The Legislative Department Composition, Qualifications, and Term of Office Senate Art. VI, Sec.

2: The Senate shall be composed of twenty-four Senators wh o shall be elected at large by the qualified voters of the Philippines, as may b e provided by law. Art VI, Sec. 3: No person shall be a Senator unless he is a naturalborn c itizen of the Philippines, and, on the day of the election, is at least thirtyfiv e years of age, able to read and write, a registered voter, and a resident of th e Philippines for not less than two years immediately preceding the day of the e lection. Art VI, Sec. 4: The term of office of the Senators shall be six years an d shall commence, unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following their election. No Senator shall serve for more than two consecutive terms. Voluntary re nunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an in terruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was e lected. House of Representatives Art. VI, Sec. 5 (1): The House of Representatives shall be composed of n ot more than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who s hall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, citi es, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their resp ective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and tho se who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a partylist system of regist ered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations. (2) The partylist representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of t he total number of representatives including those under the party list. For thr ee consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution, onehalf of the seats allocated to partylist representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or election from the labor, peasant urban poor, indigenous cultura l communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by law, e xcept the religious sector. (3) Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, con tiguous, compact and adjacent territory. Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least one represent ative. (to prevent gerrymandering) (4) Within three years following the return of every census, the Congres s shall make a reapportionment of legislative districts based on the standards p rovided in this section. Art VI, Sec. 6: No person shall be a Member of the House of Representati ves Unless he is a naturalborn citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at least twentyfive years of age, able to read and write, and, excep t the partylist representatives, a registered voter in the district in which he s hall be elected, and a resident thereof for a period of not less than one year i mmediately preceding the day of the election. Art VI, Sec. 7: The Members of the House of Representatives shall be ele cted for a term of three years which shall begin, unless otherwise provided by l aw, at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following their election. No Member of the House of Representatives shall serve for more than thre e consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time

shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was elected. Art. IXC, Sec. 6: A free and open party system shall be allowed to evolve according to the free choice of the people, subject to the provisions of this A rticle. Art IX-C, Sec. 7: No votes cast in favor of a political party, organizat ion, or coalition shall be valid, except for those registered under the partylist system as provided in this Constitution. Art IX-C, Sec. 8: Political parties, or organizations or coalitions regi stered under the partylist system, shall not be represented in the voters' regist ration boards, boards of election inspectors, boards of canvassers, or other sim ilar bodies. However, they shall be entitled to appoint poll watchers in accorda nce with law. Art. XVIII, Sec. 7: Until a law is passed, the President may fill by app ointment from a list of nominees by the respective sectors the seats reserved fo r sectoral representation in paragraph (2), Section 5 of Article VI of this Cons titution. h minimum number of House of Representatives: 250 members, 20% of which is compo sed of party-list rep. h 1998 = first party-list election by virtue of RA 7941 at elected 24;least Composition House of 250at large Senators Rep.consisting of: 1. District Rep = elected from legilative districts 2. Party-list Rep = 20% of total no. of rep natural-born (contiuing requirement: after possessed s ratification Citizenship Rep = 3 consecutive termsmust bethe Const. for the entire duration o 3. Sectoral f the membertheincumbency)election must not be more than 30 yrs old (but allowed party-list s day youth 25 35 yrs. onrep from of the election Ageyearson the day of the sector: party-list if bonafide member legislativerep:in to domicile) of the preceding the 90 days 2-yrcontinuerep:reached residency in term) at leastdistrict Residence (refers1-year 30 during histhe legislative election prior to the elect to residency the Phil immediately party Registered able Education 3-year read and write the is no 6-year term and prohibition Phil language Term toterm,residency in theis no more than consecutive terms ion; 1-yearvoterprohibitionnationalmorethan 32consecutive terms Dimaporo V. Mitra, 202 SCRA 779 (15 October 1991) F: Dimaporo ran for Governor when he was still a representative of the lower hou se. Dimaporo lost but the house insisted that he was deemed resigned the moment he ran for governor. H: Dimaporo is deemed resigned The term of office prescribed by the Constitution may not be extended or shortened by the legislature, but the period during which an officer actually h olds the office (tenure), may be affected by circumstances within or beyond the power of said officer. Tenure may be shorter than the term or it may not exist a t all. Forfeiture is automatic and permanently effective upon the filing of the certificate of candidacy for another office. It is not necessary, as petitioner opines, that the other position be actually held. The ground for forfeiture in Sec. 13, Art. VI of the Constitution is different from the for forfeiture decree d in BP 881, which is actually a mode of voluntary renunciation of office under Sec. 7(2) of Art. VI of the Constitution. The act, contemplated in Sec. 67, Art. IX of BP 881, of filing a certifi cate of candidacy for another office constitutes an overt, concrete act of volun tary renunciation of the elective office presently being held. Sec 67 of BP 881 or Omnibus Election Code: Any elective official, whether national or local, running for any office other than the one which he is holding in a permanent capacity, except for Pres ident and Vice-President, shall be considered ipso fact resiged from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy.

Sec 4 of Comelec Resolution No. 3253-A dated Nov. 20, 2000 Any person holding a public APPOINTIVE office including active members o f the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and other officers and employees in the g overnment owned or controlled corporation, shall be considered ipso facto resign ed from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy. Any ELECTIVE official running for any office other than the one which he is holding in a permanent capacity shall be deemed resigned only upon the start of the campaign period corresponding to the position for which he is running. Comelec Resolution No. 3636 dated March 1, 2001 & Sec 14 of RA 9006: Fair Electi ons Act: Any elective official, whether national or local, who has filed a certif icate of candidacy for the same or any other office, shall not be considered res igned from his office. Mariano, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections (3/7/1995) F: Petitioners contend that RA 7854 is unconstitutional because apportionment of legislative district cannot be made by a special law but only through a general appropriationment act H: RA 7854 is constitutional; apportionment of legislative districts is a justic iable question Reapportionment of legislative districts may be made through a special l aw, such as in the charter of a new city. The Constitution clearly provides tha t Congress shall be composed of not more than two hundred fifty (250) members, u nless otherwise fixed by law. As thus worded, the Constitution did not preclude Congress from increasing its membership by passing a law, other than a general r eapportionment law. This is exactly what was done by Congress in enacting R.A. N o. 7854 and providing for an increase in Makati's legislative district. Moreover , to hold that reapportionment can only be made through a general apportionment law, with a review of all the legislative districts allotted to each local gover nment unit nationwide, would create an inequitable situation where a new city or province created by Congress will be denied legislative representation for an i ndeterminate period of time. That intolerable situation will deprive the people of a new city or province a particle of their sovereignty. Sovereignty cannot ad mit of any kind of subtraction. It is indivisible. It must be forever whole or i t is not sovereignty. not required to be if absent has intention requires the place where evenwhere Domicile of abode;physically present Residencephysical presenceyou may be found to return (animus revertandi) Aquino vs. Commission on Elections F: Aquino ran as Makati Representative in Lower house. He leased a condominium i n Makati and had lived in Tarlac for 52 years H: Aquino failed to prove that he had established not just residence but domicil e While property ownership is not and should never be an indicia of the ri ght to vote or to be voted upon, the fact that petitioner himself claims that he has other residences in Metro Manila coupled with the short length of time he c laims to be a resident of the condominium unit in Makati (two-year leasing agree ment), and the fact of his stated domicile in Tarlac, indicate that the sole pur pose of petitioner in transferring his physical residence is not to acquire a ne w residence or domicile but only to qualify as a candidate for representative of the 2nd district of Makati. Moreover, his assertion that he has transferred his domicile from Tarlac to Makati is a bare assertion which is hardly supported by the facts in the case at bench. ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS vs. COMELEC [G.R. No. 119976. September 18, 1995.] F: Imelda Marcos ran as Lower House Rep. for Leyte. She lived there since childh oon but when she got married, she lived in many places. It was only 7 months sin ce she returned to Leyte H: Marcos fulfilled the residency req.bec. what she acquired she she married was actual residence, she did not lose her domicile

Mrs. Marcos did not lost her domicle bec. of the ff: 1. A minor follows the domicile of his parents 2. Domicile of origin is lost only when there is an: a. An actual removal or an actual change of domicile; b. A bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of residence and establi shing a new one; and c. Acts which correspond with the purpose 3. The wife does not automatically gain the husband s domicile because the term res idence in Civil Law does not mean the same thing in Political Law 4. Even assuming that she gained a new domicile after her marriage and acquired the right to choose a new one only after her husband died, her acts following he r return to the country clearly indicate that she chose Tacloban, her domicile o f origin, as her domicile of choice.

Domino v. Comelec (134015; 7/9/1999) F: Domino argued that he has effectively changed his residence. He filed an Excl usion proceeding MTC excluded him from Quazon s voters list and ordered that he be included in Sarangani s list H: Domino has not changed his domicle It is not within the competence of the trial court, in an exclusion proc eedings, to declare the challenged voter a resident of another municipality. The jurisdiction of the lower court over exclusion cases is limited only to determi ning the right of voter to remain in the list of voters or to declare that the c hallenged voter is not qualified to vote in the precinct in which he is register ed, specifying the ground of the voter s disqualification. Domicile is a question of intention and circumstances. In the consideratio n of circumstances, three rules must be borne in mind, namely: 1. that a man must have a residence or domicle somewhere; 2. when once established it remains until a new one is acquired; and 3. a man can have but one residence or domicile at a time Law: REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7941 AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE ELECTION OF PARTY-LIST REPRES ENTATIVES THROUGH THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR Party-list System = mechanism of proportional representation in the elec tion of representatives to the House of Representatives from national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations or coalitions thereof registered with the COMELEC ? (Sec 4) registered party = need not register anew but must file a manifestatio n to participate in the party-list 90 days before the election ? (Sec. 5) Not a registered party = must register within 90 days before the elec tion. Sectors Available: labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cult ural communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers , and professionals ? (Sec 6) Disqualified to participate: (motu propio or upon a verified complaint ) (1) It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or association organize d for religious purposes; (God) (2) It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal; (gun) (3) It is a foreign party or organization; (foreign) (4) It is receiving support from any foreign government, foreign political party , foundation, organization, whether directly or through any of its officers or m embers or indirectly through third parties for partisan election purposes; (fore ign goods) (5) It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations relating to e lections; (hard-headed) (6) It declares untruthful statements in its petition; (liar)

(7) It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year; or (resurrected) (8) It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceeding elections or fails to obtain at least two per centum (2%) of the votes cast under the party-list syst em in the two (2) preceeding elections for the constituency in which it has regi stered. (loser) ? (Sec. 8) 45 days before the election, each registered party shall submit to th e COMELEC a list of names, not less than 5, from which party-list representative s shall be chosen in case it obtains the required number of votes ? A person may be nominated in 1 list only ? No change of names or alteration of the order of nominees shall be allowed aft er the same shall have been submitted to the COMELEC except in cases where the n ominee o dies, or o withdraws in writing his nomination, o becomes incapacitated * in which case the name of the substitute nominee shall be placed last in the l ist o (Montejo also included resignation from the party or has been removed from the party) Any elected party-list rep. who changes his political party or sectoral affiliation during his term of office shall forfiet his seat; provided that if h e changes his political party or sectoral affiliation within 6 months before an election, he shall not be eligible for nomination as party-list rep. under his n ew party or org.

Veterans Federation Party v. Comelec (136781; 10/6/2001) F: petitioners want to stop the Comelec from proclaiming 38 additional party-lis t representatives to complete the 52 seats available for party-list. Comelec hel d that the 20% allocation for party-list is mandatory thus it disregarded the 2% -rule H: petition is granted The parameters of the Filipino Party-List System: 1. 20% allocation = the combined number of all party-list congressman shall not exceed 20% of the total membership of the House of Representatives, including th ose elected under the party-list 2. 2% threshold = only those parties garnering a minimum of 2% of the total vali d votes cast for the party-list system are qualified to have a seat in the House o f Representatives 3. 3-seat limit = each qualified party, regardless of the number of votes it act ually obtained, is entitled to a maximum of 3 seat; that is, one qualifying and tw o additional seats 4. proportional representation = the additional seats which a qualified party is entitled to shall be computed in proportion to their total number of votes Determination of the Total Number of Party-List Lawmakers: No. of district representatives _______________________ x .20 = No. of Party-list .80

Representatives

Sec 5(2), Art VI of the Constitution is not mandatory. It merely provide s a ceiling for party-list seats in Congress. An important consideration in adopting the party-list system is to promo te and encourage a multiparty system of representation. Thus, Congress set the s eat-limit to 3 for each qualified party, organization or coalition. Qualified mean s having hurdled the 2%-vote threshold. Such 3-seat limit ensures the entry of v

arious interest-representations into the legislature; thus, no single group, no matter how large its membership, would dominate the party-list seats, if not the entire House. Method of Allocating Additional Seats: 1. Rank all the participating parties, organizations and coalitions from the hig hest to the lowest based on the number of votes they each received. 2. Determine the number of seats the first party is entitled to, in order to be able to compute that for the other parties. (If 1st party got 1M votes and entit led to 2 add l seats, 2nd party who got 500T votes cannot be also entitled to 2 ad d l seats) 3. Solve the number of additional seats that the other qualified parties are ent itled to, based on proportional representation Formula for Determining Additional Seats for the First Party: No. of Votes of 1st party Proportion of votes of _________________________ = 1st party relative to total total votes for party-list system votes for party-list system * if the total is 6% = 1st party entitled to 2 add l seats * equal or greater to 4% = 1st party entitled to 1 add l seat * if less than 4% = no add l seat Formula for additional seats of Other Qualified Parties: No. of votes of concerned party No. of add l seats Add l seats ---------------------------------------x allocated to the = fo r concerned No. of votes of 1st party 1st party party * usually, it is not rounded off, but if it very near the whole number like .99, then it is rounded off Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Comelec (147589; 6/25/2003 & 6/26/2001) F: petitioners are asking the Comelec whether there are other party-list represe ntatives to be declared H: even if major political parties are allowed by the Const. to participate in t he party-list system, they must show, however, that they represent the interest of the marginalized and the underprvileged In determining the total votes cast for the party-list system, only ballo ts case for qualified party-list candidates are considered. (Sec 10 of RA7941) T he votes of disqualified party-list groups should not be included. Guidelines for screening party-list participants: 1. it must represent the marginalized and underrepresented groups identified in Section 5 of RA 7941. Verily, majority of its membership should belong to the ma rginalized and underrepresented. 2. major political parties are not disqualified merely on the ground that they a re political parties, but they must show, that they represent the interests of t he marginalized and underrepresented. 3. the religious sector may not be represented in the party-list system 4. it must not be disqualified under Section 6 of RA 7941: 5. the party or organization must not be an adjunct of, or a project organized o r an entity funded or assisted by, the government 6. the party must not only comply with the requirements of the law; its nominees

must likewise do so a. natural-born citizen, a registered voter, a resident of the Philippines for a period of not less than one (1) year immediately preceding the day of the elect ion, able to read and write b. a bona fide member of the party or organization which he seeks to represent f or at least ninety (90) days preceding the day of the election, c. at least twenty-five (25) years of age on the day of the election. d. In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he must at least be twenty-five (25 ) but not more than thirty (30) years of age on the day of the election. Any yo uth sectoral representative who attains the age of thirty (30) during his term s hall be allowed to continue in office until the expiration of his term. 7. not only the candidate party or organization must represent marginalized and underrepresented sectors; so also must its nominees. 8. the nominee must likewise be able to contribute to the formulation and enactm ent of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole Synchronized terms of office Art. XVIII, Sec. 1: The first elections of Members of the Congress under this Co nstitution shall be held on the second Monday of May, 1987. The first local elections shall be held on a date to be determined by th e President, which may be simultaneous with the election of the Members of the C ongress. It shall include the election of all Members of the city or municipal c ouncils in the Metropolitan Manila area. Art XVIII, Sec. 2: The Senators, Members of the House of Representatives, and th e local officials first elected under this Constitution shall serve until noon o f June 30, 1992. Of the Senators elected in the election in 1992, the first twelve obtain ing the highest number of votes shall serve for six years and the remaining twel ve for three years. Election Regular Election Art. VI, Sec. 8: Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election of the S enators and the Members of the House of Representatives shall be held on the sec ond Monday of May. ? 1987 to 1992 = 24 Senators ? 1992 to 1998 = 24 were elected but the last 12 only has a 3-year term ? 1995 and every 3 years thereafter = 12 are elected with 6-year term Special Election Art. VI, Sec. 9: In case of vacancy in ives, a special election may be called ibed by law, but the Senator or Member ted shall serve only for the unexpired the Senate or in the House of Representat to fill such vacancy in the manner prescr of the House of Representatives thus elec term.

Art IX-C, Sec 11: Funds certified by the Commission as necessary to defray the e xpenses for holding regular and special elections, plebiscites, initiatives, ref erenda, and recalls, shall be provided in the regular or special appropriations and, once approved, shall be released automatically upon certification by the Ch airman of the Commission. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7166 AN ACT PROVIDING FOR SYNCHRONIZED NATIONAL AND LOCAL ELECTI ONS AND FOR ELECTORAL REFORMS, AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHE

R PURPOSES RA 6645 AN ACT PRESCRIBING THE MANNER OF FILLING A VACANCY IN THE CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES (28 December 1987) 1. vacancy arises in the Senate at least 18 months or in the House of Representa tives at least 1 year before the next regular election for Members of Congres 2. a resolution of the Senate or the House of Representatives is forwarded to th e Comelec (if Congress is in recess, communication shall come from President of the Senate or by the Speaker of the House of Representatives) 3. The Senator or Member of the House of Representatives thus elected shall serv e only for the unexpired term. 4. the date of the special election, shall not be earlier than 45 days nor later than 90 days from the date of such resolution or communication 5. if within the said period a general election is scheduled to be held, the spe cial election shall be held simultaneously with such general election. i special elections are largely discretionary on the part of each House of Congr ess where the vacancy occurs. If there s no resolution or official communication, then there can be no special election. Salaries, Privileges and Disqualifications Salaries Article VI, Sec. 10: The salaries of Senators and Members of the House of Repres entatives shall be determined by law. No increase in said compensation shall tak e effect until after the expiration of the full term of all the Members of the S enate and the House of Representatives approving such increase. Art. XVIII, Sec. 17: Until the Congress provides otherwise, the President shall receive an annual salary of three Hundred Thousand pesos: the Vice President, t he President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Chief justice of the Supreme Court, two hundred forty thousand pesos each; the Senators, the Members of the House of Representatives, the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, and the Chairmen of the Constitutional Commissions, two hund red four thousand pesos each; and the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, one hundred eighty thousand pesos each. SITUATION: Senators passed a law increasing their salaries in 1994. When will su ch law take effect? ANS: The second set of Senators will have their term of office expire in 1995, but the first set of Senators will have their term of office expire in 19 98. It will be the Congress starting 1998 (after June 30) that will be able to b enefit from the increase. PHILCONSA vs. Mathay 185 SCRA 300 (04 October 1966) F: Congress passed a law increasing their salaries in 1964. The increase was imm ediately implemented in 1965. This was questioned by Philconsa saying the term o f the 8 senators elected in 1963, and who took part in the approval of RA 4134, will expire only on Dec. 30, 1969; while the term of the members of the House wh o participated in the approval of said Act expired on Dec. 30,1965. H: increase can only be implemented on 12/30/1969 The expiration of the terms of ALL the members approving the increase is required before such increase can take effect. This conclusion stems from caref ul analysis of the language of the pertinent constitutional provision. The latte r refers to all members of the Senate and the House in the same sentence, as a s ingle unit, without distinction or separation between them. This unitary treatme nt is emphasized by the fact that the provision speaks of the "expiration of the

full term" of the Senators and Representatives that approved the measure, using the singular form, and not the plural, despite the difference in the terms of o ffice thereby rendering more evident the intent to consider both Houses for the purpose as indivisible components of one single legislature Moreover, such disre gard of the separate houses, in favor of the whole, accords with the fact that t he enactment of laws rests on the shoulders of the entire Legislative body: Resp onsibility therefore, is not apportionable between the 2 chambers. Ligot vs. Mathay, 56 SCRA 823 (30 April 1974) F: when former Rep. Ligot filed his claim for retirement, the salaries of the r epresentatives have already been increased. This increase was approved when he w as still in the House. Ligot contended that his retirement gratuity must be comp uted on the basis of the increased salary o H: Ligot cannot avail of the increase To grant retirement gratuity to members whose terms expired on December 30, 1969 computed on the basis of an increased salary which they were prohibited by the Constitution from receiving during their term would be to pay them prohi bited emoluments which in effect increase the salary beyond that which they were permitted by the Constitution to receive during their incumbency. Petitioner's contention that since the increased salary was already oper ative when his retirement took effect, his retirement gratuity should be based o n such increased salary cannot be sustained as far as he and other members of Co ngress similarly situated are concerned for the simple reason that a retirement gratuity or benefit is a form of compensation within the purview of constitution al provision limiting their compensation and "other emoluments" to their salary as provided by law. Freedom from Arrest Article VI, Section 11: A Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shal l, in all offenses punishable by not more than six years imprisonment, be privil eged from arrest while the Congress is in session. No Member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof. Under the 1935 Constitution: privilege is only for civil arrest Under the 1973 Constitution: immunity applies if the offense carries a penalty o f less than or equal to 6 years AND covers only his going to, coming from or att ending a session Under the 1987 Constitution: immunity applies when the offense carries a penalt y of less than or equal to 6 years AND the Congress is in session. Congress in session upon initial convening up to the final adjournment. Co ngress shall convene every 4th Monday of July every year. The compulsory adjourn ment shall be 30 days prior to the next regular session or opening of the next r egualr session, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays ? SO you can only arrest a Representative or Senator if the charge for a crime i s punishable by more than 6 years within the compulsory adjournment period ? temporary adjournment or recess in between is not considered People v. Jalosjos (2/3/2000) F: Jalosjos won as Lower House Rep while his conviction for statutory rape is pe nding appeal. Can he leave prison to attend the sessions? H: Jalosjos cannot leave prison; Art VI Sec 11 does not apply to him bec. it is not the intention of the Constitution to differentiate him from the ordinay accu sed This denial was premised on the ff: 1. membership in Congress does not exempt an accused from statutes and rules whi

ch apply to validly incarcerated persons; 2. one rationale behind confinement, whether pending appeal or after final convi ction, is public self-defense (i.e., it is the injury to the public, not the inj ury to the complainant, which state action in criminal law seeks to redress) 3. it would amount to the creation of a privileged class, without justification in reason, if notwithstanding their liablity for a criminal offense, they would be considered immune from arrest during their attendance in Congress and in goin g to and returning from the same; and 4. accused-appellant is provided with an office at the House of Representatives with a full complement of staff, as well as an office at the Administration Buil ding, New Bilibid Prison, where he attends to his constituents; he has, therefor e, been discharging his mandate as member of the House of Representatives, and b eing a detainee, he should not even be allowed by the prison authorities to perf orm these acts. Immunity Applies: 1. you are chaged but not yet convicted 2. penalty of the crime must not be more than 6 years 3. Congress is in session ? even if you are coved by the immunity, a warrant of arrest can still be issued against you but it cannot be served though Speech and Debate Clause (Art. VI, Sec. 11) For the Privilege to apply, the speech must be made while the Congress i s in session. This also covers votes cast, bills introduced, and motivation behi nd those acts. SITUATION: Senator imputed crimes against the President. Can he be held for libe l? ANS: The Senator cannot be held of libel because of immunity BUT he can be punished by the House for disorderly behaviour if it constitutes as such, in accordance with the internal rules of the House. Jimenez vs. Cabangbang 17 SCRA 876 (3 August 1966) F: Jimenez filed an action for the recovery of damages against Cabangbang for th e publication of an allegedly libelous letter. At the time the letter was publis hed, Cabangbang is a Lower House Representative H: Immunity does not apply BUT the letter was held not libelous The publication involved in this case does not belong to this category. It was an open letter to the President of the Philippines when congress was not in session, and which defendant caused to be published in several newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines. In thus causing the communication to be so published, defendant was not performing his official duty either as member of Congress, or as officer of any committee thereof. Said communication is not abs olutely privileged. Osmea vs. Pendatun 109 Phil. 863 (1960) F:on his privilege speech, Rep. Osmea accused the Pres. of bribery thus a special investigative committee was formed. Now, the committee called Osmea to substanti ate his accusations. He failed to do so thus Osmea was found guilty of disorderly behaviour H: Osmea cannot refuse to testify against the committe under the cloak of the imm unity Sec. 15, Art. VI of the 1935 Constitution provides that "for any speech or debate" in Congress, the senators or members of the House "shall not be quest ioned in any other place." This section was taken from the Constitution of the U .S. where the provision has always been understood to mean that although exempt from prosecution or civil actions for their words uttered in Congress, the membe

r of Congress may, nevertheless, be questioned in Congress itself. Observe that "they shall not be questioned IN ANY OTHER PLACE" than Congress. It guarantees the legislator complete freedom of expression without fear for being made responsible in criminal or civil actions before the courts or an y other forum OUTSIDE of the Congressional Hall. But it does not protect him fro m responsibility before the legislative body itself wherein his words and conduc t are considered by the latter as disorderly or unbecoming a member thereof. Disqualifications Disqualifications: Incompatible Forbidden Office Art. VI, Sec. 13: No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may hold any other office or employment in the government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including governmentowned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries, during his term without forfeiting his seat. Neither shall he be appointed to any office which may have been created or the emoluments ther eof increased during the term for which he was elected. it is a position Forbidden Office which a member cannot accept unless he waives or forfeits his s Incompatible Office eat in Congress (if he waives his seat in Congress then he could take that other this is a position in which a Member cannot be appointed to, even if he is willi position) ng to give up his seat in Congress (applies only to appointive office, not elect Doctrine Reason: of Separation of Powers = to prevent them from owing loyalty to another ive positions) avoidance of trafficking of the office = that office is created during his term, branch Ex-officio Exception: Congress ex-officio means in relation to his office or on account aor the ofPostion = was appointed DILG Sec. Example:emoluments thereof have been increased duringtheirterm member of their office (ex. member of com. on educ. sitting on Board of Regents in stat e univ.; membership in HRET) NOTE: there must be no additional remuneration and it must not be incompatible w NO their legislative functions ithEXCEPTIONS Note: you can only be appointed after your term Disqualifications: Other Prohibitions Art. VI, Sec. 14: 1. No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may personally appear as counsel before any court of justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasij udicial and other administrative bodies. 2. Neither shall he, directly or indirectly, be interested financially in any co ntract with, or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including any governmen towned or controlled corporation, or its subsidiary, during his term of office. 3. He shall not intervene in any matter before any office of the government for his pecuniary benefit or 4. where he may be called upon to act on account of his office. ? For Members of Congress there is a complete prohibition on personal appearance . So, he can still sign pleadings, give legal advice, continue as partner and ha ve a partner or associate appear for him in court ? for other professions, there is no prohibition. They can even continue to be i n private practice of their respective professions. ? If such Senator or member is a genuine party in interest = HE CAN APPEAR ? example of #4: he is a chair of committe on banks at the same time a director of a bank Art. XI, Sec. 16: No loan, guaranty, or other form of financial accommodation fo r any business purpose may be granted, directly or indirectly, by any government -owned or controlled bank or financial institution to the

? President, ? the Vice-President, ? the Members of o the Cabinet, o the Congress, o the Supreme Court, and o the Constitutional Commissions, ? the Ombudsman, or ? to any firm or entity in which they have controlling interest, during their te nure. ? What is prohibited in this provision is direct financial interest ? this prohibition is only limited to business loan (Senator files a housing loa n with PAG-IBIG = allowed) ? despite these prohibitions, there s no prohibition regarding conduct of business . Members of Congress can still continue to be in business, even private employm ent. But for members of the executive family, even private employment is disallo wed Duty to Disclose Art. XI, Sec. 17: A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of o ffice and as often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a declaration un der oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth. In the case of the President , the Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Cour t, the Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional offices, and officers of the armed forces with general or flag rank, the declaration shall be disclos ed to the public in the manner provided by law. Art. VI, Sec. 12: All Members of the Senate and the, House of Representatives sh all, upon assumption of office, make a full disclosure of their financial and bu siness interests. They shall notify the House concerned of a potential conflict of interest that may arise from the filing of a proposed legislation of which th ey are authors. Art. VI, Sec. 20: The records and books of accounts of the Congress shall be pre served and be open to the public in accordance with law, and such books shall be audited by the Commission on Audit which shall publish annually an itemized lis t of amounts paid to and expenses incurred for each Member. ? full disclosure of financial business interest, not duty to unload. SO Florien do can sponsor a bill about banana industry provided he discloses such interest Internal Government of Congress Election of Officers Art. VI, Sec. 16 (1): The Senate shall elect its President and the House of Repr esentatives its Speaker, by a majority vote of all its respective Members. Each House shall choose such other officers as it may deem necessary. SANTIAGO vs. GUINGONA (134577, 11/18/1998) F: Sen. Santiago argued that since there are only 2 of them who did not vote for Ople as Senate Pres., then they are the only minority Senators left H: minority leader represents the minority parties, not the one who lost in the election of Senate Pres. Majority simply "means the number greater than half or more than half of any total." The plain and unambiguous words of the subject constitutional claus e simply mean that the Senate President must obtain the votes of more than one h

alf of all the senators. Not by any construal does it thereby delineate who comp rise the "majority," much less the "minority," in the said body. And there is no showing that the framers of our Constitution had in mind other than the usual m eanings of these terms. In effect, while the Constitution mandates that the President of the Sen ate must be elected by a number constituting more than one half of all the membe rs thereof, it does not provide that the members who will not vote for him shall ipso facto constitute the "minority," who could thereby elect the minority lead er. Verily, no law or regulation states that the defeated candidate shall automa tically become the minority leader. The Rules of the Senate do not provide for the positions of majority and minority leaders. Neither is there an open clause providing specifically for su ch offices and prescribing the manner of creating them or of choosing the holder s thereof. At any rate, such offices, by tradition and long practice, are actual ly extant. But, in the absence of constitutional or statutory guidelines or spec ific rules, this Court is devoid of any basis upon which to determine the legali ty of the acts of the Senate relative thereto. On grounds of respect for the bas ic concept of separation of powers, courts may not intervene in the internal aff airs of the legislature; it is not within the province of courts to direct Congr ess how to do its work. This Court is of the opinion that where no specific, ope rable norms and standards are shown to exist, then the legislature must be given a real and effective opportunity to fashion and promulgate as well as to implem ent them, before the courts may intervene. Quorum Art. VI, Sec. 16(2): A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do bu siness, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day and may compel the atte ndance of absent Members in such manner, and under such penalties, as such House may provide. it is the majority number necessary to do business. It is based o Quorum n the number of those who can be compelled to attend the processes of the House concerned ? when a quorum cannot be had, a smaller number may adjourn day to day and compe l the attendance of the absent members by the means of arrest or such other meas ures and penalties as the House may provide in its rules ? But to pass a law, only the votes of the majority of those present in the sess ion, there being a quorum, are required = SHIFTING MAJORITY Avelino vs. Cuenco, 83 Phil. 17 (1949) F: only 22 senators came because 1 is in the hospital and the other is in the US . Of the 22, 10 walked out and the 12 that remained voted to oust the Senate Pre s. H: the 12 who voted constitute a majority For the purpose of determining the majority, those who can be complled t o attend should be the only ones considered. Hence, the one in the US should not be considered becuase he cannot be compelled to attend since the processes of t he house cannot be effective outside the county. Rules of Proceedings Art. VI, Sec. 21: The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respe ctive committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in or aff ected by such inquiries shall be respected. ? the House may set aside the rules it adopted as it sees fit because these rule s are only temporary

? by necessary implication, the Electoral Tribunal can promulgate its own rules GR: Matters affecting only the internal operation of the legislature are beyond the reach of courts EXCEPTION: if the rule affects private rights (affects persons other than the me mbers of the legislature) Arroyo v De Venecia (127255; 8/14/1997) F: members of the lower house assail the validity of RA 8240 for being passed in violation of the House s Rules H: RA 8240 is valid Rules are hardly permanent in character. The prevailing view is that the y are subject to revocation, modification or waiver at the pleasure of the body adopting them as they are primarily procedural. Courts ordinarily have no concer n with their observance. They may be waived or disregarded by the legislative bo dy. Consequently, mere failure to conform to them does not have the effect of nu llifying the act taken if the requisite number of members have agreed to a parti cular measure. The above principle is subject, however, to this qualification. W here the construction to be given to a rule affects persons other than members o f the legislative body the question presented is necessarily judicial in charact er. Even its validity is open to question in a case where private rights are inv olved. In this case no rights of private individuals are involved but only thos e of a member who, instead of seeking redress in the House, chose to transfer th e dispute to this Court. We have no more power to look into the internal proceed ings of a House than members of that House have to look over our shoulders, as l ong as no violation of constitutional provisions is shown.

Discipline of Members Art. VI, Sec. 16(3): Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, puni sh its Members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of twothirds (2 /3) of ALL its Members, suspend or expel a Member. A penalty of suspension, when imposed shall not exceed sixty (60) days. Alejandrino vs. Quezon (11 September 1924) F: Sen. Alejandrino was suspended for a year by the House for assaulting Sen. Ve ra. Alejandrino then asked the court to reinstate him. H: can t be suspended bec. such power is not provided by the Jones Law It has been held that where a member has been expelled by the legislativ e body, the courts have no power, irrespective of whether the expulsion was righ t or wrong, to issue a mandate to compel his reinstatement. Osmena vs. Pendatun 109 Phil. 863 (1960) F: a member of Congress was suspended for 16 months; under the 1935 Const., 2/3 votes may expel the member but there is no provision for suspension H: determination of the acts which constitute disorderly behavior is withint the full discretionary authority of the House concerned, and the Court will not rev iew such determination, the same being a political question It must be observed, however, that at the time the Alejandrino case was decided, the Legislature only had the power granted to it by the Jones Law, wher eas now the Congress has the full legislative powers and prerogatives of a sover eign nation, and consequently, Congress has the inherent legislative prerogative

of suspension which the Constitution did not impair. Santiago v. Sandiganbayan (128055; 4/18/2001) F: Sandigan suspended Sen. Santiago for graft cases filed against her when she w as still Immigration Officer H: this suspension is diff. from the power of Congress to suspend its members The order of suspension prescribed in RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Pr actices Act) is distinct from the power of Congress to discipline its own ranks under the Constitution. The suspension contemplated in Sec 16(3) of Art VI of the Const. is a pu nitive measure that is imposed upon determination by the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case may be, upon an erring member. Suspension under RA 3019, is not a penalty but a preliminary, preventive measure. Journal and Congressional Records Journal = summary of the proceedings in the particular house Records = verbatim transcripts of all that happened in that particular house, wh ether the lower or upper house, including those absent and present in sessions Art. VI, Sec. 16(4): Each House shall also keep a Journal of its proceedings, an d from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may, in its judgme nt, affect national security; and the yeas and nays on any question shall, at th e request of onefifth (1/5) of the Members present, be entered in the journal. E ach House shall also keep a Record of its proceedings. Journal & Congressional Records: The Enrolled Bill Theory Enrolled Bill = one duly introduced and finally passed by both Houses, authentic ated by the proper officers of each, and approved by the President. Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito 78 Phil. 11 (5 March 1947) F: 3 Senators and 8 representatives was not counted in passing a bill proposing the Constitution s amendment. If their votes were included, the required vote is n ot reached H: the enrolled bill is conclusive upon the courts as regards the tenor of the m easure passed by Congress and approved by the Pres.; Court is bound under the do ctrine of separation of powers by the contents of a duly authenticated measure o f the legislature This Court found in the journals no sign of irregularity in the passage of the law and did not bother itself with considering the effects of an authenti cated copy if one had been introduced. No discrepancy appears to have been noted between the two documents and the court did not say or so much as give to understand that if discrepancy exist ed it would give greater weight to the journals, disregarding the explicit provi sion that the duly certified copies "shall be conclusive proof of the provisions of the Acts and of the due enactment thereof." Casco vs. Gimenez (28 February 1963) F: petitioner contend that it cannot be taxed for importing urea and formaldehyd e since the bill approved in congress contained the copulative conjunction "and" between the terms "urea" and "formaldehyde." but the law only exempted "urea fo rmaldehyde" H: if a mistake was made in the printing of the bill before it was certified by Congress and approved by the Pres., the remedy is amendment or corrective legisl ation, not a judicial decree "Urea" and "formaldehyde" are principal raw materials in the manufacture

of synthetic resin glues. "Urea formaldehyde", on the product which is patently distinct and different from ded, however, that there was a mistake in the printing what was intended by the legislature in exempting from terials and not finished products. Assuming this to be court is not in a position to determine the remedy is or amendment and not judicial declaration.

other hand, is a finished the former. It was conten of the enrolled act, for the margin fee are raw ma true something which the legislative clarification

Philippine Judges Association vs. Prado 227 SCRA 703,(1993) F: upon implementing RA 7354, the Philippine Postal Corp. withdrew the franking privileges of Courts. Members of the lower courts questioned validity of the law H: the law is validly passed BUT not valid bec. of discrimination; enrolled bill prevails bec. what is questioned is the law Under the doctrine of separation of powers, the Court may not inquire be yond the certification of the approval of a bill from the presiding officers of Congress. (except in matters that have to be entered in the journals like the ye as and nays on the final reading of the bill). The journals are themselves also binding on the Supreme Court. This Court declines to resolve the issues. Both the enrolled bill and th e legislative journals certify that the measures were duly enacted and this Cour t is bound by such official assurances from a coordinate department, the governm ent, to which it owes, at the very least, a becoming courtesy. Arroyo vs. De Venecia (127255; 8/14/1997) F: Rep. Arroyo asks the court to look beyond the enrolled bill H: the enrolled bill doctrine was upheld But, where as here there is no evidence to the contrary, this Court will respect the certification of the presiding officers of both Houses that a bill has been duly passed. Under this rule, this Court has refused to determine claim s that the three-fourths vote needed to pass a proposed amendment to the Constit ution had not been obtained, because "a duly authenticated bill or resolution im ports absolute verity and is binding on the courts." To disregard the "enrolled bill" rule in such cases would be to disregar d the respect due the other two departments of our government. Journal & Congressional Records: Probative Value of the journal Journal Entry Rule = all matters entered in the journal are conclusive upon the court; no amount of extrinsic evidence may be admitted to disprove what has been contained in the journal United States vs. Pons 34 Phil. 729 (1916) F: Congress stopped their clock to allow the assembly to go on with its pending matters. One of the bills passed at this time was prohibiting opium importation which Pons was charged. H: the law is valid; journal entry prevails From their very nature and object, the records of the legislature are as important as those of the judiciary, and to inquire into the veracity of the jo urnals of the legislature, when they are clear and explicit, would be to violate both the letter and spirit of the organic laws by which the ' Phil. government was brought into existence, to invade a coordinate and independent department of the government and to interfere with the legitimate powers and functions of the legislature. If the clock was, in fact, stopped, as here suggested, the resultant evi l might be slight as compared with that of altering the probative force and char acter of legislative records, and making the proof of legislative actions depend upon uncertain oral evidence, liable to loss by death or absence, and so imperf ect on account of the treachery of memory. Journal & Congressional Records: Matters required to be entered in the journal

1.) Yeas and nays on third and final reading of a bill (Art. VI, Sec. 26(2)) 2.) Veto message of the President (Art. VI, Sec. 27(l)) 3.) Yeas and nays on the repassing of a bill vetoed by the President 4.) Yeas and nays on any question at the request of 1/5 of members present (Art. VI, Sec. 16(4)) 5.) Summary of Proceedings Journal & Congressional Records: Journal Entry Rule v. Enrolled Bill Theory ? enrolled bill prevails except as to matters which, under the Const., must be e ntered into the Journal Astorga vs. Villegas 56 SCRA 714 (30 April 1974) F: Senate Pres. and Speaker of the House withdrew their signatures bec. the bil l passed to the Lower House was not the bills approved by the Senate due to prin ting H: journal entry prevailed bec. there was no enrolled bill The journal of the proceedings of each House of Congress is not an ordin ary record. The Constitution requires it. While it is true that the journal is n ot authenticated and is subject to the risks of misprinting and other errors, th e point is irrelevant in this case. This Court is merely asked to inquire whethe r the text of HB No. 9266 signed by the Chief Executive was the same text passed by both Houses of Congress. Under the specific facts and circumstances, this Co urt can do this and resort to the Senate journal for the purpose. Field vs. Clark, 36 L. Ed. 294 (1891) It is not competent for the appellants to show from the journals that th e enrolled bill contained a section that does not appear in the enrolled act in the custody of the state department. Journal & Congressional Record: Congressional Record Art. VI, Section 16 (4), Paragraph 2: Each House shall also keep a Record of its proceedings. Sessions Sessions: Regular Sessions Art. VI, Sec. 15: The Congress shall convene once every year on the fourth Monda y of July for its regular session, unless a different date is fixed by law, and shall continue to be in session for such number of days as it may determine unti l thirty days before the opening of its next regular session, exclusive of Satur days, Sundays, and legal holidays. The President may call a special session at a ny time. Art. VI, Sec. 16(5): Neither House during the sessions of the Congress shall, wi thout the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any oth er place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting. Guevara v. Inocentes (L-25577; 3/15/1966) F: Guevara was appointed as Undersecretary of Labor. Such appointment though was ad-interim and was not approved by the Com. on Appointments even after the spec ial session called by the Pres. adjourned sine die H: the ad-interim appointment has lapsed It is true that the provision of the Constitution we are now considering in speaking of the mode of termination epitomized in the phrase "until the next adjournment of the Congress" does not make any reference to any specific sessio

n of the Congress, whether regular or special, but such silence is of no moment, for it is a well-known maxim in statutory construction that when the law does n ot distinguish we should not distinguish. Consequently, it is safe to conclude t hat the framers of our Constitution in employing merely the word adjournment as a mode of terminating an appointment made during the recess of Congress had in m ind either the regular or special session, and not simply the regular one as con tended by petitioner. Under our tripartite form of government predicated on the principle of s eparation of powers the power to appoint is inherently an executive function whi le the power to confirm or reject appointments belongs to the legislative depart ment, the latter power having been conferred as a check on the former, This powe r to check may be exercised through the members of both Houses in the Commission on Appointments. But although the Commission on Appointments is provided for in the Constitution, its organization requires congressional action, and once orga nized, by express provision of the Constitution, it "shall meet only while Congr ess is in session." Consequently if for any reason Congress adjourns a regular o r special session without organizing the Commission on Appointments, Congress sh ould be deemed to have impliedly exercised said power to check by allowing the a d interim appointment to lapse as provided for in the Constitution. Sessions: Special Sessions Instances of Special Sessions: 1. Pres. may call a special session anytime, usually to consider legislative mea sures which the Pres. may designate in his call (Art VI, Sec 15) 2. If there is a vancy in the office of the Pres., V-Pres., or both (Art VII, Se c 10) 3. Temporary incapacity of the Pres. is contested by him (Art VII, Sec 11) a. either the Pres. may voluntarily admits that he is incapacitated b. majority of the member of the cabinet may submit a written declaration that t he Pres., is unable to perform or discharge his function c. If the Pres. would not accept, then there will be a contested determination o f inability in which Congress is called upon to decide 4. Emergency power (Art VII, Sec 18(3)) Sessions: Joint Sessions Sessions: Joint Sessions -- Voting Separately 1.) 2.) 3.) 4.) 5.) Choosing the Pres. (Art. VII, Sec. 4) Determine President s temporary disability (Art. VII, Sec.11(4)) Confirming the nomination of the Vice Pres. (Art. VII, Sec. 9) Declaring the existence of a state of war (Art. VI, Sec. 23 (1)) Proposing constitutional amendments (Art. XVII, Sec. 1 (1))

? If the Constitution is silent, then the voting should be separate. This is bas ed on the principle of number. There are 24 Senators and there are 250 or more m embers of the lower house. It would be illogical to have both houses have their votes carry the same weight. Members of the Senate represent the entire country, while the members of the lower house represent either their legislative distric ts or their political party in the party list system. Sessions: Joing Session -- Voting Jointly TO REVOKE OR EXTEND THE MARTIAL LAW OR THE SUSPENSION OF PRIVILEGE OF HABEAS COR PUS (Art. VII, Sec. 18) Electoral Tribunal

Art. VI, Sec. 17: The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to th e election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members. Each Electo ral Tribunal shall be composed of nine Members, three of whom shall be justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief justice, and the remaining si x shall be Members of the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case ma y be, who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the p olitical parties and the parties or organizations registered under the partylist system represented therein. The senior justice for the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman. Art. VI, Sec. 19: The Electoral Tribunals and the Commission on Appointments sha ll be constituted within thirty days after the Senate and the House of Represent atives shall have been organized with the election of the President and the Spea ker. The Commission on Appointments shall meet only while the Congress is in ses sion, at the call of its Chairman or a majority of all its Members, to discharge such powers and functions as are herein conferred upon it. Guerrero v. Comelec (137004; 7/26/2000) F: Ruiz filed a disqualification case against Farias before the Comelec. While th e action was pending, Farias won and took his oath as Rep. Comelec thus refused t o rule on the petition saying HRET has jurisdiction over it. H: HRET has jurisdiction over the petition While the COMELEC is vested with the power to declare valid or invalid a certificate of candidacy, its refusal to exercise that power following the proc lamation and assumption of the position by Farias is a recognition of the jurisdi ctional boundaries separating the COMELEC and the Electoral Tribunal of the Hous e of Representatives (HRET). Under Article VI, Section 17 of the Constitution, t he HRET has sole and exclusive jurisdiction over all contests relative to the el ection, returns, and qualifications of members of the House of Representatives. Thus, once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed office as a member of the House of Representatives, COMELEC's jurisdiction over election contests relating to his election, returns, and qualifications ends, an d the HRET's own jurisdiction begins. Thus, the COMELEC's decision to discontinu e exercising jurisdiction over the case is justifiable, in deference to the HRET 's own jurisdiction and functions. Electoral Tribunal: Composition X = A/B x 6

A: number of member of the party in that house B: total number of members in that house. X: number of seats to be allocated for that party Disregard the fractional number, do not round off to the higher number. But if it is for example 2.9, you round it off to 3. Tanada vs. Cuenco 103 Phil. 1051 (28 February 1957) F: party w/ the 2nd largest only has one member, thus cannot nominate 2 more in the SET. The chair of the Senate Committee on Rules nominated instead members of ruling party H: the parties should be the one to nominate; no need to fill the six slots Such manner of the selection of members of the ET is vital to the role t hey are called upon to play. Compliance with such procedure is mandatory and act s performed in violation thereof are null and void. The Senate, therefore, may not elect, as members of the SET, those senat ors who have not been nominated by the political parties specified in the Consti tution; that, the party having the largest number of votes in the senate may nom

inate not more than 3 members thereof to the ET, that the party having the secon d largest number of votes in the senate has the exclusive right to nominate the other 3 senators who shall sit as members in the SET; that neither these 3 senat ors, nor any of them, may be nominated by a person or party other than the one h aving the second largest number of votes in the Senate or its representative the rein; the committee on rules for the Senate has no standing to validly make such nomination of Sen. Cuenco and Delgado by Sen. Primicias, and the election of sa id respondents by the Senate, as members of said Tribunal are null and void ab i nitio. ? This proportional representation should be reflected at any given time. If at the start of the organization of the house concerned, that membership of the pol itical parties are such that the representation for example is 2-2-2, if in the interim there is a realignment of membership, i.e. transfer of party members to other party, then that actual change must be reflected in the composition. The r epresentative will not sit there until the end of his term. He can only sit ther e if the rules of proper representation is applied or reflected Abbas v. Senate Electoral Tribunal (27 October 1988) F: petitioners filed election contest against 22 candidates of the LABAN coaliti on before the ET thus they filed a motion for Disqualification or Inhibition of the senatorsmembers of SET H: Court rules that it cannot order the disqualification of the Senators-members of the ET simply bec. they were themselves respondents in the electoral protes, considering the specific mandate of the Const. and inasmuch as all the elected Senators were actually named as resppondents The framers of the Constitution could not have been unaware of the possi bility of an election contest that would involve all 24 senatorselect, 6 of whom would inevitably have to sit in judgment thereon. Yet the Constitution provides no scheme or mode for settling such unusual situations or for the substitution o f senators designated to the tribunal whose disqualification may be sought. Liti gants in such situations must simply place their trust and hopes of vindication in the fairness and sense of justice of the Members of the Tribunal, justices an d Senators, singly and collectively. Pimentel v. HRET (11/29/2002) F: Sen. Pimental wants the current composition of the HRET and Com. on Appointme nts changed to include party-list rep. H: party-list rep were not included bec. they failed to submit a list of nominee s Even assuming that party-list representatives comprise a sufficient numb er and have agreed to designate common nominees to the HRET and the CA, their pr imary recourse clearly rests with the House of Rep and not with this Court. Unde r Sec 17 & 18, Art VI of the Const., party-list representatives must first show to the House that they possess the required numerical strength to be entitled to the seats in the HRET and CA. Only if the House fails to comply with the direct ive of the Constitution on proportional representation of political parties in t he HRET and the CA can the party-list representatives seek recourse to this Cour t under its power of judicial review. Electoral Tribunal: Nature of Function Angara vs. Electoral Commission [G.R. No. 45081. July 15, 1936.] F: After Ynsua was declared as member of the National Assembly, the Electoral Co mmission was formed and they set the deadline for filing election protests after such proclamation. A protest was then filed against Ynsua H: the Electoral Commission has the power to hear protest against Ynsua; ET s func tion is judicial in character The grant of power to the Electoral Commission to judge all contests rel

ating to the election, returns and qualifications of members of the National Ass embly, is intended to be as complete and unimpaired as if it had remained origin ally in the legislature. The express lodging of that power in the Electoral Comm ission is an implied denial of the exercise of that power by the National Assemb ly. And this is as effective a restriction upon the legislative power as an expr ess prohibition in the Constitution. The creation of the Electoral Commission carried with it ex necesitate r ei the power regulative in character to limit the time within which protests int rusted to its cognizance should be filed. It is a settled rule of construction t hat where a general power is conferred or duty enjoined, every particular power necessary for the exercise of the one or the performance of the other is also co nferred. In the absence of any further constitutional provision relating to the procedure to be followed in filing protests before the Electoral Commission, the refore, the incidental power to promulgate such rules necessary for the proper e xercise of its exclusive power to judge all contests relating to the election, r eturns and qualifications of members of the National Assembly, must be deemed by necessary implication to have been lodged also in the Electoral Commission. Electoral Tribunal: Independence of the Electoral Tribunals Bondoc vs. Pineda 201 SCRA 792 (1991) F: HRET member was expelled by the party for party disloyalty when he voted agains t a partymate H: HRET member has security of tenure; but party can remove you if you failed to attend meetings... As judges, the members of the tribunal must be nonpartisan. They must dis charge their functions with complete detachment, impartiality, and independence even independence from the political party to which they belong. Hence, "disloya lty to party" and "breach of party discipline", are not valid grounds for the ex pulsion of a member of the tribunal. Members of the HRET are entitled to security of tenure just as members o f the judiciary enjoy security of tenure under our Constitution. Therefore, memb ership in the HRET may not be terminated except for a just cause, such as, the e xpiration of the member's congressional term of office, his death, permanent dis ability, resignation from the political party he represents in the tribunal, for mal affiliation with another political party, or removal for other valid cause. A member may not be expelled by the House for "party disloyally" short o f proof that he has formally affiliated with another political group. Electoral Tribunal: Powers ? RA 7166 prohibited pre-proclamation controversies for the election of Pres., V -Pres, Sen., and members of House of Rep EXCEPT in the case of manifest errors i n the certificate of canvass or election returns. Errors which cannot be verifie d except by opening the ballot boxes are not manifest errors ? REMEDY: o file a petition to cancel certificate of candidacy before the COMELEC; or o file a quo warranto case with HRET within 10 days from proclamation (HRET can only assume jurisdiction after the candidate was proclaimed and took an oath of office) ? History: o 1973 Const: no ET, COMELEC is the sole judge o Batasan Pambansa: powers of ET were transferred to it o 1987 Const: ET were restored w/ composition based on proportional representati on Lazatin vs. HRET (08 December 1988) F:W/N ET has power to issue rules since the Consti. did not give it such power H: the protest had been filed on time, and hence, the HRET acquired jurisdiction

over it. As sole judge of all contests relating to the elections, returns and qua lifications of the members of the House of Representatives, the HRET has the pow er to promulgate rules relative to matters pertaining to its jurisdiction, inclu ding the period for filing election protests. In accordance with the decision in the landmark case of Angara v. Electoral Commissi such power is full, clear and complete. It was only under the 1973 Constitution where the delineation between the powers of the Executive and the Legislative was blurred that jurisdiction o ver election contests involving members of the Legislative was vested in the COM ELEC by making the COMELEC the sole judge of all contests relating to the electi ons, returns and qualifications of all members of the BP and elective provincial and city officials (Art. XIIC, Sec. 2[2]). The 1987 Constitution restores the ol d rule making the electoral tribunal of the Senate and the House the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of their re spective members (Art. VI, Sec. 17). Pangilinan vs. COMELEC (1993) F: whether there s pre-proclamation controvery relative to election of members of Congress H: pre-proclamation controversy is allowed but ET has jurisdiction, not COMELEC Under the Constitution, the COMELEC has exclusive original jurisdiction over election contests, relating to the election, returns and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial and city officials. It has no jurisdiction ove r contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of Members of th e House of Representatives. The Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representativ es is the "sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qual ifications of its members". ARROYO vs. HRET [G.R. No. 118597. July 14, 1995.] F: Syjuico filed an election protest against Joker Arroyo before HRET. Syjuico w as declared winner but only when HRET violated its own rules and Rules of Court which applies suppletory. H: HRET s decision is void for violating its own Rules; these Rules cannot be susp ended, they must be followed like the Rules of Court All told, the procedural flaws which marred the proceedings in the publi c respondent HRET from the time private respondent's "precinct-level document ba sed anomalies/evidence" theory was embraced by the majority members up to the re ndition of judgment suffice in themselves to render the public respondent HRET's majority decision declaring private respondent Syjuco as the duly elected congr essman of the then lone district of Makati a complete nullity. The persistent an d deliberate violation of the Tribunal's own governing rules and of even the mos t basic rules of evidence cannot be justified by simply invoking that procedural rules should be liberally construed. If the Court in striking down the majority decision of public respondent HRET, pays unwavering reverence to the rules of evidence as provided by the Rul es of Court and jurisprudence, it is because they have been tested through years of experience as the most effective means of ferreting out the truth in any jud icial controversy. And the Court will not allow even the slightest diminution of , much less a complete and brazen departure from these time-honored rules especi ally when the will of the electorate as expressed through the ballot, is at stak e. Rules and uniformity of procedure are as essential to procure truth and exact ness in elections as in anything else. Thus, with the patent nullity of the enti re proceedings before the public respondent HRET and its majority decision in th e election protest filed by private respondent, petitioner's proclamation as the winning congressman of the then lone district of Makati is deemed not to have b een challenged at all. MARCOS vs. COMELEC [G.R. No. 119976; 9/18/1995]: F: Imelda Marcos residency in Leyte was questioned. Imelda won while the case was pending before the Comelec

H: Comelec still has jurisdiction over the case HRET's jurisdiction as the sole judge of all contests relating to the el ections, returns and qualifications of members of Congress begins only after a c andidate has become a member of the House of Representatives. Petitioner not bei ng a member of the House of Representatives, it is obvious that the HRET at this point has no jurisdiction Libanan vs. HRET F: Libana questioned ballots declaring Ramirez as winner saying they were spurio us since BEI chair s signature did not appear H: HRET did not commit grave abuse for declaring the ballots valid as it followe d its own Rules The Constitution mandates that the HRET and SET shall each, respectively , be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and quali fications of their respective members. The Court has stressed that so long as the constitution grants the HRET the power to be the sole judge of all contests rel ating to the election, returns, and qualifications of members of the lower house , any final action taken by the HRET on a matter within its jurisdiction shall, as a rule, not be reviewed by this court.... the power granted to the Electoral Tribunal excludes exercise of any authority on the part of this court that would in any wise restrict it or curtail it or even affect the same. However, there ar e exceptions to this principle. The Court may interfere if the issue is whether or not the Tribunal, in rendering decisions, has committed grave abuse of discre tion or has acted in excess of its authority. Garcia v. HRET (134792; 8/12/1999) F: the quo warranto petition filed before the HRET was dismissed for failure to deposit P5T filing fee H: dismissal was valid Under the Constitution, the HRET shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of its members. This doe s not, however, bar us from entertaining petitions which charge HRET with grave abuse of discretion. While the judgments of the Tribunal are beyond judicial interference, th e Court may do so, however, but only in the exercise of this Court s so-called extr aodinary jurisdiction...upon a determination that the Tribunal s decision or resol ution was rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of d iscretion. Electoral Tribunal: Judicial Review of Decisions of Electoral Tribunals GR: Decisions of ET are not subject to judicial review EX: if there is grave abuse of discretion Co vs. HRET, 199 SCRA 692 (30 July 1991) H:The Court has been given an expanded jurisdiction to review the decisions of t he other branches and agencies of the government to determine whether or not the y have acted within the bounds of the Constitution. Since the HRET, in the case at bar, has not acted with grave abuse of discretion in making its questioned de cision, there is no reason for this court to exercise judicial review. The court is merely to check whether or not the governmental branch or a gency has gone beyond the constitutional limits of its jurisdiction. In the abse nce of any showing that the HRET has committed grave abuse of discretion, there is no occasion for the court to exercise its corrective power. Commission on Appointments Art. VI, Sec. 18: There shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of: 1. The President of the Senate, as ex officio Chairman; 2. Twelve (12) Senators; and,

3. Twelve (12) Members of the House of Representatives, ? elected by each House on the basis of proportional representation from the pol itical parties and parties or organizations registered under the partylist system represented therein. ? The Chairman of the Commission shall not vote, except in case of a tie. ? The Commission shall act on all appointments submitted to it within thirty ses sion days of the Congress from their submission. ? The Commission shall rule by a majority vote of all the Members. Art. VI, Sec. 19: The Electoral Tribunals and the Commission on Appointments sha ll be constituted within thirty days after the Senate and the House of Represent atives shall have been organized with the election of the President and the Spea ker. The Commission on Appointments shall meet only while the Congress is in ses sion, at the call of its Chairman or a majority of all its Members, to discharge such powers and functions as are herein conferred upon it. ? Unlike with ET, CA is largely political in character (executive work) THUS its decision is generally not subject to judicial review o If the candidate is qualified but not approved by CA = not subject to review o If the candidate is not qualified but approved by CA = subject to review ? if there is a change in party affiliation, during the entire term of the membe rs of Congress and the change is more or less permanent, that change will have t o be reflected in the composition of the CA ? failure of the CA to act is tantamount to disapproval because the Const. requi res positive action from the CA. (By-passing an appointment) The Pres. will them make another nomination ? CA is independent of the two Houses of Congress, its employees are not, techni cally employees of Congress. It has the power to promulgate its own rules and re gulations Cunanan vs. Tan (May 10, 1962) F: An Allied Majority was formed since the two parties composing the Senate was eq ually divided H: Proportional representation must be reflected at all times in the composition of the ET and CA The Commission is a creature of the Constitution. Although its membershi p is confined to the members of Congress, said Commission is independent of Cong ress. The powers of the Commission do not come from the Congress, but, emanate d irectly, from the Constitution. Hence, it is NOT an agent of the Congress. In fa ct, the functions of the Commission are purely executive in nature. In order tha t the members of the Commission could properly discharge their duties as such, i t is essential that their tenure therein be provided with a certain measure of s tability, to ensure the necessary freedom of action. In other words, a shifting of votes at a given time, even if due to arran gements of a more or less temporary nature, like the one that has led to the for mation of the socalled "Allied Majority", does not suffice to authorize a reorgan ization of the membership of the Commission for said House. Otherwise, the Commi ssion may have to be reorganized as often as vote s shift from one side to another in the House. The framers of our Constitution could not have intended to thus p lace on a constitutional organ, like the Commission on Appointments, at the merc y of each House of Congress. Daza vs. Singson (21 December 1989) F: the LDP party was reorganized resulting to a political realignment H: the change in representation is valid We resolve the issue in favor of the authority of the House of Represent atives to change its representation in the CA to reflect AT ANY TIME the changes that may transpire in the political alignments of its membership. It is underst ood that such changes must be permanent and do not include the temporary allianc es or factional divisions not involving severance of political loyalties or form

al disaffiliation and permanent shifts of allegiance from the political party to another. Coseteng vs. Mitra (12 July 1990) F: Coseteng, the only member of her party, argued she should sit in the CA as re presentative of the minority since she has the support of 9 rep. of the lower ho use H: Coseteng can t sit at the CA The composition of the House membership in the CA was based on proportio nal representation of the political parties in the House. Even if KAIBA were to be considered as an opposition party, its lone member (Coseteng) represents only 0.4% or less than 1% of the House membership, hence, she is not entitled to one of the 12 House seats in the CA. Guingona, Jr. vs. Gonzales (20 October 1992) F: in determining who will sit at the CA, the .5 gotten by minority was not rounde d off to the higher number while that of the majority was rounded off to a highe r number. H: it should not be rounded off to a higher number but to a lower num.; no need to fill up the 12 seats A political party maust have at least two elected Senators for every sea t in the CA. Thus, where there are two or more political parties represented in the Senate, a political party/ coalition with a single senator in the Senate can not constitutionally claim a seat in the CA. The Constitution does not contemplate that the CA must necessarily inclu de 12 senators and 12 members of the House. What the Constitution requires is th at there be at least a majority of the entire membership. Under Sec. 18, the Com mission shall rule by majority vote of all members, and in Sec. 19, the Commissi on shall meet only while Congress is in session, at the call of its Chairman or a majority of all its members "to discharge such powers and functions herein con ferred upon it." POWERS OF CONGRESS General Plenary Powers Art. VI, Sec. 1: The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Ph ilippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision on initiative and referen dum. Legislative Power = the power to propose, enact, amend and repeal laws. ? vested in Congress, EXCEPT to the extent reserved to the people by the provisi on on initiative and referendum Gen. Plenary Powers: Limitations on the Legislative Power 1.) Substantive Limitations Express Substantive Limitations 1. Bill of Rights (Art III) a. any matter covered by the Bill of Rights cannot be subject of legislation if there is a prohibition to the contrary 2. On Appropriations (Sec 25, 29 (1&2), Art VI) a. no increase shall be allowed for the budget sumitted by the Pres. b. no riders c. only provisions with specific appropriations shall be included in the appropr iation bill d. there shall be no law authorizing transfer of funds (there can only be allowa

ble transfer of funds under the provisions of Sec 25, in case there are savings from items which there are already appropriations) 3. On Taxation (Sec 28, Art VI; Sec 4(3), Art XIV) a. uniformity in taxation = persons or things belonging to the same class shall be taxed at the same rate b. equality in taxation = requires the tax imposed to be determined on the basis of the value of the property c. equitable = tax burden must be imposed according to the taxpayer s ability to p ay 4. On constitutional appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (Sec 30, Art VI ) a. jurisdiction of the SC can be increased by legislation PROVIDED there is prio r advice from the SC b. NOW: death penalty cases must first go to the Court of Appeals before the SC 5. No law granting a title of royalty or nobility shall be passed (Sec 31, Art V I) Implied Substantive Limitations 1. Prohibition againt passage of irrepealable laws 2. Prohibition against delegation of legislative powers GR: Legislative powers cannot be delegated, what can be delegated is the executi on of the laws under acceptable standards limiting discretion of the executive EXCEPTIONS: 1. Delegation to the Pres emergency powers and certain taxing powers (Art 6 Sec 23) a. there must be a war or other national emergency b. the delegation must be for a limited period c. it must be subject to restrictions prescribed in congress d. necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy 2. Delegation to the Pres taxing power; flexible tariff clause (Art 6, Sec 28) a. necessity of giving the Chief Exec. the authority to act immediately on certa in matters affecting the nat l economy lest delay result in hardship to the people 3. Delegation to Local Government tax powers (Art 10, Sec 5) 4. Delegation to the People initiative and referendum (Art 6, Sec 32) a. Initiative = power of the people to propose amendments to the Constitution or to propose and enact legislation through an election called for the purpose b. Referendum = power of the electorate to approve or reject legislation through an election called for the purpose Rule-making power given to certain administrative bodies to promulgate its own r ules and regulations. Limitations: 1. the rules must conform to the standards of the law 2. rules must be germane to the purpose and object of the law 3. the rules must not be contrary to the Constitution Tests for Allowable Delagation: 1. Completeness Test = said law must be complete in itself. It must set forth th erein the policy to be executed, carried out or implemented by the delegate 2. Sufficiency of Standards Test = Said law must fix a standard the limits of whi ch are sufficiently determinate or determinable to which the delegate must confor m in the performance of his functions. Standards may be: a. the law itself; b. policy statement in the law; or c. in related laws Employees Conferederation vs. NWPC (1991) F: petitioners insist that only Congress can provide the minimum wage H: the power of the wage board to fix the minimum is regulated by standards foun

d in law, like Labor Code The Court is not convinced that the Regional Board of the NCR, in decree ing an acrossthe-board hike, performed an unlawful act of legislation. It is true that wagefixing, like rate-fixing, constitutes an act of Congress; it is also tr ue, however, that Congress may delegate the power to fix rates; provided, that a s in all delegation cases, Congress leaves sufficient standards. The Act is meant to rationalize wages that is, by having permanen t boards to decide wages rather than leaving wage determination to Congress year after year and law after law. The Act is not an effort of Congress to "pass the buck , or worse, abdicate its duty, but simply, to leave the question of wages to the expertise of experts. CHIONGBIAN v. ORBOS F: Pres. Aquino reorganized administrative regions not included in ARMM when the law only provided for reorganization of ARMM H: standards are sufficient based on other existing statutes There is, therefore, no abdication by Congress of its legislative power in conferring on the President the power to merge administrative regions. The qu estion whether Congress has provided a sufficient standard by which the Presiden t is to be guided in the exercise of the power granted and whether in any event the grant of power to him is included in the subject expressed in the title of t he law. A legislative standard need not be expressed. It may simply be gathered or implied. Nor need it be found in the law challenged because it may be embodi ed in other statutes on the same subjects as that of the challenged legislation Phil. Interisland Shipping vs. CA (1997) F: Congress delegated the authority to fix rates to an adm. agency. Can it enact law on the same subject? H: the congress can fix the rate themselves since they are not divested w/ legis lative power The fixing of rates is essentially a legislative power. There is no basi s for petitioners argument that rate fixing is merely an exercise of administrati ve power; that if President Marcos had power to revise the rates previously fixe d by the PPA through the issuance of EO No. 1088, the PPA could in turn revise t hose fixed by the President, as the PPA actually did in AO No. 43-86, which fixe d lower rates of pilotage fees, and even entirely left the fees to be paid for p ilotage to the agreement of the parties to a contract. The orders previously iss ued by the PPA were in the nature of subordinate legislation, promulgated by it in the exercise of delegated power. As such, these could only be amended or revi sed by law, as the President did by EO No. 1088. Association of Phil. Coconut Desiccators vs. Philippine Coconut Authority (Febru ary 10, 1998) F: PCA issued permits before one can operate desiccated coconut processing plant s. This power was limited to monitoring by the new law. In spite of such law, PC A still issued certificates of registration H: certificates of registration are VOID for having been issued in excess of the power of the PCA Under Art. II, 3(a) of the Revised Coconut Code (P.D. No. 1468), the role of the PCA is "To formulate and adopt a general program of development for the coconut and other palm oil industry in all its aspects." By limiting the purpose of registration to merely "monitoring volumes of production [and] administratio n of quality standards" of coconut processing plants, the PCA in effect abdicate s its role and leaves it almost completely to market forces how the coconut indu stry will develop. Any change in policy must be made by the legislative department of the g overnment. The regulatory system has been set up by law. It is beyond the power of an administrative agency to dismantle it.

China Banking Corp. vs. HDMF (May 19, 1999) F: law only required either an existing provident or employees housing plans but the IRR required both H: Implementing rules are invalid insofar as they require both provident and hou sing plan The enabling law intended that an employer with a provident plan or an e mployee housing plan superior to that of the fund may obtain exemption from cove rage... existence of either plan is considered sufficient basis for the grant of exemption To require the existence of both plans would radically impose a more str ingent condition for waiver which was not clearly envisioned by the basic law. B y removing the disjunctive word or in the implementing rules the respondent Board has exceeded its authority. Rules and Regulations which are the product of a delegated power to crea te new or additional legal provisions that have the effect of law should be with in the scope of the statutory authority granted by the legislature to the admini strative agency. United BF Homeowner s Association vs. BF Homes (July 14, 1999) F: receiver put up a new company to head security of the subdivision H: HIGC went beyond its authority The rule-making power must be confined to details for regulating mode or proceedings to carry into effect the law as it has been enacted and it cannot b e extended to amend or expand the statutory requirement or to embrace matters no t covered by statute. LAW: insofar as the association s franchise or corporate existence is invo lved, it is only the State, not the general public or other entity that could ques tion this MMDA vs. Bel-Air Village Association (March 27, 2000) F: MMDA wants to open for public use a put. road in a private subdivision. They want to open Neptune St., by causing the demolition of its perimeter walk H: MMDA has no such authority Police power is lodged primarily in the National Legislature. National L egislature may delegate this power to the Presidential and administrative boards as well as the lawmaking bodies of municipal corporation or local government un its. Once delegated, the agents can exercise only such legislative powers as are conferred on the, by national lawmaking body MMDA is not a local government unit or a public corporation endowed with legislative power. It is not even a special metropolitan political subdivision. t is the local government units, acting through their respective legislative cou ncils that possess legislative power and police power. In the case at bar, the S angguniang Panlungsod of Makati City did not pass any ordinance or resolution or dering the opening of Neptune St., hence its proposed opening by petitioner MMDA is illegal. Pelaez vs. Auditor General (24 December 1965) F: Pres created 33 municipalities when he was not even allowed to create a barri o H: Sec. 68 of the RAC does not meet the requisites for a valid delegation of pow er Sec. 68 of the RAC does not meet the requirements to fix the details in the enforcement of a law. It does not enunciate any policy to be carried out or implemented by the President. Neither does it give a standard sufficiently preci se to avoid the evil effects above referred to. Moreover, Sec. 10(l), Art. VII of the 1935 Constitution ordains: " The P resident shall have CONTROL of all the executive departments, bureaus, or office s, exercise general SUPERVISION over all local governments as may be provided by law, and take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

Thus, the power of control implies the right of the President to interfe re in the exercise of such discretion as may be vested by law in the officers of the executive departments, bureaus, or officers of the national government, as well as to act in lieu of such officers. This power is DENIED to the Executive i nsofar as local governments are concerned. With respect to the latter, the law p ermits him to wield NO MORE authority than that of checking whether said local g overnments or the officers thereof perform their duties as provided by statutory enactments. 2.) PROCEDURAL LIMITATIONS Art. VI, Sec. 26: (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one s ubject which shall be expressed in the title thereof. (2) No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passe d three readings on separate days, and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to its Members three days before its passage, except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a pu blic calamity or emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment theret o shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered in the Journal. Art VI, Sec. 27: (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the President. If he approves the same, he shall sign it; otherwise, he shall veto it and return the same with his objections to the Hous e where it originated, which shall enter the objections at large in its journal and proceed to reconsider it. if, after such reconsideration, twothirds (2/3) of all the Members of such House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, to gether with the objections, to the other House by which it shall likewise be rec onsidered, and if approved by twothirds (2/3) of all the Members of that House, i t shall become a law. In all such cases, the votes of each House shall be determ ined by yeas or nays, and the names of the Members voting for or against shall b e entered in its journal. The President shall communicate his veto of any bill t o the House where it originated within thirty (30) days after the date of receip t thereof; otherwise, it shall become a law as if he had signed it. (2) The President shall have the power to veto any particular item or ite ms in an appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect t he item or items to which he does not object. 1. Every bill must embrace only one subject matter to be expressed in the title thereof a. to prevent riders (log-rolling) b. to prevent fraud and to properly apprise legislators of the proposed legislat ion c. to properly apprise the general public of the proposed legislation since ther e will be public hearing ? the title is not required to be an index of the contents of the bill ? it is sufficient compliance if the title expresses the general subject and all the provisions of the statute are germane to that subject 2. there must be three reading on separate days (you cannot dispose of the 3 rea dings but you can dispose of the 3 separate days) a. first reading will be the reading of the title then referred to the respectiv e committee b. 2nd reading will be on the deliberations on the bill itself debates c. 3rd reading will be on the passage where only title is called. No deliberatio n. Only the votes will be taken (w/c shall be recorded in the journal) 3. Printed copies in its final form, 3 days before its passage must be given to the members except if the President certifies that there is a need to pass the b ill by reason of public calamity or emergency (printed copies cannot be dispense d with) 4. President has 30 days from receipt to sign it. If he thinks that the bill is

not ok he shall veto it, he needs to do it within the 30 days. Otherwise the bil l shall become a law even without presidential action. a. GR: Pres. must accept the bill as a whole or reject it as a whole b. Line Item veto where Pres. can choose which part to vete, is only good for re venue, tariff and appropriation bill 5. If the President shall veto it, then he writes his veto message, it shall be entered in the journal. He will return it to the house where it originated. 6. That house will do either of the two things a. Accept the veto or b. Override it (2/3 votes required) Instances where a bill becomes a law even without the signature of the President : 1. Inaction of the Pres. within 30 days 2. A successful override h Jurisdiction of the Conference Committee is not limited to resolving the diffe rences between the Senate and the House version of the bill. It may propose an e ntirely new provision. ARROYO vs. DE VENECIA (127255; 6/26/1998) F: Arroyo asked for a MFR for the previous ruling H: legislative act will not be declared invalid for non-compliance with the inte rnal rules of the House In sum, there is no basis for the charge that the approval of the confer ence committee report on what later became R.A. No. 8240 was railroaded through the House of Representatives. Nor is there any need for petitioners to invoke th e power of this Court under Art. VIII, 1 of the Constitution to determine whether , in enacting R.A. No. 8240, the House of Representatives acted with grave abuse of discretion, since that is what we have precisely done, although the result o f our review may not be what petitioners want. It should be added that, even if petitioners' allegations are true, the disregard of the rules in this case would not affect the validity of R.A. No. 8240, the rules allegedly violated being me rely internal rules of procedure of the House rather than constitutional require ments for the enactment of laws. It is well settled that a legislative act will not be declared invalid for non-compliance with internal rules. Question Hour Art. VI, Sec. 22: The heads of departments may upon their own initiative, with t he consent of the President, or upon the request of either House, as the rules o f each House shall provide, appear before and be heard by such House on any matt er pertaining to their departments. Written questions shall be submitted to the PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE OR the SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AT LEAST THREE (3) DAYS BEFORE HIS SCHEDULED APPEARANCE. Interpellations shall not be lim ited to written questions, but may cover matters related thereto. When the secur itv of the State or the public interest so requires and the President so states in writing, the appearance shall be conducted in executive session. ? cabinet members may to appear in question hour: o upon the initiative of the member of cabinet with the consent of the president ; or o upon request of the house concerned, the member of the cabinet may appear, to be questioned about or pertaining to the matters about his department ? cannot refuse because of public interest; President, in writing, will require an executive session (closed door), but cannot disallow appearance Legislative Investigations Art. VI, Sec. 21: The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respe

ctive committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in or aff ected by such inquiries shall be respected. Arnault vs. Nazareno (1950) F: Arnault refused to divulge names to the Senate s legislative investigation thus he was declared in contempt and imprisoned even after the Congress adjourned H: Arnault can be punished for contempt and can be imprisoned even after Congres s adjourned The power to punish for contempt is based on the inherent right to selfpr eservation. It is but logical to say that the power of self-preservation is coexi stent with the life to be preserved. Since the Senate is a selfcontinuing body, u nlike the House of Representatives, there may be no limit to the duration of the imprisonment it may order as a punishment for contempt. Arnault vs. Balagtas 97 Phil. 358(1955) F:Arnault already answered the question yet he was still imprisoned since the Se nate believed he was lying H: Arnault has not yet purged himself of the contempt since he did not tell the truth The judicial department of the government has no right or power or autho rity to do, much in the same manner that the legislative department may not inva de the judicial realm in the ascertainment of truth and in the application and i nterpretation of the law, in what is known as the JUDICIAL PROCESS, because that would be in direct conflict with the fundamental principle of separation of pow ers established by the Constitution. The only instances when judicial interventi on may lawfully be invoked are: (1) When there has been a violation of a constit utional inhibition; or, 2.) When there has been an arbitrary exercise of the leg islative discretion. The principle that Congress or any of its bodies has the power to punish recalcitrant witnesses is founded upon reason and policy. Said power must be co nsidered implied or incidental to the exercise of legislative power, or necessar y to effectuate said power. How could a legislative body obtain the knowledge an d information on which to base intended legislation if it cannot require and com pel the disclosure of such knowledge and information, or if it is impotent to pu nish a defiance of its power and authority? Provided that the contempt is related to the exercise of the legislative power and is committed in the course of the legislative process, the legislatur e's authority to deal with the defiant and contumacious witnesses should be supr eme, and unless there is manifest and absolute disregard of discretion and a mer e exertion of arbitrary power coming within the reach of the constitutional limi tations, the exercise of the authority is not subject to judicial interference. ? vis--vis the power of Congress to conduct a legislative investigation is to hol d a person in contempt for refusing to appear and/or to testify in legislative i nvestigation ? Congress cannot properly legislate if Congress has no power to inquire. So, fo r so long as it is within the authority of Congress with respect to the exercise of legislative power, it can be subject to inquiry. ? limitations of present Constitution: o in aid of legislation o pursuant to the rules of proceedings duly published o the rights of persons appearing therein should be respected (i.e., self-incrim ination; Bill of Rights) ? legislative investigation need not result in legislation can compel be be conducted by to mayconductedInvestigationappear Question Houronlyby the house in any that his Legislativeany personthehouse orprovidedcommittee attendance or his testimony is only heads of the departments may be asked to appear on matters involving their important

respective departments (President toconsent is needed) before the scheduled qu no need for the written questions s be submitted 3 days such requirement estioning/hearingis needed although the interpolations are not limited to the wr no prohibition itten questionsas to scope for as long as it is within the range of legislative the range of inquiry will only be limited to that particular department that the power head/person is heading; they cannot ask for questions regarding other departmen there ts. may be less chances of refusal to appear although there may be refusal to members/heads of the departments against self-incrimination answer by reason of the privilegewho may be called to testify during question ho ur may not even refuse to appear on the grounds of national security; they may b e questioned provided that it is all held in executive session or closed door ? heads of the Constitutional Commissions (i.e. ombusdman) o not covered in question hour since they are not heads of the executive departm ent o they cannot be compelled under legislative investigation because of co-equalit y Bengzon vs. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee (1991) F: Lopa refused to answer during the legislative investigation arguing that it w ill prejudice the case pending before the Sandiganbayan H: Lopa cannot be compelled to answer since the investigation violated the rules of Congress In aid of legislation is defined as: 1. It may refer to the implementation of the law 2. It may refer to a re-examinationn of the law 3. It may be connected to any proposed legislation 4. in the formulation of future legislation THE SENATE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE vs. HON. JOSE B. MAJADUCON [G.R. No. 136760. Ju ly 29, 2003.] F: when the Senate ordered Atty. Flaviano to appear before the Senate for its le gislative investigation, he filed a TRO before the RTC which was granted H: the RTC has no jurisdiction to issue the TRO The principle of separation of powers essentially means that legislation belo ngs to Congress, execution to the Executive, and settlement of legal controversi es to the Judiciary. Each is prevented from invading the domain of the others. W hen the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee served subpoena on respondent Flaviano to a ppear and testify before it in connection with its investigation of the alleged misuse and mismanagement of the AFP-RSBS funds, it did so pursuant to its author ity to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation. Hence, the Regional Trial Court of General Santos City, or any court for that matter, had no authority to prohibit the Committee from requiring respondent t o appear and testify before it. Act as Board of Canvassers for Presidential and Vice Presidential Elections Art.VII, Sec. 4 (4): The returns of every election for President and VicePresiden t, duly certified by the board of canvassers of each province or city, shall be transmitted to the Congress, directed to the President of the Senate. Upon recei pt of the certificates of canvass, the President of the Senate shall, not later than thirty days after the day of election, open all the certificates in the pre sence of the Senate and the House of Representatives in joint public session, an d the Congress, upon determination of the authenticity and due execution thereof in the manner provided by law, shall canvass the votes. Pimentel s case regarding the count for Pres. Arroyo s votes: F: the canvassing committe continued to count the votes even after the Congress has adjourned H: the count is can continue in spite the adjournment, citing House rules and hi story Citing the rules of both Houses of Congress, the court said the Senate a nd the House "shall convene in joint session during any voluntary or compulsory

recess to canvass the votes for president and vice president." Despite the adjournment sine die of Congress, there is no legal impedime nt to the joint committee completing the tasks assigned to it and transmitting i ts report for the approval of the joint public session of both houses of Congres s, which may reconvene without need of call by the President to a special sessio n. The legislative functions of the 12th Congress may have come to a close upon a final adjournment of its regular session on June 11, 2004, but this does not affect its nonlegislative functions, such as that of being the National Boar d of Canvassers. Since the 12th Congress has not yet completed its nonlegislative duty to canvass the votes and proclaim the duly elected President and Vice President, i ts existence as the National Board of Canvassers, as well as that of the joint c ommittee ... has not become functus officio. Congress convened in a joint public session to canvass the votes "by exp ress directive" of the Constitution and "has not, and cannot, adjourn sine die u ntil it has accomplished its constitutionally mandated tasks For only when the board of canvassers has completed its functions is it rendered functus officio. Its membership may change, but it retains its authorit y as a board until it has accomplished its purposes. Call special election for President and Vice President Art.VII, Sec. 10: The Congress shall, at ten o'clock in the morning of the thir d day after the vacancy in the offices of the President and VicePresident occurs, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call and within seven da ys enact a law calling for a special election to elect a President and a VicePres ident to be held not earlier than fortyfive days nor later than sixty days from t he time of such call. The bill calling such special election shall be deemed cer tified under paragraph 2, Section 26, Article 6 of this Constitution and shall b ecome law upon its approval on third reading by the Congress. Appropriations for the special election shall be charged against any current appropriations and sh all be exempt from the requirements of paragraph 4, Section 25, Article VI of th is Constitution. The convening of the Congress cannot be suspended nor the speci al election postponed. No special election shall be called if the vacancy occurs within eighteen months before the date of the next presidential election. Art of nominationthe Pres. isis ruleVII,succession (V-Pres. shall vacant office ofSec 10 Congress vacant succeed) from V-Pres. V-Pres. are & vacant Congress passes vacancy convenses special election law, Day 3 occurs thewithout need of call if it has not passed one before this d Time0Table 10 canvassing100 Election 70held Day 85 ate 55 toisof Congress, if it has not done so earlier Revoke or Extend Suspension of Privilege of Habeas Corpus or Declaration of Mart ial Law Art.VII, Sec. 18: xxx Within fortyeight hours from the proclamation of martia l law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the Presi dent shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress , voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its members in regular or special session may revoke such proclamation suspension, which revocation sh all not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall pers ist and public safety requires it. The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following s uch proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without nee d of a call. Approve Presidential Amnesties Art.VII, Sec. 19: Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in th

is Constitution, the President may grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, a nd remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment. He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress. Confirm certain Appointments (1) By Congress Art. VII, Sec. 9: Whenever there is a vacancy in the Office of the VicePresident during the term for which he was elected, the President shall nominate a VicePres ident from among the Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives who shall assume office upon confirmation by a majority vote of all the Members of b oth Houses of the Congress, voting separately. (2) By Commission on Appointments Art. VII, Sec. 16: The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the Com mission on Appointments, appoint the heads of the executive departments, ambassa dors, other public ministers and consuls, or officers of the armed forces from t he rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments are v ested in him in this Constitution. He shall also appoint all other officers of t he Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, and thos e whom he may be authorized by law to appoint. The Congress may by law, vest the appointment of other officers lower in rank in the President alone, in the cour ts, or in the heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards. The President shall have the power to make appointments during the reces s of the Congress, whether voluntary or compulsory, but such appointments shall be effective only until disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until t he next adjournment of the Congress. ? appointments that also need CA confirmation: Chairperson and members of the Co nstitutional Commission and Members of the Judicial and Bar Council Concur in Treaties (through the Senate) Art. VII, Sec. 21: No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effec tive unless concurred in by at least twothirds of all the Members of the Senate. Treaty = international agreements which would consider political changes or matt ers which are more or less permanent affecting a particular state Bayan v Zamora (138587; 10/10/2000) F: Petitioners argue that Sec 25 Art XVIII is applicable considering that VFA ha s for its subject the presence of foreing military troops in the Phil. Responden ts argue that it is Sec 21 Art VII since VFA is not a basing arrangement but an agreement which involves merely the temproary visits fo US personnel engaged in joint military exercises. H: both provisions applies Sec 21 Art VII deals with treaties or international agreements in genera l, in which case, the concurrence of at least 2/3 of all the members of the Sena te is required to make the subject treaty or international agreement, valid and binding on the part of the Philippines. This provision lays down the general rul e on treaties or international agreements and applies to any form of treaty with a wide variety of subject matter, such as, but not limited to extradition or ta x treaties or those economic in nature. All treaties or international agreements entered into by the Philippines, regardless of subject matter, coverage or part icular designation or appellation, requires the concurrence of the Senate. In contrast, Sec 25, Art XVIII is a special provision that applies to tr eaties which involve the presence of foreign military bases, troops, or facilite

s in the Philippines. Under this provision, the concurrence of the Senate is onl y one of the requisites to render compliance with the constitutional requirement s and to consider the agreement binding on the Philippines. Sec 25, Art XVIII fu rther requires that foreign military bases, troops or facilities may be allowed in the Philippines only by virtue of a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate, rat ified by a majority of the votes cast in a national referendum held for that pur pose if so required by Congress, and recognized as such by the other contracting parties. Sec 25 Art XVIII, which specifically deals with treaties involving forei gn military bases, troops, or facilities, should apply in the instant case. To c ertain extent and in a limited sense, however, the provisions of Sec 21, Art VII will find applicability with regard to the issue and for the sole purpose of de termining the number of votes required to obtain the valid concurrence of the Se nate. Visiting Forces Agreement (342S522) F: Pres. considered VFA as a treaty but the US only considered it as an executiv e agreement Since it is the Philippine Supreme Court that is determining the constit utional validity of the agreement, it should have been guider by Art XVIII, sec 25 of the Philippine Constitution, and not what the US Executive Branch tells th e Philippines that it is a treaty when in fact it is only an executive agreement . The Supreme Court should have used its power under Art VIII, Sec 5(2[a]) of th e Const. Declaration of War and Delegation of Emergency Powers Art. VI, Sec. 23: (1) The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses in joint session assembled, voting separately, shall have the sole power to declare the existence of a state of war. (2) In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may, by law, a uthorize the President, for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declar ed national policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof. ? there is only a need for a declaration of the existence of the state of war if the Pres. or the Republic goes into offensive war ? in cases of defensive war, no need for congress to declare ? Emergency power end: o Congress next adjournment o by resolution of Congress Be judge of the Presidential Physical Fitness Art. VII, Sec. 11(4): If the Congress, within ten days after receipt of the last written declaration, or, if not in session, within twelve days after it is requ ired to assemble determines by a twothirds vote of both Houses, voting separately , that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the VicePresident shall act as President; otherwise, the President shall continu e exercising the powers and duties of his office. 1. The President may, at his own volition, submit a written declaration that he is unfit to discharge the function of his office, in which case the Vice-Preside nt will become the acting President. 2. If the President will not do that, the majority of the members of his cabinet may make such declaration; either a. the President will accept that or (V-Pres becomes acting Pres) b. he will contest it 3. (2nd mode in #2) Pres. will contest the inability declaration by the members

of the cabinet; either a. majority of the members of the cabinet may accept that there is no incapacity or b. they will contest the declaration of the President that there is no incapacit y i. send a 2nd declaration of inability within 5 days from the declaration of the Pres. that no inability exists ii. Congress shall convene without need of call to determine the question of whe ther or not the President is temporarily incapacitated and it will require a vot e of 2/3 by the members of the house Power of Impeachment (1) Who are subject to impeachment? Article XI, Sec. 2: The President, the VicePresident, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be r emoved from office, on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and employees may be remove d from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment. 1. 2. 3. 4. The President and Vice-President Justices of the Supreme Court Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and Ombudsman

(2) Grounds for impeachment 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. treason bribery culpable violation of the Consti graft and corruption other high crimes, and betrayal of public trust.

(3) Procedure for impeachment Art. XI, Sec. 3: (1) The House of representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment. (2) A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by any Member of t he House of Representatives or by any citizen upon a resolution of endorsement b y any Member thereof, which shall be included in the Order of Business within te n session days, and referred to the proper Committee within three session days t hereafter. The Committee, after hearing, and by a majority vote of all its membe rs, shall submit its report to the House within sixty session days from such ref erral, together with the corresponding resolution. The resolution shall be calen dared for consideration by the House within ten session days from receipt thereo f. (3) A vote of at least onethird of all the Members of the House shall be necessary either to affirm a favorable resolution with the Articles of Impeachme nt of the Committee, or override its contrary resolution. The vote of each Membe r shall be recorded. (4) In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least onethird of all the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed. (5) No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same offic ial more than once within a period of one year. (6) The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. When sitting for that purpose, the Senators shall be on oath or aff

irmation. "hen the President of the Philippines is on trial, the Chief justice o f the Supreme Court shall preside, but shall not vote. No person shall be convic ted without the concurrence of twothirds of all the Members of the Senate. ? forum to initiate: House of Representatives ? forum to try: Senate ? can be initiated either: o by a 1/3 of the members lower house (it will constitute the articles of impeac hment) = no need to go through the committee of justice o if less than 1/3, a verified complaint is needed (by a member of the lower hou se or any citizen with an endorsement of a member of the same) Romulo vs. Yniguez (04 February 1986) F: Committee on Justice dismissed a verified complaint for the impeachment of Pr es. Marcos filed by 1/5 of Batasan Pambansa members. GROUND: deficient in form a nd substance. H: before, a mere committee can shelve a complaint for impeachment bec. there is no constitutional provision requiring the committee to report to the floor These rules are not contrary to Article XIII, Section 3 which provides that i mpeachment may be initiated by a vote of at least 1/5 of the members of the BP. The rules refer to the disposition of the complaint for impeachment. They are no t purely part of the "initiation phase" of the impeachment proceeding but of the "trial phase", or more properly the preparatory to trial phase . Nor is the constitutional provision requiring the concurrence of at least 2/3 votes of all members of the Batasan for conviction violated by any provision of the Rules which authorized dismissal of a petition by a majority vote of the BP since with such number of votes, it is obvious that the 2/3 votes of all member s necessary for conviction can no longer be obtained. Such being the case, the B P can specify in its Rules how and when the impeachment proceedings can be termi nated or demised for Section 3, Article XIII merely provides for how a judgment of conviction can be sustained but is silent on how a complaint for inimpeachmen t can be dismissed when it becomes apparent that a judgment of conviction by the required number of votes is not possible. Consequence of Impeachment Art. XI, Sec. 3(7): Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further th an removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republi c of the Philippines, but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and s ubject to prosecution, trial and punishment according to law. 1. conviction = requires 2/3 vote of the members of Senate a. removal and perpetual disqualification (bec. the Senate is not a court) b. criminal or civil charges can be filed 2. acquittal = officer cannot be charged anew on the same grounds; for different grounds he cannot be charged within one year from the first charge a. Pres. continues in office because pending the impeachment trial, he remains i n office ? The judgment of the Senate (like the judgment of the House on whether to initi ate is a political question that cannot be reviewed by the court Power with regard to the utilization of natural resources Art. XII, Sec. 2: All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petrol eum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by t he State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural

resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the state. The sta te may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into coproduction, joi nt venture, or productionsharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporatio ns or associations at least sixty per centime of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding 25 years, renewable for not more than 25 years and under such terms and conditions as may be provide d by law. In cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or i ndustrial uses other than the development of waterpower, beneficial use may be t he measure and limit of the grant. The state shall protect the nation's marine wealth in its archipelagic waters , territorial sea and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens. The Congress, may, by law, allow smallscale utilization of natural resources b y Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming & with priority to subs istence fishermen and fishworkers in rivers, lakes, bays and lagoons. The President may enter into agreements with foreignowned corporations involvi ng either technical or financial assistance for largescale exploration, developme nt, and utilization of minerals, petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general terms and conditions provided by law, based on real contributions t o the economic growth and general welfare of the country. In such agreements, th e state shall promote the development and use of local scientific and technical resources. The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into in acc ordance with this provision, within 30 days from its execution. Legislative Process Requirements as to Bills 1. Only one subject to be expreseed in the title thereof 2. Appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of the pub lic debt, bills of local application, and private bills shall originate exclusiv ely in the House of Rep. (1) As to titles of bills Art. VI, Sec. 26 (1): Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one s ubject which shall be expressed in the title thereof. Phil. Justice Association v. Prado [G.R. No. 105371. November 11, 1993.] F: law withdrew franking privileges enjoyed by majority of the judiciary H: the title of the law is valid BUT it was declared unconstitutional for violat ing equal protection clause The purposes of this rule are: (1) to prevent hodge-podge or "log-rolling" le gislation; (2) to prevent surprise or fraud upon the legislature by means of pro visions in bills of which the title gives no intimation, and which might therefo re be overlooked and carelessly and unintentionally adopted; and (3) to fairly a pprise the people, through such publication of legislative proceedings as is usu ally made, of the subject of legislation that is being considered, in order that they may have opportunity of being heard thereon, by petition or otherwise, if they shall so desire. The title of the bill is not required to be an index to the body of the act, or to be as comprehensive as to cover every single detail of the measure. It has been held that if the title fairly indicates the general subject, and reasonabl y covers all the provisions of the act, and is not calculated to mislead the leg islature or the people, there is sufficient compliance with the constitutional r equirement. A repealing section in a new statute is valid, notwithstanding that the title is silent on the subject.

De Guzman v. Comelec (336S188) [2000] F: Voter s Registration Act (RA 8189) contains a provision reassigning COMELEC off icers (Sec 44). Aggrieved officers then questioned the validity of the law H: reassignment of the officers is related to Voter s registration as it ensures i ntegrity of the registration Sec 44, which provides for the reassignment of election officers, is rel evant to the subject matter of registration as it seeks to ensure the integrity of the registration process by providing a guideline for the COMELEC to follow i n the reassignment of election officers. It is not an alien provision but one wh ich is related to the conduct and procedure of continuing registration of voters . In this regard, it bears stressing that the Constitution does not require Cong ress to employ in the title of an enactment, language of such precision as to mi rror, fully index or catalogue all the contents and the minute details therein. In determining the constitutionality of a statute dubbed as defectively titled, the presumption is in favor of its validity. Which should control, the title or the text of a statute? With regard to contracts, information or pleadings the provisions or the allegation prevail over the denomination of the title of the contract. But for bills or laws, title shall prevail because of the constitutional requirement tha t the subject of the bill or law must be embraced in the title. Cruz vs. Paras, 123 SCRA 569 (25 July 1983) F: title only says regulate but the text gave the municipality the power to prohib it the operation of nightclubs, cabarets and dance halls H: title controls There is thus support for the view advanced by the petitioners that to consti tute RA 938 as allowing the prohibition of the operation of night clubs would gi ve rise to a constitutional question. The Constitution mandates: Every bill shal l embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof." Since there is no dispute as the title limits the power to regulating, not prohibitin g, it would result in the Statute being invalid if, as was done by the Municipal ity of Bocaue, the operation of a night club was prohibited. There is a wide gap between the exercise of a regulating power to provide for the health and safety , promote the prosperity, improve the morals, such competence extending to all t he great public needs, and to interdict any calling, occupation, or enterprise. TATAD vs. SECRETARY [124360; 11/5/1997] & [124360; 12/3/1997] F: Tatad argues that the imposition of tariff rates in section 5(b) of R.A. No. 8180 is foreign to the subject of the law which is the deregulation of the downs tream oil industry. H: title is valid As a policy, this Court has adopted a liberal construction of the one title one subject rule. We have consistently ruled 18 that the title need not mirror, fully index or catalogue all contents and minute details of a law. A law having a single general subject indicated in the title may contain any number of provi sions, no matter how diverse they may be, so long as they are not inconsistent w ith or foreign to the general subject, and may be considered in furtherance of s uch subject by providing for the method and means of carrying out the general su bject. We hold that section 5(b) providing for tariff differential is germane to the subject of R.A. No. 8180 which is the deregulation of the downstream oil in dustry. The section is supposed to sway prospective investors to put up refineri es in our country and make them rely less on imported petroleum. We shall, howev er, return to the validity of this provision when we examine its blocking effect on new entrants to the oil market. (2) Requirements as to Certain Laws (2.a) Appropriation Laws

1. no money shall be paid out from the National Treasury unless through appropri ation laws (Art VI, Sec 29(1)) 2. Congress cannot increase the appropriations recommended by the President (Art VI, Sec 25(1)) 3. Congress cannot include provisions in an appropriations bill not related to a particular item of appropriation (Art VI, Sec 25(2)) 4. There must be a uniform or similar procedure for all types of appropriations, whether special or general (Art VI, Sec 25(3)) 5. Special appropriations must specify the purpose as well as certification on a vailability of funds (Art VI, Sec 25(4)) 6. Limited authority of Congress to transfer funds (Art VI, Sec 25(5)) 7. Disbursement of discretionary funds (Art VI, Sec 25(6)) 8. If Congress cannot enact appropriation bill for the next year, the last year s budget shall be automatically readmitted until the new law is submitted (Art VI, Sec 25(7)) 9. No money from the public treasury can be taken out for any religious purposes (Art VI, Sec 29(2))

Art. VII, Sec. 22: The President shall submit to the Congress within thirty da ys from the opening of every regular session, as the basis of the general approp riations bill, a budget of expenditures and sources of financing, including rece ipts from existing and proposed revenue measures. (except those that enjoy fisca l autonomy like the Judiciary) Art. VI, Sec. 24: All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizin g increase of the public debt, bills of local application, and private bills sha ll originate exclusively in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may pro pose or concur with amendments. Art VI, Sec. 25: (1) The Congress may not increase the appropriations recommen ded by the President for the operation of the Government as specified in the bud get. The form content, and manner of preparation of the budget shall be prescrib ed by law. (2) No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the general appropriations bill unless it relates specifically to some particular appropriation therein. An y such provision or enactment shall be limited in its operation to the appropria tion to which it relates. (3) The procedure in approving appropriations for the Congress shall strictly follow the procedure for approving appropriations for other departments and agen cies. (4) A special appropriations bill shall specify the purpose for which it is in tended, and shall be supported by funds actually available as certified by the N ational Treasurer, or to be raised by a corresponding revenue proposal therein. (5) No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however , the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Repres entatives, the Chief justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of the Constitu tional Commission may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of t heir respective appropriations. (crime is technical malvarsation) (6) Discretionary funds appropriated for particular officials shall be disburs ed only for public purposes to be supported by appropriate vouchers and subject to such guidelines as may be prescribed by law. (7) If, by the end of any fiscal year, the Congress shall have failed to pass the general appropriations bill for the ensuing fiscal year, the general appropr iations law for the preceding fiscal year shall be deemed reenacted and shall re main in force and effect until the general appropriations bill is passed by Cong ress.

Demetria vs. Alba 148 SCRA 208(1987) F: PD 1177 (Budget Reform of 1977) allows President to transfer funds appropria ted to any dept., bureau, or offices H: the provision is unconstitutional as it violated Art VI, Sec 29 The prohibition to transfer an appropriation for one item to another is expli cit and categorical under the 1973 Constitution. However, to afford the heads of the different branches of the governments and those of the constitutional commi ssions considerable flexibility in the use of public funds and resources, the Co nstitution allowed the enactment of a law authorizing the transfer of public fun ds for the purpose of augmenting an item from saving in another item in the appr opriation of the government branch or constitutional body concerned. The leeway granted was thus limited. The purpose and conditions for which funds may be tran sferred were specified, i.e., transfer may be allowed for the purpose of augment ing an item and such transfer may be made only if there are savings from another item in the appropriation of the government branch or constitutional body. Art VI, Section 29: (1) No money shall be paid out of the Treasury excep t in pursuance of an appropriation made by law. (2) No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or emp loyed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, chu rch, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any pries t, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher, or dignitary as such, except when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forc es, or to any penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium. (a prie st hired by HK domestics to say mass = cannot be paid because not included here) (3) All money collected on any tax levied for a special purpose shall be tre ated as a special fund and paid out for such purpose only. If the purpose for wh ich a special fund was created has been fulfilled or abandoned, the balance, if any, shall be transferred to the general funds of the Government. Guingona Jr vs. Carague. 196 SCRA 221 (22 April 1991) F: the constitutionality of automatic appropriation for debt service is question ed H: the law is constitutional; does not violate Art VI Sec 29(1), 24 & 27 While it is true that under Section 5(5), Article XIV of the Constitution, Co ngress is mandated to 'assign the highest budgetary priority to education' in or der to 'insure that teaching will attract and retain its rightful share of the b est available talents through adequate remuneration and other means of job satis faction and fulfillment,' it does not thereby follow that the hands of Congress are so hamstrung as to deprive it the power to respond to the imperatives of the national interest and for the attainment of other state policies or objectives. The argument of petitioners that said PD's did not meet the requirement and a re therefore inconsistent with Secs. 24 and 29 of Art. VI of the Constitution wh ich require, among others, that " all appropriations, bills authorizing increase of public debt" must be passed by Congress and approved by the President, is un tenable. Certainly, the framers of the Constitution did not contemplate that exi sting laws in the statute books including existing PD's appropriating public mon ey are reduced to mere "bills" that must again go through the legislative mill. (these PD s were already passed) The reasonable interpretation of said provisions of the Constitution which re fer to "bills" is that they mean appropriation measures still to be passed by Co ngress. If the intention of the framers thereof were otherwise, they should have expressed their decision in a more direct or express manner. Philippines Constitution Association vs. Enriquez (August 19, 1994) F: questioned the constitutionality of pork barrel funds H: such provision in GAA of 1994 is valid Under the Constitution, the spending power called by James Madison as "the po wer of the purse," belongs to Congress, subject only to the veto power of the Pr

esident. The President may propose the budget, but still the final say on the ma tter of appropriations is lodged in the Congress. The power of appropriation carries with it the power to specify the project o r activity to be funded under the appropriation law. It can be as detailed and a s broad as Congress wants it to be. The Constitution is a framework of a workable government and its interpr etation must take into account the complexities, realities and politics attendan t to the operation of the political branches of government. Prior to the GAA of 1991, there was an uneven allocation of appropriations for the constituents of t he members of Congress, with the members close to the Congressional leadership o r who hold cards for "horse-trading," getting more than their less favored colle agues. The members of Congress also had to reckon with an unsympathetic Presiden t, who could exercise his veto power to cancel from the appropriation bill a pet project of a Representative or Senator. (2.b) Tax Laws Art. VI, Sec. 28: (1) The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation. (2) The Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix within specified limits, and subject to such limitations and restrictions as it may impose, tarif f rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties o r imposts within the framework of the national development program of the govern ment. (3) Charitable institutions, churches, and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, nonprofit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and improvement s, actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable, or educat ional purposes shall be exempt from taxation. (only refers to property tax NOT I NCLUDING assessment; usage is the crucial factor, not ownership) (4) No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the members of the Congress. ? Province of Abra v. Aquino: Abra College used 1st floor for commercial purpose while 2nd floor for education = only 2nd floor is exempt Art. XIV, Sec. 4 (3): All revenues and assets of nonstock, nonprofit educational institutions used actually/ directly and exclusively for educational purposes s hall be exempt from taxes and duties. Upon the dissolution or cessation of the c orporate existence of such institutions, their assets shall be disposed of in th e manner provided by law. Proprietary educational institutions, including those cooperatively owned, may likewise be entitled to such exemptions subject to the limitations provided by law including restrictions on dividends and provisions for reinvestment. Sec. 4 (4): Subject to conditions prescribed by law, all grants, endowments, d onations, or contributions used actually, directly, and exclusively for educatio nal purposes shall be exempt from tax. YMCA v. Collector of Internal Revenue 33 Phil. 217 (19 January 1916) F: YMCA argues it is free from real property tax since it is a religious, charit able and educational institution combined H:YMCA is exempt from taxation It is claimed that the institution is seen as a business in that it keeps a l odging and boarding house. It may be admitted that there are 64 persons occupyin g the rooms in the main building as lodgers or roomers and that they take their meals at the restaurant below. These facts, however, are far from constituting a business in the ordinary acceptation of the word. In the first place, no profit is realized by the association. In the second place, the purpose of the associa tion is not, primarily, to obtain the money which comes from the lodgers or boar ders. The real purpose is to keep the membership continually within the sphere o

f influence of the institution; and thereby to prevent, as far as possible, the opportunities which vice presents to Young men in foreign countries who lack hom e or other similar influence. Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance (August 25, 1994) F: VAT law was simultaneously deliberated by the Senate and Lower House H:: the law is valid bec. what the Consti prohibited is the Senate approving a v ersion of their bill without waiting for the approved version of the lower house Indeed, what the Constitution simply means is that the initiative for filing revenue, tariff, or tax bills, bills authorizing an increase of the public debt, private bills and bills of local application must come from the House of Repres entatives on the theory that, elected as they are from the districts, the member s of the House can be expected to be more sensitive to the local needs and probl ems. On the other hand, the senators, who are elected at large, are expected to approach the same problems from the national perspective. Both views are thereby made to bear on the enactment of such laws. Nor does the Constitution prohibit the filing in the Senate of a substit ute bill in anticipation of its receipt of the bill from the House, so long as a ction by the Senate as a body is withheld pending receipt of the House bill. CHAVEZ vs. PCGG G.R. No. 130716. December 9, 1998.] F: Chavez invoked his constitutional right to information in requiring PCGG to r eveal compromise agreement with Marcos. PCGG opposed saying it is still not yet final H: Chavez was given access to the re cords; the agreement was not valid In general, writings coming into the hands of public officers in connection w ith their official functions must be accessible to the public, consistent with t he policy of transparency of governmental affairs. This principle is aimed at af fording the people an opportunity to determine whether those to whom they have e ntrusted the affairs of the government are honestly, faithfully and competently performing their functions as public servants. Undeniably, the essence of democr acy lies in the free flow of thought; but thoughts and ideas must be well-inform ed so that the public would gain a better perspective of vital issues confrontin g them and, thus, be able to criticize as well as participate in the affairs of the government in a responsible, reasonable and effective manner. Certainly, it is by ensuring an unfettered and uninhibited exchange of ideas among a well-info rmed public that a government remains responsive to the changes desired by the p eople. Considering the intent of the framers of the Constitution, we believe that it is incumbent upon the PCGG and its officers, as well as other government repres entatives, to disclose sufficient public information on any proposed settlement they have decided to take up with the ostensible owners and holders of ill-gotte n wealth. Such information, though, must pertain to definite propositions of the government, not necessarily to intra-agency or inter-agency recommendations or communications 44 during the stage when common assertions are still in the proce ss of being formulated or are in the "exploratory" stage. There is a need, of co urse, to observe the same restrictions on disclosure of information in general, as discussed earlier such as on matters involving national security, diplomatic or foreign relations, intelligence and other classified information. Procedure for the Passage of Bills Art. VI, Sec. 26(2): No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed three readings on separate days, and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to its Members three days before its passage, except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no amen dment thereto shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered in the journal.

h Presidential certification dispensed with the requirement of not only of print ing and distribution but also that of reading the bill on separate days (Montejo : only reading on separate days are dispensed with) Alvarez vs. Guingona, Jr. (January 31, 1996) F: RA 7720 followed the Senate Bill (converting Isabela to an independent compon ent city) H: procedure for its enactment was valid Clearly, the Senate held in abeyance any action on SB No. 1243 until it recei ved HB No. 8817, already approved on the Third Reading, from the House of Repres entatives. The filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in anticipation of its receipt of the bill from the House, does not contravene the constitutional requi rement that a bill of local application should originate in the House of Represe ntatives, for as long as the Senate does not act thereupon until it receives the House bill. Arroyo v. De Venecia (1998) F: Joker Arroyo was snubbed by De Venecia H: law is valid since only violated internal rules In sum, there is no basis for the charge that the approval of the confer ence committee report on what later became RA 8240 was railroaded through the Ho use of Representative. Nor is there any need for petitioners to invoke the power of this Court under Art VIII, Sec 2 of the Constitution to determine whether, i n enating RA 8240, the House of Representatives acted with grave abuse of discre tion, since that is what we have precisely done, although the result of our revi ew may not be what petitioners want. It should be added that, even if petitioner s allegations are not true, the disregard of the rules in this case would not aff ect the validity of RA 8240, the rules allegedly violated being merely internal rules of precedure of the House rather than constitutional requirements for the enactment of laws. It is well-settled that a legislative act will not be declare d invalid for non-compliance with internal rules. The President's Veto Power When the Pres. No "pocket Only way for vetoes measure, he Pocket Veto the in the Philippines should return the measure to the House of or MessageVetoveto" Pres.ato veto a bill Applies to US (Art 1, Sec 7 of US Const): If Pres. wants to veto a bill, he must igin, indicating his objection thereto (VETO MESSAGE) veto it within 10 days but if he cannot return it since the Congress is not in HERE: Pres. fails to anyway session, it is vetoedtake an action on a bill within 30 days, it becomes a law w Bill is considered is in by reason not hether the Congressvetoed session orof a vacuum (Congress is not in session) Art. VI. Sec. 27: (1) Every bill passed by Congress shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the President. If he approves the same, he shall sign it; otherwise, he shall veto it and return the same with his objections to the House where it originated, which shall enter the objections at large in its Journal a nd proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, twothirds of all the Members of such House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House by which it shall likewise be reconsider ed, and if approved by twothirds of all the Members of that House, it shall becom e a law. In all such cases, the votes of each House shall be determined by yeas or nays, and the names of the Members voting for or against shall be entered in its Journal. The President shall communicate his veto of any bill to the House w here it originated within thirty days after the date of receipt thereof; otherwi se, it shall become a law as if he had signed it. (2) The President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items in an appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect the it em or items to which he does not object. GR: veto all or none at all Exception: line item veto is allowed in appropriation, revenue and tariff bills

1. if the provision is considered a rider (not related to a particular appropria tion of sum of money) 2. provision are inappropriate ? Appropriation bills = appropriating specific sums of money (if bill creates of fice and draws fund = not appropriation bill since to draw funds is only inciden tal) ? Tariff bills = intended to exact dues whether for revenue or regulation ? Revenue bills = exact taxes for the purpose of raising revenue Gonzales vs. Macaraig (19 November 1990) F: Pres. vetoed provision in an Appropriations Bill which states that since Cong ress already deleted the item on vehicles, then the Pres. cannot transfer funds to it H: the veto was valid since the said section was a rider An ITEM in a bill refers to the particulars, the details, the distinct and se verable parts of the bill. It is an indivisible sum of money dedicated to a stat ed purpose. An item of an appropriation bill obviously means an item which in it self is a specific appropriation of money, not some GENERAL PROVISION OF LAW, wh ich happens to be put into an appropriation bill. In this case, the challenged provisions do not relate to any particular or di stinctive appropriation. They apply generally to all items disapproved or reduce d by Congress in the Appropriations Bill. Also, such provisions are more of an expression of Congressional policy rather than a budgetary appropriation. They should be treated as items for the purpose of the President's veto power. Bengzon vs. Drilon 208 SCRA 133 (15 April 1992) F: Pres. Aquino vetoed a certain appropriation for the Judiciary intended for th e payment of the adjusted pension rates due the retired justices of the SC and C A. H: veto is illegal since Pres. should have vetoed the whole item relating to it she should have also vetoed the General Funds Adjustment The Constitution provides that only a particular item or items may be vetoed. The power to disapprove any item or items in an appropriate bill does not gran t the authority to veto a part of an item and to approve the remaining portion o f the same item. The terms "item" and "provision" are different. An item refers to the partic ulars, the details, the distinct and severable parts of the bill. It is an indi visible sum of money dedicated to a stated purpose. An item obviously means an item which in itself is a specific appropriation of money, and not some general provision of law. In this case, the President did not veto an item. She vetoed the methods or s ystems placed by Congress to insure that permanent and continuing obligations to certain officials will be paid when they fall due. In this case, the vetoed po rtions are not items but are provisions. The augmentation of specific appropria tions found inadequate to pay retirement payments, by transferring savings from other items of appropriations is a provision and not an item. It gives the SC C hief Justice the power to transfer funds from one item to another. There is no specific appropriation of money involved. Neither may the veto power be exercised as a means of repealing existing laws . This is arrogating unto the Presidency legislative powers which are beyond it s authority. PHILCONSA vs. ENRIQUEZ [113105; 8/19/1994.] F: Pres. veto the provision requiring Congressional approval before fund can be released H: veto is valid since it was an inappropriate provision Inappropriate provisions: 3. do not "relate specifically to some particular appropriation therein" 4. it extends its operation beyond the appropriation to which it relates

5. unconstitutional provisions and 6. provisions which are intended to amend other laws h The doctrine of inappropriate provision is an addition to the veto power in th e sense that it is vetoed not because it is an item but it violates Sec. 25 (2), Art. VI, not because it is allowed under Sec. 27 (2). Effectivity of Laws Art. 2, Civil Code: Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the co mpletion of their publication in the official Gazette, unless it is otherwise pr ovided. This Code shall take effect one year after such publication. Executive Order No. 200 (June 18, 1987): Sec. 1: Laws shall take effect after 15 days following the completion of their publication either in the Official Gaz ette or in a newspaper general circulation in the Philippines, unless it is othe rwise provided." [EO 200 has amended Art. 2 of Civil Code] Tanada vs. Tuvera, 136 S 27 (1985) Sec. 1 of CA 638 reads: "There shall be published in the OG: (1) all importan t legislative acts and resolutions of a public nature of the Congress of the Phi lippines; (2) all executive and administrative orders and proclamations, except such as have no general applicability..." The word 'shall' imposes upon respondent officials an imperative duty. That d uty must be enforced if the right of the people to be informed on matters of pub lic concern is to be given substance and reality. Tanada vs. Tuvera 146 SCRA 446, Motion for Reconsideration (1986) The subject of contention is Article 2 of the Civil Code. The clause "unless it is otherwise provided" refers to the date of effectivity and not to the requi rement of publication itself, which cannot in any event be omitted. This clause does not mean that the legislature may make the law effective immediately upon a pproval, or any other date, without its previous publication. The reason is that such omission would offend due process insofar as it would deny the public know ledge of the laws that are supposed to govern it. The term "laws" should refer to all laws and not only to those of general app lication, for strictly speaking all laws relate to the people in general albeit there are some that do not apply to them directly. An example is a law granting citizenship to a particular individual, like a relative of President Marcos who was decreed instant naturalization. We agree that the publication must be in full or it is no publication at all since its purpose is to inform the public of the contents of the laws. The mere mention of the number of the presidential decree, the title of such decree, its whereabouts (e.g., "with Secretary Tuvera"), the supposed date of effectivity, a nd in a mere supplement of the Official Gazette cannot satisfy the publication r equirement. Initiative and Referendum [RA 6735 (Aug. 4,1989)] Initiative is the power of the people to propose bills and laws, and to enact or reject them at the polls, independent of the legislative assembly. It is th e right of a group of citizens to introduce a matter for legislation either to t he legislature or directly to the voters. Referendum is the right reserved to the people to adopt or reject any act or measure which has been passed by a legislative body and which in most cases woul d without action on the part of the electors become a law. It is a method of su bmitting an impt. legislative measure to a direct vote of the whole people, the submission of a law passed by the legislature for their approval or rejection.

GARCIA vs. COMELEC G.R. No. 111230. September 30,1994.] F: the Sangunian agreed that Morong be included in the Subic Special Economic Zo ne, respondents tried to resort to local initiative to annul the resolution but COMELEC denied their petition saying "it was only a resolution and not an ordina nce" H: local initiative includes resolutions; it includes all matters subject to the legal powers of the Sanggunian The Constitution clearly includes not only ordinances but resolutions as appr opriate subjects of a local initiative. Section 32 of Article VI provides in lum inous language: "The Congress shall, as early as possible, provide for a system of initiative and referendum, and the exceptions there from, whereby the people can directly propose and enact laws or approve or reject any act or law or part thereof passed by the Congress, or local legislative body ..." An act includes a resolution. Black defines an act as "an expression of will or purpose ... it ma y denote something done ... as a legislature, including not merely physical acts , but also decrees, edicts, laws, judgments, resolves, awards, and determination s ..." It is basic that a law should be construed in harmony with and not in vio lation of the Constitution. In line with this postulate, we held in In Re Guarin a that "if there is doubt or uncertainty as to the meaning of the legislative, i f the words or provisions are obscure, or if the enactment is fairly susceptible of two or more constructions, that interpretation will be adopted which will av oid the effect of unconstitutionality, even though it may be necessary, for this purpose, to disregard the more usual or apparent import of the language used." The constitutional command to include acts (i.e., resolutions) as appropriate subjects of initiative was implemented by Congress when it enacted Republic Act No. 6735 entitled "An Act Providing for a System of Initiative and Referendum a nd Appropriating Funds therefore." Thus, its section 3(a) expressly includes res olutions as subjects of initiative on local legislations. SBMA vs. Comelec (September 26, 1996) F: residents of Morong opposed the act of their Sangguniang Bayan in joining the Subic Special Economic Zone; thus they availed of initiative to annul a resolut ion H: a resolution can be annulled by initiative Initiative is resorted to (or initiated) by the people directly either b ecause the law-making body fails or refuses to enact the law, ordinance, resolut ion or act that they desire or because they want to amend or modify one already existing. Under Sec. 13 of R.A. 6735, the local legislative body is given the op portunity to enact the proposal. If it refuses/neglects to do so within thirty ( 30) days from its presentation, the proponents through their duly-authorized and registered representatives may invoke their power of initiative, giving notice thereof to the local legislative body concerned. Should the proponents be able t o collect the number of signed conformities with the period granted by said stat ute, the Commission Elections "shall then set a date for the initiative (not ref erendum) at which the proposition shall be submitted to the registered voters in the local government unit concerned . . .". On the other hand, in a local referendum, the law-making body submits to the registered voters of its territorial jurisdiction, for approval or rejectio n, any ordinance or resolution which is duly enacted or approved by such law-mak ing authority. Said referendum shall be conducted also under the control and dir ection of the Commission on Elections. In other words, while initiative is entirely the work of the electorate, referendum is begun and consented to by the law-making body. Initiative is a pr ocess of law-making by the people themselves without the participation and again st the wishes of their elected representatives, while referendum consists merely of the electorate approving or rejecting what has been drawn up or enacted by a legislative body. Hence, the process and the voting in an initiative are unders tandably more complex than in a referendum where expectedly the voters will simp ly write either "Yes" or "No" in the ballot.

Santiago vs. Comelec (127325; 3/19/1997) F: Atty. Delfin initiated constitutional amendment under RA 6735 H: RA 6735 is valid for amending or enacting a law but not the Constitution Contrary to the assertion of public respondent COMELEC, Section 2 of the Act does not suggest an initiative on amendments to the Constitution... The inclusio n of the word "Constitution" therein was a delayed afterthought. That word is ne ither germane nor relevant to said section, which exclusively relates to initiat ive and referendum on national laws and local laws, ordinances, and resolutions. That section is silent as to amendments on the Constitution. As pointed out ear lier, initiative on the Constitution is confined only to proposals to AMEND. The people are not accorded the power to "directly propose, enact, approve, or reje ct, in whole or in part, the Constitution" through the system of initiative. The y can only do so with respect to "laws, ordinances, or resolutions." ?? ?? ?? ??

1 Constitutional Law Review: (part 2) Emily Zen Chua Carolyn Lorenzo