Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Department
Issue:
Does an exercise of local initiative includes as subject
a resolution and not just an ordinance?
Ruling:
Sec. 32, Art. VI of the Constitution clearly includes not
only ordinances but resolutions as appropriate subjects
of a local initiative. The term “act” found therein
includes resolution. Thus, Sec. 3 of R.A. 6735 expressly
stated the term “resolution” in the definition of
initiative on local legislation.
Santiago vs. Comelec
G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997
Facts: PIRMA (People’s Initiative for Reforms, Modernization
and Action) filed a petition before the Comelec to amend the
some provisions of the Constitution relying on R.A. 6735.
Issue: Does R.A. 6735 provides sufficient mechanism for the
conduct of initiative on the Constitution?
Ruling: The Court ruled that the constitutional provision
granting the people the power to directly amend the
Constitution through initiative is not self-executory. An
enabling law is necessary to implement the exercise of the
people’s right. Examining the provisions of R.A. 6735, the
Court held that said law was incomplete, inadequate, or
wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative
on amendments to the Constitution is concerned.
Initiative and referendum, distinguished
(SBMA vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 125416, Sept. 26, 1996)
Initiative is entirely the work of the electorate while
referendum is begun and consented to by the law-making
body.
Initiative is a process of law-making by the people themselves
without the participation and against 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 is
understandably more complex than in a referendum where
expectedly the voters will simply write either "Yes" or "No" in
the ballot.
Sanidad vs. Comelec
G.R. No. 90878, January 29, 1990
• Referendum is merely consultative in character.
It is simply a means of assessing public reaction
to the given issues submitted to the people for
their consideration.
• If the issue submitted to the people is intended
to work more permanent changes in the
political structure like a proposal to amend or
ratify the Constitution, it is to be done through
a plebiscite.
Non-delegability of legislative power:
Rule: Congress cannot delegate its legislative power.
“The powers which Congress is prohibited from delegating
are those which are strictly, or inherently and exclusively,
legislative. Purely legislative power, which can never be
delegated, has been described as the authority to make a
complete law – complete as to the time when it shall
take effect and as to whom it shall be applicable – and to
determine the expediency of its enactment.” (ABAKADA
vs. Eduardo Ermita, G.R. No. 168056, September 1, 2005)
Exceptions to the Non-delegability of legislative power:
1. delegation of tariff powers to the President (Sec. 28 (2),
Art. VI);
2. delegation of emergency powers to the President (Sec.
23(2), Art. VI);
3. delegations to administrative agencies – Congress finds
its necessary to entrust to administrative agencies the
authority to issue rules to carry out the general provisions
of a statute. (Power of subordinate legislation)
4. delegation to local legislative bodies – Congress admits
that local legislative bodies are more knowledgeable on
matters of purely local concern and are therefore in a
better position to enact legislations peculiarly affecting
them.
Two tests of valid delegation:
completeness test – the law must be complete
in all its terms and conditions such that when
it reaches the delegate the only thing that he
will have to do is to enforce it.
sufficient standard test – the law must have
adequate guidelines and limitations to map
out the boundaries of the delegate’s authority
and prevent the delegation from running riot.
ABAKADA vs. Eduardo Ermita
G.R. No. 168056, September 1, 2005
Facts: Sections 4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Sections 106, 107
and 108, respectively, of the NIRC give the President the stand-by
authority to raise the VAT rate from 10% to 12% when certain conditions
are met.
Issue: Does this constitute undue delegation of legislative power?
Ruling: It is not a delegation of legislative power. It is simply a delegation of
ascertainment of facts upon which enforcement and administration of
the increase rate under the law is contingent. The legislature may
delegate to executive officers or bodies the power to determine certain
facts or conditions, or the happening of contingencies, on which the
operation of a statute is, by its terms, made to depend, but the
legislature must prescribe sufficient standards, policies or limitations on
their authority.
While the power to tax cannot be delegated to executive agencies,
details as to the enforcement and administration of an exercise of such
power may be left to them, including the power to determine the
existence of facts on which its operation depends.
Tio vs. Videogram Regulatory Board
G.R. No. 75697, June 18, 1987
“The grant in Section 11 of the P.D. 1987 of
authority to the BOARD to "solicit the direct
assistance of other agencies and units of the
government and deputize, for a fixed and limited
period, the heads or personnel of such agencies
and units to perform enforcement functions for
the Board" is not a delegation of the power to
legislate but merely a conferment of authority or
discretion as to its execution, enforcement, and
implementation.”
Case law on non-delegation of
legislative power:
Eastern Shipping Lines vs. POEA (166 SCRA 533)
- The provisions of the MC No. 2 of the POEA which
prescribes a standard contract to be adopted by both
foreign and domestic shipping companies in the hiring
of Filipino seamen for overseas employment is upheld
as a valid delegation of legislative power based on the
standard imposed by Executive Order No. 797 which
created the POEA.
- The standard provided by law is for POEA to protect
the rights of Filipino overseas workers to “fair and
equitable employment practices”.
People vs. Dacuycuy (G.R. No. L-45127, May 5, 1989)
Facts: Sec. 32 of R. A. No. 4670 (Magna Carta for Public School Teachers)
provides:
"Sec. 32. Penal Provision. - A person who shall wilfully interfere with, restrain
or coerce any teacher in the exercise of his rights guaranteed by this Act or who
shall in any other manner commit any act to defeat any of the provisions of this
Act shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred
pesos nor more than one thousand pesos, or by imprisonment, in the discretion
of the court.“
Issue: Is this a valid delegation of legislative power?
Ruling: It is not for the courts to fix the term of imprisonment where no
points of reference have been provided by the legislature. What valid
delegation presupposes and sanctions is an exercise of discretion to
fix the length of service of a term of imprisonment which must be
encompassed within specific or designated limits provided by law, the
absence of which will constitute such exercise as an undue
delegation. Thus, the penalty of imprisonment should be, as it hereby,
declared unconstitutional.
PHILCOMSAT vs. Alcuaz, NTC
G.R. No. 84818, Dec. 18, 1989
“Delegation of legislative power may be sustained only upon the
ground that some standard for its exercise is provided and that
the legislature in making the delegation has prescribed the
manner of the exercise of the delegated power. Therefore,
when the administrative agency concerned, respondent NTC in
this case, establishes a rate, its act must both be non-
confiscatory and must have been established in the manner
prescribed by the legislature; otherwise, in the absence of a
fixed standard, the delegation of power becomes
unconstitutional. In case of a delegation of the rate-fixing
power, the only standard which the legislature is required to
prescribe for the guidance of the administrative authority is that
the rate be reasonable and just. However, it has been held that
even in the absence of an express requirement as to
reasonableness, this standard may be implied.”
Ynot vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
G.R. No. 74457, March 20, 1987
Facts: Under EO 626-A, it is authorized that the seized property shall "be distributed to
charitable institutions and other similar institutions as the Chairman of the
National Meat Inspection Commission may see fit, in the case of carabeef, and to
deserving farmers through dispersal as the Director of Animal Industry may see fit,
in the case of carabaos.“
Ruling: The phrase "may see fit" is an extremely generous and dangerous condition. It
is laden with perilous opportunities for partiality and abuse, and even corruption.
One searches in vain for the usual standard and the reasonable guidelines, or
better still, the limitations that the said officers must observe when they make
their distribution. There is none. Their options are apparently boundless. Who
shall be the fortunate beneficiaries of their generosity and by what criteria shall
they be chosen? Only the officers named can supply the answer, they and they
alone may choose the grantee as they see fit, and in their own exclusive discretion.
Definitely, there is here a "roving commission," a wide and sweeping authority that
is not "canalized within banks that keep it from overflowing," in short, a clearly
profligate and therefore invalid delegation of legislative powers.
Lokin vs. Comelec
G.R. No.179431-32, June 22, 2010
To be valid, therefore, the administrative IRRs must comply with the
following requisites to be valid:
1. Its promulgation must be authorized by the Legislature;
2. It must be within the scope of the authority given by the Legislature;
3. It must be promulgated in accordance with the prescribed procedure;
and
4. It must be reasonable
IRRs must not be ultra vires as to be issued beyond the limits of the
authority conferred. It is basic that an administrative agency cannot
amend an act of Congress, for administrative IRRs are solely intended to
carry out, not to supplant or to modify, the law. The administrative
agency issuing the IRRs may not enlarge, alter, or restrict the provisions
of the law it administers and enforces, and cannot engraft additional
non-contradictory requirements not contemplated by the Legislature.
Magtajas vs. Pryce Properties
G.R. No. 111097, July 20, 1994
Facts: The Sangguniang Panglungsod of Cagayan de Oro City enacted an ordinance
that prohibits the entry of casino in the city. However, PD 1869, the charter of
PAGCOR, allows PAGCOR to operate casinos within the territorial jurisdiction of
the Philippines.
Issue: Is the city ordinance of the Cagayan de Oro valid?
Ruling: No. To be valid an ordinance must conform to the following requirements:
1. it must not contravene the Constitution or any statute;
2. it must not be unfair or oppressive;
3. it must not be partial or discriminatory;
4. it must not prohibit but may regulate trade;
5. it must be general and consistent with public policy;
6. it must not be unreasonable.
Municipal governments are only agents of the national government. Local
councils exercise only delegated legislative powers conferred only them by
Congress as the national lawmaking body. The delegate cannot be superior to
the principal. The ordinance violate PD 1869 which has the character and force
of a law, thus, the ordinance is invalid.
Senate: (Sections 2,3 & 4, Art. VI)
• consisting of 24 senators who are elected at
large;
• the term of office of senators is 6 years;
• no senator shall serve for more than two
consecutive terms;
• qualifications of the office:
1. citizenship – natural born Filipino
2. age – at least 35 years of age
3. literacy – able to read and write
4. registered voter
5. residency – at least two years immediately before the
day of election
Social Justice Society vs.DDB & PDEA
G.R. No.157870, November 3, 2008
Facts: On December 23, 2003, the Comelec issued Resolution No. 6486,
requiring the mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office in
connection with the May 10, 2004 synchronized national and local
elections. The said resolution was issued in order to implement
Section 36 (g) of Republic Act No. 9165 provides that “All candidates
for public office x x x both in the national or local government shall
undergo a mandatory drug test.”
Issue: Is the said provision of R.A. 9165 constitutional?
Ruling: Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 should be, as it is hereby declared as,
unconstitutional. It is basic that if a law or an administrative rule
violates the Constitution, that issuance is null and void and has no
effect. The Constitution is the basic law to which all laws must
conform; no act shall be valid if it conflicts with the Constitution.
Congress cannot require a candidate for senator to meet such
additional qualification not stated in Sec. 3, Art. VI and the COMELEC
is also without such power.
House of Representatives:
Two kinds of membership in the House:
• District representatives – those representing the different
legislative districts.
Qualifications:
1. citizenship – natural born Filipino
2. age – at least 25 years old
3. literacy – able to read and write
4. registered voter in the district
5. residency – at least one year immediately before the election
• Each house will convene every year on the 4th Monday of July and
since then it shall continue to be in session until it will adjourned a
month before the opening of its next regular session.
• However, the President may call a special session any time.
• Congress itself will hold special session on its own initiative
without the President’s call when necessary such as in the
following cases:
- to canvass presidential elections (Sec. 4, Art. VII)
- to call a special election when both the Presidency and the Vice-
Presidency are vacated (Sec. 10, Art. VII)
- to initiate impeachment case
Officers of both houses:
Sec. 16 (1), Art. VI
• Senate is headed by the Senate President
• House of Representatives is headed by its Speaker
• The Senate President and the Speaker do not have a
fixed term and they may be replaced anytime at the
pleasure of the majority of all the members of each
house
• The Senate will elect also a Senate President pro
tempore and the HoR its Speaker pro tempore
• Other officers in the Senate and in the HoR are:
1. Majority Floor Leader;
2. Minority Floor Leader and
3. Chairmen of different committees
Quorum requirement:
Sec. 16 (2), Art. VI