Election Law Case: Romualdez-Marcos vs COMELEC 248 SCRA 300 3 The husband shall fix the residence of the

3 The husband shall fix the residence of the family. But the court may exempt the wife from living with the
Romualdez-Marcos vs COMELEC 248 SCRA 300 husband if he should live abroad unless in the service of the Republic.
Facts: 4 The husband and wife are obligated to live together, observe mutual respect and fidelity, and render mutual
March 8, 1995 Marcos filed her Certificate of Candidacy for the position of Representative of the First help and support.
District of Leyte with the Provincial Election Supervisor. and 7 of R.A. 6646 in relation to Sec. 78 of B.P. 881, it is evident that the respondent Commission does not
lose jurisdiction to hear and decide a pending disqualification case under Sec. 78 of B.P. 881 even after the
March 23, 1995 Montejo, incumbent of and candidate for the same position, filed a petition for elections.
cancellation and disqualification with the COMELEC, alleging that Marcos did not meet the residency
requirement. (3)
WON the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) had jurisdiction over the question of the
March 29, 1995 Marcos filed an Amended/Corrected Certificate of Candidacy in the COMELECs head petitioners qualifications after the elections.
office in Intramuros claiming that her error in the first certificate was the result of an honest No. The HRETs jurisdiction of all contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of members
misrepresentation and that she has always maintained Tacloban City as her domicile or residence. of Congress begins only after a candidate has become a member of the House of Representatives.

April 24, 1995 COMELEC Second Division by a vote of 2-1 came up with a Resolution that found
Montejos petition for disqualification meritorious, Marcos corrected certificate of candidacy void, and her
original certificate cancelled. Aquino vs. Comelec
Agapito A. Aquino, petitioner vs. Commission on Election, Move Makati, Mateo Bedon, and Juanito Icaro,
May 7, 1995 COMELEC en banc denied Marcos Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution drafted on respondents
April 24. Sept, 18, 1995
Special Civil Action in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.
May 11, 1995 COMELEC issued another Resolution allowing Marcos proclamation to the office should
the results of the canvass show that she obtained the highest number of votes. However, this was reversed Relevant Provisions:
and instead directed that the proclamation would be suspended even if she did win. Section 6, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution
No person shall be a Member of the House of Representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen of the
May 25, 1995 In a supplemental petitition, Marcos declared that she was the winner of the said Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at least twenty-five years of age, able to read and write, and,
Congressional election. except the party-list representatives, a registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected, and a
resident thereof for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the election.
Issues/ Held/Ratio:
(1) Facts:
WON plaintiff had established legal residency required to be a voter, and thus candidate, of the first district On 20 March 1995, Agapito A. Aquino, the petitioner, filed his Certificate of Candidacy for the position of
of Leyte. Representative for the new (remember: newly created) Second Legislative District of Makati City. In his
Yes. It is the fact if residence, not a statement in a certificate of candidacy which out to be decisive in certificate of candidacy, Aquino stated that he was a resident of the aforementioned district (284 Amapola
determining whether or not an individual has satisfied the constitutions residency qualification requirement Cor. Adalla Sts., Palm Village, Makati) for 10 months.
(as intended by the framers of the constitution)2. The confusion of the honest mistake made when filed Move Makati, a registered political party, and Mateo Bedon, Chairman of LAKAS-NUCD-UMDP of
her Certificate of Candidacy can be attributed to the fact that the entry for residence is immediately followed Barangay Cembo, Makati City, filed a petition to disqualify Aquino on the ground that the latter lacked the
by the entry for the number of years and months in the residence where the candidate seeks to hold office residence qualification as a candidate for congressman which under Section 6, Article VI of the 1987
immediately after the elections. This honest mistake should not be allowed to negate the fact of residence in Constitution, should be for a period not less than one year preceding the (May 8, 1995) day of the election.
the First District. The instances (i.e. when Marcos lived in Manila and Ilocos after marrying her husband) Faced with a petition for disqualification, Aquino amended the entry on his residency in his certificate of
used by the COMELEC to disqualify Marcos were only actual residences incurred during their marriage; and candidacy to 1 year and 13 days. The Commission on Elections passed a resolution that dismissed the
as such, she was required to change residences and apply for voters registration in these cited locations. petition on May 6 and allowed Aquino to run in the election of 8 May. Aquino, with 38,547 votes, won
When she got married to the late dictator, it cannot be argued that she lost her domicile of origin by against Augusto Syjuco with 35,910 votes.
operation of law stated in Article 110 of the CC3 and further contemplated in Article 1094 of the same code. Move Makati filed a motion of reconsideration with the Comelec, to which, on May 15, the latter acted with
It is the husbands right to transfer residences to wherever he might see fit to raise a family. Thus, the an order suspending the proclamation of Aquino until the Commission resolved the issue. On 2 June, the
relocation does not mean or intend to lose the wifes domicile of origin. After the death of her husband, her Commission on Elections found Aquino ineligible and disqualified for the elective office for lack of
choice of domicle was Tacloban, Leyte as expressed when she wrote the PCGG chairman seeking constitutional qualification of residence.
permission to rehabilitate their ancestral house in Tacloban and their farm in Olot, Leyte. Aquino then filed a Petition of Certiorari assailing the May 15 and June 2 orders.

(2) Issue:
WON COMELEC the proper jurisdiction in disqualifying the plaintiff under Article 78 of the Omnibus 1. Whether residency in the certificate of candidacy actually connotes domicile to warrant the
Election Code had already lapsed, thereby transmitting jurisdiction to the House of Representatives. disqualification of Aquino from the position in the electoral district.
Yes. The mischief in petitioners contention lies in the fact that our courts and other quasi-judicial bodies 2. WON it is proven that Aquino has established domicile of choice and not just residence (not in the sense
would then refuse to render judgments merely on the ground of having failed to reach a decision within a of the COC)in the district he was running in.
given or prescribed period. In any event, Sections 6
2 As discussed during the deliberations of the 1987 Constitution by Mr. Nolledo and Mr. Davide, and Mrs. Held:
Rosario and Mr. De Los Reyes in the RECORD OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVETION July 22, 1. Yes, The term residence has always been understood as synonymous with domicile not only under the
1986. previous constitutions but also under the 1987 Constitution. The Court cited the deliberations of the
Constitutional Commission wherein this principle was applied.
Mr. Nolledo: A. The Comelecs lack of jurisdiction to determine the disqualification issue involving congressional
I remember that in the 1971 Constitutional Convention, there was an attempt to require residence in the place candidates after the May 8, 1995 elections, such determination reserved with the house of representatives
not less than one year immediately preceding the day of elections. electional tribunal
B. Even if the Comelec has jurisdiction, the jurisdiction ceased in the instant case after the elections and the
What is the Committees concept of residence for the legislature? Is it actual residence or is it the concept of remedy to the adverse parties lies in another forum which is the HR Electoral Tribunal consistent with
domicile or constructive residence? Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.
Mr. Davide: C. The COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion when it proceeded to promulagate its questioned
This is in the district, for a period of not less than one year preceding the day of election. This was in effect decision despite its own recognition that a threshold issue of jurisdiction has to be judiciously reviewed
lifted from the 1973 constituition, the interpretation given to it was domicile. again, assuming arguendo that the Comelec has jurisdiction
Mrs. Braid: D. The Comelecs finding of non-compliance with the residency requirement of one year against the
On section 7, page2, Noledo has raised the same point that resident has been interpreted at times as a matter petitioner is contrary to evidence and to applicable laws and jurisprudence.
of intention rather than actual residence. E. The Comelec erred in failing to appreciate the legal impossibility of enforcing the one year residency
requirement of Congressional candidates in newly created political districts which were only existing for less
Mr. De los Reyes than a year at the time of the election and barely four months in the case of petitioners district in Makati.
So we have to stick to the original concept that it should be by domicile and not physical and actual F. The Comelec committed serious error amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it ordered the board of
residence. canvassers to determine and proclaim the winner out of the remaining qualified candidates after the
Therefore, the framers intended the word residence to have the same meaning of domicile. erroneous disqualification of the petitioner in disregard of the doctrine that a second place candidate or a
The place where a party actually or constructively has his permanent home, where he, no matter where he person who was repudiated by the electorate is a loser and cannot be proclaimed as substitute winner.
may be found at any given time, eventually intends to return and remain, i.e., his domicile, is that to which II. Modern day carpetbaggers cant be allowed to take advantage of the creation of new political districts by
the Constitution refers when it speaks of residence for the purposes of election law. suddenly transplanting themselves in such new districts, prejudicing their genuine residents in the process of
The purpose is to exclude strangers or newcomers unfamiliar with the conditions and needs of the taking advantage of existing conditions in these areas.
community from taking advantage of favorable circumstances existing in that community for electoral gain. III. according to COMELEC: The lease agreement was executed mainly to support the one year residence
While there is nothing wrong with the purpose of establishing residence in a given area for meeting election requirement as a qualification for a candidate of the HR, by establishing a commencement date of his
law requirements, this defeats the essence of representation, which is to place through assent of voters those residence. If a oerfectly valid lease agreement cannot, by itself establish a domicile of choice, this particular
most cognizant and sensitive to the needs of a particular district, if a candidate falls short of the period of lease agreement cannot be better.
residency mandated by law for him to qualify.
Which brings us to the second issue.
Pimentel vs COMELEC (G.R. No. 161658)
2. No, Aquino has not established domicile of choice in the district he was running in. 570 SCRA 410 Political Law Qualifications of a Senator or a Congress Representative
The SC agreed with the Comelecs contention that Aquino should prove that he established a domicile of
choice and not just residence. NOTE: This is consolidated with Laserna vs Dangerous Drugs Board (G.R. No. 158633) and Pimentel vs
The Constitution requires a person running for a post in the HR one year of residency prior to the elections in COMELEC (G.R. No. 161658)
the district in which he seeks election to .
Aquinos certificate of candidacy in a previous (May 11, 1992) election indicates that he was a resident and a In 2002, Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 was implemented.
registered voter of San Jose, Concepcion, Tarlac for more than 52 years prior to that election. His birth Section 36 thereof requires mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office, students of secondary and
certificate indicated that Conception as his birthplace and his COC also showed him to be a registered voter tertiary schools, officers and employees of public and private offices, and persons charged before the
of the same district. Thus his domicile of origin (obviously, choice as well) up to the filing of his COC was prosecutors office with certain offenses.
in Conception, Tarlac.
Aquinos connection to the new Second District of Makati City is an alleged lease agreement of a In December 2003, COMELEC issued Resolution No. 6486, prescribing the rules and regulations on the
condominium unit in the area. The intention not to establish a permanent home in Makati City is evident in mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office in connection with the May 10, 2004 synchronized
his leasing a condominium unit instead of buying one. The short length of time he claims to be a resident of national and local elections. Aquilino Pimentel, Jr., a senator and a candidate for re-election in the May
Makati (and the fact of his stated domicile in Tarlac and his claims of other residences in Metro Manila) elections, filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65. In it, he seeks (1) to nullify Sec.
indicate that his sole purpose in transferring his physical residence is not to acquire a new, residence or 36(g) of RA 9165 and COMELEC Resolution No. 6486 dated December 23, 2003 for being unconstitutional
domicile but only to qualify as a candidate for Representative of the Second District of Makati City. in that they impose a qualification for candidates for senators in addition to those already provided for in the
Aquinos assertion that he has transferred his domicile from Tarlac to Makati is a bare assertion which is 1987 Constitution; and (2) to enjoin the COMELEC from implementing Resolution No. 6486.
hardly supported by the facts in the case at bench. To successfully effect a change of domicile, petitioner
must prove an actual removal or an actual change of domicile, a bona fide intention of abandoning the According to Pimentel, the Constitution only prescribes a maximum of five (5) qualifications for one to be a
former place of residence and establishing a new one and definite acts which correspond with the purpose. candidate for, elected to, and be a member of the Senate. He says that both the Congress and COMELEC,
Aquino was thus rightfully disqualified by the Commission on Elections due to his lack of one year by requiring, via RA 9165 and Resolution No. 6486, a senatorial aspirant, among other candidates, to
residence in the district. undergo a mandatory drug test, create an additional qualification that all candidates for senator must first be
Decision certified as drug free. He adds that there is no provision in the Constitution authorizing the Congress or
Instant petition dismissed. Order restraining respondent Comelec from proclaiming the candidate garnering COMELEC to expand the qualification requirements of candidates for senator.
the next highest number of votes in the congressional elections of Second district of Makati City made
permanent. ISSUE: Whether or not Sec 36 of RA 9165 and Resolution 6486 are constitutional.
Dicta:
I. Aquinos petition of certiorari contents were: HELD: No. Pimentels contention is valid. Accordingly, Sec. 36 of RA 9165 is unconstitutional. It is basic
that if a law or an administrative rule violates any norm of 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. In the discharge of their defined functions, the three departments of ISSUE: Whether or not the open letter is covered by privilege communication endowed to members of
government have no choice but to yield obedience to the commands of the Constitution. Whatever limits it Congress.
imposes must be observed.
HELD: No. Article VI, Section 15 of the Constitution provides The Senators and Members of the House of
The provision [n]o person elected to any public office shall enter upon the duties of his office until he has Representatives shall in all cases except treason, felony, and breach of the peace. Be privileged from arrest
undergone mandatory drug test is not tenable as it enlarges the qualifications. COMELEC cannot, in the during their attendance at the sessions of the Congress, and in going to and returning from the same; and for
guise of enforcing and administering election laws or promulgating rules and regulations to implement Sec. any speech or debate therein, they shall not be questioned in any other place.
36, validly impose qualifications on candidates for senator in addition to what the Constitution prescribes. If
Congress cannot require a candidate for senator to meet such additional qualification, the COMELEC, to be The publication of the said letter is not covered by said expression which refers to utterances made by
sure, is also without such power. The right of a citizen in the democratic process of election should not be Congressmen in the performance of their official functions, such as speeches delivered, statements made, or
defeated by unwarranted impositions of requirement not otherwise specified in the Constitution. votes cast in the halls of Congress, while the same is in session as well as bills introduced in Congress,
whether the same is in session or not, and other acts performed by Congressmen, either in Congress or
outside the premises housing its offices, in the official discharge of their duties as members of Congress and
Pimentel vs. COMELEC GR 161658, Nov. 3, 2003 of Congressional Committees duly authorized to perform its functions as such at the time of the performance
Facts: Congress passed RA 9165, Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and makes it mandatory for of the acts in question. Congress was not in session when the letter was published and at the same time he,
candidates for public office, students of secondary and tertiary schools, officers and employees of public and himself, caused the publication of the said letter. It is obvious that, in thus causing the communication to be
private offices, and persons charged before the prosecutors office with certain offenses, among other so published, he was not performing his official duty, either as a member of Congress or as officer of any
personalities, to undergo a drug test. Hence, Senator Pimentel, who is a senatorial candidate for the 2004 Committee thereof. Hence, contrary to the finding made by the lower court the said communication is not
synchronized elections, challenged Section 36(g) of the said law. absolutely privileged.

Issue: is the mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office an unconstitutional imposition of
additional qualification on candidates for Senator?
Sergio Osmea, Jr. vs Salipada Pendatun
109 Phil. 863 Political Law The Legislative Department Parliamentary Immunity
Held: Yes. Section 36 (g) of RA 9165, requiring all candidates for public office whether appointed or elected
both in the national or local government undergo a mandatory drug test is UNCONSITUTIONAL. Under In June 1960, Congressman Sergio Osmea, Jr. delivered a speech entitled A Message to Garcia. In the
Sec.3, Art. VI of the Constitution, an aspiring candidate for Senator needs only to meet 5 qualifications: (1) said speech, he disparaged then President Carlos Garcia and his administration. Subsequently, House
citizenship, (2) voter registration, (3) literacy, (4) age, and (5) residency. The Congress cannot validly amend Resolution No. 59 was passed by the lower house in order to investigate the charges made by Osmea during
or otherwise modify these qualification standards, as it cannot disregard, evade, or weaken the force of a his speech and that if his allegations were found to be baseless and malicious, he may be subjected to
constitutional mandate, or alter or enlarge the Constitution. It is basic that if a law or an administrative rule disciplinary actions by the lower house.
violates any norm of the Constitution, that issuance is null and void and has no effect. In the discharge of
their defined functions, the three departments of government have no choice but to yield obedience to the Osmea then questioned the validity of the said resolution before the Supreme Court. Osmea avers that the
commands of the Constitution. Whatever limits it imposes must be observed. resolution violates his parliamentary immunity for speeches delivered in Congress. Congressman Salipada
Pendatun filed an answer where he averred that the Supreme Court has not jurisdiction over the matter and
Congress has the power to discipline its members.

ISSUE: Whether or not Osmeas immunity has been violated?

HELD: No. Section 15, Article VI of the 1935 Constitution enshrines parliamentary immunity upon
members of the legislature which is a fundamental privilege cherished in every parliament in a democratic
world. It guarantees the legislator complete freedom of expression without fear of being made responsible in
criminal or civil actions before the courts or any other forum outside the Hall of Congress. However, it does
Nicanor Jimenez vs Bartolome Cabangbang not protect him from responsibility before the legislative body whenever his words and conduct are
17 SCRA 876 Political Law Freedom of Speech and Debate considered disorderly or unbecoming of a member therein. Therefore, Osmeas petition is dismissed.

Bartolome Cabangbang was a member of the House of Representatives and Chairman of its Committee on
National Defense. In November 1958, Cabangbang caused the publication of an open letter addressed to the
Philippines. Said letter alleged that there have been allegedly three operational plans under serious study by Homobono Adaza vs Fernando Pacana, Jr.
some ambitious AFP officers, with the aid of some civilian political strategists. That such strategists have 135 SCRA 431 Political Law Congress Singularity of Office/Position
had collusions with communists and that the Secretary of Defense, Jesus Vargas, was planning a coup dtat
to place him as the president. The planners allegedly have Nicanor Jimenez, among others, under their Homobono Adaza was elected governor of the province of Misamis Oriental in the January 30, 1980
guise and that Jimenez et al may or may not be aware that they are being used as a tool to meet such an end. elections. He took his oath of office and started discharging his duties as provincial governor on March 3,
The letter was said to have been published in newspapers of general circulation. Jimenez then filed a case 1980. Fernando Pacana, Jr. was elected vice-governor for same province in the same elections. Under the
against Cabangbang to collect a sum of damages against Cabangbang alleging that Cabangbangs statement law, their respective terms of office would expire on March 3, 1986. On March 27, 1984, Pacana filed his
is libelous. Cabangbang petitioned for the case to be dismissed because he said that as a member of the lower certificate of candidacy for the May 14, 1984 BP elections; petitioner Adaza followed suit on April 27, 1984.
house, he is immune from suit and that he is covered by the privileged communication rule and that the said In the ensuing elections, petitioner won by placing first among the candidates, while Pacana lost. Adaza took
letter is not even libelous. his oath of office as Mambabatas Pambansa on July 19, 1984 and since then he has discharged the functions
of said office. On July 23, 1984, Pacana took his oath of office as governor of Misamis Oriental before
President Marcos, and started to perform the duties of governor on July 25, 1984. Claiming to be the lawful fact. A mere workaround to get himself involved in the litigation. What could not be done directly could not
occupant of the governors office, Adaza has brought this petition to exclude Pacana therefrom. He argues likewise be done indirectly.
that he was elected to said office for a term of six years, that he remains to be the governor of the province
until his term expires on March 3, 1986 as provided by law, and that within the context of the parliamentary
system, as in France, Great Britain and New Zealand, a local elective official can hold the position to which
he had been elected and simultaneously be an elected member of Parliament. Jose Avelino vs Mariano Cuenco
83 Phil. 17 Political Law The Legislative Department Election of
ISSUE: Whether or not Adaza can serve as a member of the Batasan and as a governor of the province Members/Quorum/Adjournment/Minutes
simultaneously. Whether or not a vice governor who ran for Congress and lost can assume his original
position and as such can, by virtue of succession, take the vacated seat of the governor. On February 18, 1949, Senator Lorenzo Taada invoked his right to speak on the senate floor to formulate
charges against the then Senate President Jose Avelino. He requested to do so on the next session (Feb. 21,
HELD: Section 10, Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution provides as follows: 1949). On the next session day however, Avelino delayed the opening of the session for about two hours.
Upon insistent demand by Taada, Mariano Cuenco, Prospero Sanidad and other Senators, Avelino was
Section 10. A member of the National Assembly [now Batasan Pambansa] shall not hold any other office forced to open session. He however, together with his allies initiated all dilatory and delaying tactics to
or employment in the government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including forestall Taada from delivering his piece. Motions being raised by Taada et al were being blocked by
government-owned or controlled corporations, during his tenure, except that of prime minister or member of Avelino and his allies and they even ruled Taada and Sanidad, among others, as being out of order.
the cabinet . . . Avelinos camp then moved to adjourn the session due to the disorder. Sanidad however countered and they
requested the said adjournment to be placed in voting. Avelino just banged his gavel and he hurriedly left his
The Philippine Constitution is clear and unambiguous. Hence Adaza cannot invoke common law practices chair and he was immediately followed by his followers. Senator Tomas Cabili then stood up, and asked that
abroad. He cannot complain of any restrictions which public policy may dictate on his holding of more than it be made of record it was so made that the deliberate abandonment of the Chair by the Avelino, made
one office. Adaza further contends that when Pacana filed his candidacy for the Batasan he became a private it incumbent upon Senate President Pro-tempore Melencio Arranz and the remaining members of the Senate
citizen because he vacated his office. Pacana, as a mere private citizen, had no right to assume the to continue the session in order not to paralyze the functions of the Senate. Taada was subsequently
governorship left vacant by petitioners election to the BP. This is not tenable and it runs afoul against BP. recognized to deliver his speech. Later, Arranz yielded to Sanidads Resolution (No. 68) that Cuenco be
697, the law governing the election of members of the BP on May 14, 1984, Section 13[2] of which elected as the Senate President. This was unanimously approved and was even recognized by the President
specifically provides that governors, mayors, members of the various sangguniang or barangay officials of the Philippines the following day. Cuenco took his oath of office thereafter. Avelino then filed a quo
shall, upon filing a certificate of candidacy, be considered on forced leave of absence from office. warranto proceeding before the SC to declare him as the rightful Senate President.
Indubitably, respondent falls within the coverage of this provision, considering that at the time he filed his
certificate of candidacy for the 1984 BP election he was a member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan as ISSUE: Whether or not the SC can take cognizance of the case.
provided in Sections 204 and 205 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 337, otherwise known as the Local Government
Code. HELD: No. By a vote of 6 to 4, the SC held that they cannot take cognizance of the case. This is in view of
the separation of powers, the political nature of the controversy and the constitutional grant to the Senate of
the power to elect its own president, which power should not be interfered with, nor taken over, by the
Eugenio Puyat vs Sixto De Guzman, Jr. judiciary. The SC should abstain in this case because the selection of the presiding officer affects only the
113 SCRA 31 Political Law The Legislative Department Appearance in Court Senators themselves who are at liberty at any time to choose their officers, change or reinstate them.
Anyway, if, as the petition must imply to be acceptable, the majority of the Senators want petitioner to
In May 1979, Eugenio Puyat and his group were elected as directors of the International Pipe Industries. The preside, his remedy lies in the Senate Session Hall not in the Supreme Court.
election was subsequently questioned by Eustaquio Acero (Puyats rival) claiming that the votes were not
properly counted hence he filed a quo warranto case before the Securities and Exchange Commission Supposed the SC can take cognizance of the case, what will be the resolution?
(SEC) on May 25, 1979. Prior to Aceros filing of the case, Estanislao Fernandez, then a member of the
Interim Batasang Pambansa purchased ten shares of stock of IPI from a member of Aceros group. And There is unanimity in the view that the session under Senator Arranz was a continuation of the morning
during a conference held by SEC Commissioner Sixto de Guzman, Jr. (from May 25-31, 1979) to have the session and that a minority of ten senators (Avelino et al) may not, by leaving the Hall, prevent the other
parties confer with each other, Estanislao Fernandez entered his appearance as counsel for Acero. Puyat (Cuenco et al) twelve senators from passing a resolution that met with their unanimous endorsement. The
objected as he argued that it is unconstitutional for an assemblyman to appear as counsel (to anyone) before answer might be different had the resolution been approved only by ten or less.
any administrative body (such as the SEC). This being cleared, Fernandez inhibited himself from appearing
as counsel for Acero. He instead filed an Urgent Motion for Intervention in the said SEC case for him to **Two senators were not present that time. Sen. Soto was in a hospital while Sen. Confesor was in the USA.
intervene, not as a counsel, but as a legal owner of IPI shares and as a person who has a legal interest in the
matter in litigation. The SEC Commissioner granted the motion and in effect granting Fernandez leave to Is the rump session (presided by Cuenco) a continuation of the morning session (presided by Avelino)? Are
intervene. there two sessions in one day? Was there a quorum constituting such session?

ISSUE: Whether or not Fernandez, acting as a stockholder of IPI, can appear and intervene in the SEC case The second session is a continuation of the morning session as evidenced by the minutes entered into the
without violating the constitutional provision that an assemblyman must not appear as counsel in such courts journal. There were 23 senators considered to be in session that time (including Soto, excluding Confesor).
or bodies? Hence, twelve senators constitute a majority of the Senate of twenty three senators. When the Constitution
declares that a majority of each House shall constitute a quorum, the House does not mean all the
HELD: No, Fernandez cannot appear before the SEC body under the guise that he is not appearing as a members. Even a majority of all the members constitute the House. There is a difference between a
counsel. Even though he is a stockholder and that he has a legal interest in the matter in litigation he is still majority of all the members of the House and a majority of the House, the latter requiring less number
barred from appearing. He bought the stocks before the litigation took place. During the conference he than the first. Therefore an absolute majority (12) of all the members of the Senate less one (23), constitutes
presented himself as counsel but because it is clearly stated that he cannot do so under the constitution he constitutional majority of the Senate for the purpose of a quorum. Furthermore, even if the twelve did not
instead presented himself as a party of interest which is clearly a workaround and is clearly an act after the constitute a quorum, they could have ordered the arrest of one, at least, of the absent members; if one had
been so arrested, there would be no doubt Quorum then, and Senator Cuenco would have been elected just (3) as a consequence of the foregoing, to issue a final writ of mandamus and injunction against the
the same inasmuch as there would be eleven for Cuenco, one against and one abstained. respondents ordering them to recognize the rights of the petitioner to exercise his office as Senator

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (filed by Avelino on March 14, 1949)

Held: As it is unlikely that the petition could be amended to state a cause of action, it must be dismissed
Avelino and his group (11 senators in all) insist that the SC take cognizance of the case and that they are without costs. Such is the judgment of the court. So ordered.
willing to bind themselves to the decision of the SC whether it be right or wrong. Avelino contends that there
is no constitutional quorum when Cuenco was elected president. There are 24 senators in all. Two are
absentee senators; one being confined and the other abroad but this does not change the number of senators Ratio: We rule that neither the Philippine Legislature nor a branch thereof can be directly controlled in the
nor does it change the majority which if mathematically construed is + 1; in this case 12 (half of 24) plus 1 exercise of their legislative powers by any judicial process. The court accordingly lacks jurisdiction to
or 13 NOT 12. There being only 12 senators when Cuenco was elected unanimously there was no quorum. consider the petition and the demurrer must be sustained.

The Supreme Court, by a vote of seven resolved to assume jurisdiction over the case in the light of The power to control is the power to abrogate and the power to abrogate is the power to usurp. Each
subsequent events which justify its intervention. The Chief Justice agrees with the result of the majoritys department may, nevertheless, indirectly restrain the others. It is peculiarly the duty of the judiciary to say
pronouncement on the quorum upon the ground that, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, the what the law is, to enforce the Constitution, and to decide whether the proper constitutional sphere of a
constitutional requirement in that regard has become a mere formalism, it appearing from the evidence that department has been transcended. The courts must determine the validity of legislative enactments as well as
any new session with a quorum would result in Cuencos election as Senate President, and that the Cuenco the legality of all private and official acts. To this extent, do the courts restrain the other departments.
group, taking cue from the dissenting opinions, has been trying to satisfy such formalism by issuing
compulsory processes against senators of the Avelino group, but to no avail, because of the Avelinos
persistent efforts to block all avenues to constitutional processes. For this reason, the SC believes that the In view of the propriety of mandamus
Cuenco group has done enough to satisfy the requirements of the Constitution and that the majoritys ruling Mandamus will not lie against the legislative body, its members, or its officers, to compel the performance of
is in conformity with substantial justice and with the requirements of public interest. Therefore Cuenco has duties purely legislative in their character which therefore pertain to their legislative functions and over
been legally elected as Senate President and the petition is dismissed. which they have exclusive control. The final arbiter in cases of dispute is the judiciary, and to this extent at
least the executive department may be said to be dependent upon and subordinate to the judiciary. . . . It is
Justice Feria: (Concurring) not the office of the person to whom the writ of mandamus is directed, but the nature of the thing to be done,
by which the propriety of issuing a mandamus is to be determined."
Art. 3 (4) Title VI of the Constitution of 1935 provided that the majority of all the members of the National In view of the Organic Law vs Power to Discipline House Members
Assembly constitute a quorum to do business and the fact that said provision was amended in the On the merits of the controversy, we will only say this: The Organic Act authorizes the Governor-General of
Constitution of 1939, so as to read a majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, the Philippine Islands to appoint two senators and nine representatives to represent the non-Christian regions
shows the intention of the framers of the Constitution to base the majority, not on the number fixed or in the Philippine Legislature. These senators and representatives "hold office until removed by the Governor-
provided for in the Constitution, but on actual members or incumbents, and this must be limited to actual General." (Organic Act, secs. 16, 17.)
members who are not incapacitated to discharge their duties by reason of death, incapacity, or absence from
the jurisdiction of the house or for other causes which make attendance of the member concerned They may not be removed by the Philippine Legislature. However, to the Senate and the House of
impossible, even through coercive process which each house is empowered to issue to compel its members Representatives, respectively, is granted the power to "punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with
to attend the session in order to constitute a quorum. That the amendment was intentional or made for some the concurrence of two-thirds, expel an elective member." (Organic Act, sec. 18.) Either House may thus
purpose, and not a mere oversight, or for considering the use of the words of all the members as punish an appointive member for disorderly behavior. Neither House may expel an appointive member for
unnecessary, is evidenced by the fact that Sec. 5 (5) Title VI of the original Constitution which required any reason. As to whether the power to "suspend" is then included in the power to "punish," a power granted
concurrence of two-thirds of the members of the National Assembly to expel a member was amended by to the two Houses of the Legislature by the Constitution, or in the power to "remove," a power granted to the
Sec. 10 (3) Article VI of the present Constitution, so as to require the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Governor-General by the Constitution, it would appear that neither is the correct hypothesis. The
members of each House. Therefore, as Senator Confesor was in the United States and absent from the Constitution has purposely withheld from the two Houses of the Legislature and the Governor-General alike
jurisdiction of the Senate, the actual members of the Senate at its session of February 21, 1949, were twenty- the power to suspend an appointive member of the Legislature.
three (23) and therefore 12 constituted a majority.

In view of effects of punishment

Punishment by way of reprimand or fine vindicates the outraged dignity of the House without depriving the
Alejandrino v Quezon G.R. No. L-22041. constituency of representation; expulsion, when permissible, likewise vindicates the honor of the legislative
body while giving to the constituency an opportunity to elect anew; but suspension deprives the electoral
Facts: "Resolved: That the Honorable Jose Alejandrino, Senator for the Twelfth District, be, as he is hereby, district of representation without that district being afforded any means by which to fill the vacancy. By
declared guilty of disorderly conduct and flagrant violation of the privileges of the Senate for having suspension, the seat remains filled but the occupant is silenced. Suspension for one year is equivalent to
treacherously assaulted the Honorable Vicente de Vera, Senator for the Sixth District on the occasion of qualified expulsion or removal.
certain, phrases being uttered by the latter in the course of the debate regarding the credentials of said Mr.
Alejandrino.
In view of no remedy
Conceding therefore that the power of the Senate to punish its members for disorderly behavior does not
Issue: Whether resolution above quoted is unconstitutional and entirely of no effect, for five reasons. He authorize it to suspend an appointive member from the exercise of his office for one year, conceding what
prays the court: has been so well stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, conceding all this and more, yet the writ
(1) To issue a preliminary injunction against the respondents enjoining them from executing the resolution; prayed for cannot issue, for the all-conclusive reason that the Supreme Court does not possess the power of
(2) to declare the aforesaid resolution of the Senate null and void; and
coercion to make the Philippine Senate take any particular action. If it be said that conclusion leaves the
petitioner without a remedy, the answer is that the judiciary is not the repository of all wisdom and all power. Ratio: To disregard the "enrolled bill" rule in such cases would be to disregard the respect due the other two
departments of our government. It would be an unwarranted invasion of the prerogative of a coequal
department for this Court either to set aside a legislative action as void because the Court thinks the House
United States vs Juan Pons has disregarded its own rules of procedure, or to allow those defeated in the political arena to seek a rematch
34 Phil. 729 Political Law Journal Conclusiveness of the Journals in the judicial forum when petitioners can find their remedy in that department itself. The Court has not been
invested with a roving commission to inquire into complaints, real or imagined, of legislative skullduggery.
Juan Pons and Gabino Beliso were trading partners. On April 5, 1914, the steamer Lopez y Lopez arrived in It would be acting in excess of its power and would itself be guilty of grave abuse of its discretion were it to
Manila from Spain and it contained 25 barrels of wine. The said barrels of wine were delivered to Beliso. do so. The suggestion made in a case may instead appropriately be made here: petitioners can seek the
Beliso subsequently delivered 5 barrels to Pons house. On the other hand, the customs authorities noticed enactment of a new law or the repeal or amendment of R.A. No. 8240. In the absence of anything to the
that the said 25 barrels listed as wine on record were not delivered to any listed merchant (Beliso not being contrary, the Court must assume that Congress or any House thereof acted in the good faith belief that its
one). And so the customs officers conducted an investigation thereby discovering that the 25 barrels of wine conduct was permitted by its rules, and deference rather than disrespect is due the judgment of that body.
actually contained tins of opium. Since the act of trading and dealing opium is against Act No. 2381, Pons
and Beliso were charged for illegally and fraudulently importing and introducing such contraband material to
the Philippines. Pons appealed the sentence arguing that Act 2381 was approved while the Philippine In view of what is essential
Commission (Congress) was not in session. He said that his witnesses claim that the said law was Merely internal rules of procedure of the House rather than constitutional requirements for the enactment of
passed/approved on 01 March 1914 while the special session of the Commission was adjourned at 12MN on a law, i.e., Art. VI, 26-27 are VIOLATED.
February 28, 1914. Since this is the case, Act 2381 should be null and void.
First, in Osmea v. Pendatun, it was held: "At any rate, courts have declared that 'the rules adopted by
ISSUE: Whether or not the SC must go beyond the recitals of the Journals to determine if Act 2381 was deliberative bodies are subject to revocation, modification or waiver at the pleasure of the body adopting
indeed made a law on February 28, 1914. them.' And it has been said that 'Parliamentary rules are merely procedural, and with their observance, the
courts have no concern. They may be waived or disregarded by the legislative body.' Consequently, 'mere
HELD: The SC looked into the Journals to ascertain the date of adjournment but the SC refused to go failure to conform to parliamentary usage will not invalidate the action (taken by a deliberative body) when
beyond the recitals in the legislative Journals. The said Journals are conclusive on the Court and to inquire the requisite number of members have agreed to a particular measure.'"
into the veracity of the journals of the Philippine Legislature, when they are, as the SC have said, clear and
explicit, would be to violate both the letter and the spirit of the organic laws by which the Philippine Rules are hardly permanent in character. The prevailing view is that they are subject to revocation,
Government was brought into existence, to invade a coordinate and independent department of the modification or waiver at the pleasure of the body adopting them as they are primarily procedural. Courts
Government, and to interfere with the legitimate powers and functions of the Legislature. Pons witnesses ordinarily have no concern with their observance. They may be waived or disregarded by the legislative
cannot be given due weight against the conclusiveness of the Journals which is an act of the legislature. The body. Consequently, mere failure to conform to them does not have the effect of nullifying the act taken if
journals say that the Legislature adjourned at 12 midnight on February 28, 1914. This settles the question, the requisite number of members have agreed to a particular measure.
and the court did not err in declining to go beyond these journals. The SC passed upon the conclusiveness of
the enrolled bill in this particular case.
In view of the Courts jurisdiction
This Court's function is merely to check whether or not the governmental branch or agency has gone beyond
Arroyo v De Venecia G.R. No. 127255. August 14, 1997. the constitutional limits of its jurisdiction, not that it erred or has a different view. In the absence of a
showing . . . of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, there is no occasion for the Court
Facts: Petitioners are members of the House of Representatives. They brought this suit against respondents to exercise its corrective power. . . . It has no power to look into what it thinks is apparent error. If, then, the
charging violation of the rules of the House which petitioners claim are "constitutionally mandated" so that established rule is that courts cannot declare an act of the legislature void on account merely of
their violation is tantamount to a violation of the Constitution. noncompliance with rules of procedure made by itself, it follows that such a case does not present a situation
in which a branch of the government has "gone beyond the constitutional limits of its jurisdiction".
In the course of his interpellation, Rep. Arroyo announced that he was going to raise a question on the
quorum, although until the end of his interpellation he never did.
In view of House Rules
On the same day, the bill was signed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the No rule of the House of Representatives has been cited which specifically requires that in cases such as this
Senate and certified by the respective secretaries of both Houses of Congress as having been finally passed involving approval of a conference committee report, the Chair must restate the motion and conduct a viva
by the House of Representatives and by the Senate on November 21, 1996. The enrolled bill was signed into voce or nominal voting.
law by President Fidel V. Ramos on November 22, 1996.
Mr. TOLENTINO. The fact that nobody objects means a unanimous action of the House. Insofar as the
matter of procedure is concerned, this has been a precedent since I came here seven years ago, and it has
Issue: Whether R.A. No. 8240 is null and void because it was passed in violation of the rules of the House; been the procedure in this House that if somebody objects, then a debate follows and after the debate, then
Whether the certification of Speaker De Venecia that the law was properly passed is false and spurious; the voting comes in.
Whether the Chair, in the process of submitting and certifying the law violated House Rules; and
Whether a certiorari/prohibition will be granted. Nor does the Constitution require that the yeas and the nays of the Members be taken every time a House has
to vote, except only in the following instances: upon the last and third readings of a bill, at the request of
one-fifth of the Members present, and in repassing a bill over the veto of the President.
Held: After considering the arguments of the parties, the Court finds no ground for holding that Congress
committed a grave abuse of discretion in enacting R.A. No. 8240. This case is therefore dismissed.
In view of grave abuse
Indeed, the phrase "grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction" has a settled conclusiveness advocate, namely, look into the journals behind the enrolled copy in order to determine the
meaning in the jurisprudence of procedure. It means such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment by correctness of the latter, and rule such copy out if the two, the journals and the copy, be found in conflict
a tribunal exercising judicial or quasi judicial power as to amount to lack of power. with each other. 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 existed it would give greater weight to the
journals, disregarding the explicit provision that duly certified copies shall be conclusive proof of the
In view of the enrolled bill doctrine provisions of such Acts and of the due enactment thereof.
Under the enrolled bill doctrine, the signing of H. No. 7198 by the Speaker of the House and the President of
the Senate and the certification by the secretaries of both Houses of Congress that it was passed on **Enrolled Bill that which has been duly introduced, finally passed by both houses, signed by the proper
November 21, 1996 are conclusive of its due enactment. officers of each, approved by the president and filed by the secretary of state.

This Court quoted from Wigmore on Evidence the following excerpt which embodies good, if old-fashioned Section 313 of the old Code of Civil Procedure (Act 190), as amended by Act No. 2210, provides: Official
democratic theory: Instead of trusting a faithful Judiciary to check an inefficient Legislature, they should documents may be proved as follows: . . . (2) the proceedings of the Philippine Commission, or of any
turn to improve the Legislature. The sensible solution is not to patch and mend casual errors by asking the legislatives body that may be provided for in the Philippine Islands, or of Congress, by the journals of those
Judiciary to violate legal principle and to do impossibilities with the Constitution; but to represent ourselves bodies or of either house thereof, or by published statutes or resolutions, or by copies certified by the clerk of
with competent, careful, and honest legislators, the work of whose hands on the statute-roll may come to secretary, or printed by their order; Provided, That in the case of Acts of the Philippine Commission or the
reflect credit upon the name of popular government. Philippine Legislature, when there is an existence of a copy signed by the presiding officers and secretaries
of said bodies, it shall be conclusive proof of the provisions of such Acts and of the due enactment thereof.

(In view of justiciability according to PUNO, J.) The SC is bound by the contents of a duly authenticated resolution (enrolled bill) by the legislature. In case
of conflict, the contents of an enrolled bill shall prevail over those of the journals.
With due respect, I do not agree that the issues posed by the petitioner are non-justiciable. Nor do I agree
that we will trivialize the principle of separation of power if we assume jurisdiction over the case at bar.
Even in the United States, the principle of separation of power is no longer an impregnable impediment Casco Philippine Chemical Co., Inc. vs Pedro Gimenez
against the interposition of judicial power on cases involving breach of rules of procedure by legislators. 7 SCRA 347 Political Law Journal Conclusiveness of the Enrolled Bill

Casco Philippine Chemical Co., Inc. (Casco) was engaged in the production of synthetic resin glues used
primarily in the production of plywood. The main components of the said glue are urea and formaldehyde
The Constitution empowers each house to determine its rules of proceedings. It may not by its rules ignore which are both being imported abroad. Pursuant to a Central Bank circular, Casco paid the required margin
constitutional restraints or violate fundamental rights, and there should be a reasonable relation between the fee for its imported urea and formaldehyde. Casco however paid in protest as it maintained that urea and
mode or method of proceedings established by the rule and the result which is sought to be attained. But formaldehyde are tax exempt transactions. The Central Bank agreed and it issued vouchers for refund. The
within these limitations all matters of method are open to the determination of the House, and it is no said vouchers were submitted to Pedro Gimenez, the then Auditor General, who denied the tax refund.
impeachment of the rule to say that some other way would be better, more accurate, or even more just. Gimenez maintained that urea and formaldehyde, as two separate and distinct components are not tax
exempt; that what is tax exempt is urea formaldehyde (the synthetic resin formed by combining urea and
formaldehyde). Gimenez cited the provision of Sec. 2, par 18 of Republic Act No. 2609 which provides:
Alejo Mabanag vs Jose Lopez Vito
78 Phil. 1 Political Law Journal Adoption of the Enrolled Bill Theory The margin established by the Monetary Board pursuant to the provision of section one hereof shall not be
imposed upon the sale of foreign exchange for the importation of the following:
Petitioners include 3 senators and 8 representatives. The three senators were suspended by senate due to
election irregularities. The 8 representatives were not allowed to take their seat in the lower House except in xxx xxx xxx
the election of the House Speaker. They argued that some senators and House Reps were not considered in
determining the required vote (of each house) in order to pass the Resolution (proposing amendments to XVIII. Urea formaldehyde for the manufacture of plywood and hardboard when imported by and for the
the Constitution) which has been considered as an enrolled bill by then. At the same time, the votes were exclusive use of end-users.
already entered into the Journals of the respective House. As a result, the Resolution was passed but it could
have been otherwise were they allowed to vote. If these members of Congress had been counted, the Casco however averred that the term urea formaldehyde appearing in this provision should be construed as
affirmative votes in favor of the proposed amendment would have been short of the necessary three-fourths urea and formaldehyde. It further contends that the bill approved in Congress contained the copulative
vote in either branch of Congress. Petitioners filed or the prohibition of the furtherance of the said resolution conjunction and between the terms urea and, formaldehyde, and that the members of Congress
amending the constitution. Respondents argued that the SC cannot take cognizance of the case because the intended to exempt urea and formaldehyde separately as essential elements in the manufacture of the
Court is bound by the conclusiveness of the enrolled bill or resolution. synthetic resin glue called urea formaldehyde, not the latter a finished product, citing in support of this
view the statements made on the floor of the Senate, during the consideration of the bill before said House,
ISSUE: Whether or not the Court can take cognizance of the issue at bar. Whether or not the said resolution by members thereof.
was duly enacted by Congress.
The enrolled bill however used the term urea formaldehyde
HELD: As far as looking into the Journals is concerned, even if both the journals from each House and an
authenticated copy of the Act had been presented, the disposal of the issue by the Court on the basis of the ISSUE: Whether or not the term urea formaldehyde should be construed as urea and formaldehyde.
journals does not imply rejection of the enrollment theory, for, as already stated, the due enactment of a law
may be proved in either of the two ways specified in section 313 of Act No. 190 as amended. The SC found HELD: No. Urea formaldehyde is not a chemical solution. It is the synthetic resin formed as a condensation
in the journals no signs of irregularity in the passage of the law and did not bother itself with considering the product from definite proportions of urea and formaldehyde under certain conditions relating to temperature,
effects of an authenticated copy if one had been introduced. It did not do what the opponents of the rule of acidity, and time of reaction. Urea formaldehyde is clearly a finished product, which is patently distinct
and different from urea and formaldehyde, as separate articles used in the manufacture of the synthetic of the franking privilege from the judiciary is in order to cut expenditure. This is untenable for if the
resin known as urea formaldehyde. Postmaster would intend to cut expenditure by removing the franking privilege of the judiciary, then they
should have removed the franking privilege all at once from all the other departments. If the problem is the
The opinions or statements of any member of Congress during the deliberation of the said law/bill do not loss of revenues from the franking privilege, the remedy is to withdraw it altogether from all agencies of the
represent the entirety of the Congress itself. What is printed in the enrolled bill would be conclusive upon the government, including those who do not need it. The problem is not solved by retaining it for some and
courts. The enrolled bill which uses the term urea formaldehyde instead of urea and formaldehyde withdrawing it from others, especially where there is no substantial distinction between those favored, which
is conclusive upon the courts as regards the tenor of the measure passed by Congress and approved by the may or may not need it at all, and the Judiciary, which definitely needs it. The problem is not solved by
President. If there has been any mistake in the printing of the bill before it was certified by the officers of violating the Constitution.
Congress and approved by the Executive on which the SC cannot speculate, without jeopardizing the
principle of separation of powers and undermining one of the cornerstones of our democratic system the The equal protection clause does not require the universal application of the laws on all persons or things
remedy is by amendment or curative legislation, not by judicial decree. without distinction (it is true that the postmaster withdraw the franking privileges from other agencies of the
government but still, the judiciary is different because its operation largely relies on the mailing of court
processes). This might in fact sometimes result in unequal protection, as where, for example, a law
Arturo Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance prohibiting mature books to all persons, regardless of age, would benefit the morals of the youth but violate
235 SCRA 630 (1994) 249 SCRA 635 (1995) Political Law Origination of Revenue Bills EVAT the liberty of adults. What the clause requires is equality among equals as determined according to a valid
Amendment by Substitution classification. By classification is meant the grouping of persons or things similar to each other in certain
particulars and different from all others in these same particulars.
Arturo Tolentino et al are questioning the constitutionality of RA 7716 otherwise known as the Expanded
Value Added Tax (EVAT) Law. Tolentino averred that this revenue bill did not exclusively originate from the In lumping the Judiciary with the other offices from which the franking privilege has been withdrawn, Sec
House of Representatives as required by Section 24, Article 6 of the Constitution. Even though RA 7716 35 has placed the courts of justice in a category to which it does not belong. If it recognizes the need of the
originated as HB 11197 and that it passed the 3 readings in the HoR, the same did not complete the 3 President of the Philippines and the members of Congress for the franking privilege, there is no reason why
readings in Senate for after the 1st reading it was referred to the Senate Ways & Means Committee thereafter it should not recognize a similar and in fact greater need on the part of the Judiciary for such privilege.
Senate passed its own version known as Senate Bill 1630. Tolentino averred that what Senate could have
done is amend HB 11197 by striking out its text and substituting it with the text of SB 1630 in that way the
bill remains a House Bill and the Senate version just becomes the text (only the text) of the HB. (Its ironic Herminio Astorga vs Antonio Villegas
however to note that Tolentino and co-petitioner Raul Roco even signed the said Senate Bill.) 56 SCRA 714 Political Law The Legislative Department Journal;When to be Consulted

ISSUE: Whether or not the EVAT law is procedurally infirm. In 1964, Antonio Villegas (then Mayor of Manila) issued circulars to the department heads and chiefs of
offices of the city government as well as to the owners, operators and/or managers of business
HELD: No. By a 9-6 vote, the Supreme Court rejected the challenge, holding that such consolidation was establishments in Manila to disregard the provisions of Republic Act No. 4065. He likewise issued an order
consistent with the power of the Senate to propose or concur with amendments to the version originated in to the Chief of Police to recall five members of the city police force who had been assigned to then Vice-
the HoR. What the Constitution simply means, according to the 9 justices, is that the initiative must come Mayor Herminio Astorga (assigned under authority of RA 4065).
from the HoR. Note also that there were several instances before where Senate passed its own version rather
than having the HoR version as far as revenue and other such bills are concerned. This practice of Astorga reacted against the steps carried out by Villegas. He then filed a petition for Mandamus, Injunction
amendment by substitution has always been accepted. The proposition of Tolentino concerns a mere matter and/or Prohibition with Preliminary Mandatory and Prohibitory Injunction to compel Villegas et al and the
of form. There is no showing that it would make a significant difference if Senate were to adopt his over members of the municipal board to comply with the provisions of RA 4065 (filed with the SC). In his
what has been done. defense, Villegas denied recognition of RA 4065 (An Act Defining the Powers, Rights and Duties of the
Philippine Judges Association vs Pete Prado Vice-Mayor of the City of Manila) because the said law was considered to have never been enacted. When
227 SCRA 703 Political Law Constitutional Law Bill of Rights Equal Protection Franking Privilege the this said law passed the 3rd reading in the lower house as House Bill No. 9266, it was sent to the
of the Judiciary Senate which referred it to the Committee on Provinces and Municipal Governments and Cities headed by
then Senator Roxas. Some minor amendments were made before the bill was referred back to the Senate
Section 35 of Republic Act No. 7354 authorized the Philippine Postal Corporation (PPC) to withdraw floor for deliberations. During such deliberations, Sen. Tolentino made significant amendments which were
franking privileges from certain government agencies. Franking privilege is a privilege granted to certain subsequently approved by the Senate. The bill was then sent back to the lower house and was thereafter
agencies to make use of the Philippine postal service free of charge. approved by the latter. The bill was sent to the President for approval and it became RA 4065. It was later
found out however that the copy signed by the Senate President, sent to the lower house for approval and
In 1992, a study came about where it was determined that the bulk of the expenditure of the postal service sent to the President for signing was the wrong version. It was in fact the version that had no amendments
comes from the judiciarys use of the postal service (issuance of court processes). Hence, the postal service thereto. It was not the version as amended by Tolentino and as validly approved by the Senate. Due to this
recommended that the franking privilege be withdrawn from the judiciary. AS a result, the PPC issued a fact, the Senate president and the President of the Philippines withdrew and invalidated their signatures that
circular withdrawing the said franking privilege. they affixed on the said law.

The Philippine Judges Association (PJA) assailed the circular and questioned the validity of Section 35 of Astorga maintains that the RA is still valid and binding and that the withdrawal of the concerned signatures
RA 7354. PJA claimed that the said provision is violative of the equal protection clause. does not invalidate the statute. Astorga further maintains that the attestation of the presiding officers of
Congress is conclusive proof of a bills due enactment.
ISSUE: Whether or not the withdrawal of the franking privilege from the judiciary is valid.
ISSUE: Whether or not RA 4065 was validly enacted.
HELD: No. The Supreme Court ruled that there is a violation of the equal protection clause. The judiciary
needs the franking privilege so badly as it is vital to its operation. Evident to that need is the high expense HELD: No. The journal of the proceedings of each House of Congress is no ordinary record. The
allotted to the judiciarys franking needs. The Postmaster cannot be sustained in contending that the removal Constitution requires it. While it is true that the journal is not authenticated and is subject to the risks of
misprinting and other errors, the journal can be looked upon in this case. The SC is merely asked to inquire Lazatin v House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 168 SCRA 391 (1988)
whether the text of House Bill No. 9266 signed by the President was the same text passed by both Houses of
Congress. Under the specific facts and circumstances of this case, the SC can do this and resort to the Senate As the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, the Electoral Tribunals of the House of
journal for the purpose. The journal discloses that substantial and lengthy amendments were introduced on Representatives and the Senate shall have the prerogative to issue a restraining order within their sound
the floor and approved by the Senate but were not incorporated in the printed text sent to the President and discretion.
signed by him. Note however that the SC is not asked to incorporate such amendments into the alleged law
but only to declare that the bill was not duly enacted and therefore did not become law. As done by both the Review of our constitutional history reveals that, except under 1973 Consti, the power to judge all contests
President of the Senate and the Chief Executive, when they withdrew their signatures therein, the SC also relating to elections has been exclusively granted to the legislative body itself not to independent party
declares that the bill intended to be as it is supposed to be was never made into law. To perpetuate that error attached to legislature. But the 1987 Consti expressly makes the Electoral Tribunals of the Senate and House
by disregarding such rectification and holding that the erroneous bill has become law would be to sacrifice of reps the sole judge of all contests relating to the election. (Art. VI, Sec 17). Respondents attempt to
truth to fiction and bring about mischievous consequences not intended by the law-making body. have the court set aside HRET resolution to defer action is undeniably premature, considering that HRET
Firdausi Abbas et al vs The Senate Electoral Tribunal had not yet taken any final action with regard to his prayer. As a rule, any final action taken by HRET on a
166 SCRA 651 Political Law The Legislative Department Electoral Tribunals Inhibition in the Senate matter within its jurisdiction shall not be reviewed by this Court.
Electoral Tribunal

In October 1987, Firdausi Abbas et al filed before the SET an election contest against 22 candidates of the Emigdio Bondoc vs Marciano Pineda
LABAN coalition who were proclaimed senators-elect in the May 11 (1987) congressional elections by the 201 SCRA 792 Political Law HRET Removal of a Member
COMELEC. The SET was at the time composed of three (3) Justices of the Supreme Court and six (6)
Senators. Abbas later on filed for the disqualification of the 6 senator members from partaking in the said Separation of Powers
election protest on the ground that all of them are interested parties to said case. Abbas argue that
considerations of public policy and the norms of fair play and due process imperatively require the mass Emigdio Bondoc and Marciano Pineda were rivals for a Congressional seat in the 4th District of Pampanga.
disqualification sought. To accommodate the proposed disqualification, Abbas suggested the following Pineda was a member of the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP). While Bondoc was a member of the
amendment: Tribunals Rules (Section 24) - requiring the concurrence of five (5) members for the Nacionalista Party (NP). Pineda won in that election. However, Bondoc contested the result in the HRET
adoption of resolutions of whatever nature - is a proviso that where more than four (4) members are (House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal). Bondoc won in the protest and he was subsequently declared
disqualified, the remaining members shall constitute a quorum, if not less than three (3) including one (1) as the winner by the HRET.
Justice, and may adopt resolutions by majority vote with no abstentions. Obviously tailored to fit the
situation created by the petition for disqualification, this would, in the context of that situation, leave the Meanwhile, one member of the HRET, Congressman Juanito Camasura, Jr. who was a member of LDP
resolution of the contest to the only three Members who would remain, all Justices of this Court, whose confessed to Rep. Jose Cojuangco (LDPs leader) that he voted for Bondoc even though Bondoc was a
disqualification is not sought. member of the NP. He confessed that he believed in his conscience that Bondoc truly won the election. This
resulted to Camasuras expulsion from the LDP. Pineda then moved that they withdraw Camasura from the
ISSUE: Whether or not Abbas proposal could be given due weight. HRET. They further prayed that a new election be held and that the new LDP representative be appointed in
the HRET. This new representative will be voting for Pineda in the reopening of the election contest.
HELD: The most fundamental objection to such proposal lies in the plain terms and intent of the Camasura was then removed by HRETs chairwoman Justice Ameurfina Herrera. Naturally, Bondoc
Constitution itself which, in its Article VI, Section 17, creates the Senate Electoral Tribunal, ordains its questioned such action before the Supreme Court (SC).
composition and defines its jurisdiction and powers.
Pineda contends that the issue is already outside the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court because Camasuras
Sec. 17. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be removal is an official act of Congress and by virtue of the doctrine of separation of powers, the judiciary
the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members. may not interfere.
Each Electoral 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 six shall be Members of the Senate or the ISSUE: Whether or not the Supreme Court may inquire upon the validity of the said act of the HRET
House of Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional without violating the doctrine of separation of powers.
representation from the political parties and the parties or organizations registered under the party-list system
represented therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman. HELD: Yes. The SC can settle the controversy in the case at bar without encroaching upon the function of
the legislature particularly a part thereof, HRET. The issue here is a judicial question. It must be noted that
It is quite clear that in providing for a SET to be staffed by both Justices of the SC and Members of the what is being complained of is the act of HRET not the act of Congress. In here, when Camasura was
Senate, the Constitution intended that both those judicial and legislative components commonly share rescinded by the tribunal, a decision has already been made, members of the tribunal have already voted
the duty and authority of deciding all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of Senators. regarding the electoral contest involving Pineda and Bondoc wherein Bondoc won. The LDP cannot
The legislative component herein cannot be totally excluded from participation in the resolution of senatorial withdraw their representative from the HRET after the tribunal has already reached a decision. They cannot
election contests, without doing violence to the spirit and intent of the Constitution. It is not to be hold the same election since the issue has already become moot and academic. LDP is merely changing their
misunderstood in saying that no Senator-Member of the SET may inhibit or disqualify himself from sitting representative to change the outcome of the election. Camasura should be reinstated because his removal
in judgment on any case before said Tribunal. Every Member of the Tribunal may, as his conscience dictates, was not due to a lawful or valid cause. Disloyalty to party is not a valid cause for termination of membership
refrain from participating in the resolution of a case where he sincerely feels that his personal interests or in the HRET. Expulsion of Camasura violates his right to security of tenure.
biases would stand in the way of an objective and impartial judgment. What SC is saying is that in the light
of the Constitution, the SET cannot legally function as such; absent its entire membership of Senators and **HRET is composed of 9 members. 3 members coming from the SC. 5 coming from the majority party
that no amendment of its Rules can confer on the three Justices-Members alone the power of valid (LDP). And 1 coming from the minority.
adjudication of a senatorial election contest.
Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution provides:
Sec. 17. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall It noted that the Allied Majority was a merely temporary combination as the Nacionalista defectors had not
be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of their respective disaffiliated from their party and permanently joined the new political group. Officially, they were still
members. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of nine Members, three of whom shall be Justices of members of the Nacionalista Party. The reorganization of the Commission on Appointments was invalid
the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six shall be members of the because it was not based on the proportional representation of the political parties in the House of
Senate or House of Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional Representatives as required by the Constitution.
representation from the political parties and the parties or organizations registered under the party list system
represented therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman. The Court held: The constitutional provision to the effect that "there shall be a Commission on Appointments
consisting of twelve (12) Senators and twelve (12) members of the House of Representatives elected by each
House, respectively, on the basis of proportional REPRESENTATION OF THE POLITICAL PARTIES
Raul Daza vs Luis Singson THEREIN," necessarily connotes the authority of each House of Congress to see to it that this requirement is
Tribunal and its Composition duly complied with. As a consequence, it may take appropriate measures, not only upon the initial
organization of the Commission, but also, subsequently thereto.
Facts: On September 16, 1988, the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino was reorganized, resulting in a
political realignment in the House of Representatives. Twenty four members of the Liberal Party formally In view of Congress authority
resigned from that party and joined the LDP, thereby swelling its number to 159 and correspondingly
reducing their former party to only 17 members. Lastly, we resolve that issue in favor of the authority of the House of Representatives to change its
representation in the Commission on Appointments to reflect at any time the changes that may transpire in
On December 5, 1988, the chamber elected a new set of representatives consisting of the original members the political alignments of its membership. It is understood that such changes must be permanent and do not
except the petitioner and including therein respondent Luis C. Singson as the additional member from the include the temporary alliances or factional divisions not involving severance of political loyalties or formal
LDP. disaffiliation and permanent shifts of allegiance from one political party to another.
In view of the Courts intervention
The petitioner came to this Court on January 13, 1989, to challenge his removal from the Commission on
Appointments and the assumption of his seat by the respondent. Briefly stated, the contention of the The Court would have preferred not to intervene in this matter, leaving it to be settled by the House of
petitioner is that he cannot be removed from the Commission on Appointments because his election thereto Representatives or the Commission on Appointments as the bodies directly involved. But as our jurisdiction
is permanent under the doctrine announced in Cunanan v. Tan. has been invoked and, more importantly, because a constitutional stalemate had to be resolved, there was no
alternative for us except to act, and to act decisively. In doing so, of course, we are not imposing our will
For his part, the respondent argues that the question raised by the petitioner is political in nature and so upon the said agencies, or substituting our discretion for theirs, but merely discharging our sworn
beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. He also maintains that he has been improperly impleaded, the real responsibility to interpret and apply the Constitution. That is a duty we do not evade, lest we ourselves
party respondent being the House of Representatives which changed its representation in the Commission on betray our oath.
Appointments and removed the petitioner. Finally, he stresses that nowhere in the Constitution is it required
that the political party be registered to be entitled to proportional representation in the Commission on
Appointments. Bara Lidasan vs Commission on Elections
21 SCRA 496 Political Law Effect if Title Does Not Completely Express the Subject

Issue: Whether petitioners removal is unconstitutional; Bara Lidasan was a resident of Parang, Cotabato. Later, Republic Act No. 4790, entitled An Act Creating
Whether the election of Sen. Cuenco and Delgado to the Electoral Tribunal is unconstitutional; the Municipality of Dianaton in the Province of Lanao del Sur, was passed. Lidasan however discovered
that certain barrios located in Cotabato were included in Dianaton, Lanao Del Sur pursuant to RA 4790.
Held: WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The temporary restraining order dated January 13, 1989, [Remarkably, even the Congressman of Cotabato voted in favor of RA 4790.] Pursuant to this law,
is LIFTED. The Court holds that the respondent has been validly elected as a member of the Commission on COMELEC proceeded to establish precincts for voter registration in the said territories of Dianaton. Lidasan
Appointments and is entitled to assume his seat in that body pursuant to Article VI, Section 18, of the then filed a case to have RA 4790 be nullified for being unconstitutional. He averred that the law did not
Constitution. No pronouncement as to costs. clearly indicate in its title that in creating Dianaton, it would be including in its territory several barrios from
Cotabato.
Ratio: If by reason of successful election protests against members of a House, or of their expulsion from the
political party to which they belonged and/or of their affiliation with another political party, the ratio in the ISSUE: Is RA 4790, which created Dianaton but which includes barrios located in another province
representation of the political parties in the House is materially changed, the House is clothed with authority Cotabato to be spared from attack planted upon the constitutional mandate that No bill which may be
to declare vacant the necessary number of seats in the Commission on Appointments held by members of enacted into law shall embrace more than one subject which shall be expressed in the title of the bill?
said House belonging to the political party adversely affected by the change and then fill said vacancies in
conformity with the Constitution. HELD: No. The said law is void. The baneful effect of the defective title here presented is not so difficult to
perceive. Such title did not inform the members of Congress as to the full impact of the law; it did not
In view of the Allied Majority of 1961 apprise the people in the towns of Buldon and Parang in Cotabato and in the province of Cotabato itself that
part of their territory is being taken away from their towns and province and added to the adjacent Province
In the election for the House of Representatives held in 1961, 72 seats were won by the Nacionalista Party, of Lanao del Sur; it kept the public in the dark as to what towns and provinces were actually affected by the
29 by the Liberal Party and 1 by an independent. Accordingly, the representation of the chamber in the bill that even a Congressman from Cotabato voted for it only to find out later on that it is to the prejudice of
Commission on Appointments was apportioned to 8 members from the Nacionalista Party and 4 from the his own province. These are the pressures which heavily weigh against the constitutionality of RA 4790.
Liberal Party. Subsequently, 25 members of the Nacionalista Party, professing discontent over the House
leadership, made common cause with the Liberal Party and formed what was called the Allied Majority to
install a new Speaker and reorganize the chamber. Philippine Constitution Association, Inc. vs Pedro Gimenez
15 SCRA 479 Political Law Salaries of the Members of Congress Other Emolument
 RA 3836 provides for an increase in the emoluments of Senators and Members of the House of
Philippine Constitution Association, Inc (PHILCONSA) assails the validity of Republic Act No. 3836 Representatives, to take effect upon the approval of said Act, which was on June 22, 1963. Retirement
insofar as the same allows retirement gratuity and commutation of vacation and sick leave to Senators and benefits were immediately available thereunder, without awaiting the expiration of the full term of all the
Representatives. PHILCONSA now seeks to enjoin Pedor Gimenez, the Auditor General, from disbursing Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives approving such increase. Such provision clearly
funds therefor. runs counter to the prohibition in Article VI, Section 14 of the Constitution. RA 3836 is hereby declared
unconstitutional by the SC.
According to PHILCONSA, the provision on retirement gratuity is an attempt to circumvent the
Constitutional ban on increase of salaries of the members of Congress during their term of office, contrary to
the provisions of Article VI, Section 14 of the Constitution. The same provision constitutes selfish class Tobias vs Abalos
legislation because it allows members and officers of Congress to retire after twelve (12) years of service Facts: Complainants, invoking their right as taxpayers and as residents of Mandaluyong, filed a petition
and gives them a gratuity equivalent to one year salary for every four years of service, which is not questioning the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 7675, otherwise known as "An Act Converting the
refundable in case of reinstatement or re-election of the retiree, while all other officers and employees of the Municipality of Mandaluyong into a Highly Urbanized City to be known as the City of Mandaluyong."
government can retire only after at least twenty (20) years of service and are given a gratuity which is only Before the enactment of the law, Mandaluyong and San Juan belonged to the same legislative district.
equivalent to one month salary for every year of service, which, in any case, cannot exceed 24 months. The The petitioners contended that the act is unconstitutional for violation of three provisions of the constitution.
provision on vacation and sick leave, commutable at the highest rate received, insofar as members of First, it violates the one subject one bill rule. The bill provides for the conversion of Mandaluyong to HUC
Congress are concerned, is another attempt of the legislator to further increase their compensation in as well as the division of congressional district of San Juan and Mandaluyong into two separate district.
violation of the Constitution. Second, it also violate Section 5 of Article VI of the Constitution, which provides that the House of
Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed
The Solicitor General, arguing for Congress, averred that the grant of retirement or pension benefits under by law. The division of San Juan and Mandaluyong into separate congressional districts increased the
Republic Act No. 3836 to the officers does not constitute forbidden compensation within the meaning of members of the House of Representative beyond that provided by the Constitution. Third, Section 5 of
Section 14 of Article VI of the Philippine Constitution. The law in question does not constitute class Article VI also provides that within three years following the return of every census, the Congress shall
legislation. The payment of commutable vacation and sick leave benefits under the said Act is merely in the make a reapportionment of legislative districts based on the standard provided in Section 5. Petitioners stated
nature of a basis for computing the gratuity due each retiring member and, therefore, is not an indirect that the division was not made pursuant to any census showing that the minimum population requirement
scheme to increase their salary. was attained.

ISSUE: Whether or not RA 3836 is constitutional. Issue:

(1) Does RA 7675 violate the one subject one bill rule?
HELD: No, the said law is unconstitutional. Section 14, Article VI, of the Constitution, provides: (2) Does it violate Section 5(1) of Article VI of the Constitution on the limit of number of rep?
(3) Is the inexistence of mention of census in the law show a lack of constitutional requirement?
The senators and the Members of the House of Representatives shall, unless otherwise provided by law,
receive an annual compensation of seven thousand two hundred pesos each, including per diems and other Rulings: The Supreme Court ruled that the contentions are devoid of merit. With regards to the first
emoluments or allowances, and exclusive only of travelling expenses to and from their respective district in contention of one subject one bill rule, the creation of a separate congressional district for Mandaluyong is
the case of Members of the House of Representatives and to and from their places of residence in the case of not a separate and distinct subject from its conversion into a HUC but is a natural and logical consequence.
Senators, when attending sessions of the Congress. No increase in said compensation shall take effect until In addition, a liberal construction of the "one title-one subject" rule has been invariably adopted by this court
after the expiration of the full term of all the Members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives so as not to cripple or impede legislation.
approving such increase. Until otherwise provided by law, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the The second contention that the law violates the present limit of the number of representatives, the provision
House of Representatives shall each receive an annual compensation of sixteen thousand pesos. of the section itself show that the 250 limit is not absolute. The Constitution clearly provides that the House
of Representatives shall be composed of not more than 250 members, "unless otherwise provided by law.
When the Constitutional Convention first determined the compensation for the Members of Congress, the Therefore, the increase in congressional representation mandated by R.A. No. 7675 is not unconstitutional.
amount fixed by it was only P5,000.00 per annum but it embodies a special proviso which reads as follows: With regards, to the third contention that there is no mention in the assailed law of any census to show that
Mandaluyong and San Juan had each attained the minimum requirement of 250,000 inhabitants to justify
No increase in said compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of the full term of all the their separation into two legislative districts, unless otherwise proved that the requirements were not met, the
members of the National Assembly elected subsequent to approval of such increase. said Act enjoys the presumption of having passed through the regular congressional processes, including due
consideration by the members of Congress of the minimum requirements for the establishment of separate
In other words, under the original constitutional provision regarding the power of the National Assembly to legislative district
increase the salaries of its members, no increase would take effect until after the expiration of the full term of The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
the members of the Assembly elected subsequent to the approval of such increase.

The Constitutional provision in the aforementioned Section 14, Article VI, includes in the term Bolinao Electronics Corporation vs Brigido Valencia
compensation other emoluments. 11 SCRA 486 Political Law Veto Power Condition Attached to an Item

Emolument is the profit arising from office or employment; that which is received as compensation for Bolinao Electronics Corporation was the co-owner and a co-petitioner of Chronicle Broadcasting Network,
services or which is annexed to the possession of an office, as salary, fees and perquisites. Inc. (CBN) and Montserrat Broadcasting System Inc. They operate and own television (channel 9) and radio
stations in the Philippines. They were summoned by Brigido Valencia, then Secretary of Communications,
It is evident that retirement benefit is a form or another species of emolument, because it is a part of for operating even after their permit has expired. Valencia claimed that because of CBNs continued
compensation for services of one possessing any office. operation sans license and their continuing operation had caused damages to his department.

ISSUE: Whether or not Valencia is entitled to claim for damages.

 the relatives of the President or Mr. Ricardo Lopa had violated Section 5 of RA No. 3019, the Anti-Graft
HELD: The SC ruled in the negative. Valencia failed to show that any right of his has been violated by the and Corrupt Practices Act, a matter that appears more within the province of the courts rather than of the
refusal of CBN to cease operation. Further, the SC noted that as the records show, the appropriation to legislature. Besides, the Court may take judicial notice that Mr. Ricardo Lopa died during the pendency of
operate the Philippine Broadcasting Service as approved by Congress and incorporated in the 1962-1963 this case.
Budget of the Republic of the Philippines does not allow appropriations for TV stations particularly in
Luzon. Hence, since there was no appropriation allotted then there can be no damage; and if there are
expenditures made by Valencias department they are in fact in violation of the law and they cannot claim
damages therefrom. And even if it is shown that the then president vetoed this provision of the Budget Act,
such veto is illegal because he may not legally veto a condition attached to an appropriation or item in the
appropriation bill. Senate of the Philippines vs Executive Secretary Ermita
495 SCRA 170 Political Law Constitutional Law Legislative Branch Question Hour
Note: This ruling, that the executives veto power does not carry with it the power to strike out conditions or Constitutionality of E.O. 464
restrictions, has been adhered to in subsequent cases. If the veto is unconstitutional, it follows that the same
produced no effect whatsoever; and the restriction imposed by the appropriation bill, therefore, remains. In 2005, scandals involving anomalous transactions about the North Rail Project as well as the Garci tapes
surfaced. This prompted the Senate to conduct a public hearing to investigate the said anomalies particularly
the alleged overpricing in the NRP. The investigating Senate committee issued invitations to certain
department heads and military officials to speak before the committee as resource persons. Ermita submitted
that he and some of the department heads cannot attend the said hearing due to pressing matters that need
immediate attention. AFP Chief of Staff Senga likewise sent a similar letter. Drilon, the senate president,
excepted the said requests for they were sent belatedly and arrangements were already made and scheduled.
Jose Bengzon, Jr. vs Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Subsequently, GMA issued EO 464 which took effect immediately.
203 SCRA 767 Political Law Constitutional Law The Legislative Department Inquiry in Aid of
Legislation When not Allowed EO 464 basically prohibited Department heads, Senior officials of executive departments who in the
judgment of the department heads are covered by the executive privilege; Generals and flag officers of the
It was alleged that Benjamin Kokoy Romualdez and his wife together with the Marcoses unlawfully and Armed Forces of the Philippines and such other officers who in the judgment of the Chief of Staff are
unjustly enriched themselves at the expense of the Filipino people. That they obtained with the help of the covered by the executive privilege; Philippine National Police (PNP) officers with rank of chief
Bengzon Law Office and Ricardo Lopa Corys brother in law, among others, control over some of the superintendent or higher and such other officers who in the judgment of the Chief of the PNP are covered by
biggest business enterprises in the country including MERALCO, PCI Bank, Shell Philippines and Benguet the executive privilege; Senior national security officials who in the judgment of the National Security
Consolidated Mining Corporation. Adviser are covered by the executive privilege; and Such other officers as may be determined by the
President, from appearing in such hearings conducted by Congress without first securing the presidents
Senator Juan Ponce Enrile subsequently delivered a privilege speech alleging that Lopa took over various approval.
government owned corporations which is in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Contained
in the speech is a motion to investigate on the matter. The motion was referred to the Committee on The department heads and the military officers who were invited by the Senate committee then invoked EO
Accountability of Public Officers or the Blue Ribbon Committee. After committee hearing, Lopa refused to 464 to except themselves. Despite EO 464, the scheduled hearing proceeded with only 2 military personnel
testify before the committee for it may unduly prejudice a pending civil case against him. Bengzon likewise attending. For defying President Arroyos order barring military personnel from testifying before legislative
refused invoking his right to due process. Lopa however sent a letter to Enrile categorically denying his inquiries without her approval, Brig. Gen. Gudani and Col. Balutan were relieved from their military posts
allegations and that his allegations are baseless and malicious. and were made to face court martial proceedings. EO 464s constitutionality was assailed for it is alleged that
it infringes on the rights and duties of Congress to conduct investigation in aid of legislation and conduct
Enrile subsequently took advantage of the Senates privilege hour upon which he insisted to have an inquiry oversight functions in the implementation of laws.
regarding the matter. The SBRC rejected Lopas and Bengzons plea.
ISSUE: Whether or not EO 464 is constitutional.
Claiming that the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee is poised to subpoena them and require their attendance
and testimony in proceedings before the Committee, in excess of its jurisdiction and legislative purpose, in HELD: The SC ruled that EO 464 is constitutional in part. To determine the validity of the provisions of EO
clear and blatant disregard of their constitutional rights, and to their grave and irreparable damage, prejudice 464, the SC sought to distinguish Section 21 from Section 22 of Art 6 of the 1987 Constitution. The
and injury, and that there is no appeal nor any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary Congress power of inquiry is expressly recognized in Section 21 of Article VI of the Constitution. Although
course of law, Bengzon et al filed a petition for prohibition with a prayer for temporary restraining order there is no provision in the Constitution expressly investing either House of Congress with power to make
and/or injunctive relief against the SBRC. investigations and exact testimony to the end that it may exercise its legislative functions advisedly and
effectively, such power is so far incidental to the legislative function as to be implied. In other words, the
ISSUE: Whether or not the inquiry sought by the SBRC be granted. power of inquiry with process to enforce it is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative
function. A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting
HELD: No, the inquiry cannot be given due course. The speech of Enrile contained no suggestion of the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change; and where the legislative body does not
contemplated legislation; he merely called upon the Senate to look into a possible violation of Sec. 5 of RA itself possess the requisite information which is not infrequently true recourse must be had to others who
No. 3019, otherwise known as The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. In other words, the purpose of do possess it.
the inquiry to be conducted by the Blue Ribbon Committee was to find out whether or not the relatives of
Cory, particularly Lopa, had violated the law in connection with the alleged sale of the 36 or 39 corporations Section 22 on the other hand provides for the Question Hour. The Question Hour is closely related with the
belonging to Kokoy to the Lopa Group. There appears to be, therefore, no intended legislation involved. legislative power, and it is precisely as a complement to or a supplement of the Legislative Inquiry. The
Hence, the contemplated inquiry by the SBRC is not really in aid of legislation because it is not related to appearance of the members of Cabinet would be very, very essential not only in the application of check and
a purpose within the jurisdiction of Congress, since the aim of the investigation is to find out whether or not balance but also, in effect, in aid of legislation. Section 22 refers only to Question Hour, whereas, Section 21
would refer specifically to inquiries in aid of legislation, under which anybody for that matter, may be tried to bribe him with P200M in exchange for his approval of the NBN project. He further narrated that he
summoned and if he refuses, he can be held in contempt of the House. A distinction was thus made between informed President Arroyo about the bribery attempt and that she instructed him not to accept the bribe.
inquiries in aid of legislation and the question hour. While attendance was meant to be discretionary in the However, when probed further on what they discussed about the NBN Project, Neri refused to answer,
question hour, it was compulsory in inquiries in aid of legislation. Sections 21 and 22, therefore, while invoking executive privilege. In particular, he refused to answer the questions on (a) whether or not
closely related and complementary to each other, should not be considered as pertaining to the same power President Arroyo followed up the NBN Project, (b) whether or not she directed him to prioritize it, and (c)
of Congress. One specifically relates to the power to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation, the aim of which whether or not she directed him to approve. He later refused to attend the other hearings and Ermita sent a
is to elicit information that may be used for legislation, while the other pertains to the power to conduct a letter to the SBRC averring that the communications between GMA and Neri is privileged and that the
question hour, the objective of which is to obtain information in pursuit of Congress oversight function. jurisprudence laid down in Senate vs Ermita be applied. The SBRC cited Neri for contempt.
Ultimately, the power of Congress to compel the appearance of executive officials under Section 21 and the
lack of it under Section 22 find their basis in the principle of separation of powers. ISSUE: Whether or not the three questions sought by the SBRC to be answered falls under executive
privilege.
While the executive branch is a co-equal branch of the legislature, it cannot frustrate the power of Congress
to legislate by refusing to comply with its demands for information. When Congress exercises its power of HELD: The oversight function of Congress may be facilitated by compulsory process only to the extent that
inquiry, the only way for department heads to exempt themselves therefrom is by a valid claim of privilege. it is performed in pursuit of legislation.
They are not exempt by the mere fact that they are department heads. Only one executive official may be
exempted from this power the President on whom executive power is vested, hence, beyond the reach of The communications elicited by the three (3) questions are covered by the presidential communications
Congress except through the power of impeachment. It is based on her being the highest official of the privilege.
executive branch, and the due respect accorded to a co-equal branch of government which is sanctioned by a
long-standing custom. The requirement then to secure presidential consent under Section 1, limited as it is 1st, the communications relate to a quintessential and non-delegable power of the President, i.e. the power
only to appearances in the question hour, is valid on its face. For under Section 22, Article VI of the to enter into an executive agreement with other countries. This authority of the President to enter into
Constitution, the appearance of department heads in the question hour is discretionary on their part. Section executive agreements without the concurrence of the Legislature has traditionally been recognized in
1 cannot, however, be applied to appearances of department heads in inquiries in aid of legislation. Philippine jurisprudence.
Congress is not bound in such instances to respect the refusal of the department head to appear in such
inquiry, unless a valid claim of privilege is subsequently made, either by the President herself or by the 2nd, the communications are received by a close advisor of the President. Under the operational
Executive Secretary. proximity test, petitioner can be considered a close advisor, being a member of President Arroyos cabinet.
And
When Congress merely seeks to be informed on how department heads are implementing the statutes which
it has issued, its right to such information is not as imperative as that of the President to whom, as Chief 3rd, there is no adequate showing of a compelling need that would justify the limitation of the privilege and
Executive, such department heads must give a report of their performance as a matter of duty. In such of the unavailability of the information elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority.
instances, Section 22, in keeping with the separation of powers, states that Congress may only request their
appearance. Nonetheless, when the inquiry in which Congress requires their appearance is in aid of
legislation under Section 21, the appearance is mandatory for the same reasons stated in Arnault.
Abakada Guro Party-list et. al vs. Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 168056)
Read full text Facts:
On May 24, 2005, the President signed into law Republic Act 9337 or the VAT Reform Act. Before the law
NOTES: The SC ruled that Section 1 and Section 2a are valid. The rest invalid. took effect on July 1, 2005, the Court issued a TRO enjoining government from implementing the law in
response to a slew of petitions for certiorari and prohibition questioning the constitutionality of the new law.
On March 6, 2008, President Arroyo issued Memorandum Circular No. 151, revoking Executive Order No.
464 and Memorandum Circular No. 108. She advised executive officials and employees to follow and abide The challenged section of R.A. No. 9337 is the common proviso in Sections 4, 5 and 6: That the President,
by the Constitution, existing laws and jurisprudence, including, among others, the case of Senate v. Ermita upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Finance, shall, effective January 1, 2006, raise the rate of
when they are invited to legislative inquiries in aid of legislation. value-added tax to 12%, after any of the following conditions has been satisfied:

(i) Value-added tax collection as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the previous year
Romulo Neri vs Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers exceeds two and four-fifth percent (2 4/5%);
549 SCRA 77 Political Law Constitutional Law The Legislative Department Inquiry in aid of
legislation Executive Privilege or (ii) National government deficit as a percentage of GDP of the previous year exceeds one and one-half
percent (1%)
Legislative (Sec 21) & Oversight (Sec 22) Powers
Petitioners allege that the grant of stand-by authority to the President to increase the VAT rate is an
In April April 2007, DOTC entered into a contract with Zhong Xing Telecommunications Equipment (ZTE) abdication by Congress of its exclusive power to tax because such delegation is not covered by Section 28
for the supply of equipment and services for the National Broadband Network (NBN) Project in the amount (2), Article VI Consti. They argue that VAT is a tax levied on the sale or exchange of goods and services
of $329,481,290.00 (approximately P16 Billion Pesos). The Project was to be financed by the Peoples which cant be included within the purview of tariffs under the exemption delegation since this refers to
Republic of China. The Senate passed various resolutions relative to the NBN deal. On the other hand, Joe customs duties, tolls or tribute payable upon merchandise to the government and usually imposed on
De Venecia issued a statement that several high executive officials and power brokers were using their imported/exported goods.
influence to push the approval of the NBN Project by the NEDA.
Petitioners further alleged that delegating to the President the legislative power to tax is contrary to
Neri, the head of NEDA, was then invited to testify before the Senate Blue Ribbon. He appeared in one republicanism. They insist that accountability, responsibility and transparency should dictate the actions of
hearing wherein he was interrogated for 11 hrs and during which he admitted that Abalos of COMELEC Congress and they should not pass to the President the decision to impose taxes. They also argue that the law
also effectively nullified the Presidents power of control, which includes the authority to set aside and Congress does not abdicate its functions or unduly delegate power when it describes what job must be done,
nullify the acts of her subordinates like the Secretary of Finance, by mandating the fixing of the tax rate by who must do it, and what is the scope of his authority; in our complex economy that is frequently the only
the President upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice. way in which the legislative process can go forward.

There is no undue delegation of legislative power but only of the discretion as to the execution of a law. This
Issue: is constitutionally permissible. Congress did not delegate the power to tax but the mere implementation of
Whether or not the RA 9337's stand-by authority to the Executive to increase the VAT rate, especially on the law.
account of the recommendatory power granted to the Secretary of Finance, constitutes undue delegation of
legislative power?
Garcia vs Mata
G.R. No. L-33713 July 30, 1975

Ruling: Facts:
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 is the authority to make a The donation of the property to the government to make the property public does not cure the constitutional
complete law- complete as to the time when it shall take effect and as to whom it shall be applicable, and to defect. The fact that the law was passed when the said property was still a private property cannot be
determine the expediency of its enactment. It is the nature of the power and not the liability of its use or the ignored. In accordance with the rule that the taxing power must be exercised for public purposes only,
manner of its exercise which determines the validity of its delegation. money raised by taxation can be expanded only for public purposes and not for the advantage of private
individuals. Inasmuch as the land on which the projected feeder roads were to be constructed belonged then
The exceptions are: to Zulueta, the result is that said appropriation sought a private purpose, and, hence, was null and void.
Issue:
(a) delegation of tariff powers to President under Constitution
(b) delegation of emergency powers to President under Constitution Whether RA 1600 is valid. Does it contain rider in an appropriation bill?
(c) delegation to the people at large Held:
(d) delegation to local governments
(e) delegation to administrative bodies The incongruity and irrelevancy are already evident. Section 11 of RA 1600 fails to disclose the relevance to
any appropriation item. RA 1600 is an appropriation law for the operation of government while Section 11
For the delegation to be valid, it must be complete and it must fix a standard. A sufficient standard is one refers to a fundamental governmental policy of calling to active duty and the reversion of inactive statute of
which defines legislative policy, marks its limits, maps out its boundaries and specifies the public agency to reserve officers in the AFP.
apply it.
Hence it was A NON-APPROPRIATION ITEM INSERTED IN AN APPROPRIATION MEASURE, in
In this case, it is not a delegation of legislative power BUT a delegation of ascertainment of facts upon which violation of the constitutional prohibition against RIDERS to the general appropriation act. It was indeed a
enforcement and administration of the increased rate under the law is contingent. The legislature has made new and completely unrelated provision attached to the GAA.
the operation of the 12% rate effective January 1, 2006, contingent upon a specified fact or condition. It
leaves the entire operation or non-operation of the 12% rate upon factual matters outside of the control of the It also violates the rule on one-bill, one subject. The subject to be considered must be expressed in the title of
executive. No discretion would be exercised by the President. Highlighting the absence of discretion is the the act. When an act contains provisions which are clearly not embraced in the subject of the act, as
fact that the word SHALL is used in the common proviso. The use of the word SHALL connotes a expressed in the title, such provisions are void, inoperative and without effect.
mandatory order. Its use in a statute denotes an imperative obligation and is inconsistent with the idea of
discretion. SECTION 11 is unconstitutional. Garcia cannot compel the AFP to reinstate him.

Thus, it is the ministerial duty of the President to immediately impose the 12% rate upon the existence of any
of the conditions specified by Congress. This is a duty, which cannot be evaded by the President. It is a clear
directive to impose the 12% VAT rate when the specified conditions are present.

Congress just granted the Secretary of Finance the authority to ascertain the existence of a fact--- whether by
December 31, 2005, the VAT collection as a percentage of GDP of the previous year exceeds 2 4/5 % or the
national government deficit as a percentage of GDP of the previous year exceeds one and 1%. If either of Gregorio Aglipay vs Juan Ruiz
these two instances has occurred, the Secretary of Finance, by legislative mandate, must submit such 64 Phil. 201 Political Law Appropriation Religious Sect Religious Freedom
information to the President.
The 33rd International Eucharistic Congress organized by the Roman Catholic Church took place sometime
In making his recommendation to the President on the existence of either of the two conditions, the Secretary in 1936. In commemoration thereof. then Director of Posts, Juan Ruiz, initiated the production of certain
of Finance is not acting as the alter ego of the President or even her subordinate. He is acting as the agent of stamps the design of which would have in their center a chalice, with grape and stalks of wheat as border
the legislative department, to determine and declare the event upon which its expressed will is to take effect. design. Eventually, the stamps were produced and some were sold pursuant to Act No. 4052, which provides
The Secretary of Finance becomes the means or tool by which legislative policy is determined and for appropriation.
implemented, considering that he possesses all the facilities to gather data and information and has a much
broader perspective to properly evaluate them. His function is to gather and collate statistical data and other Gregorio Aglipay, the head of the Philippine Independent Church, assailed the production and sale of such
pertinent information and verify if any of the two conditions laid out by Congress is present. stamps. Aglipay contends that the funding of said stamps commemorative to a particular religious event is in
violation of Sec 13, Article 6 of the Philippine Constitution which prohibits the appropriation or usage of intended to facilitate the worship of the patron saint (such as the acquisition and display of his image) cannot
public money for the use or benefit of any church or denomination. be branded as illegal. As noted in the resolution, the barrio fiesta is a socio-religious affair. Its celebration is
an ingrained tradition in rural communities. The fiesta relieves the monotony and drudgery of the lives of the
ISSUE: Whether or not the production of the said stamps violate the Constitution. masses.

HELD: No. The sale of stamps is not in violation of the Constitution. In fact, what was emphasized on the
stamps was not the religious event itself but rather the City of Manila as being the seat of such event. Act LLADOC VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
No. 4052 on the other hand did not appropriate any public money to a religious event. Act No. 4052 [14 SCRA 292; NO.L-19201; 16 JUN 1965]
appropriated the sum of P60,000.00 for the cost of plates and printing of postage stamps with new designs
and other expenses incident thereto, and merely authorizes the Director of Posts, with the approval of the Facts: Sometime in 1957, M.B. Estate Inc., of Bacolod City, donated 10,000.00 pesos in cash to Fr. Crispin
Secretary of Public Works and Communications, to dispose of the amount appropriated in the manner Ruiz, the parish priest of Victorias, Negros Occidental, and predecessor of Fr. Lladoc, for the construction of
indicated and as often as may be deemed advantageous to the Government. The fact that the fund is being a new Catholic church in the locality. The donated amount was spent for such purpose.
used for such is only incidental to the function of Director of Posts and under his discretion.
On March 3, 1958, the donor M.B. Estate filed the donor's gift tax return. Under date of April 29, 1960.
On religious freedom Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued an assessment for the donee's gift tax against the Catholic Parish
of Victorias of which petitioner was the parish priest.
The Supreme Court noted however that the elevating influence of religion is recognized here as elsewhere.
Evidence would be our preamble where we implored the aid of divine providence to establish an ideal
government. If should also be further noted that religious freedom as a constitutional mandate is not an Issue: Whether or not the imposition of gift tax despite the fact the Fr. Lladoc was not the Parish priest at the
inhibition of profound reverence to religion. time of donation, Catholic Parish priest of Victorias did not have juridical personality as the constitutional
exemption for religious purpose is valid.

ANDRES GARCES vs. Hon. NUMERIANO G. ESTENZO

G.R. No. L-53487. May 25, 1981. Held: Yes, imposition of the gift tax was valid, under Section 22(3) Article VI of the Constitution
contemplates exemption only from payment of taxes assessed on such properties as Property taxes contra
FACTS: distinguished from Excise taxes The imposition of the gift tax on the property used for religious purpose is
Pursuant to Resolution No. 5 of the Barangay Council of Valencia, Ormoc City, a wooden image of San not a violation of the Constitution. A gift tax is not a property by way of gift inter vivos.
Vicente Ferrer was acquired by the barangay council with funds raised by means of solicitations and cash,
duly ratified by the barangay assembly in a plebiscite, reviving the traditional socio-religious celebration of The head of the Diocese and not the parish priest is the real party in interest in the imposition of the donee's
the feast day of the saint. As per Resolution No. 6, the image was brought to the Catholic parish church tax on the property donated to the church for religious purpose.
during the saint's feast day which also designated the hermano mayor as the custodian of the image. After the
fiesta, however, petitioner parish priest, Father Sergio Marilao Osmea, refused to return custody of the
image to the council on the pretext that it was the property of the church because church funds were used for LLADOC VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
its acquisition until after the latter, by resolution, filed a replevin case against the priest and posted the [14 SCRA 292; NO.L-19201; 16 JUN 1965]
required bond. Thereafter, the parish priest and his co-petitioners filed an action for annulment of the
council's resolutions relating to the subject image contending that when they were adopted, the barangay Facts: Sometime in 1957, M.B. Estate Inc., of Bacolod City, donated 10,000.00 pesos in cash to Fr. Crispin
council was not duly constituted because the chairman of the Kabataang Barangay was not allowed to Ruiz, the parish priest of Victorias, Negros Occidental, and predecessor of Fr. Lladoc, for the construction of
participate; and that they contravened the constitutional provisions on separation of church and state, a new Catholic church in the locality. The donated amount was spent for such purpose.
freedom of religion and the use of public money to favor any sect or church.
On March 3, 1958, the donor M.B. Estate filed the donor's gift tax return. Under date of April 29, 1960.
ISSUE: Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued an assessment for the donee's gift tax against the Catholic Parish
Whether the barangay council's resolution providing for purchase of saint's image with private funds in of Victorias of which petitioner was the parish priest.
connection with barangay fiesta, constitutional.

Issue: Whether or not the imposition of gift tax despite the fact the Fr. Lladoc was not the Parish priest at the
HELD: time of donation, Catholic Parish priest of Victorias did not have juridical personality as the constitutional
Yes. Resolution No. 5 of the barangay council of Valenzuela, Ormoc City, "reviving the traditional socio- exemption for religious purpose is valid.
religious celebration" every fifth day of April "of the feast day of Seor San Vicente Ferrer, the patron saint
of Valenzuela", and providing for: (I) the acquisition of the image of San Vicente Ferrer; and (2) the
construction of a waiting shed as the barangay's projects, funds for which would be obtained through the Held: Yes, imposition of the gift tax was valid, under Section 22(3) Article VI of the Constitution
"selling of tickets and cash donations", does not directly or indirectly establish any religion, nor abridge contemplates exemption only from payment of taxes assessed on such properties as Property taxes contra
religious liberty, nor appropriate money for the benefit of any sect, priest or clergyman. The image was distinguished from Excise taxes The imposition of the gift tax on the property used for religious purpose is
purchased with private funds, not with tax money. The construction of the waiting shed is entirely a secular not a violation of the Constitution. A gift tax is not a property by way of gift inter vivos.
matter. The wooden image was purchased in connection with the celebration of the barrio fiesta honoring the
patron saint, San Vicente Ferrer, and not for the purpose of favoring any religion or interfering with religious The head of the Diocese and not the parish priest is the real party in interest in the imposition of the donee's
beliefs of the barrio residents. One of the highlights of the fiesta was the mass. Consequently, the image of tax on the property donated to the church for religious purpose
the patron saint had to be placed in the church when the mass was celebrated. If there is nothing
unconstitutional or illegal in holding a fiesta and having a patron saint for the barrio, then any activity