.'And'this,'to' subject'of'the'law.'The'primary'purpose'of'the'constitutional'provision'is'to'prohibit'duplicity'
lead' them' to' inquire' into' the' body' of' the' bill,' study' and' discuss' the' same,' take' in'legislation'the'title'of'which'might'completely'fail'to'apprise'the'legislators'or'the'public'of'
appropriate' action' thereon,' and,' thus,' prevent' surprise' or' fraud' upon' the' the'nature,'scope'and'consequences'of'the'law'or'its'operation.'But'that'is'not'so'for'in'the'
legislators.' passage'of'RA'1435'since,'as'the'records'of'its'proceedings'bear'out,'a'full'debate'on'precisely'
( the'issue'of'whether'its'title'reflects'its'complete'subject'was'held'by'Congress'which'passed'
OTHER(ISSUES( it.'
# The' due' process' objection' is' sought' to' be' bolstered' by' an' allegation' that' such' power' '
conferred' in' the' challenged' legislation' to' limit' the' net' profits' to' "12%' annually' of' FACTS:(
[petitioner's]' investments' plus' two\month' operating' expenses"' has' a' confiscatory' Insular,'a'corporation'organized'and'existing'under'the'laws'of'NY,'U.S.A.,'and'duly'
aspect.'' authorized'to'do'business'in'the'Phil'is'a'licensed'forest'concessionaire.'It'purchased(
This'argument'has'the'ring'of'futility.'' manufactured( oil( and( motor( fuel' (which' it' used' in' the' operation' of' its' forest'
To'speak'of'it'as'confiscatory'then'is'to'employ'the'language'by'hyperbole.' concession,' sawmill,' planning' mills,' power' units,' vehicles,' dry' kilns,' water' pumps,'
In'the'absence'any'evidence'to'demonstrate'the'alleged'confiscatory'effect'of'the' lawn' mowers,' and' in' furnishing' free' water' and' light' to' its' employees)' on' which(
provision' in' question,' there' would' be' no' basis' for' its' nullification,' in' view' of' the' specific(tax(was(paid.(
well\known'presumption'of'validity'that'every'statute'has'in'its'favor.' 12/22/1964:(Insular(filed(with(the(CIR(a(claim(for(refund(of(P19,921.37'representing'
' 25%(of(the(specific(tax(paid'on'the'manufactured'oil'and'fuel'used'in'its'operations'
# Statutes' enacted' for' the' regulation' of' public' utilities,' being' a' proper' exercise' by' the' pursuant'to'the'provisions'of'Sec'5,'RA'No.'1435.'
state' of' its' police' power,' are' applicable' not' only' to' those' public' utilities' coming' into' In'a'letter,'CIR(denied'claim'for'refund'on'the'ground'that'the'privilege'of'partial'tax(
19
existence'after'its'passage,'but'likewise'to'those'already,'existence'established'and'in' refund( granted( by( Sec( 5 (of( RA( No.( 1435' to' those' using' oil' in' the' operation' of'
operation.'
There' was' thus' no' impairment' of' an' obligation' of' contract,' such' an' enactment' ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
19
under'the'police'power'being'remedial'in'nature,'the'non\applicability'of'which'to' 'Sec'5:'The'proceeds'of'the'additional'tax'on'manufactured'oils'shall'accrue'to'the'road'and'bridge'funds'
existing'conditions'would'be'self\defeating'in'character' of'the'political'subdivision'for'whose'benefits'the'tax'is'collected:'Provided.'however.'that'whenever'any'
Here,'as'in'other'cases'where'governmental'authority'may'trench'upon'property' oils' mentioned' above' are' used' by' miners' or' forest' concessionaries' in' their' operations' twenty\five' per'
centum'of'the'specific'tax'paid'thereon'shall'about'refunded'by'the'Collector'of'Internal'Revenue'upon'
rights,'the'process'of'balancing,'adjustment'or'harmonization'is'called'for.'
submission'of'proof'of'actual'use'of'oils'and'under'similar'conditions'enumerated'in'subparagraphs'one'
' and' two' of' section' one' hereof,' amending' section' one' hundred' forty\two' of' the' Internal' Revenue' Code'
' Provincial'further,'that'no'new'road'shall'be'constructed'unless'the'routes'or'location'thereof'shall'have'
been'approved'by'the'Commissioner'of'Public'Hiways'after'a'determination'that'such'road'can'be'made'
! !
forest'and'mining'concessions'is(limited(to(a(period(of(5(years(from(June(14,(1956,' The' primary( purpose' of' the' constitutional' provision' is' to' prohibit( duplicity( in(
the' date' effectivity' of' said' Act.' Consequently,( oil( used( after( June( 14,( 1961( are( legislation( the( title' of' which' might' completely' fail' to' apprise' the' legislators' or' the'
subject(to(the(full(tax(prescribed(in(Sec(142(of(the(NIRC.( public'of'the'nature,'scope'and'consequences'of'the'law'or'its'operation.'This'does'
Insular(filed(a(petition(for(review(before'the'CTA( not'seem'to'this'Court'to'have'been'ignored'in'the'passage'of'RA'1435'since,'as'the'
CTA( ruled:( operation( of( a( sawmill( is( distinct( from( the( operation( of( a( forest( records'of'its'proceedings'bear'out,'a'full'debate'on'precisely'the'issue'of'whether'
concession,' hence,' the' refund( provision' of' Sec' 5' of' RA' No.' 1435' allowing' partial' its'title'reflects'its'complete'subject'was'held'by'Congress'which'passed'it.'
refund'to'forest'and'mining'concessionaires'cannot(be(extended(to(the(operators(of( Furthermore,'in'deciding'the'constitutionality'of'a'statute'alleged'to'be'defectively'
a(sawmill.( titled,'every'presumption(favors(the(validity(of(the(Act.'As'is'true'republic'in'cases'
Out'of'the'P19,921.37'claimed,'CTA'found'out'that'only(P14,598.08'was'paid'on'oil' presenting' other' constitutional' issues,' the' courts' avoid' declaring' an' Act'
utilized'in'logging(operations.'However,'this'14k(was(not(allowed'by'the'CTA'to'be' unconstitutional'whenever'possible.'Where'there'is'any'doubt'as'to'the'insufficiency'
refunded'because'Insular's'right'to'claim'the'refund'of'a'portion'thereof,'particularly' of'either'the'title,'or'the'Art,'the'legislation'should'be'sustained.'In'the'incident'on'
those'paid'during'the'period'from'1/1/1963'to'4/29/1963'had'already'prescribed( hand,'this'Court'does'not'even'have'any'doubt.'
Hence,'Insular'was'credited'the'refund(of'P10,560.20(only( '
nd rd
CIR'and'Insular'appealed( 2.' 2 ' and' 3 ' assignment' of' error:' CIR' contends' that' the' 5\year' limitation' period' for' partial'
'
' refund'of'specific'tax'paid'for'oil'and'fuel'used'in'agriculture'and'aviation'provided'in'Sec'1 'of'
(Discussion'will'be'issues'of'CIR'and'then'SC'ruling'on'those'issues,'and'then'issues'by'Insular' RA'No.'1435'is'also'applicable'to'Sec'5'of'said'Act'which'grants'partial'refund'of'specific'tax'for'
and'then'SC'ruling'on'those'issues)' oil' used' by' miners' or' forest' concessionaires.' Such' being' the' case,' CIR' said' that' the' tax'
' exemption'already'expired'on'June'14,'1961.'
CIR'assigns'the'ff'errors:' it' is' very' apparent' that' the' partial' refund' of' specific' tax' paid' for' oils( used( in(
st
1. 1 ( proviso( of( in( Sec.( 5,( RA( No.( 1435,( invoked( by( Insular( as( legal( basis( for( its( tax( agriculture( and( aviation( is( limited( to( 5( years' while' there' is' NO( time( limit( for( the(
refund(claim(is(null(and(void(for(being(unconstitutional((NO,(constitutional( partial( refund( of( specific( tax( paid( for( oils( used( by( miners( and( forest(
2. the'partial'exemption'in'favor'of'miners'and'forest'concessionaires'under'RA'1435'is' concessionaires.''
limited'to'only'5'yrs'counted'from'June'14,'1956' We'find'no'basis'in'applying'the'limitation'of'the'operative'period'provided'for'oils'
3. Insular'used'the'oils'and'fuels'in'question'after'the'exemption'in'favor'of'miners'and' used'in'agriculture'and'aviation'to'the'provision'on'the'refund'to'miners'and'forest'
forest'concessionaires'had'already'lapsed'or'expired'and'hence,'no'longer'in'force' concessionaires.''
4. Insular'is'not'entitled'to'the'10K'refund' It'should'be'noted'that'Sec'5'makes'reference'to'subpars'1'and'2'of'Sec'1'only'for'
' the'purpose'of'prescribing'the'procedure'for'refund.'This'express'reference'cannot'
SC((appeal(by(Commissioner):( be'expanded'in'scope'to'include'the'limitation'of'the'period'of'refund.'
st
1.' (OUR( MAIN( TOPIC)' 1 ' assignment' of' error:' In' claiming' the' unconstitutionality' of' the'
20
aforesaid' section,' CIR' anchored' its' argument' on' Art' VI,' Sec' 21(l)' of' the' 1935' Constitution. ' Insular'assigns'the'ff'errors:'
The' title' of' R.A.' No.' 1435' is' "An' Act' to' Provide' Means' for' Increasing' The' Highway' Special' 1. CTA'erred'in'ruling'that'Insular'is'not'entitled'to'claim'a'partial'refund'of'the'specific'
Fund."'CIR'contends'that'the'subject'of'R.A.'No.'1435'was'to'increase'Highway'Special'Fund.' tax'paid'on'manufactured'oils'used'in'the'operation'of'its'sawmill.''
However,' Section' 5' of,' the' Act' deals' with' another' subject' which' is' the' partial' exemption' of' 2. CTA'erred'in'holding'that'Insulars'claim'for'refund'on'manufactured'oils'used'during'
miners' and' loggers.' And' tills' partial' exemption' on' which' the' Company' based' its' claim' for' the'period'from'1'Jan'1963'to'29'April'1963'had'already'prescribed.'
refund' is' clearly' not' expressed' in' the' title' of' the' aforesaid' Act.' More' importantly,' Sec' 5' 3. CTA'erred'in'ruling'that'Insular'is'only'entitled'to'10k'refund'
provides'for'a'decrease'rather'than'an'increase'of'the'Highway'Special'Fund.'
NO' MERIT.' RA' 1435' deals' with' only' one' subject' and' proclaims' just' one' policy,'
SC((appeal(by(Insular):(
namely,' the' necessity' for' increasing' the' Highway' Special' Fund' through' the'
1.'Insular'contends'that'by'express'provision'of'its'timber'license,'it'is'required'to'"maintain'a'
imposition'of'an'increased'specific'tax'on'manufactured'oils.'Section'5'of'the'law'is'
modern' sawmill' or' sawmills' of' sufficient' capacity."' Thus,' the' operation' of' the' sawmill' is' not'
in' effect' a' partial' exemption' from' the' imposed' increased' tax.' Said( proviso,' which'
merely' incidental' to' the' operation' of' the' forest' concession' but' is' indispensable' thereto,' or'
has' reference' to' specific' tax' on' oil' and' fuel,' is' not( a( deviation( from( the( general(
forms'part'thereof'
subject(of(the(law.((
The' operation' of' sawmill' is' distinct' from' the' operation' of' a' forest' concessions.' By'
the' very' nature' of' their' operations,' they' are' entirely' two' different' business'
ventures.' It' is' very' clear' from' the' language' of' Sec' 5' that' only' miners' or' forest'
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' concessionaries'are'given'the'privilege'to'claim'the'partial'refund.'Sawmill'operators'
part'of'an'integral'and'articulated'route'in'the'Philippines'Highway'System,'as'required'in'section'twenty\ are'excluded,'because'they'need'not'be'forest'concessionaires'nor'the'latter,'always'
six'of'the'Philippine'Highway'Article'of'1953.'
20 are'sawmill'operators.'
'No'bill'which'may'be'enacted'into'a'law'shall'embrace'more'than'one'subject'which'shall'be'expressed'
in'the'title'of'the'bill'be' '
! !
2.' On' Prescription:' Following,' the' ruling' in' Commissioner! of! Internal! Revenue! vs.! Insular! 3.'WHEREAS,'the'unregulated'activities'of'videogram'establishments'have'
Lumber!Company,!supra,'We'hold'that'the'Company'is'not'entitled'to'the'claim'for'refund'for' also'affected'the'viability'of'the'movie'industry,'particularly'the'more'than'
the' oils' used' from' January' 1,' 1963' to' April' 29,' 1963,' on' the' ground' that' the' right' to' claim' 1,200'movie'houses'and'theaters'throughout'the'country,'and'occasioned'
refund' of' the' tax' in' question' paid' during' the' said' periods' has' prescribed,' the' petition' for' industry\wide' displacement' and' unemployment' due' to' the' shutdown' of'
review'having'been'filed'with'the'respondent'court'only'on'April'29,'1965,'which'was'beyond' numerous'moviehouses'and'theaters;'
the'two\year'prescriptive'period'provided'for'in'Section'306'of'the'Tax'Code.' 4.' "WHEREAS,' in' order' to' ensure' national' economic' recovery,' it' is'
( imperative' for' the' Government' to' create' an' environment' conducive' to'
HELD:' WHEREFORE,' judgment' is' hereby' rendered' affirming' the' decision' of' the' Court' of' Tax' growth' and' development' of' all' business' industries,' including' the' movie'
Appeals.'No'cost.'So'ordered.' industry'which'has'an'accumulated'investment'of'about'P3'Billion;'
' ' 5.'WHEREAS,'proper'taxation'of'the'activities'of'videogram'establishments'
5. Tio v Videogram Regulatory Board (JAG) will' not' only' alleviate' the' dire' financial' condition' of' the' movie' industry'
G.R.'No.'L\75697'|'JUNE'18,'1987' upon' which' more' than' 75,000' families' and' 500,000' workers' depend' for'
Petitioner:'VALENTIN'TIO'doing'business'under'the'name'and'style'of'OMI'ENTERPRISES,'petitioner,' their' livelihood,' but' also' provide' an' additional' source' of' revenue' for' the'
Respondents:'VIDEOGRAM'REGULATORY'BOARD,'MINISTER'OF'FINANCE,'METRO'MANILA'COMMISSION,' Government,'and'at'the'same'time'rationalize'the'heretofore'uncontrolled'
CITY'MAYOR'and'CITY'TREASURER'OF'MANILA,'respondents.' distribution'of'videograms;'
MELENCIOWHERRERA,!J.! 6.'WHEREAS,'the'rampant'and'unregulated'showing'of'obscene'videogram'
( features'constitutes'a'clear'and'present'danger'to'the'moral'and'spiritual'
Facts:( well\being' of' the' youth,' and' impairs' the' mandate' of' the' Constitution' for'
Petition'assails'the'constitutionality'of'Presidential'Decree'No.'1987'entitled'"An'Act' the' State' to' support' the' rearing' of' the' youth' for' civic' efficiency' and' the'
Creating' the' Videogram' Regulatory' Board"' with' broad' powers' to' regulate' and' development' of' moral' character' and' promote' their' physical,' intellectual,'
supervise'the'videogram'industry.'The'Decree'was'promulgated'on'October'5,'1985' and'social'well\being;'
and'took'effect'on'April'10,'1986,'fifteen'(15)'days'after'completion'of'its'publication' 7.' WHEREAS,' civic\minded' citizens' and' groups' have' called' for' remedial'
in'the'Official'Gazette.'' measures' to' curb' these' blatant' malpractices' which' have' flaunted' our'
On' November' 5,' 1985,' a' month' after' the' promulgation' of' the' abovementioned' censorship'and'copyright'laws;'
decree,'Presidential'Decree'No.'1994'amended'the'National'Internal'Revenue'Code' 8.'WHEREAS,'in'the'face'of'these'grave'emergencies'corroding'the'moral'
providing,!inter!alia:' values' of' the' people' and' betraying' the' national' economic' recovery'
SEC.!134.!Video!Tapes.!!There!shall!be!collected!on!each!processed!videoW program,'bold'emergency'measures'must'be'adopted'with'dispatch;''
tape! cassette,! ready! for! playback,! regardless! of! length,! an! annual! tax! of! '
five! pesos;! Provided,! That! locally! manufactured! or! imported! blank! video! Issue:(Whether'P.D.'1987'is'constitutional'on'the'following'grounds:'CONSITUTIONAL.((
tapes!shall!be!subject!to!sales!tax.! 1.' Section' 10' thereof,' which' imposes' a' tax' of' 30%' on' the' gross' receipts'
The'Greateer'Manila'Theaters'Association'were'allowed'to'intervene'to'protect'their' payable'to'the'local'government'is'a'RIDER'and'the'same'is'not'germane'to'
rights' and' that' their' "survival' and' very' existence' is' threatened' by' the' unregulated' the'subject'matter'thereof;'
proliferation'of'film'piracy."'' 2.' The' tax' imposed' is' harsh,' confiscatory,' oppressive' and/or' in' unlawful'
The' rationale' behind' the' enactment' of' the' DECREE,' is' set' out' in' its' preambular' restraint'of'trade'in'violation'of'the'due'process'clause'of'the'Constitution;'
clauses'as'follows:'' 3.'There'is'no'factual'nor'legal'basis'for'the'exercise'by'the'President'of'the'
1.' WHEREAS,' the' proliferation' and' unregulated' circulation' of' videograms' vast'powers'conferred'upon'him'by'Amendment'No.'6;'
including,' among' others,' videotapes,' discs,' cassettes' or' any' technical' 4.'There'is'undue'delegation'of'power'and'authority;'
improvement'or'variation'thereof,'have'greatly'prejudiced'the'operations' 5.'The'Decree'is'an'exWpost!facto'law;'and'
of'moviehouses'and'theaters,'and'have'caused'a'sharp'decline'in'theatrical' 6.' There' is' over' regulation' of' the' video' industry' as' if' it' were' a' nuisance,'
attendance'by'at'least'forty'percent'(40%)'and'a'tremendous'drop'in'the' which'it'is'not.'
collection' of' sales,' contractor's' specific,' amusement' and' other' taxes,' '
thereby' resulting' in' substantial' losses' estimated' at' P450' Million' annually' Ratio:(
in'government'revenues;' 1.(Section(10(is(NOT(a(rider.((SYLLABUS(TOPIC)(
2.' WHEREAS,' videogram(s)' establishments' collectively' earn' around' P600' Section!10.!Tax!on!Sale,!Lease!or!Disposition!of!Videograms.!!Notwithstanding!any!provision!
Million'per'annum'from'rentals,'sales'and'disposition'of'videograms,'and' of!law!to!the!contrary,!the!province!shall!collect!a!tax!of!thirty!percent!(30%)!of!the!purchase!
such' earnings' have' not' been' subjected' to' tax,' thereby' depriving' the' price! or! rental! rate,! as! the! case! may! be,! for! every! sale,! lease! or! disposition! of! a! videogram!
Government'of'approximately'P180'Million'in'taxes'each'year;' containing!a!reproduction!of!any!motion!picture!or!audiovisual!program.!Fifty!percent!(50%)!of!
the!proceeds!of!the!tax!collected!shall!accrue!to!the!province,!and!the!other!fifty!percent!(50%)!
shall! acrrue! to! the! municipality! where! the! tax! is! collected;! PROVIDED,! That! in! Metropolitan!
! !
Manila,!the!tax!shall!be!shared!equally!by!the!City/Municipality!and!the!Metropolitan!Manila! 3.( Factual( and( legal( basis( for( the( exercise( by( the( President( of( the( vast( powers( conferred(
th
Commission.! upon(him(by(Amendment(No.(6(as(provided(in(the(8 (whereas(clause.(Unresolved.(
( Petitioner' argues' that' there' was' no' legal' nor' factual' basis' for' the' promulgation' of'
Constitutional' requirement' that' "every' bill' shall' embrace' only' one' subject' which' the' DECREE' by' the' former' President' under' Amendment' No.' 6' of' the' 1973'
shall' be' expressed' in' the' title' thereof"'is' sufficiently' complied' with' if' the' title' be' Constitution'providing'that'"whenever'in'the'judgment'of'the'President'there'exists'
comprehensive' enough' to' include' the' general' purpose' which' a' statute' seeks' to' a' grave' emergency' or' a' threat' or' imminence' thereof,' or' whenever' the' interim'
achieve.' The' requirement' is' satisfied' if' all' the' parts' of' the' statute' are' related,' and' Batasang' Pambansa' or' the' regular' National' Assembly' fails' or' is' unable' to' act'
are'germane'to'the'subject'matter'expressed'in'the'title,'or'as'long'as'they'are'not' adequately' on' any' matter' for' any' reason' that' in' his' judgment' requires' immediate'
inconsistent'with'or'foreign'to'the'general'subject'and'title.' action,'he'may,'in'order'to'meet'the'exigency,'issue'the'necessary'decrees,'orders,'
The'rule'also'is'that'the'constitutional'requirement'as'to'the'title'of'a'bill'should'not' or'letters'of'instructions,'which'shall'form'part'of'the'law'of'the'land."'
be'so'narrowly'construed'as'to'cripple'or'impede'the'power'of'legislation.'It'should' In' refutation,' the' Intervenors' and' the' Solicitor' General's' Office' aver' that' the' 8th'
be'given'practical'rather'than'technical'construction.' "whereas"'clause'sufficiently'summarizes'the'justification'in'that'grave'emergencies'
Sec.10'is'allied'and'germane'to,'and'is'reasonably'necessary'for'the'accomplishment' corroding' the' moral' values' of' the' people' and' betraying' the' national' economic'
of,' the' general' object' of' the' DECREE,' which' is' the' regulation' of' the' video' industry' recovery' program' necessitated' bold' emergency' measures' to' be' adopted' with'
through'the'Videogram'Regulatory'Board'as'expressed'in'its'title.'' dispatch.'Whatever'the'reasons'"in'the'judgment"'of'the'then'President,'considering'
The' tax' provision' is' not' inconsistent' with,' nor' foreign' to' that' general' subject' and' that' the' issue' of' the' validity' of' the' exercise' of' legislative' power' under' the' said'
title.' As' a' tool' for' regulation'it' is' simply' one' of' the' regulatory' and' control' Amendment' still' pends' resolution' in' several' other' cases,' we' reserve' resolution' of'
mechanisms'scattered'throughout'the'DECREE.'' the'question'raised'at'the'proper'time.'
The'express'purpose'of'the'DECREE'to'include'taxation'of'the'video'industry'in'order' (
to'regulate'and'rationalize'the'heretofore'uncontrolled'distribution'of'videograms'is' 4.(No(Undue(Delegation(of(Authority.(
evident'from'Preambles'2'and'5.'' The'grant'in'Section'11'of'the'DECREE'of'authority'to'the'BOARD'to'"solicit'the'direct'
Those' preambles' explain' the' motives' of' the' lawmaker' in' presenting' the' measure.' assistance'of'other'agencies'and'units'of'the'government'and'deputize,'for'a'fixed'
The'title'of'the'DECREE,'which'is'the'creation'of'the'Videogram'Regulatory'Board,'is' and' limited' period,' the' heads' or' personnel' of' such' agencies' and' units' to' perform'
comprehensive' enough' to' include' the' purposes' expressed' in' its' Preamble' and' enforcement' functions' for' the' Board"' is' not' a' delegation' of' the' power' to' legislate'
reasonably'covers'all'its'provisions.'It'is'unnecessary'to'express'all'those'objectives' but'merely'a'conferment'of'authority'or'discretion'as'to'its'execution,'enforcement,'
in'the'title'or'that'the'latter'be'an'index'to'the'body'of'the'DECREE.' and'implementation.''
( "The' true' distinction' is' between' the' delegation' of' power' to' make' the' law,' which'
2.( Tax( imposed( does( not( cease( to( be( valid( merely( because( it( discourages( or( regulates( or( necessarily' involves' a' discretion' as' to' what' it' shall' be,' and' conferring' authority' or'
deters(the(activities(taxed.(( discretion'as'to'its'execution'to'be'exercised'under'and'in'pursuance'of'the'law.''
The'power'to'impose'taxes'is'one'so'unlimited'in'force'and'so'searching'in'extent,' The'first'cannot'be'done;'to'the'latter,'no'valid'objection'can'be'made."''Besides,'in'
that' the' courts' scarcely' venture' to' declare' that' it' is' subject' to' any' restrictions' the' very' language' of' the' decree,' the' authority' of' the' BOARD' to' solicit' such'
whatever,'except'such'as'rest'in'the'discretion'of'the'authority'which'exercises'it.' assistance'is'for'a'"fixed'and'limited'period"'with'the'deputized'agencies'concerned'
In' imposing' a' tax,' the' legislature' acts' upon' its' constituents.' This' is,' in' general,' a' being'"subject'to'the'direction'and'control'of'the'BOARD."''
sufficient'security'against'erroneous'and'oppressive'taxation.'' That'the'grant'of'such'authority'might'be'the'source'of'graft'and'corruption'would'
The'tax'imposed'by'the'DECREE'is'not'only'a'regulatory'but'also'a'revenue'measure' not' stigmatize' the' DECREE' as' unconstitutional.' Should' the' eventuality' occur,' the'
prompted' by' the' realization' that' earnings' of' videogram' establishments' of' around' aggrieved'parties'will'not'be'without'adequate'remedy'in'law.'
P600'million'per'annum'have'not'been'subjected'to'tax.' '
It'is'an'end\user'tax,'imposed'on'retailers'for'every'videogram'they'make'available' 5.(The(DECREE(is(not(violative(of(the(ex&post&facto(principle.((
for'public'viewing.'It'is'similar'to'the'30%'amusement'tax'imposed'or'borne'by'the' Petitioner'contends'that'Section'15'violates'the'ex!post!facto!!principle'in'providing'
movie' industry' which' the' theater\owners' pay' to' the' government,' but' which' is' that:'
passed'on'to'the'entire'cost'of'the'admission'ticket.' SEC.!15!!W!All!videogram!establishments!in!the!Philippines!are!hereby!given!
The'levy'of'the'30%'tax'is'for'a'public'purpose.'It'was'imposed'primarily'to'answer' a! period! of! fortyWfive! (45)! days! after! the! effectivity! of! this! Decree! within!
the'need'for'regulating'the'video'industry,'particularly'because'of'the'rampant'film' which! to! register! with! and! secure! a! permit! from! the! BOARD! to! engage! in!
piracy,'the'flagrant'violation'of'intellectual'property'rights,'and'the'proliferation'of' the!videogram!business!and!to!register!with!the!BOARD!all!their!inventories!
pornographic' video' tapes.' And' while' it' was' also' an' objective' of' the' DECREE' to' of! videograms,! including! videotapes,! discs,! cassettes! or! other! technical!
protect'the'movie'industry,'the'tax'remains'a'valid'imposition.' improvements! or! variations! thereof,! before! they! could! be! sold,! leased,! or!
( otherwise!disposed!of.!Thereafter!any!videogram!found!in!the!possession!of!
any!person!engaged!in!the!videogram!business!without!the!required!proof!
! !
of!registration!by!the!BOARD,!shall!be!prima!facie!evidence!of!violation!of! also'mentioned'the'authoritarian'power'of'the'Conference'Committee,'which'allows'them'to'
the! Decree,! whether! the! possession! of! such! videogram! be! for! private! produce'results'beyond'its'mandate.'
showing!and/or!public!exhibition.! '
There' is' no' question' that' there' is' a' rational' connection' between' the' fact' proved,' On'the'last'ground,'basically'the'SC'questioned'why'the'judiciary'was'hit'by'the'withdrawal'of'
which' is' non\registration,' and' the' ultimate' fact' presumed' which' is' violation' of' the' the' franking' privilege,' and' not' the' executive' and' legislative.' There' being' no' substantial'
DECREE,'besides'the'fact'that'the'prima'faciepresumption'of'violation'of'the'DECREE' distinction,'Sec.35'is'void'for'violation'of'the'EPC.'
attaches' only' after' a' forty\five\day' period' counted' from' its' effectivity' and' is,' (
therefore,'neither'retrospective'in'character' Basic( Premise:( This'is'an'issue'on'the'independence'of'the'Judiciary.'As'a'matter'of'fact,'the'
( Supreme' Court' itself' was' an' interested' party.' But' the' SC' said' that' even' if' that' is' so,' it' cant'
6.(We'do'not'share'petitioner's'fears'that'the'video'industry'is'being'over\regulated'and'being' inhibit'itself'and'must'rule'upon'the'challenge.'
eased'out'of'existence'as'if'it'were'a'nuisance.'Being'a'relatively'new'industry,'the'need'for'its' '
regulation'was'apparent.'' Facts:'
21
While' the' underlying' objective' of' the' DECREE' is' to' protect' the' moribund' movie' In'contention'in'this'case'is'Section'35'of'RA'7354, 'as'implemented'by'the'Philippine'Postal'
industry,' there' is' no' question' that' public' welfare' is' at' bottom' of' its' enactment,' Corp'(PPC)'through'Circular'No.'92\28.'Under'Sec.'35'of'RA'7354,'the'franking'privilege''of'the'
considering'"the'unfair'competition'posed'by'rampant'film'piracy;'the'erosion'of'the' SC,'CA,'RTC,'MTC,'Land'Registration'Commission'and'Registers'of'Deeds'were'withdrawn.''
moral'fiber'of'the'viewing'public'brought'about'by'the'availability'of'unclassified'and' '
unreviewed'video'tapes'containing'pornographic'films'and'films'with'brutally'violent' RA' 7354s' full' title,' btw,' is' An' Act' Creating' The' Philippine' Postal' Corporation,' Defining' Its'
sequences;' and' losses' in' government' revenues' due' to' the' drop' in' theatrical' Powers,' Functions' And' Responsibilities,' Providing' For' Regulation' Of' The' Industry' And' For'
attendance,' not' to' mention' the' fact' that' the' activities' of' video' establishments' are' Other'Purposes'Connected'Therewith.'
virtually'untaxed'since'mere'payment'of'Mayor's'permit'and'municipal'license'fees' '
are'required'to'engage'in'business.'' Now,'what'is'a'franking'frivilege?'It'basically'lets'the'courts'send'mail'through'couriers'free'of'
The' enactment' of' the' Decree' since' April' 10,' 1986' has' not' brought' about' the' postage' costs' (i.e.' stamp' costs).' It' does' not' meant' privilege' from' eating' franks.' So,' if' the'
"demise"' of' the' video' industry.' On' the' contrary,' video' establishments' are' seen' to' judges'want'to'eat'Leons'franks,'its'not'free,'unless'Leon'gives'them'for'free.'
have'proliferated'in'many'places'notwithstanding'the'30%'tax'imposed.' '
( Petitioners'are'judges'of'lower'courts'who'felt'that'their'functions'will'be'prejudiced'by'the'
withdrawal'of'the'franking'privilege.'
6. Phil Judges Assn v Prado (JT) '
PHILIPPINE'JUDGES'ASSOCIATION'v.'PRADO'
Issues:(W/N'RA'7354'is'unconstitutional'because'
G.R.'No.'105371'|'Nov.'11,'1993'|'Cruz,'J.!
its' title' embraces' more' than' one' subject' and' does' not' express' its' furfoses
!
Constitutional'
Petitioners:( Phil.' Judges' Assocation' (PHILJA),' et' al.,' by! themselves! and! in! behalf! of! all! the!
it'did'not'pass'the'required'readings'both'houses'of'CongressConstitutional'
Judges!of!the!Regional!Trial!and!Shari'a!Courts,!Metropolitan!Trial!Courts!and!Municipal!Courts!
it'is'discriminatory'and'encroaches'on'the'independence'of'the'judiciary'
throughout!the!Country'
'
'
Held:' ACCORDINGLY,' the' petition' is' partially' GRANTED' and' Section' 35' of' R.A.' No.' 7354' is'
Respondents:( Hon.' Pete' Prado' (DOTC' Secretary);' Jorge' Sarmiento' (Postmaster' General);'
declared' UNCONSTITUTIONAL.' Circular' No.' 92\28' is' SET' ASIDE' insofar' as' it' withdraws' the'
Philippine'Postal'Corporation'
franking'privilege'from'the'Supreme'Court,'the'Court'of'Appeals,'the'Regional'trail'Courts,'the'
'
Municipal'trial'Courts,'and'the'National'Land'Registration'Authority'and'its'Register'of'Deeds'
Recit( ready:( Sec.'35'of( RA'7354'withdrew'the'franking'privilege'of'the'Judiciary.'Petitioners,'
to'all'of'which'offices'the'said'privilege'shall'be'RESTORED.'The'temporary'restraining'order'
who' are' judges,' assailed' Sec.' 35' as' unconstitutional' on' three' grounds:' (1)' the' title' did' not'
dated'June'2,'1992,'is'made'permanent.'
express'the'withdrawal'of'the'privilege;'(2)'the'law'was'not'properly'enacted;'and'(3)'violation'
'
of'EPC'because'walang'substantial'distinction.'''
Ratio(
'
On' the' first' ground,' the' SC' said' that' the' title' need' not' be' an' index' to' the' body' of' the' law.' ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Matters'germane'to'the'subject'as'expressed'in'the'title'may'properly'be'included'in'the'act.'It' 21
'Sec.' 35.' Repealing' Clause.' ' All' acts,' decrees,' orders,' executive' orders,' instructions,' rules' and'
is'the'subject,'not'the'effect'of'a'law,'which'is'required'to'be'briefly'expressed'in'its'title.'Thus,' regulations' or' parts' thereof' inconsistent' with' the' provisions' of' this' Act' are' repealed' or' modified'
it'is'constitutional'based'on'this'ground.' accordingly.xxx' All! franking! privileges! authorized! by! law! are! hereby! repealed,' except' those' provided' for'
' under' Commonwealth' Act' No.' 265,' Republic' Acts' Numbered' 69,' 180,' 1414,' 2087' and' 5059.' The'
On'the'second'ground,'the'SC'said'that'there'are'proper'assurances'given'by'the'Legislature' Corporation'may'continue'the'franking'privilege'under'Circular'No.'35'dated'October'24,'1977'and'that'of'
(in'the'form'of'the'enrolled'bill)'to'assure'the'courts'that'the'law'was'properly'enacted.'The'SC' the' Vice' President,' under' such' arrangements' and' conditions' as' may' obviate' abuse' or' unauthorized' use'
thereof.'
! !
The(title(of(RA(7354(does(not(make(it(unconstitutional.( o Now,' legislative' custom' severely' limits' the' freedom' with' which' new'
The(title(of(the(bill(is(not(required(to(be(an(index(to(the(body(of(the(law,'or'to'be'as' subject'matter'can'be'inserted'into'the'conference'bill.''
comprehensive'as'to'cover'every'single'detail'of'the'measure.'' " BUT!!!' Occasionally,' a' Committee' produces' unexpected' results'
o If'the'title'fairly'indicates'the'general'subject,'and'reasonably'covers'all'the' beyond'its'mandate'
provisions'of'the'act,'and'is'not'calculated'to'mislead'the'legislature'or'the' " These' excursions' occur' even' where' the' rules' impose' strict'
people,'there'is'sufficient'compliance'with'the'constitutional'requirement.'' limitations'on'conference'committee'jurisdiction.''
The'details'of'a'legislative'act'need'not'be'specifically'stated'in'its'title'' " This' is' symptomatic' of' the' authoritarian( power( of( the(
o Matters!germane!to!the!subject'(as'expressed'in'the'title),'and'adopted'to' Conference(Committee'
the'accomplishment'of'the'object'in'view,'may'properly'be'included'in'the' o Under' the' doctrine' of' separation' powers,' the' Court' may' not' inquire'
act.'' beyond'the'certification'of'the'approval'of'a'bill'from'the'presiding'officers'
o It'is'proper'to'create'in'the'same'act'the'machinery'by'which'the'act'is'to' of'Congress.''
be' enforced,' to' prescribe' the' penalties' for' its' infraction,' and' to' remove' " As' such,' the' enrolled' bill,' and' even' the' journal,' is' conclusive'
obstacles'in'the'way'of'its'execution.'' upon'the'judiciary''
o If' such' matters' are' properly( connected' with' the' subject' as' expressed' in' o Applying' these' principles,' the' SC' declined' to' look' into' the' petitioners''
the'title,'it'is'unnecessary'that'they'should'also'have'special'mention'in'the' charges' that' an' amendment' was' made' upon' the' last' reading' of' the' bill'
title' that' eventually' became' R.A.' No.' 7354' and' that' copies' thereof' in' its' final'
As'regards'a'repealing'section,'the'title'of'a'law'need'not'express'it'as'well' form'were'not'distributed'among'the'members'of'each'House.''
o Where'a'statute'repeals'a'former'law,'such'repeal'is'the'effect'and'not'the' o Because'both'the'enrolled'bill'and'the'legislative'journals'certify'that'the'
subject'of'the'statute' measure'was'duly'enacted'in'accordance'with'the'Consti,'the'SC'is'bound'
o It( is( the( subject,( not( the( effect( of( a( law,( which( is( required( to( be( briefly( by'such'official'assurances'from'the'legislature.'
expressed(in(its(title.'' '
o If' the' title' of' an' act' embraces' only' one' subject,' the' Court' apprehends' it' Sec.(35(of(RA(7354(discriminates(upon(the(judiciary.(Hence,(it(is(a(violation(of(EPC(because(
was' never' claimed' that' every' other' act' which' repeals' it' or' alters' by' there(is(no(substantial(distinction.(Hence,(void.(
implication' must' be' mentioned' in' the' title' of' the' new' act.' Any' such' rule' Petitioners' say' na' may' violation' daw' ng' EPC' kasi' judges' lang' ang' natanggalan' ng'
would'be'neither'within'the'reason'of'the'Constitution,'nor'practicable.' frivilege,'and'not'the'President,'VP,'Senators,'Members'of'House'of'Reps,'COMELEC,'
Thus,'the'withdrawal'of'the'franking'privilege'is'germane'to'the'principal'objective' NSO,'and'the'public'(when'filing'complaints'against'public'officers)'
of' RA' 7354,' which' is' the' creation! of! a! more! efficient! and! effective! postal! service! o SC'said'that'there'is'no'doubt'that'the'law'was'carefully'deliberated'upon.'
system' o But'then'the'SC'said'that'not'enough'care'was'given'to'its'repealing'clause,'
o Thus,'further,'the'repealing'clause'did'not'have'to'be'expressed'in'the'title.' resulting' in' the' unwitting' withdrawal' of' the' franking' privilege' from' the'
' Judiciary.'
Sec.(35(was(properly(enacted,(there(being(official(assurances(from(the(legislature.( To' make' things' simple,' the' SC' said,' EH' BAKIT' KAMI' YUNG' TINANGGALAN' NG'
Fetitioners' maintain' that' Sec.' 35' was' not' included' in' the' original' Senate' Bill' and' PRIVILEGE?'DI'NAMIN'GETS.'TARANTADO'PALA'KAYO'EH.'
House'Bill.'The'section'appeared'only'in'the'Conference'Committee'Report' o If'the'Congress'saw'that'the'executive'and'the'legislative'have'a'need'for'
o They'invoke'Sec.26(2)'of'Art.'VI'of'the'Consti'(read'codal'na'lang)'and'Sec.' the'franking'frivilege,'EH'BAKIT'YUNG'JUDICIARY'WALA?''
74'of'the'Rules'of'the'House'of'Representatives,'which'reads:' o There'is'no'reason'to'deny'the'courts'of'the'privilege.'
" An'amendment'to'any'bill'when'the'House'and'the'Senate'shall' o Thus,'no'substantial'distinction'
have' differences' thereon' may' be' settled' by' a' conference' To'conclude:'The'distinction'made'is'a'matter'of'arbitrariness'that'this'Court'has'the'
committee'of'both'chambers.' duty'and'power'to'correct.'
o Petitioners'stress'that'Sec.'35'was'never'the'subject'of'any'disagreement,' o (nice' read)' We' arrive' at' these' conclusions' with' a' full' awareness' of' the'
so'it'could'not'have'been'validly'added'as'an'amendment.' criticism'it'is'certain'to'provoke.'While'ruling'against'the'discrimination'in'
Eh'mali'daw'sila'sabi'ng'SC.' this' case,' we' may' ourselves' be' accused' of' similar' discrimination' through'
o While' it' is' true' that' a' Conference' Committee' is' the' mechanism' for' the' exercise' of' our' ultimate' power' in' our' own' favor.' This' is' inevitable.'
compromising' differences' between' the' Senate' and' the' House,' it' is' not' Criticism' of' judicial' conduct,' however' undeserved,' is' a' fact' of' life' in' the'
limited'in'its'jurisdiction'to'this'question.'' political' system' that' we' are' prepared' to' accept..' As' judges,' we' cannot'
o The'Conference'Committee'has'a'broader'function':' debate'with'our'detractors.'We(can(only(decide(the(cases(before(us(as(law(
" A' conference' committee' may' deal' generally' with' the' subject' imposes( on( us( the( duty( to( be( fair( and( our( own( conscience( gives( us( the(
matter' or' it' may' be' limited' to' resolving' the' precise' differences' light(to(be(right.(
between'the'two'houses.'' '
! !

Compilation 2.03 - Article VI, Sections 21-26

Transféré par

Informations du document

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

Compilation 2.03 - Article VI, Sections 21-26

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Political(Law(Review(A/2015(|(Dean(Sedfrey(Candelaria(|(Case(Digest(Compilation(2.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi