ARTICLE VI

 The bi-cameral nature of our Legislature is enshrined in Sec. 1: Congress is made up of two
chambers, and therefore every reference to Congress, whether in the Constitution or in the Laws,
should be read as referring to the two chambers. One chamber alone cannot act for the entire
Congress. So even if the entire House of Representatives passes a unanimous resolution, such a
resolution would never be an Act of Congress — or a statute — because for a statute, you need
both chambers.

Now, of course, the present debate is whether our Legislature should be unicameral or bi-cameral,
but until the Constitution is amended, our Constitution is bi-cameral.

As we shall see, there are some things that are assigned by the Constitution to only one chamber.
Example: Filing the Articles of Impeachment is something ONLY the lower house can do, and
trying the impeached official is something only the Senate can do. But, I repeat, whenever the
Constitution or the laws refer to Congress, that means to the two chambers of Congress.

Can anyone offer a reason that explains satisfactorily why the drafters of our Constitution,
since 1935, opted for a bi-cameral legislature, instead of a far more economical legislature?

- Senate is composed of persons who are voted at large — meaning, by the whole electorate
throughout the country. Representatives are voted by their respective legislative districts. It is
then thought that senators would have a national perspective, representatives, a local
perspective, and that the two perspectives would be helpful to legislation. Then, of course, as
you also correctly mentioned, two chambers make for a better study of legislation because of
debates and interpellations.

Now, with President Digong as Chief Executive and our proclivity at being “balimbings”,
Digong’s party has now achieved what is known as a “supermajority” in the Lower House. Is
this helpful to governance or not? I want everyone’s opinion. I want all to offer an answer.

 “Supermajority” means that the party of the President has more than just a majority of the Lower
House.
- I think you see the point that a “supermajority” is not good for a system of checks and
balances. If the President’s party has a supermajority, that means that whatever he wants
Congress to pass will easily get by the House of Representatives because his party-mates will
support it. And yet, one of the functions of the Legislature is precisely to check on the
exercise of presidential power. It cannot do this if, because of the supermajority, the
President is “in control” of the Lower House.

 There is, however, a very important part of Section 1 that we should not miss. It is the part that
provides that “legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines”. This means
that legislative power cannot be exercised by any other except by Congress. This is the origin of
the doctrine of “undue delegation”.
 When Congress passes a hypothetical Republic Act No. 10000009 that provides: “The
Department of Labor and Employment” is hereby authorized to promulgate rules on labor and
employment standards, working conditions, wages, and on all other matters relating to labor
practices and labor relations.” This is an example of VOID LEGISLATION — because it
constitutes “undue delegation”. Can anyone explain why?
- Ok, a basic principle of law is “potestas delegata delegari non potest”…power that has been
delegated cannot be delegated further. Since the Constitution has delegated legislative
authority to the Legislature, the latter cannot delegate legislation to administrative agencies.
Therefore before an administrative agency can draw up rules, there must be law for it to
enforce. The administrative agency cannot be the source of the law that it enforces. Congress
must first pass the law, and the administrative agency enacts rules to enforce the law. This is
the reason for the cardinal rule of administrative rule-making that rules cannot expand nor
derogate from law. They can only provide for the details of the implementation of the law.
And the basic, constitutional reason for this is that it is Congress that is vested by the
Constitution with legislative authority.

 Congress has generally two great powers: first, the power to legislate; second, the power of
oversight. The first is not difficult to understand. The second needs a little more explanation.

 The power of oversight is the power of Congress to inform itself how the laws it passes are being
enforced, and this is not because Congress has any role in law-enforcement. When it comes to
the execution of law, Congress has no role. However, since Congress approves the budget and
allocates the funds of government, it must know which offices, agencies and instrumentalities are
performing, what they are performing, how they are performing, so that Congress can allocate
properly. This is the reason that Congress has the power to invite officials of the Executive
Branch to explain how they are doing their jobs.

 Heads of agencies can be summoned for two purposes: they can be summoned in hearings in aid
of legislation, or they can be summoned when Congress exercises its power of oversight. Most of
the time, this oversight is exercised during budget hearings.

Can there be more than 24 senators? Can there be more than 250 representatives?

- Please notice that in Section 2, the number of senators is FIXED at 24. What is left to the
provision of law is the MANNER BY WHICH THEY ARE ELECTED BY THE
QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE PHILIPPINES.

- By contrast, under Section 5,1, the number of two hundred and fifty members is immediately
followed by the qualifier “unless otherwise fixed by law”. Which means that a law may be
passed increasing the membership of the Lower House, BUT NOT of the Senate. Is this
clear.
 Final point: Please observe that in Section 3 and Section 6, the word “resident” is used. Our
Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that when the term “resident” is used in relation to
qualification for office of a senator or a representative, “resident” should mean “domiciled in”.
And domicile means two things: (a) Physical presence (b) The intention to remain for life
(animus manendi.)

 Aling Kikay was a resident of California for 35 years. Having saved enough money, she came
back one and a half years before the elections. Although she is from Tuguegarao, she
purchased a condo unit in Pasig, and because of her money, she launched a successful
campaign for the Congressional seat of Pasig and won. Is she qualified or not?

- Good….the fact that she purchased a condo unit IS NOT SUFFICIENT PROOF of
domicile. However, if she sold her house in Tuguegarao, informed her friends that she
was moving to Pasig to spend the rest of her life there, ended her business interests in
Tuguegarao, if her family members also moved to Pasig, and if she physically relocated
to Pasig, then she would be domiciled in Pasig and would therefore be qualified.
INTENTION TO REMAIN is determined by overt acts: What you can, that can convince
a court that you intend to remain in a certain place. Aside from that, of course, you must
also be physically there.