Essence. In essence, separation of powers means that 2. Executive power to the President
legislation belongs to Congress, execution to the executive,
settlement of legal controversies to the judiciary. Each is SECTION 1. The executive power shall be
prevented from invading the domain of others. (Bernas, vested in the President of the Philippines.
Commentary 656, 2003 ed.)
3. Judicial power to the SC and the lower courts
Division and Assignment. Its starting point is the
assumption of the division of the functions of the SECTION 1. The judicial power shall be
government into three distinct classesthe executive, the vested in one Supreme Court and in such
legislative and the judicial. Its essence consists in the lower courts as may be established by law.
assignment of each class of functions to one of the three
organs of government. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts
of justice to settle actual controversies
Theory. The theory is that a power definitely assigned by involving rights which are legally demandable
the Constitution to one department can neither be and enforceable, and to determine whether or
surrendered nor delegated by that department, nor vested not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
by statute in another department or agency. amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on
the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
Reason. The underlying reason of this principle is the Government.
assumption that arbitrary rule and abuse o authority would
inevitably result from the concentration of the three powers 4. Others (e.g. powers of the independent
of government in the same person, body of persons or constitutional bodies)
organ.
B. Implied
More specifically, according to Justice Laurel, the doctrine
of separation of powers is intended to: 1. Doctrine of Necessary Implication: the grant
1. Secure action of express power carries with it the grant of
2. To forestall overaction other powers that can be reasonably inferred
3. To prevent despotism therefrom
4. To obtain efficiency
2. Examples
History. Separation of powers became the pith and core of i. Power to promulgate rules of procedure by
the American system of government largely through the the Electoral Tribunals (incident to the
influence of the French political writer Montesquieu. By the power to decide election contests)
establishment of the American sovereignty in the
Philippines, the principle was introduced as an inseparable CASE:
feature of the governmental system organized by the United
States in this country. Angara vs. Electoral Commission, 63
Phil 139
Limitations on the Principle
1. System of Checks and Balances FACTS:
2. Existence of overlapping powers In the election of Sept. 17, 1935, Angara (herein
petitioner) and Pedro Ynsua, Miguel Castillo,
Dionision Mayor (Respondents) were candidates
I. In the Constitution voted to be members of the national assembly (NA)
A. The major departments (Art. VI, VII, and VIII) for the first district of the Province of Tayabas.
regulate proceedings, that SC has jurisdiction to to one Ernest Burt, a non-resident American
pass upon fundamental questions in the issue since citizen, of the total sum of Php1.5 million for his
it is an interpretation of the constitution) alleged interest in the two estates that only
amounted to Php20,000.00, which he seemed to
The Solicitor General (SolGen) argues that have forfeited anyway long before. The Senate
ELECOM is a constitutional body which has sought to determine who were responsible for and
jurisdiction to try all contested cases, re-elections who benefited from the transaction at the expense
and said acts is beyond SC. Further, Res #8 did not of the government.
deprive ELECOM of its jurisdiction. Since ELECOM
acquired jurisdiction over the election protest, the Petitioner Jean Arnault, who acted as agent of
Motion to dismiss filed in ELECOM is not Ernest Burt in the subject transactions, was one of
reviewable by the SC. the witnesses summoned by the Senate to its
hearings. In the course of the investigation, the
ISSUE(S): petitioner repeatedly refused to divulge the name
of the person to whom he gave the amount of
1.) Does the SC has jurisdiction over the ELECOM Php440,000.00, which he withdrew from the
and the controversy? Php1.5 million proceeds pertaining to Ernest Burt.
2. ) If it does, then has ELECOM acted within or
without jurisdiction? Arnault was therefore cited in contempt by the
Senate and was committed to the custody of the
Senate Sergeant-at-Arms for imprisonment until
HELD: he answers the questions. He thereafter filed a
petition for habeas corpus directly with the
1.) The SC has jurisdiction over the ELECOM: Supreme Court questioning the validity of his
separation of powers granted by Constitution detention.
(through separate articles for each branch) but
check and balances maintain coordination among II. THE ISSUE
the branches. When there are conflicts between the
boundaries of powers and functions of each branch, 1. Did the Senate have the power to punish the
the Judiciary has the power to review and resolve petitioner for contempt for refusing to reveal the
these conflicts through Judicial Review (referred to name of the person to whom he gave the
as Judicial Supremacy). This however is limited to Php440,000.00?
actual cases and controversies. Judicial supremacy 2. Did the Senate have the authority to commit
is but the power of judicial review in actual and petitioner for contempt for a term beyond its period
appropriate cases and controversies, and is the of legislative session?
power and duty to see that no one branch or 3. May the petitioner rightfully invoke his right
agency of the government transcends the against self-incrimination?
Constitution, which is the source of all authority.
2.) ELECOM acted within its jurisdiction since III. THE RULING
ELECOM is recognized as an independent quasi-
judicial body which is not an inferior tribunal, or [The Court DENIED the petition for habeas corpus
corporation, board, or person, and is granted the filed by Arnault.]
powers to be the sole judge of all contests relating
to the election, returns and qualifications of 1. Yes, the Senate had the power to punish
members of the NA. The present constitution the petitioner for contempt for refusing to
granted the ELECOM with all the powers exercised reveal the name of the person to whom he
by the legislature relating to the said function of gave the Php440,000.00.
ELECOM, and this includes the regulation of the
rules and procedures of election protests. The Although there is no provision in the [1935]
confirmation of NA of its members is not required Constitution expressly investing either House of
and does not limit the ELECOM of its power to fix Congress with power to make investigations and
dates for election protest, or else this would exact testimony to the end that it may exercise its
undermine the power and functions of the legislative functions as to be implied. In other
ELECOM. words, the power of inquiry with process to
ii. Power to punish for contempt by the enforce it is an essential and appropriate
legislature (incident to the power to conduct auxiliary to the legislative function. A legislative
body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the
investigations in aid of legislation) absence of information respecting the conditions
which the legislation is intended to effect or
Legislative Contempt. The power of change; and where the legislative body does not
investigation necessarily includes the itself possess the requisite information which is
power to punish a contumacious witness for not infrequently true recourse must be had to
others who do possess it. Experience has shown
contempt. (Arnault v. Nazareno) that mere requests for such information are often
unavailing, and also that information which is
Acts punished as legislative contempt. volunteered is not always accurate or complete; so
The US Supreme Court in the case of some means of compulsion is essential to obtain
Marshall v. Gordon mentions: what is needed.
1. Physical obstruction of the legislative
xxx xxx xxx
body in the discharge of its duties.
2. Physical assault upon its members for [W]e find that the question for the refusal to
action taken or words spoken in the body; answer which the petitioner was held in contempt
3. Obstruction of its officers in the by the Senate is pertinent to the matter under
performance of their official duties inquiry. In fact, this is not and cannot be disputed.
Senate Resolution No. 8, the validity of which is
4. Prevention of members from attending not challenged by the petitioner, requires the
so that their duties might be performed Special Committee, among other things, to
determine the parties responsible for the
CASE: Buenavista and Tambobong estates deal, and it is
obvious that the name of the person to whom the
witness gave the P440,000 involved in said deal is
Arnault vs. Nazareno, 87 Phil 29
pertinent to that determination it is in fact the
very thing sought to be determined. The
I. THE FACTS contention is not that the question is impertinent to
the subject of the inquiry but that it has no relation
The Senate investigated the purchase by the or materiality to any proposed legislation. We have
government of two parcels of land, known as already indicated that it is not necessary for the
Buenavista and Tambobong estates. An intriguing legislative body to show that every question
question that the Senate sought to resolve was the propounded to a witness is material to any
apparent irregularity of the governments payment proposed or possible legislation; what is required
3
thereby lose his position. It is in that sense that from the limitations and restrictions as the
standpoint of strict law, the question of any impairment Congress may impose.
of security of tenure does not arise
(9) To be specific, the Batasang Pambansa is expressly
vested with the authority to re organize inferior courts (4) The authorization of such power must
and in the process to abolish ex isting ones. be within the framework of the national
(10) Petitioners would characterize as an undue development program of the Government.
delegation of legislative power to the President the
grant of authority to fix the compensation and the
2. Tariff and Customs Code, Flexible
allowances of the Justices and judges thereafter
appointed. The language of the statute is quite clear. Tariff Clause
The questioned provisions reads as follows:
"Intermediate Appellate Justices, Regional Trial The President is given by the Tariff and
Judges, Metropolitan Trial Judges, municipal Trial Customs Code ample powers to adjust
Judges, and Municipal Circuit Trial Judges shall receive tariff rates.
such receive such compensation and allowances as
may be authorized by the President along the Flexible Tariff Clause
guidelines set forth in Letter of Implementation No. 93 The President may fix tariff rates, import
pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 985, as amended and export quotas, etc. under TCC:
by Presidential Decree No. 1597." The existence of a
standard is thus clear. 1) To increase, reduce or remove existing
(11) The challenged legislation is entirely the product of
the efforts of the legislative body. The work of justices
protective rates of import duty (including
was limited, as set forth in the Executive Order, to any necessary change in classification)
submitting alternative plan for reorganization. That is
more in the nature of scholarly studies. the existing rates may be increased or
decreased to any level on one or several
C. Delegation of Powers stages but in no case shall be higher than
1. General Rule: potestas delegata non delegari a maximum of 100% ad valorem
potest
2) To establish import quota or to ban
Doctrine of Non-delegability. The doctrine imports oany commodity, as may be
rests on the ethical principle that a delegated necessary
power constitutes not only a right but duty to
be performed by the delegate by the 3) To impose an additional duty on all
instrumentality of his own judgment and not imports not exceeding 10% ad valorem
through the intervening mind of another. whenever necessary
Rationale of the Doctrine of Non- 3. Limitation Imposed Regarding the
delegability: Flexible Tariff Clause
(1) Based on the separation of powers. (Why 1) Conduct by the Tariff Commission of an
go to the trouble of separating the three investigation in a public hearing
powers of government if they can straightaway
remerge on their own notion?) The Commissioner shall also hear the
views and recommendations of any
(2) Based on due process of law. Such government office, agency or
precludes the transfer of regulatory functions instrumentality concerned
to private persons.
The NEDA thereafter shall submits its
(3) And, based on the maxim, degelata recommendation to the President
potestas non potest delegari meaning what
has been delegated already cannot be further 2) The power of the President to increase
delegated. or decrease the rates of import duty within
the abovementioned limits fixed in the
2. Exception: instances of permissible delegation Code shall include the modification in the
a. Tariff powers to the president [Sec. 28 (2), form of duty.
Art. VI]
In such a case the corresponding ad
SECTION 28. (2) The Congress may, by valorem or specific equivalents of the duty
law, authorize the President to fix within with respect to the imports from the
specified limits, and subject to such principal competing country for the most
limitations and restrictions as it may recent representative period shall be used
impose, tariff rates, import and export as bases. (Sec 401 TCC)
quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and
other duties or imposts within the The Tariff and Customs Code grants such
framework of the national development stand-by powers to the President. In
program of the Government. Garcia v. Executive Secretary, 211 SCRA
219, the Supreme Court upheld the
constitutionality of Executive Orders Nos.
1. Conditions in the delegation of the 475 and 478, which levied a special duty
power to tax: of P0.95 per liter on imported crude oil,
(1) Delegation must be made by law and P1.00 per liter on imported oil
(2) The power granted is to fix tariff rates, products, as a valid exercise of delegated
import and export quotas, tonnage and legislative authority under the Tariff and
wharfage dues, and other duties and Customs Code. In Philippine Interisland
impost. Shipping Association v. Court of Appeals,
(3) The said power is to be exercised G.R. No. 100481, January 22, 1997, it was
within specified limits and subject to such held that the fixing of rates is essentially a
legislative power. When the same is
7
delegated to the President, he may such power shall cease upon the next
exercise it directly, e.g., issuance of the adjournment thereof.
questioned Executive Order 1088, without
thereby withdrawing an earlier delegation 1. Requisites for the delegation: (1997 Bar
made to the Philippine Ports Authority Q)
(PPA). But when the President directly (1) There must be a war or other national
exercises the delegated authority, the PPA emergency
may not revise the rates fixed by the (2) Law authorizing the president for a
former. limited period and subject to such
restrictions as Congress may prescribe
b. Emergency powers to the president [Sec (3) Power to be exercised must be
23 (2), Art. VI] necessary and proper to carry out a
declared national policy.
SECTION 23. (2) In times of war or other
national emergency, the Congress may, 2. Duration of the delegation:
by law, authorize the President, for a (1) Until withdrawn by resolution of
limited period and subject to such Congress
restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise (2) Until the next adjournment of Congress
powers necessary and proper to carry out
a declared national policy. Unless sooner 3. Powers that may be delegated
withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, Congress may authorize the President, to
such powers shall cease upon the next exercise powers necessary and proper to
adjournment thereof. carry out a declared national policy Note
that the nature of delegable power is not
Delegation of emergency power specified. It is submitted that the President
may be given emergency legislative
A. War power powers if Congress so desires.
1. Power to declare existence of a state of
war 4. Withdrawal of powers
2. Rewording of the provision Congress may do it by a mere resolution.
Section 23. (1) The Congress, by a vote of And such resolution does not need
two-thirds of both Houses in joint session presidential approval.
assembled, voting separately, shall have
the sole power to declare the existence of Emergency Powers to the President, as
a state of war. provided in Sec. 23(2), Art. VI: In times of
1. Power to declare existence of a state of war or other national emergency, the
War: The Congress, by a vote of 2/3 of Congress may, by law, authorize the
both Houses in joint session assembled, President, for a limited period and subject
voting separately, shall have the sole to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to
power to declare the existence of a state exercise powers necessary and proper to
of war. carry out a declared national policy.
2. Rewording of the provision Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of
From 1935 Constitutions power to declare the Congress, such powers shall cease
war to power to declare the existence of a upon the next adjournment thereof.
state of war under 1987.
An example of this is R.A. 6826, approved
Bernas: The difference between the two on December 20,1989. The President
phraseologies is not substantial but merely issued National Emergency Memorandum
in emphasis. The two phrase were Orders (NEMOs) in the exercise of
interchangeable, but the second phrase delegated legislative powers. See:
emphasizes more the fact that the Araneta v. Dinglasan, 84 Phil 368;
Philippines, according to Article II, Section Rodriguez v. Gella, 92 Phil 603.
2, renounces aggressive war as an
instrument of national policy. A distinction has to be made between the
Presidents authority to declare a state of
Q: May a country engage in war in the emergency and to exercise emergency
absence of declaration of war? powers. To the first, since Sec. 18, Art.
A: Yes. The actual power to make war is VII, grants the President such power, no
lodged in the Executive. The executive legitimate constitutional objection can be
when necessary may make war even in raised. To the second, manifold
the absence of a declaration of war. constitutional issues arise. The exercise of
emergency powers, such as the taking
B. Delegation of emergency powers over of privately-owned public utilities or
1. Requisites for Delegation businesses aqffected with public interest,
2. Duration of delegation requires a delegation from Congress. Sec.
3. Powers that may be delegated 17, Art. XII, must be understood as an
4. Withdrawal of powers aspect of the emergency powers clause.
The taking over of private businesses
Section 23 (2) In times of war or other affected with public interest is just another
national emergency, the Congress may by facet of the emergency powers generally
law authorize the President, for a limited reposed in Congress. Thus, when Sec. 17,
period and subject to such restrictions as it Art. XII, provides that the State may,
may prescribe, to exercise powers during the emergency aqnd under
necessary and proper to carry out a reasonable terms prescribed by it,
declared national policy. Unless sooner temporarily take over or direct the
withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, operation of any privately owned public
8
utility or business affected with public vetoed the repealing bill the intent of Congress
interest, the State refers to Congress, must be given due weight. For it would be absurd
to contend otherwise. For while Congress might
not the President. Whether the President delegate its power by a simple majority, it might
may exercise such power is dependent on not be able to recall them except by two-third vote.
whether Congress delegates it to the In other words, it would be easier for Congress to
former pursuant to a law prescribing the delegate its powers than to take them back. This is
reasonable terms thereof [David v. not right and is not, and ought not to be the law.
Act No. 671 may be likened to an ordinary contract
Macapagal-Arroyo, supra.].
of agency, whereby the consent of the agent is
necessary only in the sense that he cannot be
CASES: compelled to accept the trust, in the same way
Araneta vs. Dinglasan, 84 Phil 368 that the principal cannot be forced to keep the
relation in eternity or at the will of the agent.
FACTS: Neither can it be suggested that the agency
The five cases are consolidated for all of them created under the Act is coupled with interest.
present the same fundamental question. Antonio
Araneta is being charged for violating EO 62 which c. Legislative power to the people at large:
regulates rentals for houses and lots for residential System on initiative and referendum (Sec.
buildings. Another case is of Leon Ma. Guerrero
32, Art. VI)
seeking to have a permit issued for the exportation
of his manufactured shoes. Another is of Eulogio
Rodriguez seeking to prohibit the treasury from SECTION 32. The Congress shall, as
disbursing funds pursuant to EO 225, while early as possible, provide for a system of
another is of Antonio Barredo attacking EO 226 initiative and referendum, and the
which appropriated funds to hold the national exceptions therefrom, whereby the people
elections. They all content that CA 671 or the
emergency Powers Act is already inoperative and can directly propose and enact laws or
that all EOs issued under said Act also ceased approve or reject any act or law or part
thereof passed by the Congress or local
ISSUE: legislative body after the registration of a
Whether or not the Emergency Powers Act has petition therefor signed by at least ten per
ceased to have any force and effect
centum of the total number of registered
HELD: voters, of which every legislative district
CA 671 does not fix the duration of its must be represented by at least three per
effectiveness. The intention of the act has to be centum of the registered voters thereof.
sought for in its nature, object to be accomplished,
the purpose to be subserved and its relation to the
1. Initiative and referendum
Constitution. Article VI of the Constitution provides
that any law passed by virtue thereof should be The Congress shall as early as possible,
for a limited period. It is presumed that CA 671 provide for a system of initiative and
was approved with this limitation in view. The referendum, and the exceptions therefrom.
opposite theory would make the law repugnant to
the Constitution, and is contrary to the principle Petition. A petition must be signed by at
that the legislature is deemed to have full
knowledge of the Constitutional scope of its least 10% of the total number of registered
power. CA 671 became inoperative when voters, of which every legislative district
Congress met in regular session of May 25, 1946, must be represented by at least 3% of the
and that EO Nos. 62, 192, 225 and 226 were registered voters thereof. The petition
issued without authority of law. In a regular must then be registered.
session, the power if Congress to legislate is not
circumscribed except by the limitations imposed
by the organic law. RA 6735. The current implementing law is
RA 6735, an Act Providing for System of
Rodriguez vs. Gella, 92 Phil 603 Initiative and Referendum.
FACTS: 2. Initiative
Eulogio Rodriguez et al seek to invalidate The power of the people to propose
Executive Orders 545 and 546 issued in 1952, the
amendments to the Constitution or to
first appropriating the sum of P37,850,500 for
urgent and essential public works, and the second propose and enact legislation.
setting aside the sum of P11,367,600 for relief in
the provinces and cities visited by typhoons, Three systems of Initiative:
floods, droughts, earthquakes, volcanic action and 1. Initiative on the Constitution which
other calamities. They sought to have Vicente refers to a petition proposing amendments
Gella, then National Treasurer, be enjoined from
releasing funds pursuant to said EOs. These EOs to the Constitution;
were pursuant to Commonwealth Act 671. Note 2. Initiative on statutes which refers to a
that prior to Araneta vs Dinglasan, Congress petition proposing to enact a national
passed House Bill 727 intending to revoke CA 671 legislation.
but the same was vetoed by the President due to 3. Initiative on local legislation which refers
the Korean War and his perception that war is still
subsisting as a fact. Note also that CA 671 was
to a petition proposing to enact a regional,
already declared inoperative by the Supreme provincial, city, municipal or barangay law,
Court in the same case of Araneta vs Dinglasan. resolution or ordinance.
making a deposit with the proper court of continued existence. Likewise, the Pelaez
at least fifteen percent (15%) of the fair ruling was not applied in Municipality of
market value of the property based on the Candihay, Bohol v. Court of Appeals, 251
current tax declaration of the property to SCRA 530, because the municipality had
be expropriated: Provided, finally, That, been in existence for 16 years before the
the amount to be paid for the expropriated Pelaez ruling was promulgated, and
property shall be determined by the proper various governmental acts throughout the
court, based on the fair market value at years all indicate the States recognition
the time of the taking of the property. and acknowledgment of the existence of
the municipal corporation, In Municipality
Delegation to local government units of Jimenez, Misamis Occidental v. Borja,
(See: R.A. 7160). Such legislation (by 265 SCRA 182, not only was the
local governments) is not regarded as a Municipality of Sinacaban in existence for
transfer of general legislative power, but 16 years before the Pelaez ruling, but that
rather as the grant of the authority to even the State and the Municipality of
prescribe local regulations, according to Jimenez itself had recognized Sinacabans
immemorial practice, subject, of course, to corporate existence (by entering into an
the interposition of the superior in cases of agreement concerning common
necessity [Peopje v. Vera, supra.]. This boundaries, and that Sinacaban had
recognizes the fact that local legislatures attained de jure status by virtue of the
are more knowledgeable than the national Ordinance appended to the 1987
lawmaking body on matters of purely local Constitution apportioning legislative
concern, and are in a better position to districts throughout the country which
enact appropriate legislative measures considered Sinacaban as part of the 2nd
thereon. district of Misamis Occidental.
Delegation to Administrative Bodies Tests for valid delegation: Both of the following
The power of subordinate legislation. In tests are to becomplied with [Pelaez v. Auditor
Conference of Maritime Manning General, 15 SCRA 569; Tatad v. Secretary of
Agencies, Inc., v. POEA, 243 SCRA 666, Energy, supra.]:
POEA Governing Board Resolution No.
01-94, increasing and adjusting the rates Completeness Test. The law must be
of compensation and other benefits in the complete in all its essential terms and
Standard Employment Contract for conditions when it leaves the legislature so
Seafarers, was held to be a valid exercise that there will be nothing left for the delegate to
of delegated legislative authority, do when it reaches him except to enforce it.
inasmuch as it conforms to the sufficient See U.S. v. Ang Tang Ho, 43 Phil 1.
and valid standard of fair and equitable
employment practices prescribed in E.O. Sufficient standard test. A sufficient standard
797. In Osmena v. Orbos, supra., it was is intended to map out the boundaries of the
held that there was no undue delegation of delegates authority by defining the legislative
legislative power in the authority granted policy and indicating the circumstances under
by legislature to the Energy Regulatory which it is to be pursued and effected. This is
Board to impose additional amounts to intended to prevent a total transference of
augment the resources of the Oil Price legislative power from the legislature to the
Stabilization Fund. See also: Tablarin v. delegate. The standard is usually indicated in
Gutierrez, 152 SCRA 730; Eastern the law delegating legislative power. See Ynot
Shipping v. POEA, 166 SCRA 533. But in v. Intermediate Appellate Court, supra.; de la
Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor Center v. Liana v. Alba, 112 SCRA 294; Demetria v.
Garcia, supra., the authority given by Alba, 148 SCRA 208; Lozano v. Martinez, 146
LTFRB to provincial bus operators to set a SCRA 323.
fare range over and above the existing
authorized fare was held to be illegal for On the challenge relative to the validity of the
being an undue delegation of power. provision of R.A. 6734 which authorized the
President to merge, by administrative
In Pelaez v. Auditor General, 15 SCRA determination, the regions remaining after the
569, Sec. 68 of the Revised Administrative establishment of the Autonomous Region of
Code (authorizing the President to create Muslim Mindanao, in Chiongbian v. Orbos, 245
municipalities through executive orders) SCRA 253, the Court said that the legislative
was declared unconstitutional for being an standard need not be expressed, it may simply
undue delegation of legislative power be gathered or implied; neither should it
However, in Municipality of San Narciso always be found in the law challenged,
(Quezon) v. Mendez, 239 SCRA 11, E.O because it may be found in other statutes on
353 creating the Municipal District of San the same subject. In this case, the standard
Andres in 1959 was not declared was found in R.A. 5435 on the power of the
unconstitutional because it was only after President to reorganize the Executive
almost 30 years that the legality of the Department to promote simplicity, economy
executive order was challenged; and to enable it to pursue programs consistent
throughout its 30 years of existence, the with national goals for accelerated social and
municipal district had exercised the economic development.
powers and authority of a duly created
local government institution, and the State In Tatad v. Secretary, Department of Energy,
had, at various times, recognized its supra., even as the Supreme Court found that
11
CASES:
FACTS:
In July 1919, the Philippine Legislature (during special
session) passed and approved Act No. 2868 entitled An Pp. vs. Rosenthal, 68 Phil 328 (public
Act Penalizing the Monopoly and Hoarding of Rice, interest)
Palay and Corn. The said act, under extraordinary
circumstances, authorizes the Governor General (GG) FACTS:
to issue the necessary Rules and Regulations in Jacob Rosenthal and Nicasio Osmea were founders
regulating the distribution of such products. Pursuant to and shareholders of the ORO Oil Company. Later,
this Act, in August 1919, the GG issued Executive Rosenthal and Osmea were found guilty of selling
Order No. 53 which was published on August 20, 1919. their shares to individuals without actual tangible
The said EO fixed the price at which rice should be assets. Their shares were merely based on
sold. On the other hand, Ang Tang Ho, a rice dealer, speculations and future gains. This is in violation of
sold a ganta of rice to Pedro Trinidad at the price of Sections 2 and 5 of Act No. 2581.
eighty centavos. The said amount was way higher than
that prescribed by the EO. The sale was done on the Section 2 provides that every person, partnership,
6th of August 1919. On August 8, 1919, he was association, or corporation attempting to offer to sell in
charged for violation of the said EO. He was found the Philippines speculative securities of any kind or
guilty as charged and was sentenced to 5 months character whatsoever, is under obligation to file
imprisonment plus a P500.00 fine. He appealed the previously with the Insular Treasurer the various
sentence countering that there is an undue delegation documents and papers enumerated therein and to pay
of power to the Governor General. the required tax of twenty-pesos.
or permit to be issued under the Act must recite that the questioned this as it constitutes an undue delegation of
person, partnership, association or corporation applying legislative power.
therefor has complied with the provisions of this Act,
and this requirement, construed in relation to the other Issues:
provisions of the law, means that a certificate or permit Whether or not there is a undue delegation of legislative
shall be issued by the Insular Treasurer when the power?
provisions of Act No. 2581 have been complied with.
Upon the other hand, the authority of the Insular Ruling:
Treasurer to cancel a certificate or permit is expressly There is no undue delegation of legislative power.
conditioned upon a finding that such cancellation is in Commonwealth Act 548 does not confer legislative
the public interest. powers to the Director of Public Works. The authority
conferred upon them and under which they
In view of the intention and purpose of Act No. 2581 promulgated the rules and regulations now complained
to protect the public against speculative schemes of is not to determine what public policy demands but
which have no more basis than so many feet of blue merely to carry out the legislative policy laid down by
sky and against the sale of stock in fly-by-night the National Assembly in said Act, to wit, to promote
concerns, visionary oil wells, distant gold mines, and safe transit upon and avoid obstructions on, roads and
other like fraudulent exploitations, the SC held that streets designated as national roads by acts of the
public interest in this case is a sufficient standard to National Assembly or by executive orders of the
guide the Insular Treasurer in reaching a decision on a President of the Philippines and to close them
matter pertaining to the issuance or cancellation of temporarily to any or all classes of traffic whenever the
certificates or permits. condition of the road or the traffic makes such action
necessary or advisable in the public convenience and
Rosenthal insists that the delegation of authority to the interest.
Commission is invalid because the stated criterion is
uncertain. That criterion is the public interest. It is a The delegated power, if at all, therefore, is not the
mistaken assumption that this is a mere general determination of what the law shall be, but merely the
reference to public welfare without any standard to ascertainment of the facts and circumstances upon
guide determinations. The purpose of the Act, the which the application of said law is to be predicated.
requirement it imposes, and the context of the provision To promulgate rules and regulations on the use of
in question show the contrary. . . national roads and to determine when and how long a
national road should be closed to traffic, in view of the
condition of the road or the traffic thereon and the
requirements of public convenience and interest, is an
administrative function which cannot be directly
discharged by the National Assembly. It must depend
on the discretion of some other government official to
whom is confided the duty of determining whether the
proper occasion exists for executing the law. But it
cannot be said that the exercise of such discretion is
the making of the law.
Facts:
After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt
issued EO 9066 which was later endorsed by the
Congress thru HR. 1911 authorizing the Secretary of
War to adapt measures in protecting the state against
espionage and espionage.
Issues:
WON EO 9066 is constitutional and that if it violates the
Fifth Amendment as to descriminating citizens as to
their race or ancestry.
Held:
The US supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of
EO 9066 pointing out the necessity to adapt such
measures in time of war to prevent the country from
espionage and sabotage. In addition, the Supreme
Court also upheld the constitutionality of the Congress
delegating its legislative function to another. The
Calalang vs. Williams, 70 Phil Proclamation No. 3, EO 9066 and HR 1911 should not
726(public welfare) be taken individually but is rather each as an affirmation
of the other and that they are all in conformity.
Facts:
In pursuance of Commonwealth Act 548 which The Court found the President's orders and the
mandates the Director of Public Works, with the implementation of the curfew to be constitutional. Chief
approval of the Secretary of Public Works and Justice Stone, writing for the unanimous Court, took
Communications, shall promulgate the necessary rules into account the great importance of military
and regulations to regulate and control the use of and installations and weapons production that occurred on
traffic on such roads and streets to promote safe transit the West Coast and the "solidarity" that individuals of
upon, and avoid obstructions on, roads and streets Japanese descent felt with their motherland. He
designated as national roads, the Director of Public reasoned that restrictions on Japanese actions served
Works adopted the resolution of the National Traffic an important national interest. The Court ducked the
Commission, prohibiting the passing of animal drawn thorny relocation issue and focused solely on the
vehicles in certain streets in Manila. Petitioner curfew, which the Court viewed as a necessary
13
"protective measure." Stone argued that racial for a probation officer. But nowhere in the law did it
discrimination was justified since "in time of war state as to what standard (sufficient standard test)
residents having ethnic affiliations with an invading should provincial boards follow in determining whether
enemy may be a greater source of danger than those of or not to apply the probation law in their province. This
a different ancestry." only creates a roving commission which will act
arbitrarily according to its whims.
Pp vs. Vera, 65 Phil 56
Encroachment of Executive Power
FACTS: Though Act 4221 is unconstitutional, the Supreme
In 1934, Mariano Cu Unjieng was convicted in a Court recognized the power of Congress to provide for
criminal case filed against him by the Hongkong and probation. Probation does not encroach upon the
Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC). In 1936, he Presidents power to grant pardon. Probation is not
filed for probation. The matter was referred to the pardon. Probation is within the power of Congress to fix
Insular Probation Office which recommended the denial penalties while pardon is a power of the president to
of Cu Unjiengs petition for probation. A hearing was set commute penalties.
by Judge Jose Vera concerning the petition for
probation. The Prosecution opposed the petition. Ynot vs. IAC, 148 SCRA 659
Eventually, due to delays in the hearing, the
Prosecution filed a petition for certiorari with the FACTS: There had been an existing law which
Supreme Court alleging that courts like the Court of prohibited the slaughtering of carabaos (EO 626). To
First Instance of Manila (which is presided over by strengthen the law, Marcos issued EO 626-A which not
Judge Vera) have no jurisdiction to place accused like only banned the movement of carabaos from
Cu Unjieng under probation because under the law (Act interprovinces but as well as the movement of carabeef.
No. 4221 or The Probation Law), probation is only On 13 Jan 1984, Ynot was caught transporting 6
meant to be applied in provinces with probation officers; carabaos from Masbate to Iloilo. He was then charged
that the City of Manila is not a province, and that in violation of EO 626-A. Ynot averred EO 626-A as
Manila, even if construed as a province, has no unconstitutional for it violated his right to be heard or his
designated probation officer hence, a Manila court right to due process. He said that the authority provided
cannot grant probation. by EO 626-A to outrightly confiscate carabaos even
without being heard is unconstitutional. The lower court
Meanwhile, HSBC also filed its own comment on the ruled against Ynot ruling that the EO is a valid exercise
matter alleging that Act 4221 is unconstitutional for it of police power in order to promote general welfare so
violates the constitutional guarantee on equal protection as to curb down the indiscriminate slaughter of
of the laws. HSBC averred that the said law makes it carabaos.
the prerogative of provinces whether or nor to apply the
probation law if a province chooses to apply the ISSUE: Whether or not the law is valid.
probation law, then it will appoint a probation officer, but
if it will not, then no probation officer will be appointed HELD: The SC ruled that the EO is not valid as it
hence, that makes it violative of the equal protection indeed violates due process. EO 626-A ctreated a
clause. presumption based on the judgment of the executive.
The movement of carabaos from one area to the other
Further, HSBC averred that the Probation Law is an does not mean a subsequent slaughter of the same
undue delegation of power because it gave the option would ensue. Ynot should be given to defend himself
to the provincial board to whether or not to apply the and explain why the carabaos are being transferred
probation law however, the legislature did not provide before they can be confiscated. The SC found that the
guidelines to be followed by the provincial board. challenged measure is an invalid exercise of the police
Further still, HSBC averred that the Probation Law is an power because the method employed to conserve the
encroachment of the executives power to grant pardon. carabaos is not reasonably necessary to the purpose of
They say that the legislature, by providing for a the law and, worse, is unduly oppressive. Due process
probation law, had in effect encroached upon the is violated because the owner of the property
executives power to grant pardon. (Ironically, the confiscated is denied the right to be heard in his
Prosecution agreed with the issues raised by HSBC defense and is immediately condemned and punished.
ironic because their main stance was the non- The conferment on the administrative authorities of the
applicability of the probation law only in Manila while power to adjudge the guilt of the supposed offender is a
recognizing its application in provinces). clear encroachment on judicial functions and militates
For his part, one of the issues raised by Cu Unjieng is against the doctrine of separation of powers. There is,
that, the Prosecution, representing the State as well as finally, also an invalid delegation of legislative powers to
the People of the Philippines, cannot question the the officers mentioned therein who are granted
validity of a law, like Act 4221, which the State itself unlimited discretion in the distribution of the properties
created. Further, Cu Unjieng also castigated the fiscal arbitrarily taken.
of Manila who himself had used the Probation Law in
the past without question but is now questioning the Pelaez vs. Auditor General, 15 SCRA 569
validity of the said law (estoppel).
In 1964, President Ferdinand Marcos issued executive
ISSUE:
1. May the State question its own laws? orders creating 33 municipalities this was purportedly
2. Is Act 4221 constitutional? pursuant to Section 68 of the Revised Administrative
Code which provides in part:
HELD:
1. Yes. There is no law which prohibits the State, or its The President may by executive order define the
boundary of any municipality and may change
duly authorized representative, from questioning the
validity of a law. Estoppel will also not lie against the the seat of government within any subdivision to such
State even if it had been using an invalid law. place therein as the public welfare may require
2. No, Act 4221 or the [old] Probation Law is
unconstitutional. The then Vice President, Emmanuel Pelaez, as a
taxpayer, filed a special civil action to prohibit the
auditor general from disbursing funds to be
Violation of the Equal Protection Clause
The contention of HSBC and the Prosecution is well appropriated for the said municipalities. Pelaez claims
that the EOs were unconstitutional. He said that Section
taken on this note. There is violation of the equal
68 of the RAC had been impliedly repealed by Section
protection clause. Under Act 4221, provinces were
given the option to apply the law by simply providing for 3 of RA 2370 which provides that barrios may not be
created or their boundaries altered nor their names
a probation officer. So if a province decides not to
changed except by Act of Congress. Pelaez argues: If
install a probation officer, then the accused within said
province will be unduly deprived of the provisions of the the President, under this new law, cannot even create a
barrio, how can he create a municipality which is
Probation Law.
composed of several barrios, since barrios are units of
Undue Delegation of Legislative Power municipalities?
There is undue delegation of legislative power. Act
The Auditor General countered that there was no repeal
4221 provides that it shall only apply to provinces
where the respective provincial boards have provided and that only barrios were barred from being created by
the President. Municipalities are exempt from the bar
14
and that a municipality can be created without creating power has been constitutionally conferred upon the
barrios. He further maintains that through Sec. 68 of the department claiming its exercise since the
RAC, Congress has delegated such power to create
municipalities to the President.
conferment is usually done expressly. However,
even in the absence of express conferment, the
ISSUE: Whether or not Congress has delegated the exercise of the power may be justified under the
power to create barrios to the President by virtue of doctrine of necessary implication, i.e. that the grant
Sec. 68 of the RAC. of an express power carries with it all other powers
that may be reasonably inferred from it. Note also
HELD: No. There was no delegation here. Although
Congress may delegate to another branch of the that there are powers which although not expressly
government the power to fill in the details in the conferred nor implied therefrom, are inherent or
execution, enforcement or administration of a law, it is incidental, e.g., the Presidents power to deport
essential, to forestall a violation of the principle of undesirable aliens which may be exercised
separation of powers, that said law: (a) be complete in independently of constitutional or statutory
itself it must set forth therein the policy to be
executed, carried out or implemented by the delegate authority, because it is an act of State. See
and (b) fix a standard the limits of which are also: Marcos v. Manglapus, 178 SCRA 760, where
sufficiently determinate or determinable to which the the Supreme Court justified the action of President
delegate must conform in the performance of his Aquino in banning the return of the Marcoses to the
functions. In this case, Sec. 68 lacked any such Philippines on the basis of the Presidents residual
standard. Indeed, without a statutory declaration of
policy, the delegate would, in effect, make or formulate
powers.
such policy, which is the essence of every law; and,
without the aforementioned standard, there would be no CASE:
means to determine, with reasonable certainty, whether
the delegate has acted within or beyond the scope of Angara vs. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil 139
his authority.
FACTS:
Further, although Sec. 68 provides the qualifying clause
In the election of Sept. 17, 1935, Angara (herein petitioner)
as the public welfare may require which would mean
and Pedro Ynsua, Miguel Castillo, Dionision Mayor
that the President may exercise such power as the
(Respondents) were candidates voted to be members of the
public welfare may require is present, still, such will
national assembly (NA) for the first district of the Province of
not replace the standard needed for a proper delegation
Tayabas.
of power. In the first place, what the phrase as the
public welfare may require qualifies is the text which
On Oct 7, 1935, Angara was proclaimed as member-elect of
immediately precedes hence, the proper interpretation
the NA for the said district. On November 15,1935, he took
is the President may change the seat of government
his oath of office.
within any subdivision to such place therein as the
public welfare may require. Only the seat of
On Dec 3, 1935, the NA in session assembled, passed
government may be changed by the President when
Resolution No. 8 confirming the election of the members of
public welfare so requires and NOT the creation of
the National Assembly against whom no protest had thus far
municipality.
been filed.
The Supreme Court declared that the power to create
On Dec 8, 1935, Ynsua, filed before the Electoral
municipalities is essentially and eminently legislative in
Commission (ELECOM) a Motion of Protest against the
character not administrative (not executive).
election of Angara. On Dec 9, 1935, the ELECOM adopted a
resolution, par. 6 of which fixed said date as the last day for
D. Role of the Judiciary in the scheme of separation of the filing of protests against the election, returns and
powers (Sec. 1, Art. VIII) qualifications of members of the NA, notwithstanding the
previous confirmation made by the NA.
SECTION 1. The judicial power shall be vested in
Angara filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that by virtue of the
one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as NA proclamation, Ynsua can no longer protest (the
may be established by law. prescribed period for filing of protests had already ended on
December 3, and the respondent was late in filing his protest
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of because he filed the protest after December 3.).
justice to settle actual controversies involving rights
Ynsua claims that there was no constitutional or legal
which are legally demandable and enforceable, provision which stated that members of the NA
and to determine whether or not there has been a cannot be contested after confirmation of the NA. ELECOM
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or denied petitioners motion to dismiss. Petitioner then files a
excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or protest to the Supreme Court (SC) questioning ELECOMs
instrumentality of the Government. jurisdiction over the case. (Petitioner argues that, ELECOM
could only regulate proceedings, that SC has jurisdiction to
pass upon fundamental questions in the issue since it is an
Role of the Judiciary. The judicial power, as interpretation of the constitution)
defined in Sec. 1, Art.VIII, includes the duty of the
courts of justice to settle actual controversies The Solicitor General (SolGen) argues that ELECOM is a
involving rights which are legally demandable and constitutional body which has jurisdiction to try all contested
enforceable, and to determine whether or not there cases, re-elections and said acts is beyond SC. Further, Res
#8 did not deprive ELECOM of its jurisdiction. Since
has been a grave abuse, of discretion amounting ELECOM acquired jurisdiction over the election protest, the
to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any Motion to dismiss filed in ELECOM is not reviewable by the
branch or instrumentality of the Government. SC.
though those will come from the majority party). This is election."Section 2 thereof provides that "Any
still valid provided the majority members of the SET amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution shall be
(referring to those legally sitting) concurred with the valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a
Chairman. Besides, the SET may set its own rules in plebiscite which shall be held not later than three
situations like this provided such rules comply with the months a after the approval of such amendment or
Constitution. revision." In the present period of transition, the interim
National Assembly instituted in the Transitory
Sanidad vs. COMELEC, 73 SCRA 333 Provisions is conferred with that amending power.
Section 15 of the Transitory Provisions reads "The
Facts: interim National Assembly, upon special call by the
On 2 September 1976, President Ferdinand E. Marcos interim Prime Minister, may, by a majority vote of all its
issued Members, propose amendments to this Constitution.
Such amendments shall take effect when ratified in
Presidential Decree 991 calling for a national accordance with Article Sixteen hereof." There are,
referendum on 16 October 1976 for the Citizens therefore, two periods contemplated in the
Assemblies ("barangays") to resolve, among other constitutional life of the nation, i.e., period of normalcy
things, the issues of martial law, the interim assembly, and period of transition. In times of normalcy, the
its replacement, the powers of such replacement, the amending process may be initiated by the proposals of
period of its existence, the length of the period for the the (1) regular National Assembly upon a vote of three-
exercise by the President of his present powers.20 fourths of all its members; or (2) by a Constitutional
days after or on 22 September 1976, the President Convention called by a vote of two-thirds of all the
issued another related decree, Members of the National Assembly. However the
calling of a Constitutional Convention may be submitted
Presidential Decree 1031, amending the previous to the electorate in an election voted upon by a majority
Presidential Decree 991, by declaring the provisions of vote of all the members of the National Assembly. In
Presidential Decree 229 providing for the manner of times of transition, amendments may be proposed by a
voting and canvass of votes in "barangays"(Citizens majority vote of all the Members of the interim National
Assemblies) applicable to the national referendum- Assembly upon special call by the interim Prime
plebiscite of 16 October 1976. Quite relevantly, Minister.
Presidential Decree 1031 repealed inter alia, Section 4,
of Presidential Decree 991.On the same date of 22 The Court in Aquino v. COMELEC, had already settled
September 1976, the President issued that the incumbent President is vested with that
prerogative of discretion as to when he shall initially
Presidential Decree 1033, stating the questions to he convene the interim National Assembly. The
submitted to the people in the referendum-plebiscite on Constitutional Convention intended to leave to the
16 October 1976. The Decree recites in its "whereas" President the determination of the time when he shall
clauses that the people's continued opposition to the initially convene the interim National Assembly,
convening of the interim National Assembly evinces consistent with the prevailing conditions of peace and
their desire to have such body abolished and replaced order in the country. When the Delegates to the
thru a constitutional amendment, providing for a new Constitutional Convention voted on the Transitory
interim legislative body, which will be submitted directly Provisions, they were aware of the fact that under the
to the people in the referendum-plebiscite of October same, the incumbent President was given the discretion
16.The Commission on Elections was vested with the as to when he could convene the interim National
exclusive supervision and control of the October 1976 Assembly. The President's decision to defer the
National Referendum-Plebiscite. On 27 September convening of the interim National Assembly soon found
1976, Pablo C. Sanidad and Pablito V.Sanidad, father support from the people themselves.
and son, commenced L-44640 for Prohibition with
Preliminary Injunction seeking to enjoin the In the plebiscite of January 10 to 15, 1973, at which the
Commission on Elections from holding and conducting ratification of the 1973Constitution was submitted, the
the Referendum Plebiscite on October 16; to declare people voted against the convening of the interim
without force and effect Presidential Decree Nos. 991 National Assembly. In the referendum of 24 July 1973,
and 1033, insofar as they propose amendments to the the Citizens Assemblies ("bagangays") reiterated their
Constitution, as well as Presidential Decree 1031, sovereign will to withhold the convening of the interim
insofar as it directs the Commission on Elections to National Assembly. Again, in the referendum of 27
supervise, control, hold, and conduct the Referendum- February 1975, the proposed question of whether the
Plebiscite scheduled on 16 October 1976. They interim National Assembly shall be initially convened
contend that under the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions was eliminated, because some of the members of
there is no grant to the incumbent President to exercise Congress and delegates of the Constitutional
the constituent power to propose amendments to the Convention, who were deemed automatically members
new Constitution. As a consequence, the Referendum- of the interim National Assembly, were against its
Plebiscite on October 16 has no constitutional or legal inclusion since in that referendum of January, 1973 the
basis. On 30 September 1976, another action for people had already resolved against it. In sensu
Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction, docketed as L- striciore, when the legislative arm of the state
44684, was instituted by Vicente M. Guzman, a undertakes the proposals of amendment to a
delegate to the 1971 Constitutional Convention, Constitution, that body is not in the usual function of
asserting that the power to propose amendments to, or lawmaking. It is not legislating when engaged in the
revision of the Constitution during the transition period amending process. Rather, it is exercising a peculiar
is expressly conferred on the interim National Assembly power bestowed upon it by the fundamental charter
under action 16, ArticleXVII of the Constitution. Still itself. In the Philippines, that power is provided for in
another petition for Prohibition with Preliminary Article XVI of the 1973 Constitution (for the regular
Injunction was filed on 5October 1976 by Raul M. National Assembly) or in Section 15 of the Transitory
Gonzales, his son Raul Jr., and Alfredo Salapantan, Provisions (for the interim National Assembly). While
docketed as L-44714, to restrain the implementation of ordinarily it is the business of the legislating body to
Presidential Decrees relative to the forthcoming legislate for the nation by virtue of constitutional
Referendum-Plebiscite of October 16. conferment, amending of the Constitution is not
legislative in character. In political science a distinction
Issue: is made between constitutional content of an organic
Whether or not the President may call upon a character and that of a legislative character. The
referendum for the amendment of the Constitution? distinction, however, is one of policy, not of law. Such
being the case, approval of the President of any
Held: proposed amendment is a misnomer. The prerogative
Section 1 of Article XVI of the 1973 Constitution on of the President to approve or disapprove applies only
Amendments ordains that "(1) Any amendment to, or to the ordinary cases of legislation. The President has
revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by the nothing to do with proposition or adoption of
National Assembly upon a vote of three-fourths of all its amendments of the Constitution.
Members, or by a constitutional convention. (2) The
National Assembly may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its Daza vs. Singson, 180 SCRA 496
Members, call a constitutional convention or, by a
majority vote of all its Members, submit the question of Facts:
calling such a convention to the electorate in an
17
The House of Representatives. Twenty four members that "the Uruguay Round Final Act is hereby submitted
of the Liberal Party formally resigned from that party to the Senate for its concurrence pursuant to Section
and joined the LDP, thereby swelling its number to 159 21, Article VII of the Constitution".
and correspondingly reducing their former party to only On August 13, 1994, the members of the Philippine
17 members. Senate received another letter from the President of the
Philippines likewise dated August 11, 1994, which
On the basis of this development, the House of stated among others that "the Uruguay Round Final
Representatives revised its representation in the Act, the Agreement Establishing the World Trade
Commission on Appointments by withdrawing the seat Organization, the Ministerial Declarations and
occupied by the petitioner and giving this to the newly- Decisions, and the Understanding on Commitments in
formed LDP. On December 5, 1988, the chamber Financial Services are hereby submitted to the Senate
elected a new set of representatives consisting of the for its concurrence pursuant to Section 21, Article VII of
original members except the petitioner and including the Constitution."
therein respondent Luis C. Singson as the additional On December 9, 1994, the President of the Philippines
member from the LDP. certified the necessity of the immediate adoption of P.S.
1083, a resolution entitled "Concurring in the
The petitioner came to the Supreme Court to challenge Ratification of the Agreement Establishing the World
his removal from the Commission on Appointments and Trade Organization."
the assumption of his seat by the respondent. Acting On December 14, 1994, the Philippine Senate adopted
initially on his petition for prohibition and injunction with Resolution No. 97 which "Resolved, as it is hereby
preliminary injunction, we issued a temporary resolved, that the Senate concur, as it hereby concurs,
restraining order that same day to prevent both the in the ratification by the President of the Philippines of
petitioner and the respondent from serving in the the Agreement Establishing the World Trade
Commission on Appointments. Organization." The text of the WTO Agreement is
written on pages 137 et seq. of Volume I of the 36-
Briefly stated, the contention of the petitioner is that he volume Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade
cannot be removed from the Commission on Negotiations and includes various agreements and
Appointments because his election thereto is associated legal instruments. On December 16, 1994,
permanent. His claim is that the reorganization of the the President of the Philippines signed the Instrument
House representation in the said body is not based on a of Ratification, declaring the Agreement Establishing
permanent political realignment because the LDP is not the World Trade Organization and the agreements and
a duly registered political party and has not yet attained associated legal instruments included in Annexes one
political stability. (1), two (2) and three (3) ratified and confirmed To
emphasize, the WTO Agreement ratified by the
Issue: President of the Philippines is composed of the
whether the question raised by the petitioner is political Agreement Proper and "the associated legal
in nature and so beyond the jurisdiction of the Supreme instruments included in Annexes one (1), two (2) and
Court three (3) of that Agreement which are integral parts
thereof."
Held:
No. The Court has the competence to act on the matter On the other hand, the Final Act signed by Secretary
at bar. The issue involved is not a discretionary act of Navarro embodies not only the WTO Agreement (and
the House of Representatives that may not be reviewed its integral annexes aforementioned) but also (1) the
by us because it is political in nature. What is involved Ministerial Declarations and Decisions and (2) the
here is the legality, not the wisdom, of the act of that Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services.
chamber in removing the petitioner from the The Solicitor General describes these two latter
Commission on Appointments. documents as follows:
The Ministerial Decisions and Declarations are twenty-
The term political question connotes, in legal five declarations and decisions on matters such as
parlance, what it means in ordinary parlance, namely, a measures in favor of least developed countries,
question of policy. In other words, it refers to those notification procedures etc. The Understanding on
questions which, under the Constitution, are to be Commitments in Financial Services dwell on, among
decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in other things, standstill
regard to which full discretionary authority has been or limitations and qualifications of commitments to
delegated to the Legislature or executive branch of the existing non-conforming measures, market access,
Government. It is concerned with issues dependent national treatment etc.
upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure. On December 29, 1994, the present petition was filed.
The Court resolved on December 12, 1995, to give due
Even if we were to assume that the issue presented course to the petition. The court also requested the
before us was political in nature, we would still not be Hon. Lilia R. Bautista, the Philippine Ambassador to the
precluded from resolving it under the expanded United Nations stationed in Geneva, Switzerland, to
jurisdiction conferred upon us that now covers, in submit a paper, hereafter referred to as "Bautista
proper cases, even the political question. Article VII, Paper,", (1) providing a historical background of and (2)
Section 1, of the Constitution clearly provides: summarizing the said agreements. During the Oral
Argument held on August 27, 1996, the Court directed
Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one the petitioners to submit the (1) Senate Committee
Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be Report on the matter in controversy and (2) the
established by law. transcript of proceedings/hearings in the Senate; and
the Solicitor General, as counsel for respondents, to file
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice (1) a list of Philippine treaties signed prior to the
to settle actual controversies involving rights which are Philippine adherence to the WTO Agreement, which
legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine derogate from Philippine sovereignty and (2) copies of
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of the multi-volume WTO Agreement and other
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on documents mentioned in the Final Act.
the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
Government. Issue: W/N the petition presents a justiciable
controversy
Tanada vs. Angara, GR No. 118295, May 2,
1997 Held:
Yes. The jurisdiction of this Court to adjudicate the
matters raised in the petition is clearly set out in the
Facts: 1987 Constitution, as follows:
On April 15, 1994, Respondent Rizalino Navarro, then
Secretary of The Department of Trade and Industry,
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice
representing the Government of the Republic of the to settle actual controversies involving rights which are
Philippines, signed in Marrakesh, Morocco, the Final
legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine
Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of
Multilateral Negotiations. discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on
On August 12, 1994, the members of the Philippine
the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
Senate received a letter dated August 11, 1994 from
government.
the President of the Philippines, stating among others
18
As the petition alleges grave abuse of discretion and as An ad interim appointment is exercised by the president
there is no other plain, speedy or adequate remedy in as hes special prerogative and is bound to be prudent
the ordinary course of law, we have no hesitation at all to insure approval of his selection either previous
in holding that this petition should be given due course consultation with the members of the Commission on
and the vital questions raised therein ruled upon under Appointments or by thereafter explaining to them the
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. reason such selection. It is expected that the President
should exercise double care in extending such
Indeed, certiorari, prohibition and mandamus are appointments. In the case at bar, it is hard to believe
appropriate remedies to raise constitutional issues and that in signing 350 appointments in one night, President
to review and/or prohibit/nullify, when proper, acts of Garcia exercised double care; and therefore, such
legislative and executive officials. On this, we have no appointments fall beyond the intent and spirit of the
equivocation. constitutional provision granting the Executive authority
to issue ad interim appointments.
We should stress that, in deciding to take jurisdiction
over this petition, this Court will not review the wisdom The denial of the power to revoke after the appointee
of the decision of the President and the Senate in has qualified is his equitable right however that eequity
enlisting the country into the WTO, or pass upon the is doubtful considering the rush conditional
merits of trade liberalization as a policy espoused by appointments, hurried maneuvers and other
said international body. Neither will it rule on the happenings detracting from that degree of good faith,
propriety of the government's economic policy of morality and propriety which form the basic foundation
reducing/removing tariffs, taxes, subsidies, quantitative of claims to equitable relief. The appointees, it might be
restrictions, and other import/trade barriers. Rather, it argued, wittingly or unwittingly cooperated with the
will only exercise its constitutional duty "to determine stratagem to beat the deadline, whatever the resultant
whether or not there had been a grave abuse of consequences to the dignity and efficiency of the public
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction" service. Needless to say, there are instances wherein
on the part of the Senate in ratifying the WTO not only strict legality, but also fairness, justice and
Agreement and its three annexes. righteousness should be taken into account.
Aytona vs. Castillo, 4 SCRA 1 WHEREFORE, the Court exercising its judgment
and discretion in the matter, hereby dismiss the
Facts: action, without costs.
Dec. 29, 1961 Pres. Carlos P. Garcia appointed
Dominador R. Aytona as ad interim Governor of the With regards to separation of power:
Central Bank and later on that same day, took the
corresponding oath. CONCEPCION, J., concurring in part and dissenting in
part:
Dec. 30, 1961 Pres. Elect Diosdado Macapagal
assume office by noon In the present case, we have completely reversed our
stand on the principle of separation of powers. We have
Dec. 31, 1961 Pres. Macapagal issued Admin Order inquired into the motives of the Executive department in
No. 2, recalling, withdrawing and cancelling all ad making the appointments in question, although it is well
interim appointment made by Pres. Garcia after Dec. settled, under the aforementioned principle, that:
13, 1961 (date when Macapagal was proclaimed
elected by Congress). There were a total of 350, "Generally courts cannot inquire into the motive, policy,
midnight or last minute appointment made by Pres. wisdom, or expediency of legislation.
Garcia.
The justice, wisdom, policy, necessity, or expediency,
Jan. 1, 1962 - Pres. Macapagal appointed Andres V. of a law which is within its powers are for the
Castillo as ad interim Governor of the Central Bank legislature, and are not open to inquiry by the courts,
except as an aid to proper interpretation." (16 C.J.S.
Jan. 2, 1962 Both Castillo and Aytona exercised the 471-478)."
power of their office which developed to
unpleasantness in the premises of the Central Bank If this is true as regards the legislative branch of the
and Aytona thereafter was definitely prevented from government, I can see no valid reason, and none has
holding office. been pointed out, why the same norm should not
govern our relations, with the executive department.
Aytona then instituted a proceeding (quo warranto) However, we have not merely disregarded such norm.
challenging Castillos right to exercise the powers as We are, also, in effect, restraining the Commission on
Governor of Central Bank and claimed he was validly Appointments an organ of a coordinate, co-equal
appointed and qualified for the post making the branch of the Government from acting on the
appointment of Castillo void. questioned appointments. What is more, we are
virtually assuming in advance that said body
Castillos reply was that Aytonas appointment was which has not been organized as yet and whose
revoked by Admin Order No. 2 of Macapagal. membership is still undetermined will not act in
harmony with the spirit of our Constitution.
Issue:
WON the 350 midnight appointments of former Pres. Javellana vs. Executive Secretary, 50 SCRA
Garcia were valid? 33
Held: FACTS:
No. It is common sense to believe that after the On January 20, 1973, just two days before the
proclamation of the election of President Macapagal, Supreme Court decided the sequel of plebiscite cases,
his was no more than a "care-taker" administration. He Javellana filed this suit against the respondents to
was duty bound to prepare for the orderly transfer of restrain them from implementing any of the provisions
authority the incoming President, and he should not do of the proposed Constitution not found in the present
acts which he ought to know, would embarrass or 1935 Constitution. This is a petition filed by him as a
obstruct the policies of his successor. The filling up Filipino citizen and a qualified and registered voter and
vacancies in important positions, if few, and so spaced as a class suit, for himself and in behalf of all citizens
to afford some assurance of deliberate action and and voters similarly situated. Javellana also alleged that
careful consideration of the need for the appointment the President had announced the immediate
and the appointee's qualifications may undoubtedly be implementation of the new constitution, thru his
permitted. But the issuance of 350 appointments in one Cabinet, respondents including.
night and planned induction of almost all of them a few
hours before the inauguration of the new President Respondents are acting without or in excess of
may, with some reason, be regarded by the latter as an jurisdiction in implementing the said proposed
abuse Presidential prerogatives, the steps taken being constitution upon ground the that the President as
apparently a mere partisan effort to fill all vacant Commander-in-Chief of the AFP is without authority to
positions irrespective of fitness and other conditions, create the Citizens Assemblies; without power to
and thereby deprive the new administration of an approve proposed constitution; without power to
opportunity to make the corresponding appointments. proclaim the ratification by the Filipino people of the
19
proposed constitution; and the election held to ratify the The plebiscite on the constitution not having been
proposed constitution was not a free election, hence conducted under the supervision of COMELEC is void.
null and void. The point is that, such of the Barrio Assemblies as were
held took place without the intervention of the
Following that, petitioners prayed for the nullification of COMELEC and without complying with the provisions of
Proclamation No. 1102 and any order, decree, and the Election Code of 1971 or even of those of
proclamation which have the same import and Presidential Decree No. 73. The procedure therein
objective. mostly followed is such that there is no reasonable
means of checking the accuracy of the returns filed by
ISSUES: the officers who conducted said plebiscites. This is
Whether or not the issue of the validity of Proclamation another patent violation of Article X of the 1935
No. 1102 is a justiciable or political question, and Constitution which form part of the fundamental scheme
therefore non-justiciable. set forth in the 1935 Constitution, as amended, to
insure the "free, orderly, and honest" expression of the
Whether or not the constitution proposed by the 1971 people's will. For this, the alleged plebiscite in the
Constitutional Convention has been ratified validly Citizens Assemblies is null and void, insofar as the
conforming to the applicable constitutional and statutory same are claimed to have ratified the revised
provisions. Constitution.
sovereignty of the Filipino people, and would expose jurisdiction, which the Constitution never intended to
said office to contempt and disrepute. Thus, a special confer upon a coordinate branch of the Government.
committee of 15 members to be appointed by the The theory of separation of powers fastidiously
Speaker is created to investigate the truth of charges observed by this Court, demands in such situation a
against the President of the Philippines made by prudent refusal to interfere. Each department, it has
Honorable Osmena Jr. in his privilege speech, been said, had exclusive cognizance of matters within
authorized to summon Honorable Osmena to appear its jurisdiction and is supreme within its own sphere.
before it to substantiate his charges, as well as to issue (Angara vs. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil., 139.)
subpoena and/or subpoena ducestecum to require SEC. 200. Judicial Interference with Legislature. The
attendance of witnesses and/or the production of principle is well established that the courts will not
pertinent papers before it. If ever Honorable Osmena assume a jurisdiction in any case amount to an
fails to do so, he is required to show cause why he interference by the judicial department with the
should not be punished by the House. The special legislature since each department is equally
committee shall submit a report of its findings and independent within the power conferred upon it by the
recommendations before the adjournment of the Constitution. . . . .
present special session of the Congress of the
Philippines. The general rule has been applied in other cases to
cause the courts to refuse to intervene in what are
In support of his request, Congressman Osmea exclusively legislative functions. Thus, where the stated
alleged; Senate is given the power to example a member, the
court will not review its action or revise even a most
1. The Resolution violated his constitutional absolute arbitrary or unfair decision. (11 Am. Jur., Const. Law,
parliamentary immunity for speeches delivered in the sec. p. 902.) [Emphasis Ours.].
House;
2. His words constituted no actionable conduct; and With regard to the declaratory relief, certiorari and
3. After his allegedly objectionable speech and prohibition with preliminary injunction against the
words, the House took up other business, and Rule respondents, the Court hereby find it moot and
XVII, sec. 7 of the Rules of House provides that if other academic because the Committee performed its task,
business has intervened after the member had uttered reported to the House, and the latter approved the
obnoxious words in debate, he shall not be held to suspension order. The House had closed it session,
answer therefor nor be subject to censure by the and the Committee has ceased to exist as such.
House.
Vera vs. Avelino, 77 SCRA 192
On July 18, 1960, after giving Congressman Osmea a
chance to defend himself, submitted its reports, finding
Facts:
said congressman guilty of serious disorderly
The Commission on Elections submitted last May 1946
behaviour; and acting on such report, the House
to the President and the Congress a report regarding
approved on the same daybefore closing its
the national elections held in 1946. It stated that by
sessionHouse Resolution No. 175, declaring him
reason of certain specified acts of terrorism and
guilty as recommended, and suspending him from
violence in certain provinces, namely Pampanga,
office for fifteen months.
Nueva Ecija, Bulacan and Tarlac, the voting in said
region did not reflect the accurate feedback of the local
There is no question that Congressman Osmea, in a
electorate.
privilege speech delivered before the House, made the
serious imputations of bribery against the President
During the session on May 25, 1946, a pendatum
which are quoted in Resolution No. 59 and that he
resolution was approved referring to the report ordering
refused to produce before the House Committee
that Jose O. Vera, Ramon Diokno and Jose E. Romero
created for the purpose, evidence to substantiate such
who had been included among the 16 candidates for
imputations. There is also no question that for having
senator receiving the highest number of votes and as
made the imputations and for failing to produce
proclaimed by the Commissions on Elections shall not
evidence in support thereof, he was, by resolution of
be sworn, nor seated, as members of the chamber,
the House, suspended from office for a period of fifteen
pending the termination of the protest filed against their
months for serious disorderly behaviour.
election.
Resolution No. 175 states in part:
Petitioners then immediately instituted an action against
WHEREAS, the Special Committee created under and
their colleagues who instituted the resolution, praying
by virtue of Resolution No. 59, adopted on July 8, 1960,
for its annulment and allowing them to occupy their
found Representative Sergio Osmea, Jr., guilty of
seats and to exercise their senatorial duties.
serious disorderly behaviour for making without basis in
Respondents assert the validity of the pendatum
truth and in fact, scurrilous, malicious, reckless and
resolution.
irresponsible charges against the President of the
Philippines in his privilege speech of June 23, 1960;
Issue:
and
Whether or Not the Commission on Elections has the
jurisdiction to determine whether or not votes cast in the
WHEREAS, the said charges are so vile in character
said provinces are valid.
that they affronted and degraded the dignity of the
House of Representative: Now, Therefore, be it
Held:
RESOLVED by the House of Representatives. That
The courts cannot dictate action in this respect without
Representative Sergio Osmea, Jr., be, as he hereby
a gross usurpation of power. So it has been held that
is, declared guilty of serious disorderly behavior.
where a member has been expelled by the legislative
Thus this moved Honorable Osmena to file before this
body, the courts have no power, irrespective of whether
court a declaratory relief, certiorari and prohibition with
the expulsion was right or wrong, to issue a mandate to
preliminary injunction against the defendants from
compel his reinstatement.
acting House Resolution No. 59.
Under our form of government the judicial department
ISSUE:
has no power to revise even the most arbitrary and
Whether or not Congressman Sergio Osmena is guilty
unfair action of the legislative department, or of either
of serious disorderly behavior.
house thereof, taken in pursuance of the power
committed exclusively to that department by the
RULING:
constitution.
The Court believed, however, that the House is the
judge of what constitutes disorderly behaviour, not only
Petitioners pray for a writ of prohibition. Under the law,
because the Constitution has conferred jurisdiction
prohibition refers only to proceedings of any tribunal,
upon it, but also because the matter depends mainly on
corporation, board, or person, exercising functions
factual circumstances of which the House knows best
judicial or ministerial. (Rule 67, section 2, Rules of
but which can not be depicted in black and white for
Court.) As the respondents do not exercise such kind of
presentation to, and adjudication by the Courts. For one
functions, theirs being legislative, it is clear the dispute
thing, if this Court assumed the power to determine
falls beyond the scope of such special remedy.
whether Osmea conduct constituted disorderly
behaviour, it would thereby have assumed appellate
21
The Electoral Commission shall be the sole judge of the Puno on May 17, 2010 or seven days after the
election, returns, and qualifications of the Members of presidential election. On December 22, 2009,
the National Assembly. But the power to defer the oath- Congressman Matias V. Defensor, an ex officio
taking, until the contests is adjudged, does not belong member of the JBC, addressed a letter to the JBC,
to the corresponding Electoral Tribunal, then it must be requesting that the process for nominations to the office
held that the House or Senate still retains such of the Chief Justice be commenced immediately. In its
authority, for it has not been transferred to, nor January 18, 2010 meeting en banc, the JBC passed a
assumed by, the Electoral Tribunal. resolution which stated that they have unanimously
agreed to start the process of filling up the position of
In sum, the Supreme Court refused to intervene, under Chief Justice to be vacated on May 17, 2010 upon the
the concept of separation of powers, holding that the retirement of the incumbent Chief Justice. As a result,
case was not a contest, and affirmed that it is the the JBC opened the position of Chief Justice for
inherent right of the legislature to determine who shall application or recommendation, and published for that
be admitted to its membership. Following the powers purpose its announcement in the Philippine Daily
assigned by the Constitution, the question raised was Inquirer and the Philippine Star. In its meeting of
political in nature and therefore not under the juridical February 8, 2010, the JBC resolved to proceed to the
review of the courts next step of announcing the names of the following
candidates to invite to the public to file their sworn
The case is therefore dismissed. complaint, written report, or opposition, if any, not later
than February 22, 2010. Although it has already begun
Phil. Bar Association vs. COMELEC, GR the process for the filling of the position of Chief Justice
No. 72915, Dec. 20, 1985 Puno in accordance with its rules, the JBC is not yet
decided on when to submit to the President its list of
nominees for the position due to the controversy in this
FACTS:
case being unresolved. The compiled cases which led
to this case and the petitions of intervenors called for
11 petitions were filed for prohibition against the
either the prohibition of the JBC to pass the shortlist,
enforcement of BP 883 which calls for special national
mandamus for the JBC to pass the shortlist, or that the
elections on February 7, 1986 (Snap elections) for the act of appointing the next Chief Justice by GMA is a
offices of President and Vice President of the
midnight appointment. A precedent frequently cited by
Philippines. BP 883 in conflict with the constitution in
the parties is the In Re Appointments Dated March 30,
that it allows the President to continue holding office 1998 of Hon. Mateo A. Valenzuela and Hon. Placido B.
after the calling of the special election.
Vallarta as Judges of the RTC of Branch 62, Bago City
and of Branch 24, Cabanatuan City, respectively,
Senator Pelaez submits that President Marcos letter of shortly referred to here as the Valenzuela case, by
conditional resignation did not create the actual
which the Court held that Section 15, Article VII
vacancy required in Section 9, Article 7 of the
prohibited the exercise by the President of the power to
Constitution which could be the basis of the holding of a appoint to judicial positions during the period therein
special election for President and Vice President earlier
fixed.
than the regular elections for such positions in 1987.
The letter states that the President is: irrevocably ISSUE:
vacat(ing) the position of President effective only when
Whether or not there is justiciable controversy that is
the election is held and after the winner is proclaimed
ripe for judicial determination.
and qualified as President by taking his oath office ten
(10) days after his proclamation.
HELD:
The unified opposition, rather than insist on strict There is a justiciable issue. The court holds that the
compliance with the cited constitutional provision that
petitions set forth an actual case or controversy that is
the incumbent President actually resign, vacate his ripe for judicial determination. The reality is that the
office and turn it over to the Speaker of the Batasang JBC already commenced the proceedings for the
Pambansa as acting President, their standard bearers
selection of the nominees to be included in a short list
have not filed any suit or petition in intervention for the to be submitted to the President for consideration of
purpose nor repudiated the scheduled election. They which of them will succeed Chief Justice Puno as the
have not insisted that President Marcos vacate his
next Chief Justice. Although the position is not yet
office, so long as the election is clean, fair and honest. vacant, the fact that the JBC began the process of
nomination pursuant to its rules and practices, although
ISSUE:
it has yet to decide whether to submit the list of
nominees to the incumbent outgoing President or to the
Is BP 883 unconstitutional, and should the Supreme next President, makes the situation ripe for judicial
Court therefore stop and prohibit the holding of the
determination, because the next steps are the public
elections interview of the candidates, the preparation of the short
list of candidates, and the interview of constitutional
HELD:
experts, as may be needed. The resolution of the
controversy will surely settle with finality the
The petitions in these cases are dismissed and the nagging questions that are preventing the JBC from
prayer for the issuance of an injunction restraining
moving on with the process that it already began, or
respondents from holding the election on February 7, that are reasons persuading the JBC to desist from the
1986, in as much as there are less than the required 10
rest of the process
votes to declare BP 883 unconstitutional.
The events that have transpired since December 3,as Romulo vs. Iniguez, 141 SCRA 263
the Court did not issue any restraining order, have
turned the issue into a political question (from the FACTS:
purely justiciable issue of the questioned Petition for prohibition to restrain respondents from
constitutionality of the act due to the lack of the actual enforcing Sections 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Batasan Rules of
vacancy of the Presidents office) which can be truly Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings and
decided only by the people in their sovereign capacity mandamus to compel the Batasan Committee on
at the scheduled election, since there is no issue more Justice, Human Rights and Good Government to recall
political than the election. The Court cannot stand in the from the archives and report out the resolution together
way of letting the people decide through their ballot, with the verified complaint for the impeachment of the
either to give the incumbent president a new mandate President of the Philippines.
or to elect a new president.
Petitioners, representing more than one-fifth of all
De Castro vs. Committee on Justice, GR members of the Batasan, filed with the Batasan on
August 13, 1985 Resolution No. 644 calling for the
No. 71688, Sept 10, 1985 impeachment of President Marcos together with a
verified complaint for impeachment. Said resolution and
FACTS: complaint were referred by the Speaker to the
This case is based on multiple cases field with dealt Committee on Justice, Human Rights and Good
with the controversy that has arisen from the Government. The Committee found the complaint not
forthcoming compulsory requirement of Chief Justice sufficient in form and substance to warrant its further
22
consideration and disapproved Resolution No. 644 and the powers of the Court to review. The powers of the
dismissed all the charges contained in the complaint Batasan to dismiss a petition for impeachment which in
attached thereto on August 14, 1985. It then submitted its judgment it finds not meritorious or defective in form
its report which was duly noted by the Batasan and sent and substance are discretionary in nature and,
to the archives. therefore, not subject to judicial compulsion.
On August 14, 1985, MP Ramon V. Mitra filed with the Avelino vs. Cuenco, 83 Phil 17
Batasan a motion praying for the recall from the
archives of Resolution No. 644 and the verified
FACTS:
complaint attached thereto. Said motion was
disapproved by the Batasan. On February 18, 1949, Senator Lorenzo Taada
invoked his right to speak on the senate floor to
formulate charges against the then Senate President
On September 7, 1985, the present petition was filed
with this Court. In said petition, petitioners pray that Jose Avelino. He requested to do so on the next
session (Feb. 21, 1949). On the next session day
after hearing this Court declare Sections 4, 5, 6 and 8
however, Avelino delayed the opening of the session
of the Batasan Rules on Impeachment which was
approved by the Batasan on August 16, 1984 by a vote for about two hours. Upon insistent demand by Taada,
Mariano Cuenco, Prospero Sanidad and other
of 114 in favor and 58 against, unconstitutional, and
Senators, Avelino was forced to open session. He
Committee Report No. 154 of the Batasan Committee
on Justice, Human Rights and Good Government however, together with his allies initiated all dilatory and
delaying tactics to forestall Taada from delivering his
dismissing Resolution No. 644 and the complaint for
piece. Motions being raised by Taada et al were being
impeachment attached thereto, null and void. They also
pray that this Court issue a writ of preliminary injunction blocked by Avelino and his allies and they even ruled
Taada and Sanidad, among others, as being out of
restraining respondents from enforcing and questioned
order.
provisions of the aforementioned Rules and a Writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction commanding the
Avelinos camp then moved to adjourn the session due
Batasan Committee on Justice, Human Rights and
to the disorder. Sanidad however countered and they
Good Government to recall from the archives and
report out the resolution and complaint for requested the said adjournment to be placed in voting.
Avelino just banged his gavel and he hurriedly left his
impeachment in order that the impeachment trial can be
chair and he was immediately followed by his followers.
conducted forthwith by the Batasan as a body.
Senator Tomas Cabili then stood up, and asked that it
be made of record it was so made that the
In G.R. No. L-71688 filed on August 17, 1985, Arturo M.
deliberate abandonment of the Chair by the Avelino,
de Castro and Perfecto L. Cagampang, claiming to be
members of good standing of the Integrated Bar of the made it incumbent upon Senate President Pro-tempore
Melencio Arranz and the remaining members of the
Philippines and taxpayers, filed a petition with this Court
Senate to continue the session in order not to paralyze
for certiorari to annul the resolution of the Committee on
Justice, Human Rights and Good Government, the very the functions of the Senate.
same resolution subject of the present petition,
Taada was subsequently recognized to deliver his
dismissing the complaint for the impeachment of the
President of the Philippines signed by the petitioners in speech. Later, Arranz yielded to Sanidads Resolution
(No. 68) that Cuenco be elected as the Senate
the present case, and mandamus to compel said
President. This was unanimously approved and was
Committee on Justice and the Batasan, represented by
its Speaker, to give due course to said complaint for even recognized by the President of the Philippines the
following day. Cuenco took his oath of office thereafter.
impeachment.
Avelino then filed a quo warranto proceeding before the
ISSUE: SC to declare him as the rightful Senate President.
Whether or not the Supreme Court have the jurisdiction
in this case? ISSUE:
Whether or not the SC can take cognizance of the
case.
In denying due course to said petition and dismissing
outright the same, The court HELD:
The l973 Constitution has vested in the Batasan HELD:
No. By a vote of 6 to 4, the SC held that they cannot
Pambansa the exclusive power to initiate, try and
decide all cases of impeachment. The action of the take cognizance of the case. This is in view of the
Committee on Justice of the Batasan to whom the separation of powers, the political nature of the
controversy and the constitutional grant to the Senate
complaint for the impeachment of the President had
been referred dismissing said petition for being of the power to elect its own president, which power
insufficient in form and substance involves a political should not be interfered with, nor taken over, by the
judiciary. The SC should abstain in this case because
question not cognizable by the Courts. The dismissal of
said petition is within the ambit of the powers vested the selection of the presiding officer affects only the
exclusively in the Batasan by express provision of Sec. Senators themselves who are at liberty at any time to
choose their officers, change or reinstate them.
2, Article XIII of the Constitution and it is not within the
competence of this Court to inquire whether in the Anyway, if, as the petition must imply to be acceptable,
exercise of said power the Batasan acted wisely. There the majority of the Senators want petitioner to preside,
his remedy lies in the Senate Session Hall not in the
is no allegation in the petition for certiorari that in the
exercise of its powers the Batasan had violated any Supreme Court.
provision of the Constitution.
Supposed the SC can take cognizance of the case,
The fact that the Committee on Justice dismissed the what will be the resolution?
petition on the same day it was filed after deliberating
on it for several hours as reported in the newspapers,
radio and television (which must have been the basis of There is unanimity in the view that the session under
Senator Arranz was a continuation of the morning
petitioners' claim that the Committee had acted with
session and that a minority of ten senators (Avelino et
undue haste in unceremoniously dismissing the
complaint for impeachment) does not provide basis for al) may not, by leaving the Hall, prevent the other
(Cuenco et al) twelve senators from passing a
concluding that there had been a violation of any
resolution that met with their unanimous endorsement.
provision of the Constitution which would justify the
Court's intervention to ensure proper observance of The answer might be different had the resolution been
approved only by ten or less.
constitutional norms and conduct.
Beyond saying that the Batasan may initiate **Two senators were not present that time. Sen. Soto
was in a hospital while Sen. Confesor was in the USA.
impeachment by a vote of at least one-fifth of all its
Is the rump session (presided by Cuenco) a
Members and that no official shall be convicted without
the concurrence of at least two-thirds of all the continuation of the morning session (presided by
Avelino)? Are there two sessions in one day? Was
members thereof, the Constitution says no more. It
there a quorum constituting such session?
does not lay down the procedure to be followed in
impeachment proceedings. It is up to the Batasan to
The second session is a continuation of the morning
enact its own rules of procedure in said impeachment
session as evidenced by the minutes entered into the
proceedings, which it had already done, The
interpretation and application of said rules are beyond journal. There were 23 senators considered to be in
23
session that time (including Soto, excluding Confesor). Confesor was in the United States and absent from the
Hence, twelve senators constitute a majority of the jurisdiction of the Senate, the actual members of the
Senate of twenty three senators. When the Constitution Senate at its session of February 21, 1949, were
declares that a majority of each House shall constitute twenty-three (23) and therefore 12 constituted a
a quorum, the House does not mean all the majority.
members. Even a majority of all the members constitute
the House. There is a difference between a majority of MERALCO vs. Pasay Trans., Co., 57 Phil
all the members of the House and a majority of the 825
House, the latter requiring less number than the first.
Therefore an absolute majority (12) of all the members
of the Senate less one (23), constitutes constitutional FACTS:
majority of the Senate for the purpose of a quorum. Whenever any franchise or right of way is granted to
any other person or corporation, now or hereafter in
Furthermore, even if the twelve did not constitute a existence, over portions of the lines and tracks of the
grantee herein, the terms on which said other person or
quorum, they could have ordered the arrest of one, at
corporation shall use such right of way, and the
least, of the absent members; if one had been so
arrested, there would be no doubt Quorum then, and compensation to be paid to the grantee herein by such
other person or corporation for said use, shall be fixed
Senator Cuenco would have been elected just the
by the members of the Supreme Court sitting as a
same inasmuch as there would be eleven for Cuenco,
one against and one abstained. board of arbitrators, the decision of a majority of whom
shall be final. Said Act provides that for every franchise
granted, terms as to the usage and compensation to be
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (filed by Avelino
on March 14, 1949) paid to the grantee shall be fixed by the members of the
Supreme Court sitting as board of arbitrators, a majority
vote is required and this is final.
Avelino and his group (11 senators in all) insist that the
SC take cognizance of the case and that they are
Pursuant to said Act, MERALCO filed a petition before
willing to bind themselves to the decision of the SC
the court requesting the members of the Supreme
whether it be right or wrong. Avelino contends that
there is no constitutional quorum when Cuenco was Court sitting as board of arbitrators to fix the terms upon
which certain transportation companies shall be
elected president. There are 24 senators in all. Two are
permitted to use the Pasig Bridge of the MERALCO.
absentee senators; one being confined and the other
abroad but this does not change the number of Copies were sent to affected transpo company (one of
which is the Pasay Transpo) and to Atty-Gen which
senators nor does it change the majority which if
disclaimed any interest.
mathematically construed is + 1; in this case 12 (half
of 24) plus 1 or 13 NOT 12. There being only 12
ISSUES:
senators when Cuenco was elected unanimously there
Whether or not the members of the Supreme Court can
was no quorum.
sit as arbitrators and fix the terms and compensation as
is asked of them in this case
The Supreme Court, by a vote of seven resolved to
assume jurisdiction over the case in the light of
subsequent events which justify its intervention. The HELD:
No. The Supreme Court represents one of the three
Chief Justice agrees with the result of the majoritys
divisions of power in our government. It is judicial power
pronouncement on the quorum upon the ground that,
under the peculiar circumstances of the case, the and judicial power only which is exercised by the
Supreme Court. Just as the Supreme Court, as the
constitutional requirement in that regard has become a
guardian of constitutional rights, should not sanction
mere formalism, it appearing from the evidence that any
new session with a quorum would result in Cuencos usurpations by any other department of the
government, so should it as strictly confine its own
election as Senate President, and that the Cuenco
group, taking cue from the dissenting opinions, has sphere of influence to the powers expressly or by
been trying to satisfy such formalism by issuing implication conferred on it by the Organic Act. The
Supreme Court and its members should not and cannot
compulsory processes against senators of the Avelino
group, but to no avail, because of the Avelinos be required to exercise any power or to perform any
persistent efforts to block all avenues to constitutional trust or to assume any duty not pertaining to or
connected with the administering of judicial functions.
processes. For this reason, the SC believes that the
Cuenco group has done enough to satisfy the
requirements of the Constitution and that the majoritys The Organic Act provides that the Supreme Court of the
Philippine Islands shall possess and exercise
ruling is in conformity with substantial justice and with
the requirements of public interest. Therefore Cuenco jurisdiction as heretofore provided and such additional
has been legally elected as Senate President and the jurisdiction as shall hereafter be prescribed by law (sec.
26).When the Organic Act speaks of the exercise of
petition is dismissed.
"jurisdiction" by the Supreme Court, it could not only
Justice Feria: (Concurring) mean the exercise of "jurisdiction" by the Supreme
Court acting as a court, and could hardly
Art. 3 (4) Title VI of the Constitution of 1935 provided mean the exercise of "jurisdiction" by the members
that the majority of all the members of the National of the Supreme Court, sitting as a board of arbitrators.
A board of arbitrators is not a "court" in any proper
Assembly constitute a quorum to do business and the
fact that said provision was amended in the Constitution sense of the term, and possesses none of the
jurisdiction which the Organic Act contemplates shall be
of 1939, so as to read a majority of each House shall
exercised by the Supreme Court. The power conferred
constitute a quorum to do business, shows the
intention of the framers of the Constitution to base the on this court is exclusively judicial, and it cannot be
required or authorized to exercise any other. . . .
majority, not on the number fixed or provided for in the
Constitution, but on actual members or incumbents,
and this must be limited to actual members who are not Its jurisdiction and powers and duties being defined in
the organic law of the government, and being all strictly
incapacitated to discharge their duties by reason of
judicial, Congress cannot require or authorize the court
death, incapacity, or absence from the jurisdiction of the
house or for other causes which make attendance of to exercise any other jurisdiction or power, or perform
any other duty. Section 11 of Act No. 1446
the member concerned impossible, even through
contravenes the maxims which guide the operation
coercive process which each house is empowered to
issue to compel its members to attend the session in of a democratic government constitutionally
established, and that it would be improper and illegal for
order to constitute a quorum.
the members of the Supreme Court, sitting as a board
That the amendment was intentional or made for some of arbitrators, the decision of a majority of whom shall
be final, to act on the petition of the Manila Electric
purpose, and not a mere oversight, or for considering
Company.
the use of the words of all the members as
unnecessary, is evidenced by the fact that Sec. 5 (5)
Title VI of the original Constitution which required Endencia vs. David, GR No. L-6455, Aug 31,
concurrence of two-thirds of the members of the 1953
National Assembly to expel a member was amended
by Sec. 10 (3) Article VI of the present Constitution, so FACTS
as to require the concurrence of two-thirds of all the
members of each House. Therefore, as Senator
24
Collector of Internal Revenue Saturnino David ordered or the extension thereof, and must
the taxing of Justice Pastor Endencias and Justice promulgate its decision thereon within
Fernando Jugos compensation pursuant to Sec 13 of
RA 590 which states that SEC. 13. No salary
thirty days from its filing.
wherever received by any public officer of the Republic
of the Philippines shall be considered as exempt from ii. Formerly a political question
the income tax, payment of which is hereby declared
not to be a diminution of his compensation fixed by the The duty remains to assure that the
Constitution or by law. According to Solicitor General
supremacy of the Constitution is upheld
Juan R. Liwanag and Solicitor Jose P. Alejandro on
behalf of appellant Collector of Internal Revenue, our [Aquino v. Enrile, 59 SCRA 183]. The
decision in the case of Perfecto vs. Meer, supra, was power is inherent in the Judicial
not received favorably by Congress, because Department, by virtue of the doctrine of
immediately after its promulgation, Congress enacted separation of powers.
Republic Act No. 590. The Solicitor General also
reproduces what he considers the pertinent discussion
in the Lower House of House Bill No. 1127 which CASE:
became Republic Act No. 590.
Aquino vs. Enrile, L-35546,
ISSUE September 17, 1974
Whether Sec 13 of RA 590 is constitutional or not.
FACTS:
HELD: These (9) cases are all petitions for habeas
By legislative fiat as enunciated in section 13, RA No. corpus, the petitioners having been arrested
590, Congress says that taxing the salary of a judicial and detained by the military by virtue of the
officer is not a decrease of compensation. This is a Presidents Proclamation No. 1081, dated
clear example of interpretation or ascertainment of the September 21, 1972.
meaning of the phrase which shall not be diminished
during their continuance in office, found in section 9, It should be explained at this point that when
Article VIII of the Constitution, referring to the salaries the Court voted on Dioknos motion to
of judicial officers. withdraw his petition he was still under
detention without charges, and continued to
This act of interpreting the Constitution or any part remain so up to the time the separate opinions
thereof by the Legislature is an invasion of the well- of the individual Justices were put in final form
defined and established province and jurisdiction of the preparatory to their promulgation on
Judiciary. The rule is recognized elsewhere that the September 12, which was the last day of
legislature cannot pass any declaratory act, or act Justice Zaldivars tenure in the Court. 2Before
declaratory of what the law was before its passage, so they could be promulgated, however, a major
as to give it any binding weight with the courts. A development supervened: petitioner Diokno
legislative definition of a word as used in a statute is not was released by the President in the morning
conclusive of its meaning as used elsewhere; of September 11, 1974.
otherwise, the legislature would be usurping a judicial
function in defining a term. The reason behind the The petitioners in the other cases, except
exemption in the Constitution, as interpreted by the Benigno Aquino, Jr. (G.R. No. L-35546), either
United States Federal Supreme Court and this Court, is have been permitted to withdraw their petitions
to preserve the independence of the Judiciary, not only or have been released from detention subject
of this High Tribunal but of the other courts, whose to certain restrictions.
present membership number more than 990 judicial
officials. The independence of the judges is of far In the case of Aquino, formal charges of
greater importance than any revenue that could come murder, subversion and illegal possession of
from taxing their salaries. firearms were lodged against him with a
Military Commission on August 11, 1973; and
In conclusion we reiterate the doctrine laid down in the on the following August 23 he challenged the
case of Perfecto vs. Meer, supra, to the effect that the jurisdiction of said Commission as well as his
collection of income tax on the salary of a judicial officer continued detention by virtue of those charges
is a diminution thereof and so violates the Constitution. in a petition for certiorari and prohibition filed in
We further hold that the interpretation and application of this Court.
the Constitution and of statutes is within the exclusive
province and jurisdiction of the judicial department, and The question came up as to whether or not
that in enacting a law, the Legislature may not legally Aquinos petition for habeas corpus should be
provide therein that it be interpreted in such a way that dismissed on the ground that the case as to
it may not violate a Constitutional prohibition, thereby him should more appropriately be resolved in
tying the hands of the courts in their task of later this new petition. Of the twelve Justices,
interpreting said statute, especially when the however, eight voted against such dismissal
interpretation sought and provided in said statute runs and chose to consider the case on the merits.
counter to a previous interpretation already given in a
case by the highest court of the land. Juan Ponce Enrile, then the Minister of
National Defense, issued and ordered the
3. Expanded jurisdiction of the judiciary under the arrest of these individuals including Benigno
1987 Constitution [sec. 1 (2nd par.), Art. VIII] Aquino, Jr., in pursuant to General Order No. 2
a. Now includes determination of WON there of the President for being participants or for
had been GAD (grave abuse of discretion) having given aid and comfort in the conspiracy
to seize political and state power in the country
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and to take over the Government by force.
on the part of any branch or Hence, Aquino and the others filed a petition
instrumentality of the Government for habeas corpus against Enrile.
assumed by virtue of Proclamation No. 1081 disappeared, indeed had been exacerbated,
(September 21, 1972) placing the entire as events shortly before said proclamation
country under martial law. clearly demonstrated. On this Point the Court
is practically unanimous; Justice Teehankee
ISSUE(S): merely refrained from discussing it.
1. Whether or not the existence of
conditions claimed to justify the existence of The argument that while armed hostilities go
power to declare martial law subject to judicial on in several provinces in Mindanao there are
inquiry. none in other regions except in isolated
2. Whether or not the detention of the pockets in Luzon, and that therefore there is
petitioners is legal in accordance to the no need to maintain martial law all over the
declared Martial Law. country, ignores the sophisticated nature and
ramifications of rebellion in a modern setting.
RULING:
The question of validity of Proclamation No.
ISSUE 1: 1081 has been foreclosed by the transitory
The Court ruled that the cases have provision of the 1973 Constitution [Art. XVII,
become moot and academic due to Sec. 3(2)] that all proclamations, orders,
constitutional sufficiency of the factual decrees, instructions, and acts promulgated,
bases for the proclamation of Martial Law. issued, or done by the incumbent President
Justices have held that the inquiry is of a shall be part of the law of the land and shall
political one rather than that of a justiciable remain valid, legal, binding and effective even
one and thus not subject to legal inquiry. after the ratification of this Constitution
ISSUE 2:
It is inherent to the declaration of Martial
Law the suspension of the writ of habeas
corpus with respect to persons arrested or
detained for acts related to invasion,
insurrection or rebellion, or to safeguard
the public against imminent danger. Thus,
these cases were dismissed by the
Supreme Court.
(2) The Congress may, by law, authorize the Prescribes the manner of passing bills in the
President to fix within specified limits, and form they should take
subject to such limitations and restrictions as it Limitations provided by Sec 26, Art VI
may impose, tariff rates, import and export o Every bill passed by the Congress shall
quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other embrace only one subject which shall be
duties or imposts within the framework of the expressed in the title
national development program of the o No bill passed by either house shall become
Government. law unless it has passed 3readings on
separate days
(3) Charitable institutions, churches and o Printed copies in its final form have been
parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, distributed to its members 3 days before the
mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, passage of the bill
buildings, and improvements, actually, directly,
and exclusively used for religious, charitable,
or educational purposes shall be exempt from Exception: president certifies to the necessity
taxation. of its immediate enactment to meet a public
calamity or emergency
(4) No law granting any tax exemption shall be
passed without the concurrence of a majority 2. Non-Legislative Power
of all the Members of the Congress. a. Canvass of presidential elections (Sec. 5,
Art. VII)
SECTION 29 (3). All money collected on any
tax levied for a special purpose shall be SECTION 5. Before they enter on the
treated as a special fund and paid out for such execution of their office, the President, the
purpose only. If the purpose for which a Vice-President, or the Acting President
special fund was created has been fulfilled or shall take the following oath or affirmation:
abandoned, the balance, if any, shall be
transferred to the general funds of the I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
Government. faithfully and conscientiously fulfill my
duties as President (or Vice-President or
o art. 14 4(3) Acting President) of the Philippines,
preserve and defend its Constitution,
execute its laws, do justice to every man,
28
SECTION 16. The President shall B. House of Representatives (Sec. 5, Art. VI)
nominate and, with the consent of the
Commission on Appointments, appoint the Not more than 250 members, unless otherwise
heads of the executive departments, provided by law, consisting of:
ambassadors, other public ministers and
consuls, or officers of the armed forces 1. District representatives, elected from
from the rank of colonel or naval captain, legislative districts apportioned among the
and other officers whose appointments are provinces, cities and the Metropolitan Manila area.
vested in him in this Constitution. He shall 2. Party-list representatives, who shall constitute
also appoint all other officers of the twenty per centum of the total number of
Government whose appointments are not representatives, elected through a party-list system
otherwise provided for by law, and those of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties
whom he may be authorized by law to or organizations.
appoint. The Congress may, by law, vest 3. Sectoral representatives. For three
the appointment of other officers lower in consecutive terms after the ratification of the
rank in the President alone, in the courts, Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to
or in the heads of departments, agencies, party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided
commissions, or boards. by law, by selection or election from the labor,
peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural
The President shall have the power to communities, women, youth, and such other
make appointments during the recess of sectors as may be provided by law, except the
the Congress, whether voluntary or religious sector.
compulsory, but such appointments shall
be effective only until after disapproval by i) Until a law is passed, the President may fill
the Commission on Appointments or until by appointment from a list of nominees by the
the next adjournment of the Congress. respective sectors the seats reserved for
sectoral representation [Sec. 7, Art. XVIII,
e. Amendments to and revision of the 1987]. These appointments shall be subject to
constitution (See Art. XVII) confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments [Quintos-Deles v. Committee on
f. Impeachment (See Sec. 3, Art. XI) Constitutional Commissions, Commission on
Appointments, 177 SCRA 259].
B. Implied (e.g. power to punish for contempt during
legislative investigations) Bicameralism v. Unicameralism
The Congress of the Philippines is a bicameral
C. Inherent (e.g. determination of rules of body composed of a Senate and House of
proceedings; discipline of members; exercise of the Representatives, the first being considered as
inherent powers of police power, taxation, and the upper house and the second the lower
eminent domain) house.
29
ISSUE:
Normally a persons domicile is his domicile of Whether petitioner has satisfied the 1 year residency
origin. requirement to be eligible in running as representative of the
First District of Leyte.
If a person never loses his or her domicile, the one
HELD:
year requirement of Section 6 is not of relevance
because he or she is deemed never to have left the Residence is used synonymously with domicile for election
place. (Romualdez-Marcos v. COMELEC) purposes. The court are in favor of a conclusion supporting
petitoners claim of legal residence or domicile in the First
A person may lose her domicile by voluntary District of Leyte despite her own declaration of 7 months
residency in the district for the following reasons:
abandonment for a new one or by marriage to a
husband (who under the Civil Code dictates the 1. A minor follows domicile of her parents. Tacloban
wifes domicile). became Imeldas domicile of origin by operation of law when
her father brought them to Leyte;
30
Move Makati, a registered political party, and Mateo Bedon, The Constitution requires a person running for a post in the
Chairman of LAKAS-NUCD-UMDP of Barangay Cembo, HR one year of residency prior to the elections in the district
Makati City, filed a petition to disqualify Aquino on the in which he seeks election to.
ground that the latter lacked the residence qualification as a
candidate for congressman which under Section 6, Article VI Aquinos certificate of candidacy in a previous (May 11,
of the 1987 Constitution, should be for a period not less than 1992) election indicates that he was a resident and a
one year preceding the (May 8, 1995) day of the election. registered voter of San Jose, Concepcion, Tarlac for more
Faced with a petition for disqualification, Aquino amended than 52 years prior to that election. His birth certificate
the entry on his residency in his certificate of candidacy to 1 indicated that Conception as his birthplace and his COC also
year and 13 days. The Commission on Elections passed a showed him to be a registered voter of the same district.
resolution that dismissed the petition on May 6 and allowed Thus his domicile of origin (obviously, choice as well) up to
Aquino to run in the election of 8 May. Aquino, with 38,547 the filing of his COC was in Conception, Tarlac.
votes, won against Augusto Syjuco with 35,910 votes.
Aquinos connection to the new Second District of Makati
Move Makati filed a motion of reconsideration with the City is an alleged lease agreement of a condominium unit in
Comelec, to which, on May 15, the latter acted with an order the area. The intention not to establish a permanent home in
suspending the proclamation of Aquino until the Commission Makati City is evident in his leasing a condominium unit
resolved the issue. On 2 June, the Commission on Elections instead of buying one. The short length of time he claims to
found Aquino ineligible and disqualified for the elective office be a resident of Makati (and the fact of his stated domicile in
for lack of constitutional qualification of residence. Tarlac and his claims of other residences in Metro Manila)
indicate that his sole purpose in transferring his physical
Aquino then filed a Petition of Certiorari assailing the May 15 residence is not to acquire a new, residence or domicile but
and June 2 orders. only to qualify as a candidate for Representative of the
Second District of Makati City.
Issue:
1. Whether residency in the certificate of candidacy actually Aquinos assertion that he has transferred his domicile from
connotes domicile to warrant the disqualification of Aquino Tarlac to Makati is a bare assertion which is hardly
from the position in the electoral district. supported by the facts in the case at bench. To successfully
2. WON it is proven that Aquino has established domicile of effect a change of domicile, petitioner must prove an actual
choice and not just residence (not in the sense of the removal or an actual change of domicile, a bona fide
COC)in the district he was running in. intention of abandoning the former place of residence and
establishing a new one and definite acts which correspond
Held: with the purpose.
1. Yes, The term residence has always been understood
as synonymous with domicile not only under the previous Aquino was thus rightfully disqualified by the Commission on
constitutions but also under the 1987 Constitution. The Court Elections due to his lack of one year residence in the district.
cited the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission
wherein this principle was applied. Decision
Mr. Nolledo: Instant petition dismissed. Order restraining respondent
I remember that in the 1971 Constitutional Convention, there Comelec from proclaiming the candidate garnering the next
was an attempt to require residence in the place not less highest number of votes in the congressional elections of
than one year immediately preceding the day of elections. Second district of Makati City made permanent.
Dicta:
31
I. Aquinos petition of certiorari contents were: functions, the three departments of government have no
choice but to yield obedience to the commands of the
A. The Comelecs lack of jurisdiction to determine the Constitution. Whatever limits it imposes must be observed.
disqualification issue involving congressional candidates
after the May 8, 1995 elections, such determination reserved
with the house of representatives electional tribunal
IV. Term of Office of the Members (Sec. 4, Art. VI, in
B. Even if the Comelec has jurisdiction, the jurisdiction relation to Sec. 2, Art. XVIII; Sec. 7, Art. VI)
ceased in the instant case after the elections and the remedy
to the adverse parties lies in another forum which is the HR Senate:
Electoral Tribunal consistent with Section 17, Article VI of the [Sec. 4, Art. VI]: Six years, commencing at noon on the
1987 Constitution.
30th day of June next following their election.
C. The COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion Limitation: No Senator shall serve for more than two
when it proceeded to promulagate its questioned decision consecutive terms. However, they may serve for more
despite its own recognition that a threshold issue of than two terms provided that the terms are not
jurisdiction has to be judiciously reviewed again, assuming consecutive.
arguendo that the Comelec has jurisdiction
D. The Comelecs finding of non-compliance with the Effect of Voluntary Renunciation. Voluntary
residency requirement of one year against the petitioner is renunciation of office for any length of time shall not be
contrary to evidence and to applicable laws and considered as an interruption in the continuity of his
jurisprudence. service for the full term for which elected.
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
Staggering of Terms. The Senate shall not at any time
districts which were only existing for less than a year at the be completely dissolved. One-half of the membership is
time of the election and barely four months in the case of retained as the other half is replaced or reelected every
petitioners district in Makati. three years.
F. The Comelec committed serious error amounting to lack
Reason for Staggering. The continuity of the life of the
of jurisdiction when it ordered the board of canvassers to
determine and proclaim the winner out of the remaining Senate is intended to encourage the maintenance of
qualified candidates after the erroneous disqualification of Senate policies as well as guarantee that there will be
the petitioner in disregard of the doctrine that a second place experienced members who can help and train
candidate or a person who was repudiated by the electorate newcomers in the discharge of their duties.
is a loser and cannot be proclaimed as substitute winner.
SECTION 1. The first elections of Members of the b. at least one (1) year before the next regular
Congress under this Constitution shall be held on election members of Congress
the second Monday of May, 1987. 2. The particular House of Congress where
vacancy occurs must pass either a resolution if
The first local elections shall be held on a date to Congress is in session or the Senate President or
be determined by the President, which may be the Speaker must sign a certification, if Congress is
simultaneous with the election of the Members of not in session,
the Congress. It shall include the election of all a. declaring the existence of vacancy;
Members of the city or municipal councils in the b. calling for a special election to be held within 45
Metropolitan Manila area. to 90 days from the date of the resolution or
certification.
B. 2nd Elections: 2nd Monday, May 92 (Sec. 2, Art. 3. The Senator or representative elected shall
XVIII) serve only for the unexpired term.
SECTION 2. The Senators, Members of the House VI. Salaries/Accounts of Members (Sec. 10 and 20, Art. VI)
of Representatives, and the local officials first
elected under this Constitution shall serve until Salaries:
noon of June 30, 1992. [Sec. 10, Art. VI - The salaries of Senators and
Members of the House of Representatives shall be
Of the Senators elected in the election of 1992, the determined by law. No increase in said compensation
first twelve obtaining the highest number of votes shall take effect until ater the expiration of the full term
shall serve for six years and the remaining twelve of all the members of the Senate and the House of
for three years. Representatives approving such increase.] See
Philconsa v. Mathay, 18 SCRA 300; Ligot v. Mathay, 56
C. Succeeding regular elections: 3-year interval, SCRA 823.
every 2nd Monday of May, unless otherwise
provided by law (Sec. 8, Art. VI) Accounts:
SECTION 20. The records and books of accounts of
SECTION 8. Unless otherwise provided by law, the the Congress shall be preserved and be open to the
regular election of the Senators and the Members public in accordance with law, and such books shall be
of the House of Representatives shall be held on audited by the Commission on Audit which shall publish
the second Monday of May. annually an itemized list of amounts paid to and
expenses incurred for each Member.
Regular election
A person holding office in the House must yield his Reason for the delayed effect of increased salary.
or her seat to the person declared by the Its purpose is to place a legal bar to the legislators
COMELEC to be the winner. The Speaker shall yielding to the natural temptation to increase their
administer the oath to the winner. (Codilla v. De salaries. (PHILCONSA v. Mathay)
Venecia)
Emoluments. Bernas submits that, by appealing to the
Disqualified winner spirit of the prohibition, the provision may be read as an
The Court has also clarified the rule on who should absolute ban on any form of direct or indirect increase
assume the position should the candidate who of salary (like emoluments).
received the highest number of votes is
disqualified. The second in rank does not take his Allowances. A member of the Congress may receive
place. The reason is simple: It is of no moment office and necessary travel allowances since
that there is only a margin of 768 votes between allowances take effect immediately. Nor is there a legal
protestant and protestee. Whether the margin is limit on the amount that may be appropriated. The only
ten or ten thousand, it still remains that protestant limit is moral, because, according to Section 20, the
did not receive the mandate of the majority during books of Congress are audited by the Commission on
the elections. Thus, to proclaim him as the duly Audit which shall publish annually an itemized list of
elected representative in the stead of protestee amounts paid and expenses incurred for each Member.
would be anathema to the most basic precepts of
republicanism and democracy as enshrined within
our Constitution (Ocampo v. HRET, G.R. No. VII. Parliamentary Immunities of the Members (Sec. 11
158466. June 15, 2004). Art. VI)
D. Special elections (Sec. 9, Art. VI) SECTION 11. A Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable by not
SECTION 9. In case of vacancy in the Senate or in more than six years imprisonment, be privileged from
the House of Representatives, a special election arrest while the Congress is in session. No Member
may be called to fill such vacancy in the manner shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other
prescribed by law, but the Senator or Member of place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in
the House of Representatives thus elected shall any committee thereof.
serve only for the unexpired term.
A. Privilege from arrest
To fill a vacancy, but elected member shall serve
only for the unexpired portion of the term [Sec. 9, 1. Privilege. A member of Congress is privileged
Art. VI]. See R.A. 6645; Lozada v Comelec, 120 from arrest while Congress is in session in all
SCRA 337. offenses (criminal or civil) not punishable by more
than 6 years imprisonment.
Special Election (R.A. 6645)
1. No special election will be called if vacancy 2. Purpose. Privilege is intended to ensure
occurs: representation of the constituents of the member of
a. at least eighteen (18) months before the next Congress by preventing attempts to keep him from
regular election for the members of the Senate; attending sessions.
33
4. Scope. Parliamentary immunity only includes A: Yes. In Paredes v. Sandiganbayan, the Court
the immunity from arrest, and not of being filed held that the accused cannot validly argue that
suit. only his peers in the House of Representatives can
suspend him because the court-ordered
4. Limitations on Parliamentary Immunity: suspension is a preventive measure that is
different and distinct from the suspension ordered
1. Crime has a maximum penalty of not by his peers for disorderly behavior which is a
more than 6 years; penalty.
2. Congress is in session, whether regular
or special; Trillanes Case (June 27, 2008)
3. Prosecution will continue independent In a unanimous decision penned by Justice Carpio
of arrest; Morales, the SC en banc junked Senator Antonio
4. Will be subject to arrest immediately Trillanes petition seeking that he be allowed to
when Congress adjourns. perform his duties as a Senator while still under
detention. SC barred Trillanes from attending
While in session. The privilege is available while Senate hearings while has pending cases,
the Congress is in session, whether regular or affirming the decision of Makati Judge Oscar
special and whether or not the legislator is actually Pimentel.
attending a session. Session as here used does
not refer to the day-to-day meetings of the The SC reminded Trillanes that election to office
legislature but to the entire period from its initial does not obliterate a criminal charge, and that his
convening until its final adjournment. Hence the electoral victory only signifies that when voters
privilege is not available while Congress is in elected him, they were already fully aware of his
recess. limitations.
Why not available during recess. Since the The SC did not find merit in Trillanes position that
purpose of the privilege is to protect the legislator his case is different from former representative
against harassment which will keep him away from Romeo Jalosjos, who also sought similar privileges
legislative sessions, there is no point in extending before when he served as Zamboanga del Norte
the privilege to the period when the Congress is congressman even while in detention.
not in session.
Quoting parts of the decision on Jalosjos, SC said
5. Privilege is personal. Privilege is personal to that allowing accused-appellant to attend
each member of the legislature, and in order that congressional sessions and committee meetings
its benefits may be availed of, it must be asserted five days or more a week will virtually make him a
at the proper time and place; otherwise it will be free man Such an aberrant situation not only
considered waived. elevates accused appellants status to that of a
special class, it would be a mockery of the
Privilege not granted to Congress but to its purposes of the correction system.
members. Privilege from arrest is not given to
Congress as a body, but rather one that is granted The SC also did not buy Trillanes argument that
particularly to each individual member of it. (Coffin he be given the same liberal treatment accorded to
v. Coffin, 4 Mass 1) certain detention prisoners charged with non-
bailable offenses, like former President Joseph
Privilege is reinforced by Article 145 of the Revised Estrada and former Autonomous Region in Muslim
Penal Code-Violation of Parliamentary Immunity. Mindanao (ARMM) governor Nur Misuari, saying
these emergency or temporary leaves are under
Note: The provision says privilege from arrest; it the discretion of the authorities or the courts
does not say privilege from detention. handling them.
Q: Congressman Jalosjos was convicted for rape The SC reminded Trillanes that he also benefited
and detained in prison, asks that he be allowed to from these temporary leaves given by the courts
attend sessions of the House. when he was allowed to file his candidacy and
A: Members of Congress are not exempt from attend his oath-taking as a senator before.
detention for crime. They may be arrested, even
when the House in session, for crimes punishable The SC also believes that there is a slight risk
by a penalty of more than six months. that Trillanes would escape once he is given the
privileges he is asking, citing the Peninsula Manila
Q: Congressman X was convicted for a crime with incident last November.
a punishment of less than 6 years. He asks that he
be allowed to attend sessions of the House B. Privilege of speech and debate
contending that the punishment for the crime for 1. Requisites (by Isagani Cruz)
which he was convicted is less than 6 years. a. Remarks made while Legislature or
A: I submit that Congressman X can be detained committee thereof is functioning
even if the punishment imposed is less than 6
years. The provision only speaks of privilege from As regards Requirement #1 provided by Cruz,
arrest. It does not speak of exemption from serving Bernas Primer provides: to come under the
sentence after conviction. Members of Congress privilege, it is not essential that the Congress
are not exempt from detention for crime. (by Atty. be in session when the utterance is made.
Manguera) What is essential is that the utterance must
constitute legislative action.
Q: Can the Sandiganbayan order the preventive
suspension of a Member of the House of Libelous remarks not in exercise of
Representatives being prosecuted criminally for legislative function shall not be under
violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices privilege of speech. To invoke the privilege
Act?
34
of speech, the matter must be oral and humiliated, debased, degraded. And I am not
must be proven to be indeed privileged. only that, I feel like throwing up to be living my
middle years in a country of this nature. I am
b. Remarks made in connection with the nauseated. I spit on the face of Chief Justice
discharge of official functions Artemio Panganiban and his cohorts in the
Supreme Court, I am no longer interested in
Note that the member of Congress may be the position [of Chief Justice] if I was to be
held to account for such speech or debate by surrounded by idiots. I would rather be in
the House to which he belongs. See Osmena another environment but not in the Supreme
v. Pendatun, 109 Phil. 863; Jimenez v. Court of idiots x x x. Pobre asks that
Cabangbang, 17 SCRA 876. disbarment proceedings or other disciplinary
actions be taken against the lady senator.
Purpose. It is intended to leave legislator
unimpeded in the performance of his duties Issue: May Senator Santiago be disbarred or
and free form harassment outside. be imposed with disciplinary sanction for her
intemperate and highly improper speech made
Privilege of speech and debate enables the on the senate floor?
legislator to express views bearing upon the
public interest without fear of accountability Held: No. A lawyer-senator who has crossed
outside the halls of the legislature for his the limits of decency and good professional
inability to support his statements with the conduct by giving statements which were
usual evidence required in the court of justice. intemperate and highly improper in substance
In other words, he is given more leeway than may not be disbarred or be imposed with
the ordinary citizen in the ventilation of matters disciplinary sanctions by the Supreme Court.
that ought to be divulged for the public good.
It is true that parliamentary immunity must not
To enable and encourage a representative of be allowed to be used as a vehicle to ridicule,
the public to discharge his public trust with demean, and destroy the reputation of the
firmness and success" for "it is indispensably Court and its magistrates, nor as armor for
necessary that he should enjoy the fullest personal wrath and disgust. However, courts
liberty of speech and that he should be do not interfere with the legislature or its
protected from resentment of every one, members in the manner they perform their
however, powerful, to whom the exercise of functions in the legislative floor or in committee
that liberty may occasion offense. (Osmena V. rooms. Any claim of an unworthy purpose or of
Pendatun cited in Pobre v. Defensor-Santiago, the falsity and mala fides of the statement
2009) uttered by the member of the Congress does
not destroy the privilege. The disciplinary
Scope: authority of the assembly and the voters, not
(1) The privilege is a protection only against the courts, can properly discourage or correct
forums other than the Congress itself. such abuses committed in the name of
(Osmena v. Pendatun) parliamentary immunity. (Pobre v. Defensor-
(2) Speech or debate includes utterances Santiago, 2009)
made in the performance of official functions,
such as speeches delivered, statements CASE:
made, votes cast, as well as bills introduced
and other acts done in the performance of Jimenez vs. Cabangbang, 17 SCRA 876
official duties. (Jimenez v. Cabangbang)
(3) To come under the privilege, it is not FACTS:
essential that the Congress be in session Bartolome Cabangbang was a member of the
House of Representatives and Chairman of its
when the utterance is made. What is essential Committee on National Defense. In November
is that the utterance must constitute legislative 1958, Cabangbang caused the publication of an
action, that is, it must be part of the open letter addressed to the Philippines. Said
deliberative and communicative process by letter alleged that there have been allegedly three
which legislators participate in committee or operational plans under serious study by some
ambitious AFP officers, with the aid of some
congressional proceedings in the civilian political strategists. That such strategists
consideration of proposed legislation or of have had collusions with communists and that the
other matters which the Constitution has Secretary of Defense, Jesus Vargas, was planning
placed within the jurisdiction of Congress. a coup dtat to place him as the president. The
(Gravel v. US) planners allegedly have Nicanor Jimenez,
(4) The privilege extends to agents of among others, under their guise and that Jimenez
et al may or may not be aware that they are being
assemblymen provided that the agency used as a tool to meet such an end. The letter was
consists precisely in assisting the legislator in said to have been published in newspapers of
the performance of legislative action (Gravel general circulation. Jimenez then filed a case
v. US) against Cabangbang to collect a sum of damages
4. Privilege not absolute. The rule provides against Cabangbang alleging that Cabangbangs
statement is libelous. Cabangbang petitioned for
that the legislator may not be questioned in the case to be dismissed because he said that as
any other place, which means that he may be a member of the lower house, he is immune from
called to account for his remarks by his own suit and that he is covered by the privileged
colleagues in the Congress itself and, when communication rule and that the said letter is not
warranted, punished for disorderly behavior. even libelous.
5. Parliamentary Freedom of Speech v SCs
ISSUE:
Power to Discipline Whether or not the open letter is covered by
Facts: Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago privilege communication endowed to members of
made this speech on the Senate floor. x x x I Congress.
am not angry. I am irate. I am foaming in the
mouth. I am homicidal. I am suicidal. I am HELD:
35
No. Article VI, Section 15 of the Constitution office, make a full disclosure of their financial and
provides The Senators and Members of the business interests. They shall notify the House
House of Representatives shall in all cases except
treason, felony, and breach of the peace. Be
concerned of a potential conflict of interest that may
privileged from arrest during their attendance at arise from the filing of a proposed legislation of which
the sessions of the Congress, and in going to and they are authors.
returning from the same; and for any speech or
debate therein, they shall not be questioned in any This provision speaks of duty to disclose the following:
other place.
The publication of the said letter is not covered by (1) Financial and business interest upon assumption
said expression which refers to utterances made of office
by Congressmen in the performance of their (2) Potential conflict of interest that may arise from
official functions, such as speeches delivered, filing of a proposed legislation of which they are
statements made, or votes cast in the halls of authors.
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 IX. Incompatible and Forbidden Offices (Sec. 13, Art.
Congressmen, either in Congress or outside the VI)
premises housing its offices, in the official
discharge of their duties as members of Congress SECTION 13. No Senator or Member of the House of
and of Congressional Committees duly authorized
to perform its functions as such at the time of the
Representatives may hold any other office or
performance of the acts in question. Congress employment in the Government, or any subdivision,
was not in session when the letter was published agency, or instrumentality thereof, including
and at the same time he, himself, caused the government-owned or controlled corporations or their
publication of the said letter. It is obvious that, in subsidiaries, during his term without forfeiting his seat.
thus causing the communication to be so
published, he was not performing his official duty,
Neither shall he be appointed to any office which may
either as a member of Congress or as officer of have been created or the emoluments thereof
any Committee thereof. Hence, contrary to the increased during the term for which he was elected.
finding made by the lower court the said
communication is not absolutely privileged. Prohibitions:
c. Significance of the phrase in any other 1) Incompatible Office
place
Purpose. The purpose of prohibition of incompatible
The rule provides that the legislator may offices is to prevent him from owing loyalty to another
not be questioned in any other place, branch of the government, to the detriment of the
which means that he may be called to independence of the legislature and the doctrine of
account for his remarks by his own separation of powers.
colleagues in the Congress itself and,
when warranted, punished for disorderly 2 Kinds of Office under Article 13
behaviour (Osmena v. Pendatun). 1) Incompatible office (1st sentence of article 13)
2) Forbidden office (2nd sentence of article 13)
CASE:
Prohibition not absolute. The prohibition against the
Osmena vs. Pendatun, supra holding of an incompatible office is not absolute; what
is not allowed is the simultaneous holding of that office
FACTS:
and the seat in Congress.
Congressman Osmea took the floor on the one-
hour privilege to deliver a speech, entitled A Hence, a member of Congress may resign in order to
Message to Garcia wherein said speech accept an appointment in the government before the
contained serious imputations of bribery against expiration of his term.
the President. Being unable to produce evidence
thereof, Osmea was then found to be guilty of
serious disorderly behaviour by the House of When office not incompatible. Not every other office
Representatives. Osmea argues that the or employment is to be regarded as incompatible with
Constitution gave him complete parliamentary the legislative position. For, example, membership in
immunity, and so, for words spoken in the House, the Electroral Tribunals is permitted by the Constitution
he ought not to be questioned.
itself. Moreover, if it can be shown that the second
ISSUE: office is an extension of the legislative position or is in
aid of legislative duties, the holding thereof will not
Whether said disciplinary action by the House is in result in the loss of the legislators seat in the
violation of Section 15, Article VI of the Congress.
Constitution.
Said disciplinary action is not in violation of the Purpose. The purpose is to prevent trafficking in public
Constitution. Section 15, Article VI of the office. The reasons for excluding persons from office
Constitution provides that for any speech or who have been concerned in creating them or
debate in Congress, the Senators or Members of
the House of Representative shall not be
increasing the emoluments are to take away as far as
questioned in any other place. Although exempt possible, any improper bias in the vote of the
from prosecution or civil actions for their words representative and to secure to the constituents some
uttered in Congress, the members of Congress solemn pledge of his disinterestedness.
may, nevertheless, be questioned in Congress
itself. Observe that they shall not be questioned
Scope of prohibition. The provision does not apply to
in any other place in Congress.
elective offices, which are filled by the voters
VIII. Conflict of Interest (Sec. 12, Art. VI) themselves.
SECTION 12. All members of the Senate and the The appointment of the member of the Congress to the
House of Representative shall, upon assumption of forbidden office is not allowed only during the term for
36
which he was elected, when such office was created or pecuniary benefit or where he may be called upon to
its emoluments were increased. act on account of his office.
After such term, and even if the legislator is reelected, Prohibition on lawyer legislators.
the disqualification no longer applies and he may
therefore be appointed to the office. Purpose. The purpose is to prevent the legislator from
exerting undue influence, deliberately or not, upon the
CASE: body where he is appearing.
Adaza vs. Pacana, 135 SCRA 431 Not a genuine party to a case. A congressman may not
buy a nominal account of shares in a corporation which
Homobono Adaza was elected governor of the province of is party to a suit before the SEC and then appear in
Misamis Oriental in the January 30, 1980 elections. He took his intervention. That which the Constitution directly
oath of office and started discharging his duties as provincial
governor on March 3, 1980. Fernando Pacana, Jr. was elected
prohibits may not be done by indirection. (Puyat v. De
vice-governor for same province in the same elections. Under the Guzman)
law, their respective terms of office would expire on March 3,
1986. On March 27, 1984, Pacana filed his certificate of Prohibition is personal. It does not apply to law firm
candidacy for the May 14, 1984 BP elections; petitioner Adaza where a lawyer-Congressman may be a member. The
followed suit on April 27, 1984. In the ensuing elections, petitioner
lawyer-legislator may still engage in the practice of his
won by placing first among the candidates, while Pacana lost.
Adaza took his oath of office as Mambabatas Pambansa on July profession except that when it come to trials and
19, 1984 and since then he has discharged the functions of said hearings before the bodies above-mentioned,
office. On July 23, 1984, Pacana took his oath of office as appearance may be made not by him but by some
governor of Misamis Oriental before President Marcos, and member of his law office.
started to perform the duties of governor on July 25, 1984.
Claiming to be the lawful occupant of the governors office, Adaza
has brought this petition to exclude Pacana therefrom. He argues Pleadings. A congressman cannot sign pleadings [as
that he was elected to said office for a term of six years, that he counsel for a client] (Villegas case)
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 Conflict of Interests
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
Financial Interest
Parliament.
Purpose. This is because of the influence they can
ISSUE: Whether or not Adaza can serve as a member of the easily exercise in obtaining these concessions. The
Batasan and as a governor of the province simultaneously. idea is to prevent abuses from being committed by the
Whether or not a vice governor who ran for Congress and lost can
members of Congress to the prejudice of the public
assume his original position and as such can, by virtue of
succession, take the vacated seat of the governor. welfare and particularly of legitimate contractors with
the government who otherwise might be placed at a
HELD: Section 10, Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution provides disadvantageous position vis- vis the legislator.
as follows:
Contract. The contracts referred to here are those
Section 10. A member of the National Assembly [now Batasan
Pambansa] shall not hold any other office or employment in the involving financial interest, that is, contracts from
government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, which the legislator expects to derive some profit at the
including government-owned or controlled corporations, during his expense of the government.
tenure, except that of prime minister or member of the cabinet . .
. Pecuniary Benefit. The prohibited pecuniary benefit
The Philippine Constitution is clear and unambiguous. Hence
could be direct or indirect and this would cover
Adaza cannot invoke common law practices abroad. He cannot pecuniary benefit for relatives. (Bernas Commentary, p.
complain of any restrictions which public policy may dictate on his 710, 10th ed.)
holding of more than one office. Adaza further contends that when
Pacana filed his candidacy for the Batasan he became a private CASE:
citizen because he vacated his office. Pacana, as a mere private
citizen, had no right to assume the governorship left vacant by
petitioners election to the BP. This is not tenable and it runs afoul Puyat vs. De Guzman, 113 SCRA 33
against BP. 697, the law governing the election of members of the
BP on May 14, 1984, Section 13[2] of which specifically provides FACTS:
that governors, mayors, members of the various sangguniang or In May 1979, Eugenio Puyat and his group were elected as
barangay officials shall, upon filing a certificate of candidacy, be directors of the International Pipe Industries. The election was
considered on forced leave of absence from office. Indubitably, subsequently questioned by Eustaquio Acero (Puyats rival)
respondent falls within the coverage of this provision, considering claiming that the votes were not properly counted hence he filed
that at the time he filed his certificate of candidacy for the 1984 a quo warranto case before the Securities and Exchange
BP election he was a member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan Commission (SEC) on May 25, 1979. Prior to Aceros filing of the
as provided in Sections 204 and 205 of Batas Pambansa Blg. case, Estanislao Fernandez, then a member of the Interim
337, otherwise known as the Local Government Code. Batasang Pambansa purchased ten shares of stock of IPI from a
member of Aceros group. And during a conference held by SEC
Commissioner Sixto de Guzman, Jr. (from May 25-31, 1979) to
X. Inhibitions and Disqualifications (sec. 14, Art. VI)
have the parties confer with each other, Estanislao Fernandez
entered his appearance as counsel for Acero. Puyat objected as
SECTION 14. No Senator or Member of the House of he argued that it is unconstitutional for an assemblyman to appear
Representatives may personally appear as counsel as counsel (to anyone) before any administrative body (such as
before any court of justice or before the Electoral the SEC). This being cleared, Fernandez inhibited himself from
Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other administrative appearing as counsel for Acero. He instead filed an Urgent Motion
for Intervention in the said SEC case for him to intervene, not as a
bodies. Neither shall he, directly or indirectly, be counsel, but as a legal owner of IPI shares and as a person who
interested financially in any contract with, or in any has a legal interest in the matter in litigation. The SEC
franchise or special privilege granted by the Commissioner granted the motion and in effect granting
Government, or any subdivision, agency, or Fernandez leave to intervene.
instrumentality thereof, including any government-
ISSUE:
owned or controlled corporation, or its subsidiary, Whether or not Fernandez, acting as a stockholder of IPI, can
during his term of office. He shall not intervene in any appear and intervene in the SEC case without violating the
matter before any office of the Government for his constitutional provision that an assemblyman must not appear as
counsel in such courts or bodies?
37
Appearance of the legislator is now barred before all courts of **Enrolled Bill that which has been duly introduced, finally
justice, regardless of rank, composition, or jurisdiction. The passed by both houses, signed by the proper officers of each,
disqualification also applies to the revived Electoral Tribunal and approved by the president and filed by the secretary of state.
to all administrative bodies, like the Securities and Exchange
Commission and the National Labor Relations Commission. Section 313 of the old Code of Civil Procedure (Act 190), as
Courts martial and military tribunals, being administrative amended by Act No. 2210, provides: Official documents may
agencies, are included.(From be proved as follows: . . . (2) the proceedings of the Philippine
https://www.senate.gov.ph/senators/terms.asp, accessed Commission, or of any legislatives body that may be provided
09/17/2014) for in the Philippine Islands, or of Congress, by the journals of
those bodies or of either house thereof, or by published
statutes or resolutions, or by copies certified by the clerk of
secretary, or printed by their order; Provided, That in the case
XI. Sessions (Sec. 15, Art. VI; See also Sec. 4 and 10, Art. of Acts of the Philippine Commission or the Philippine
Legislature, when there is an existence of a copy signed by the
VII) presiding officers and secretaries of said bodies, it shall be
conclusive proof of the provisions of such Acts and of the due
XII. Officers [Sec. 16 (1), Art. VI] enactment thereof.
XIII. Quorum [Sec. 16 (2), Art. VI] 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
CASE: journals.
B. Meetings: only while Congress is in session natural and logical consequence. In addition, a
1. Effect of by-passing ad interim presidential liberal construction of the "one title-one subject"
rule has been invariably adopted by this court
appointments so as not to cripple or impede legislation.
C. Effect of political realignments in the House
The second contention that the law violates the
CASE: present limit of the number of representatives,
Daza vs. Singson, supra the provision of the section itself show that the
250 limit is not absolute. The Constitution
clearly provides that the House of
XIX.Specific powers of Congress Representatives shall be composed of not more
A. Power to enact statutes than 250 members, "unless otherwise provided
1. Origin of laws (Sec. 24, Art. VI) by law. Therefore, the increase in
2. Prohibited measures congressional representation mandated by R.A.
a. Law granting title of royalty or nobility No. 7675 is not unconstitutional.
(Sec. 31, Art. VI) With regards, to the third contention that there is
b. Law increasing the appellate jurisdiction no mention in the assailed law of any census to
of the SC without its consent, Sec. 30, show that Mandaluyong and San Juan had
Art. VI) each attained the minimum requirement of
c. Law impairing the obligation of contracts 250,000 inhabitants to justify their separation
into two legislative districts, unless otherwise
(Sec. 10, Art. III) proved that the requirements were not met, the
d. Ex post facto law or bill of attainder said Act enjoys the presumption of having
(Sec. 22, Art. III) passed through the regular congressional
3. Title of bills [Sec. 26 (1), Art. VI] processes, including due consideration by the
a. One title, one subject rule members of Congress of the minimum
requirements for the establishment of separate
legislative district
CASES: The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
Lidasan vs. COMELEC, 21 SCRA 496 4. Formalities of the enactment process [Sec.
26 (2), Art. VI]
Philconsa vs. Jimenez, 15 SCRA 479 a. Rule: 3 readings on separate days;
distribution of printed copies in its final
Tobias vs. Abalos, GR 114783, Dec. 8, form 3 days before passage
1994 b. Exception: presidential certification of
the necessity of its immediate
Facts: enactment
Complainants, invoking their right as taxpayers
and as residents of Mandaluyong, filed a
petition questioning the constitutionality of CASE:
Republic Act No. 7675, otherwise known as "An
Act Converting the Municipality of Mandaluyong Tolentino vs, Secretary, supra
into a Highly Urbanized City to be known as the
City of Mandaluyong." Before the enactment of FACTS:
the law, Mandaluyong and San Juan belonged The valued-added tax (VAT) is levied on the
to the same legislative district. sale, barter or exchange of goods and
The petitioners contended that the act is properties as well as on the sale or exchange of
unconstitutional for violation of three provisions services. It is equivalent to 10% of the gross
of the constitution. First, it violates the one selling price or gross value in money of goods
subject one bill rule. The bill provides for the or properties sold, bartered or exchanged or of
conversion of Mandaluyong to HUC as well as the gross receipts from the sale or exchange of
the division of congressional district of San Juan services. Republic Act No. 7716 seeks to widen
and Mandaluyong into two separate district. the tax base of the existing VAT system and
Second, it also violate Section 5 of Article VI of enhance its administration by amending the
the Constitution, which provides that the House National Internal Revenue Code.
of Representatives shall be composed of not
more than two hundred and fifty members, The Chamber of Real Estate and Builders
unless otherwise fixed by law. The division of Association (CREBA) contends that the
San Juan and Mandaluyong into separate imposition of VAT on sales and leases by virtue
congressional districts increased the members of contracts entered into prior to the effectivity of
of the House of Representative beyond that the law would violate the constitutional provision
provided by the Constitution. Third, Section 5 of of non-impairment of contracts.
Article VI also provides that within three years
following the return of every census, the ISSUE:
Congress shall make a reapportionment of Whether R.A. No. 7716 is unconstitutional on
legislative districts based on the standard ground that it violates the contract clause under
provided in Section 5. Petitioners stated that the Art. III, sec 10 of the Bill of Rights.
division was not made pursuant to any census
showing that the minimum population RULING:
requirement was attained. No. The Supreme Court the contention of
CREBA, that the imposition of the VAT on the
Issue: sales and leases of real estate by virtue of
(1) Does RA 7675 violate the one subject one contracts entered into prior to the effectivity of
bill rule? the law would violate the constitutional provision
(2) Does it violate Section 5(1) of Article VI of of non-impairment of contracts, is only slightly
the Constitution on the limit of number of rep? less abstract but nonetheless hypothetical. It is
(3) Is the inexistence of mention of census in enough to say that the parties to a contract
the law show a lack of constitutional cannot, through the exercise of prophetic
requirement? discernment, fetter the exercise of the taxing
power of the State. For not only are existing
Rulings: laws read into contracts in order to fix
The Supreme Court ruled that the contentions obligations as between parties, but the
are devoid of merit. With regards to the first reservation of essential attributes of sovereign
contention of one subject one bill rule, the power is also read into contracts as a basic
creation of a separate congressional district for postulate of the legal order. The policy of
Mandaluyong is not a separate and distinct protecting contracts against impairment
subject from its conversion into a HUC but is a presupposes the maintenance of a government
39
which retains adequate authority to secure the of his has been violated by the refusal
peace and good order of society. In truth, the of CBN to cease operation. Further,
Contract Clause has never been thought as a the SC noted that as the records
limitation on the exercise of the State's power of show, the appropriation to operate the
taxation save only where a tax exemption has Philippine Broadcasting Service as
been granted for a valid consideration. approved by Congress and
incorporated in the 1962-1963 Budget
Such is not the case of PAL in G.R. No. of the Republic of the Philippines
115852, and the Court does not understand it to does not allow appropriations for TV
make this claim. Rather, its position, as stations particularly in Luzon. Hence,
discussed above, is that the removal of its tax since there was no appropriation
exemption cannot be made by a general, but allotted then there can be no damage;
only by a specific, law. and if there are expenditures made by
Valencias department they are in fact
Further, the Supreme Court held the validity of in violation of the law and they cannot
Republic Act No. 7716 in its formal and claim damages there from. And even
substantive aspects as this has been raised in if it is shown that the then president
the various cases before it. To sum up, the vetoed this provision of the Budget
Court holds: Act, such veto is illegal because he
may not legally veto a condition
(1) That the procedural requirements of the attached to an appropriation or item in
Constitution have been complied with by the appropriation bill.
Congress in the enactment of the statute; Note: This ruling, that the executives
veto power does not carry with it the
(2) That judicial inquiry whether the formal power to strike out conditions or
requirements for the enactment of statutes - restrictions, has been adhered to in
beyond those prescribed by the Constitution - subsequent cases. If the veto is
have been observed is precluded by the unconstitutional, it follows that the
principle of separation of powers; same produced no effect whatsoever;
and the restriction imposed by the
(3) That the law does not abridge freedom of appropriation bill, therefore, remains.
speech, expression or the press, nor interfere
with the free exercise of religion, nor deny to iii. President allows the bill to lapse
any of the parties the right to an education; and into a law by not acting on it within
(4) That, in view of the absence of a factual
30 days
foundation of record, claims that the law is B. Power of Legislative Inquiry; Question Hour in
regressive, oppressive and confiscatory and pursuit of congressional oversight function (Sec.
that it violates vested rights protected under the 21 and 22, Art. VI)
Contract Clause are prematurely raised and do
not justify the grant of prospective relief by writ
SECTION 21. The Senate or the House of
of prohibition.
Representatives or any of its respective
WHEREFORE, the petitions are DISMISSED. committees may conduct inquiries in aid of
legislation in accordance with its duly published
5. Approval of bills [Sec. 27 (1)] rules of procedure. The rights of persons
a. Methods by which a bill becomes a law appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall
i. President signs it be respected
ii. President vetoes the bill, but
Congress overrides the veto SECTION 22. The heads of departments may
1. Rule: no partial veto upon their own initiative, with the consent of the
2. Exception: partial veto of an President, or upon the request of either House,
item/s in an appropriations, as the rules of each House shall provide, appear
revenue or tariff bill before and be heard by such House on any
3. Exception to the exception: no matter pertaining to their departments. Written
partial veto on a condition questions shall be submitted to the President of
attached to an approved item the Senate or the Speaker of the House of
Representatives at least three days before their
CASE: scheduled appearance. Interpellations shall not
be limited to written questions, but may cover
Bolinao Electronics vs. matters related thereto. When the security of the
Valencia, 11 SCRA 486 State or the public interest so requires and the
President so states in writing, the appearance
FACTS: shall be conducted in executive session.
Bolinao Electronics Corporation was
the co-owner and a co-petitioner of
Chronicle Broadcasting Network, Inc. CASES:
(CBN) and Montserrat Broadcasting
System Inc. They operate and own Bengzon vs. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee,
television (channel 9) and radio 203 SCRA 767
stations in the Philippines. They were
summoned by Brigido Valencia, then Facts:
Secretary of Communications, for Senator Enrile asks the Senate to look into the matter of
operating even after their permit has the alleged acquisition of the Lopa Group of the properties
expired. Valencia claimed that of Kokoy Romualdez which is a subject of sequestration
because of CBNs continued by the PCGG. Senator Enrile citing probable violations of
operation sans license and their Republic Act No. 3019 Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
continuing operation had caused Act, Section 5.
damages to his department. The petitioners representing Ricardo Lopa who passed
away prior the decision of the court issued this petition for
ISSUE: prohibition and an issuance a temporary restraining order
Whether or not Valencia is entitled to and/or injuctive relief enjoin the Blue Ribbon committee of
claim for damages. compelling them to appear before them.
HELD: Issues:
The SC ruled in the negative. Coming to the specific issues raised in this case,
Valencia failed to show that any right petitioners contend that:
40
(1) the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee's inquiry has no Virador (Bayan Muna), Crispin Beltran (Anakpawis),
valid legislative purpose, i.e., it is not done in aid of Rafael Mariano (Anakpawis), and Liza Maza (Gabriela)
legislation; are allowed to sue to question the constitutionality of E.O.
(2) the sale or disposition of hte Romualdez corporations 464, the absence of any claim that an investigation called
is a "purely private transaction" which is beyond the power by the House of Representatives or any of its committees
of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee to inquire into; and was aborted due to the implementation of E.O. 464
(3) the inquiry violates their right to due process. notwithstanding, it being sufficient that a claim is made
that E.O. 464 infringes on their constitutional rights and
Ruling: duties as members of Congress to conduct investigation
The Supreme court granted the petition. The committee in aid of legislation and conduct oversight functions in the
investigation wanted by Senator Enrile is not in aid of a implementation of laws.
legislation, therefore is violative of the separation of The national political party, Bayan Muna, likewise meets
powers between the Senate or Congress and that the standing requirement as it obtained three seats in the
Judiciary. The pending civil case of the petitioners under House of Representatives in the 2004 elections and is,
Civil Case No. 0035 before the Sandiganbayan is where therefore, entitled to participate in the legislative process
these issues by the Senate should be discussed. consonant with the declared policy underlying the party list
Saying further that the power of the Senate and Congress system of affording citizens belonging to marginalized and
to conduct investigation in aid of legislation is not absolute underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties who
or without limitation. lack well-defined political constituencies to contribute to
the formulation and enactment of legislation that will
Senate vs. Ermita, GR 169777, April 20, 2006 benefit the nation.
As Bayan Muna and Representatives Ocampo et al. have
FACTS: the standing to file their petitions, passing on the standing
In 2005, scandals involving anomalous transactions about of their co-petitioners Courage and Codal is rendered
the North Rail Project as well as the Garci tapes surfaced. unnecessary.
This prompted the Senate to conduct a public hearing to In filing their respective petitions, Chavez, the ALG which
investigate the said anomalies particularly the alleged claims to be an organization of citizens, and the
overpricing in the NRP. The investigating Senate incumbent members of the IBP Board of Governors and
committee issued invitations to certain department heads the IBP in behalf of its lawyer members, invoke their
and military officials to speak before the committee as constitutional right to information on matters of public
resource persons. Ermita submitted that he and some of concern, asserting that the right to information, curtailed
the department heads cannot attend the said hearing due and violated by E.O. 464, is essential to the effective
to pressing matters that need immediate attention. AFP exercise of other constitutional rights and to the
Chief of Staff Senga likewise sent a similar letter. Drilon, maintenance of the balance of power among the three
the senate president, excepted the said requests for they branches of the government through the principle of
were sent belatedly and arrangements were already made checks and balances.
and scheduled. Subsequently, GMA issued EO 464 which It is well-settled that when suing as a citizen, the interest
took effect immediately. EO 464 basically prohibited of the petitioner in assailing the constitutionality of laws,
Department heads, Senior officials of executive presidential decrees, orders, and other regulations, must
departments who in the judgment of the department be direct and personal. In Franciso v. House of
heads are covered by the executive privilege; Generals Representatives, this Court held that when the proceeding
and flag officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines involves the assertion of a public right, the mere fact that
and such other officers who in the judgment of the Chief of he is a citizen satisfies the requirement of personal
Staff are covered by the executive privilege; Philippine interest.
National Police (PNP) officers with rank of chief As for petitioner PDP-Laban, it asseverates that it is
superintendent or higher and such other officers who in clothed with legal standing in view of the transcendental
the judgment of the Chief of the PNP are covered by the issues raised in its petition which this Court needs to
executive privilege; Senior national security officials who resolve in order to avert a constitutional crisis. For it to be
in the judgment of the National Security Adviser are accorded standing on the ground of transcendental
covered by the executive privilege; and Such other importance, however, it must establish (1) the character of
officers as may be determined by the President, from the funds (that it is public) or other assets involved in the
appearing in such hearings conducted by Congress case, (2) the presence of a clear case of disregard of a
without first securing the presidents approval. The constitutional or statutory prohibition by the public
department heads and the military officers who were respondent agency or instrumentality of the government,
invited by the Senate committee then invoked EO 464 to and (3) the lack of any party with a more direct and
except themselves. Despite EO 464, the scheduled specific interest in raising the questions being raised. The
hearing proceeded with only 2 military personnel first and last determinants not being present as no public
attending. For defying President Arroyos order barring funds or assets are involved and petitioners in G.R. Nos.
military personnel from testifying before legislative 169777 and 169659 have direct and specific interests in
inquiries without her approval, Brig. Gen. Gudani and Col. the resolution of the controversy, petitioner PDP-Laban is
Balutan were relieved from their military posts and were bereft of standing to file its petition. Its allegation that E.O.
made to face court martial proceedings. EO 464s 464 hampers its legislative agenda is vague and
constitutionality was assailed for it is alleged that it uncertain, and at best is only a "generalized interest"
infringes on the rights and duties of Congress to conduct which it shares with the rest of the political parties.
investigation in aid of legislation and conduct oversight Concrete injury, whether actual or threatened, is that
functions in the implementation of laws. indispensable element of a dispute which serves in part to
cast it in a form traditionally capable of judicial resolution.
ISSUES: In fine, PDP-Labans alleged interest as a political party
1. Whether E.O. 464 contravenes the power of inquiry does not suffice to clothe it with legal standing.
vested in Congress;
2. Whether E.O. 464 violates the right of the people to ACTUAL CASE OR CONTROVERSY
information on matters of public concern; and The Court finds respondents assertion that the President
has not withheld her consent or prohibited the appearance
HELD: of the officials concerned immaterial in determining the
That the Senate of the Philippines has a fundamental right existence of an actual case or controversy insofar as E.O.
essential not only for intelligent public decision-making in 464 is concerned. For E.O. 464 does not require either a
a democratic system, but more especially for sound deliberate withholding of consent or an express prohibition
legislation is not disputed. E.O. 464, however, allegedly issuing from the President in order to bar officials from
stifles the ability of the members of Congress to access appearing before Congress.
information that is crucial to law-making. Verily, the As the implementation of the challenged order has already
Senate, including its individual members, has a resulted in the absence of officials invited to the hearings
substantial and direct interest over the outcome of the of petitioner Senate of the Philippines, it would make no
controversy and is the proper party to assail the sense to wait for any further event before considering the
constitutionality of E.O. 464. Indeed, legislators have present case ripe for adjudication. Indeed, it would be
standing to maintain inviolate the prerogative, powers and sheer abandonment of duty if this Court would now refrain
privileges vested by the Constitution in their office and are from passing on the constitutionality of E.O. 464.
allowed to sue to question the validity of any official action
which they claim infringes their prerogatives as legislators. Neri vs. Senate Committee, G.R. No. 180643,
In the same vein, party-list representatives Satur Ocampo March 25, 2008
(Bayan Muna), Teodoro Casino (Bayan Muna), Joel
41
v.b.) ln the same case, the Supreme Court Tolentino vs. Secretary, supra
upheld the Presidential veto of a provision (in the
appropriation for the AFP Pension and Gratuity Abakada Guro vs. Ermita, GR No.
Fund, 1994 GAA) which authorized the Chief of 168056, Sept 1, 2005 (decision);
Staff to use savings to augment the pension Oct 18, 2005 (resolution of MR)
fund, on the ground that under Sec. 25 (5), Art VI
such right must and can be exercised only by the Facts:
President of the Philippines Motions for Reconsideration filed by
petitioners, ABAKADA Guro party List
Officer and et al.,insist that the bicameral
vi) Prohibition against appropriations for conference committee should not even
sectarian benefit [Sec 29(2), Art. VI: No public have acted on the no pass-on provisions
money or property shall be appropriated, applied since there is no disagreement between
paid, or employed, directly or indirectly, for the House Bill Nos. 3705 and 3555 on the one
hand, and Senate Bill No. 1950 on the
use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, other, with regard to the no pass-on
denomination, sectarian institution, or system of provision for the sale of service for power
religion or of any priest, preacher, minister, or generation because both the Senate and
other religious teacher, or dignitary, as such the House were in agreement that the VAT
except when such priest, preacher, minister, or burden for the sale of such service shall
dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to not be passed on to the end-consumer. As
to the no pass-on provision for sale of
any penal institution, or government orphanaqe petroleum products, petitioners argue that
or leprosarium]. See Aglipay v. Ruiz, 64 SCRA the fact that the presence of such a no
201; Garces v Estenzo 104 SCRA 510. In pass-on provision in the House version
Manosca v. Court of Appeals, supra., the and the absence thereof in the Senate Bill
expropriation of the birthplace of Felix Manalo, means there is no conflict because a
House provision cannot be in conflict with
founder of Iglesia ni Cristo, was deemed not something that does not exist.Escudero,
violative of the provision. The Supreme Court et. al., also contend that Republic Act No.
said that the attempt to give some religious 9337 grossly violates the constitutional
perspective to the case deserves little imperative on exclusive origination of
consideration, for what should be significant is revenue bills under Section 24 of Article VI
of the Constitution when the Senate
the principal objective of, not the casual
introduced amendments not connected
consequences that might follow from, the with VAT. Petitioners Escudero, et al., also
exercise of the power. The practical reality that reiterate that R.A. No. 9337s stand- by
greater benefit may be derived by members of authority to the Executive to increase the
the Iglesia ni Cristo than by most others could VAT rate, especially on account of the
well be true, but such peculiar advantage still recommendatory power granted to the
Secretary of Finance, constitutes undue
remains to be merely incidental and secondary in delegation of legislative power. They
nature. submit that the recommendatory power
given to the Secretary of Finance in regard
vii) Automatic reappropriation [Sec. 25 (7), to the occurrence of either of two events
Art. VI: If, by the end of any fiscal year, the using the Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
as a benchmark necessarily and inherently
Congress shall have failed to pass the general required extended analysis and evaluation,
appropriations bill for the ensuing fiscal year, the as well as policy making. Petitioners also
general appropriations law for the preceding reiterate their argument that the input tax is
fiscal year shall be deemed re-enacted and shall a property or a property right. Petitioners
remain in force and effect until the general also contend that even if the right to credit
the input VAT is merely a statutory
appropriations bill is passed by the Congress].. privilege, it has already evolved into a
vested right that the State cannot remove.
g) Impoundment. The refusal by the President for
whatever reason to spend funds made available Issue:
by Congress. It is the failure to spend or obligate Whether or not the R.A. No. 9337 or the
budget authority of any type [Philconsa v. Vat Reform Act is constitutional?
Enriquez, supra.]. This power of the President is Held:
derived from Sec. 38 of the Administrative Code Yes. The R.A No. 9337 is constitutional.
of 1987 on suspension. The Court is not persuaded. Article VI,
Section 24 of the Constitution provides that
h) Appropriation reserves. Sec. 37 of the All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills
authorizing increase of the public debt, bills
Administrative Code authorizes the Budget of local application, and private bills shall
Secretary to establish reserves against originate exclusively in the House of
appropriations to provide for contingencies and Representatives, but the Senate may
emergencies which may arise during the year. propose or concur with amendments.
This is merely expenditure deferral, not
The Court reiterates that in making his
suspension, since the agencies concerned can
recommendation to the President on the
still draw on the reserves if the fiscal outlook existence of either of the two conditions,
improves. the Secretary of Finance is not acting as
the alter ego of the President or even her
1. Appropriation defined subordinate. He is acting as the agent of
the legislative department, to determine
44
and declare the event upon which its an act contains provisions which are
expressed will is to take effect. The clearly not embraced in the subject of the
Secretary of Finance becomes the means act, as expressed in the title, such
or tool by which legislative policy is provisions are void, inoperative and
determined and implemented, considering without effect.
that he possesses all the facilities to gather SECTION 11 is unconstitutional. Garcia
data and information and has a much cannot compel the AFP to reinstate him.
broader perspective to properly evaluate
them. His function is to gather and collate iv. Approval of appropriations for
statistical data and other pertinent Congress: follow procedure for
information and verify if any of the two
conditions laid out by Congress is present.
other departments [Sec. 25 (3), Art.
In the same breath, the Court reiterates its VI]
finding that it is not a property or a property v. Specify purpose of special
right, and a VAT-registered persons appropriations [Sec 25 (4), ART. VI]
entitlement to the creditable input tax is a vi. No transfer of appropriations;
mere statutory privilege. As the Court
Exception [Sec. 25 (5), Art. VI]
stated in its Decision, the right to credit the
input tax is a mere creation of law. More vii. Public purpose of discretionary
importantly, the assailed provisions of R.A. funds [Sec. 25 (6), Art. VI]
No. 9337 already involve legislative policy 3. Appropriations for sectarian purposes [Sec.
and wisdom. So long as there is a public 29 (2), Art. VI]
end for which R.A. No. 9337 was passed, a. Read also Sec. 5, Art. III (on freedom of
the means through which such end shall
be accomplished is for the legislature to religion); and Sec. 6, Art. II (on
choose so long as it is within constitutional separation of church and state)
bounds.
The Motions for Reconsideration are CASES:
hereby DENIED WITH FINALITY. The Aglipay vs. Ruiz, 64 Phil 20
temporary restraining order issued by the
Court is LIFTED
*If Sectarian individual is administering
Therefore, the R.A No. 9337 is for the government then it does not
Constitutional. violate Sec 29 (2).
Garces vs. Estenzo, 105 SCRA 510
ii. Recommendations of the president
in the General Appropriations Act: 4. Automatic re-appropriation [Sec. 25 (7),
mat not be increased by Congress ART. VI]
[Sec. 25 (1)], but may be 5. Special funds [Sec. 29 (3), Art. VI]
decreased, EXCEPT the budget for
judiciary (Sec. 3, Art. VIII) D. Power of Taxation [Sec. 28 (1), (3), and (4), Art.
iii. Prohibition on riders [Sec. 25(2)] VI]
CASE: a) Limitations:
Garcia vs. Mata, 65 SCRA 520 i) Rule of taxation shall be uniform and
equitable. Congress shall evolve a progressive
Facts: system of taxation.
The donation of the property to the
government to make the property public
does not cure the constitutional defect. The ii) Charitable institutions, etc., and all
fact that the law was passed when the said lands, building and improvements actually,
property was still a private property cannot directly and exclusively used for religious,
be ignored. In accordance with the rule charitable or educational purposes shall be
that the taxing power must be exercised for exempt from taxation [Sec. 28(3), Art. VI]. See
public purposes only, money raised by
taxation can be expanded only for public Lladoc v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 14
purposes and not for the advantage of SCRA 292; Province of Abra v. Hernando, 107
private individuals. Inasmuch as the land SCRA 104.
on which the projected feeder roads were
to be constructed belonged then to iii) All revenues and assets of non-stock,
Zulueta, the result is that said
appropriation sought a private purpose,
non-profit educational institutions used actually,
and, hence, was null and void. directly and exclusively for educational purposes
shall be exempt from taxes and duties [Sec. 4(3),
Issue: Art. XIV]. See Abra Valley College v. Aquino,
Whether RA 1600 is valid. Does it contain 162 SCRA 106.
rider in an appropriation bill?
appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit if the gift or donation is in the form of subsidies
cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and granted by the government.
improvements, actually, directly, and 2. Partly No. Under PD 1823, the lung center does
exclusively used for religious, charitable, or not enjoy any property tax exemption privileges for its
educational purposes shall be exempt from real properties as well as the building constructed
taxation. thereon.
The property tax exemption under Sec. 28(3), Art. VI
of the Constitution of the property taxes only. This
CASES:
provision was implanted by Sec.243 (b) of RA
7160.which provides that in order to be entitled to the
Lladoc vs. Commissioner of Internal exemption, the lung center must be able to prove
Revenue, 14 SCRA 292 that: it is a charitable institution and; its real
properties are actually, directly and exclusively used
Facts: for charitable purpose. Accordingly, the portions
In 1957, the MB Estate Inc. of Bacolod City donated occupied by the hospital used for its patients are
P10,000 in cash to the parish priest of Victorias, exempt from real property taxes while those leased
Negros Occidental; the amount spent for the to private entities are not exempt from such taxes.
construction of a new Catholic Church in the locality,
as intended. In1958, MB Estate filed the donors gift 3. Legislative grant of tax exemptions: needs
tax return. In 1960, the Commissioner issued an concurrence of (absolute) majority of
assessment for donees gift tax against the parish. Congress [Sec. 28 (4)]
The priest lodged a protest to the assessment and
requested the withdrawal thereof.
E. Power of Concurrence
Issue: 1. To a grant of amnesty by the President (Sec.
Whether the Catholic Parish is tax exempt. 19, Art. VII)
2. To a treaty or international agreement entered
Held:
into by the President (Sec. 21, Art. VII)
The phrase exempt from taxation should not be
interpreted to mean exemption from all kinds of
taxes. The exemption is only from the payment of F. The War Powers [Sec. 23 (1), Art. VI]
taxes assessed on such properties as property taxes
as contradistinguished from excise taxes. A donees
gift tax is not a property tax but an excise tax
imposed on the transfer of property by way of gift
inter vivos. It does not rest upon general ownership,
but an excise upon the use made of the properties,
upon the exercise of the privilege of receiving the
properties. The imposition of such excise tax on
property used for religious purpose do not constitute
an impairment of the Constitution.
The tax exemption of the parish, thus, does not
extend to excise taxes.
Notes:
In relation to real property taxes
FACTS:
Petitioner is a non-stock, non-profit entity established
by virtue of PD No. 1823, seeks exemption from real
property taxes when the City Assessor issued Tax
Declarations for the land and the hospital building.
Petitioner predicted on its claim that it is a charitable
institution. The request was denied, and a petition
hereafter filed before the Local Board of Assessment
Appeals of Quezon City (QC-LBAA) for reversal of
the resolution of the City Assessor. Petitioner alleged
that as a charitable institution, is exempted from real
property taxes under Sec 28(3) Art VI of the
Constitution. QC-LBAA dismissed the petition and
the decision was likewise affirmed on appeal by the
Central Board of Assessment Appeals of Quezon
City. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of
the CBAA.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not petitioner is a charitable institution
within the context of PD 1823 and the 1973 and 1987
Constitution and Section 234(b) of RA 7160.
RULING:
1. Yes. The Court hold that the petitioner is a
charitable institution within the context of the 1973
and 1987 Constitution. Under PD 1823, the petitioner
is a non-profit and non-stock corporation which,
subject to the provisions of the decree, is to be
administered by the Office of the President with the
Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Human
Settlements. The purpose for which it was created
was to render medical services to the public in
general including those who are poor and also the
rich, and become a subject of charity. Under PD
1823, petitioner is entitled to receive donations, even