Article VI LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Legislative Power
It is the power or competence of the legislative to propose, enact, ordain, amend/alter,
modify, abrogate or repeal laws. It is vested in the Congress which shall consist of a Senate and a
House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision on initiative
and referendum.
SENATE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Composition:Twenty-four (24), elected at Composition: not more than 250 members,
large by the qualified voters of the Philippines, unless otherwise provided by law, consisting of:
as may be provided by law.
a. District
Representatives elected from
legislative districts apportioned among the
Qualifications:
provinces, cities and the Metropolitan Manila
a. Natural-born citizen of the Philippines;
area. (Sec. 5, par. 1, Article VI)
b. At least thirty-five (35) years of age on the
day of the election;
b. Party-List Representatives constitutes
c. Able to read and write;
20% of the total number of representatives
d. Registered voter;
elected through a party-list system of registered
e. Resident of the Philippines for not less than 2 national, regional and sectoral parties or
years immediately preceding the day of the organization.
election.
c. Sectoral Representatives1/2 of the seats
Term of office: 6 yearsshall commence, allocated to party-list representatives shall be
unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on filled, as provided by law, by selection or
the 30th day of June next following their election from the:
election.
i. Labor; ii.Peasant; ii.Urban poor;
iv. Indigenous cultural communities;
Disqualifications:
v. Women; vi.Youth; and vii. Such other sectors
a. No Senator shall serve for more than 2 as may be provided by law, except the religious
consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of sector.
the office for any length of time shall not be
considered as
an interruption in the Term of office: three (3) years, which shall
continuity of his service for the full term for begin, unless otherwise provided by law, at
which he was elected. (Section 4, Article VI)
noon of June 30 next following their election.
b. One who has been declared by competent
authority as insane or incompetent
Qualifications:
c. One who has been sentenced by final 1. Natural-born citizen of the Philippines;
judgment for:
2. At least 25 years of age on the day of the
i. Subversion;
election;
ii. Insurrection;
3. Able to read and write;
iii. Rebellion;
4. Registered voter in the district in which he
iv. Any offense for which
shall be elected except the party-list
he has been sentenced to a penalty of not more representatives;
than 18 months; or
5. Resident of the district for a period
v. A crime involving moral turpitude, unless of not less than 1 year immediately preceding
given plenary pardon or granted amnesty the day of the election;
(Section 12, BP 881 Omnibus Election Code)
6. For party-list representatives or organizations:
a. Natural-born citizen of the Philippines;
b. A registered voter;

Electoral Tribunal: Senate Electoral Tribunal

(SET)composed of three (3) Supreme Court
Justices and six (6) Senatorsto act as sole
judge of all contest relating to election returns
and qualifications of their
respective members.
Removal: Thru EXPULSION by the Senate with
the concurrence of two-thirds (2/3) of all its
members (Section 16, par. 3, Article VI)

c. A resident of the Philippines for a period of

not less than one (1) year immediately
preceding the day of the election;
d. Able to read and write;
e. A bona fide member of the party or
organization which he seeks to represent for at
least ninety (90) days preceding the day of
the election;
f. At least 25 years of age on the day of the
election;
g. The political party, sector, organization or
coalition must represent the marginalized and
underrepresented groups.
h. Must comply with the declared policy of
enabling
Filipino
citizens
belonging
to
marginalized and underrepresented sectors to
be elected to the House of Representatives;
i. Religious sector may not be represented in the
party-list system;
j. A party or an organization must not be
disqualified under Sec. 6, RA 7941;
k. The party or organization must not be an
adjunct of, or a project organized or an entity
funded or assisted by the government;
l. The party must not only comply with the
requirements of the law; its nominees must
likewise do so;
m. Not only the candidate party or organization
must
represent
marginalized
and
underrepresented sectors; so also must its
nominees; and
n. The nominee must likewise be able to
contribute to the formulation and enactment of
appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation
as a whole.
Manner of Voting: (Sec. 10, RA 7941) Every
voter shall be entitled to two (2) votes: (1) for
candidate for member of the HOR in his
legislative district, and (2) for the party,
organizations,or
coalition
he
wants
represented in the HOR: provided, that a vote
cast for a party, organizations, or coalition not
entitled to be voted for shall not be counted.
Disqualifications:
a. Shall not serve for more than three (3)
consecutive terms. (Sec. 7, Article VI)

b. One who has been declared by competent

authority as insane or incompetent
c. One who has been sentenced by final
judgment for:
i. Subversion; ii. Insurrection;
iii. Rebellion; iv. Any offense for which he has
been sentenced to a penalty of not more than
18 months; or
v. A crime involving moral turpitude, unless
given plenary pardon or granted amnesty
(Section 12, BP881Omnibus Election Code)
d. For Party-List Representatives:
i. It is a religious sect or denomination,
organization or association organized for
religious purposes;
ii. It advocates violence or unlawful means to
seek its goal;
iii. It is a foreign party or organization;
iv.It is receiving support from any foreign
government, foreign political party, foundation,
organization, whether directly or through any of
its officers or members or indirectly through third
parties for partisan election purposes;
v. It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or
regulations relating to elections;
vi. It declares untruthful statement in its petition;
vii. It has ceased to exist for at least one (1)
year;
viii. It fails to participate in the last two
preceding elections or fails to obtain at least 2%
of the votes cast under the party-list system
in
the
two
preceding elections for the constituency in which
it had registered. (Section 6, RA 7941)
Canvassing Board: COMELEC
Electoral Tribunal: House of Representative
Electoral Tribunal (HRET)composed of nine
(9) members: 3 Supreme Court Justices and six
(6) members of the CongressSection 17, Art.
VI
Removal: EXPULSION by the House with the
concurrence of two-thirds (2/3) of all its
members (Sec. 16, par. 3, Art. VI)

VacancySection 9, Article VIIn case of vacancy in the Senate or in the House of

Representatives, a special election may be called to fill such vacancy in the manner prescribed by
law, but the Senator or Member of the House of Representatives thus elected shall serve only for
the unexpired term.
SalariesSection 10, Article VIThe salaries of Senators and Members of the House of
Representatives shall be determined by law. No increase in said compensation shall take effect
until after the expiration of the full term of all the Members of the Senate and the House of
Representatives approving such increase.
Inhibitions and Prohibitions:
a. Incompatible officemay not hold office or employment in government during his term
without forfeiting his seat;
b. Forbidden officemay not be appointed to any office created or compensation thereof
increased during the term for which he was elected. (Sec. 13, Article VI)
c. Cannot appear as counsel before any court or before the Electoral Tribunals, quasijudicial or other administrative bodies;
d. Shall not, directly or indirectly, be financially interested in any contract with, franchise or
special privilege granted by the government; e. Shall not intervene in any matter before any office
in government for his pecuniary benefit or where he may be called upon to act on account of his
office (Sec. 14, Article VI).
CONFLICT OF INTERESTall members of the Senate and the HOR shall, upon assumption of
office, make a full disclosure of their financial and business interests. They shall notify the House
concerned of a potential conflict of interest that may arise from the filing of a proposed legislation of
which they are author.
Incompatible Officeno Senator or member of the House of Representatives may hold any other
office or employment in the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof,
including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries, during his term without
forfeiting his seat.
The purpose is to prevent him from owing loyalty to another branch of the government, to
the detriment of the independence of the legislature and the doctrine of separation of powers.
The prohibition is not absolute, what is not allowed is the simultaneous holding of that office
and the seat in the Congress. Any legislator may hold another office or employment in the
government provided he forfeits his position in the Congress.
Forfeiture of the legislators seat, or cessation of his tenure, shall be automatic upon holding
of the incompatible office.
Forbidden Officeno Senator or member of the House of Representatives shall be appointed to
any office, which may have been created, or the emoluments thereof increased during the term for
which he was elected.
With this, even if the member of the Congress is willing to forfeit his seat therein, he may not be
appointed to any office in the government that has been created or the emoluments thereof have
been increased during his term. Such a position is forbidden office. The purpose is to prevent

trafficking in public office.

The provision does not apply to elective offices.
The appointment of the member of the Congress to the forbidden office is not allowed only
during the term for which he was elected, when such office was created or its emoluments were
increased. After such term, and even if the legislator is reelected, the disqualification no longer
applies and he may therefore be appointed to the office.
Privileges:
a. Freedom from arrestwhile Congress is in session for offense punished by not more
than 6 years imprisonment (Article 145, RPC; Sec. 11, Art. VI)
b. Speech and Debate clausenot to be questioned nor held liable in any other place for
any speech or debate in Congress or in any committee thereof. (Section 11, Article VI) (See
discussion under Parliamentary Immunity)
Composition and Qualificationsthey are exclusive under the principle of expressio unios est
exclusio alterius, with the result that it is not competent for the Congress to provide by mere
legislation for additional qualifications no matter how relevant they may be. (Justice Isagani Cruz,
Philippine Political Law)
In Marcos vs. COMELEC, 248 SCRA 300, the Court upheld the qualification of Imelda
Marcos, despite her own declaration in her certificate of candidacy that she had resided in the
district for only seven (7) months, because of the following:
a. A minor follows the domicile of his parents; Tacloban became her domicile of origin by
operation of law when her father brought their family to Leyte;
b. Domicile of origin is lost only when there is actual removal or change of domicile, a bona
fide intention of abandoning the former residence and establishing a new one, and acts which
correspond with the purpose; in the absence of clear and positive proof of the concurrence of all
these, the domicile of origin should be deemed to continue;
c. The wife does not automatically gain the husbands domicile because the term
residence in Civil Law does not mean the same thing in Political Law; when Mrs. Marcos married
Ferdinand Marcos in 1954, she kept her domicile of origin and merely gained a new home, not a
domicilium necessarium;
d. Even assuming that she gained a new domicile after her marriage and acquired the right
to choose a new one only after her husband died, her acts following her return to the country clearly
indicate that she chose Tacloban, her domicile of origin, as her domicile of choice.
Coquilla vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 151914, July 31, 2002, the SC ruled that he petitioner
had not been a resident of Oras, Eastern Samar, for at least one year prior to the May 14, 2001
elections. Although Oras was his domicile of origin, petitioner lost the same when he became a US
citizen after enlisting in the US Navy. From then on, until November 10, 2000, when he re-acquired
Philippine citizenship through repatriation, petitioner was an alien without any right to reside in the
Philippines.
In Caasi vs. COMELEC, it was held that the immigration to the US by virtue of the
acquisition of a green card constitutes abandonment of domicile in the Philippines.

REPUBLIC ACT 7941

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE ELECTION OF PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVES THROUGH
THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR
Nature of Party-List System
1. The party-list system is a social tool designed not only to give more law to the great
masses of our people who have less in life, but also to enable them to become veritable lawmakers
themselves, empowered to participate directly in the enactment of laws designed to benefit them. It
intends to make the marginalized and the underrepresented not merely passive recipients of he
States benevolence, but active participants in he mainstream of representative democracy. Thus,
allowing all individuals and groups, including those which now dominate district elections, to have
the same opportunity to participate in party-list elections would desecrate this lofty objective and
mongrelize the social justice mechanisms into an atrocious veneer for traditional politics.
2. Crucial to the resolution of this case is the fundamental social justice principle that those
who have less in life should have more in law. The party-list system is one such tool intended to
benefit those who have less in life. It gives the great masses of our people genuine hope and
genuine power. It is a message to the destitute and the prejudiced, and even those in the
underground, that change is possible. It is an invitation for them to come out of their limbo and
seize the opportunity.
Clearly, therefore, the Court cannot accept the submissions xxx that the party-list system is, without
any qualification, open to all. Such position does not only weaken the electoral chances of the
marginalized and underrepresented; it also prejudices them. It would gut the substance of the
party-list system. Instead of generating hope, it would create a mirage. Instead of enabling the
marginalized, it would further weaken them and aggravate their marginalization. (Ang Bagong
Bayani-OFW Labor Party vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 147589, June 26, 2001)
Inviolable parameters to determine the winners in Party-List election:
1. The Twenty Percent (20%) Allocationthe combined number of all party-list
congressmen shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the total membership of the House of
Representative, including those elected under the party-list;
2. The Two Percent (2%) Thresholdonly those garnering a minimum of 2% of the total
valid votes cast for the party-list system are qualified to have a seat in the HOR;
3. The Three (3) Seat Limiteach qualified party, regardless of the number of votes it
actually obtained, is entitled to a maximum of 3 seats; that is, one (1) qualifying and two (2)
additional seats.
4. The Proportional Representationthe additional seats which a qualified party is entitled
to shall be computed in proportion to their total number of votes. (Veterans Federation Party vs.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 136781, October 6, 2000)
Guidelines for Screening Party-List Participants
1. The political party, sector, organization or coalition must represent the marginalized and
underrepresented groups identified in Section 5 of RA 7941. In other wordsit must show in its
constitution, by-laws, articles of incorporation, history, platform of government and track record

that it represents and seeks to uplift marginalized and underrepresented sectors. Verily, majority of
its membership should belong to the marginalized and underrepresented. And it must demonstrate
that in a conflict of interest, it has chosen or likely to choose the interest of such sectors.
2. They must comply with the declared statutory policy of enabling Filipino citizens
belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors x x x to be elected to the House of
Representatives. In other words, while they are not disqualified merely on the ground that they are
political parties, they must show, however, that they represent the interests of the marginalized and
underrepresented.
3.
In view of the objections directed against the registration of Ang Buhay Hayaang
Yumabong, which is allegedly a religious group, the Court notes the express constitutional
provision that the religious sector may not be represented in the party-list system. The prohibition is
on any religious organization registering as political party not against a priest running as a
candidate.
4. A party or organization must not be disqualified under section 6 of RA 7941 which
enumerates the grounds for disqualification.
5. The party or organization must not be an adjunct of, or a project organized or an entity
funded or assisted by the government. The party or organization must be a group of citizens,
organized by citizens and operated by citizens. It must be independent of the government.

party-list representative under his new party or organization. Vacancy: In case of vacancy in the
seat reserved for party-list representatives, the vacancy shall be automatically filled by the next
representative from the list of nominees in the order submitted to the COMELEC by the same party,
organization or coalition, who shall serve for the unexpired term. If the list is exhausted, the party,
organization or coalition concerned shall submit additional nominees.
Citizens Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 172103, April 13, 2007,
the correct formula in ascertaining the entitlement to additional seats of the first party and other
qualified party-list groups was clearly explicated in Veterans wherein the multiplier used was the
number of additional seats allocated to the first party.
LABO DOCTRINEdoctrine of the rejection of the second placernot applicable in Party-List
System
Apportionment of legislative Districts: (Section 5, paragraphs 3 and 4, Article VI)
Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and
adjacent territory. Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand (250,000), or
each province, shall have at least one representative. This
is intended to prevent gerrymandering.
Gerrymanderingthe creation of representative districts out of separate
portions of territory in order to favor a candidate.

6. The party must not only comply with the requirements of the law; its nominees must
likewise do so;

Within three (3) years following the return of every census, the Congress shall make a
reapportionment of legislative districts based on the standards provided in this section.

7. Not only the candidate party or organization must represent marginalized and
underrepresented sectors; so also must its nominees; and

Mariano vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 118627, March 7, 1995, the Court held that the Constitution
does not preclude Congress from increasing its membership by passing a law other than a general
apportionment law. In fact, in Tobias vs. Abalos, 239 SCRA 106, the case involved the division of
San Juan and Mandaluyong into two (2) representative districts. With the elevation of Mandaluyong
from municipality into a highly urbanized city, both Mandaluyong and San Juan were recognized by
RA 7675 as distinct representative districts. This was challenged on the ground that RA 7675 did
not mention any census indicating that San Juan and Mandaluyong had the minimal requirement of
250,000 inhabitants needed to constitute a district. Neither did the challengers, however, give any
evidence that the respective populations of each of the two political units were less than the
number required. Hence the court presumed that Congress had made due consideration of the
minimum requirement. It ruled that reapportionment of legislative districts may be made through a
special law. To hold that reapportionment can be made only through a general law would create an
inequitable situation where a new city or province created by Congress will be denied legislative
representation for an indeterminate period of time. That intolerable situation would deprive the
people in the city or province a particle of that sovereignty. Sovereignty cannot admit subtraction; it
is indivisible. It must be forever whole or it is not sovereignty.

8. The nominee must likewise be able to contribute to the formulation and enactment of
appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole. (Ang Bagong BayaniOFW Labor
Party vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 147589, June 26, 2001)
Aklat vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 162203, April 24, 2004, the COMELEC has the power to
promulgate the necessary rules and regulations to enforce and administer election laws. This
power includes the determination, within the parameters fixed by law, of appropriate periods for the
accomplishment of certain pre-election acts like filing petitions for registration under the party-list
system. This is exactly what the COMELEC did when it issued its Resolution No. 6320 declaring
September 30, 2003, as the deadline for filing petitions for registration under the party-list system.
Choosing Party-List Representativesthey are proclaimed by the COMELEC based on the list of
names submitted by the respective parties, organizations or coalitions to the COMELEC according
to their ranking in the list.
Effect of change of affiliation
Any elected party-list representative who changes his political party or sectoral affiliation
during his term of office shall forfeit his seat; provided that if he changes his political party or
sectoral affiliation within 6 months before an election, he shall not be eligible for nomination as

In Montejo vs. COMELEC, it was held that while concededly the conversion of Biliran into a
regular province brought about an imbalance in the distribution of voters and inhabitants in the 5
districts of Leyte, the issue involves reapportionment of legislative districts, and Petitioners remedy
lies with Congress. This Court cannot itself make the reapportionment as petitioner would want.

SESSIONS (Section 14, Article VI)

1. Regularconvene once every year. The 4th Monday of July until 30 days before the start
of new regular session (Section 14, Article VI)adjournment is allowed 30 days before the
opening of its next regular sessionthis is compulsory;
2. Special
a. Called by the President (Sec. 15, Article VI)the President has the power to call
special session; without the call of Presidentimpeachment
b. Due to a vacancy in the offices of the President and VP at 10:00 am on the 3rd day
after the vacancies (Sec. 10, Article VII)
c. Decide on the disability of the President because the majority of all the members of
the Cabinet has disputed his assertion that he is able to discharge the powers and duties of his
office (Section 11, par. 3, Article VII)
d. To revoke or extend the Presidential Proclamation of Martial Law or suspension of
the Writ of Habeas Corpus (Section 18, article VII)
3. Joint
a. Voting separately
i. Choosing the President (Section 4, Article VII);
ii. Determine the Presidents disability (Section 11, Article VII);
iii. Confirming nomination of Vice-President (Section 9, Article VI);
iv. Declaring existence of state of war (Section 23, Article VI); and
v. Proposing constitutional amendments (Section 1, Article XVII).
b. Voting jointly
i. To revoke or extend proclamation suspending the privilege of writ of habeas corpus (Section 18,
Article VII); and
ii. To revoke or extend declaration of martial law (Section 18, Article VII).
4. AdjournmentNeither Chamber during session, without consent of the other, adjourn for
more than 3 days, nor any other place than that in which the two Chambers shall be sitting (Section
16, par. 5, Article VI)
Adjournment Sine Diethe interval between the session of one Congress and that of another;
congress must stop the clock at midnight of the last day of session in order to validly pass a law
<The Senate is a continuing body while the House is not.
DISCIPLINE OF MEMBERS (Section 16, par. 3, Article VI)
Each house may punish its members for disorderly behavior and, with concurrence of 2/3 of
all its members, suspend (for not more than 60 days) or expel a member.
The interpretation of disorderly behavioris the prerogative of the House concerned and
cannot be judicially reviewed.

Ombudsman. (Paredes vs. SAndiganbayan, G. R. No. 118364, August 10, 1995; Santiago vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 128055, April 18, 2001)
The suspension in the Constitution is different from the suspension prescribed in RA 3019,
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The latter is not a penalty but a preliminary preventive
measure and is not imposed upon the petitioner for misbehavior as a member of Congress.
(Paredes vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 118364, August 10, 1995)
In Miriam Defensor-Santiago vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 128055, April 18, 2001, Section 13
of RA 3019 (where it appears to be a ministerial duty of the court to issue the order of suspension
upon a determination of the validity of the criminal information filed before it) does not state that the
public officer should be suspended only in the office where he is alleged to have committed the acts
charged. Furthermore, the order of suspension provided in RA 3019 is distinct from the power of
Congress to discipline its own ranks. Neither does the order of suspension encroach upon the
power of Congress. The doctrine of separation of powers, by itself, is not deemed to have
effectively excluded the members of Congress from RA 3019 or its sanctions.
PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY
A Senator or member of the HOR shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than 6 years
imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session. No member shall be
questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any
other committee thereof.
Two (2) Kinds:
a. Freedom from arrest or detentionwhile Congress is in session for offense punished
by not more than 6 years imprisonment (Article 145, RPC; Sec. 11, Art. VI)it is intended to ensure
representation of the constituents of the member of the Congress by preventing attempts to keep
him from attending its sessions. The present Constitution adheres to the restrictive rule minus the
obligation of Congress to surrender the Member of the House of Representatives to the custody of
law. The requirement that he should be attending sessions or committee meetings has also been
removed. For relatively minor offenses, it is enough that Congress is in session. (People vs.
Jalosjos, 324 SCRA 689, February 20, 2000)
in sessionnot day to day; refers to the entire duration of the session from its opening until its
adjournment.
b. Speech and Debate clausenot to be questioned nor held liable in any other place for
any speech or debate in Congress or in any committee thereof. (Section 11, Article VI)it enables
the legislator to express views bearing upon the public interest without fear of accountability outside
the halls of the legislature for his inability to support his statements with the usual evidence required
in the court of justice.
in any other placebut not in the Senate or Congress itself

In Osmea vs. Pendatun, 109 Phil 863, the determination of the acts which constitutes disorderly
behavior is within the full discretionary authority of the House concerned, and the Court will not
review such determination, the same being a political question.
Members of Congress may also be suspended by the Sandiganbayan or by the Office of the

Section 16, par. 3, Article VIEach House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its
Members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of 2/3 of all its members, suspend or
expel a Member. A penalty of suspension, when imposed, shall not exceed 60 days.

People vs. Jalosjos, 324 SCRA 689, the immunity from arrest or detention of Senators and
Members of the HOR arises from a provision of the Constitution. The history of the provision shows
that the privilege has always been granted in a restrictive sense. The provision granting an
exemption as a special privilege cannot be extended beyond the ordinary meaning of its term. It
may not be extended by intendment, implication or equitable considerations. x x x
Because of the broad coverage of felony and breach of the peace, the exemption applied
only to civil arrests. A congressman like the accused-appellant, convicted under Title 11 of the
Revised Penal Code could not claim parliament immunity from arrest. He was subject to the same
general laws governing all persons still to be tried or whose convictions were pending appeal.
The present Constitution adheres to the same restrictive rule minus the obligation of
Congress to surrender the subject Congressman to the custody of law. The requirement that he
should be attending sessions or committee meetings has also been removed. For relatively minor
offenses, it is enough that Congress is in session.
Accused-appellant argues that a member of Congress function to attend sessions is
underscored by Section 16 (2), Article VI of the Constitution which states that
(2) A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number
may adjourn from day to day and may compel the attendance of absent Members in such manner,
and under such penalties, as such House may provide.
However, the accused-appellant has not given any reason why he should be exempted from
the operation of Section 11, Article VI. The members of Congress cannot compel absent members
to attend sessions if the reason for absence is legitimate a one. The confinement of a
Congressman charged with a crime punishable by imprisonment of more than 6 years is not merely
authorized by law, it has constitutional foundations.
When the voters of his district elected the accused-appellant to Congress, they did so with
full awareness of the limitations on his freedom of action. They did so with the knowledge that he
could achieve only such legislative results which he could accomplish within the confines of prison.
To give a more drastic illustration, if voters elect a person with full knowledge that he is suffering
from a terminal illness, they do so knowing that any time, he may no longer serve his full term in
office.
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE; Varieties of:
It is the power of the government to withhold information from the public, the courts, and the
Congress. (Schwartz)
It is also the right of the President and high-level executive branch officers to withhold
information from Congress, the courts, and ultimately the public. (Rozell)
1. State secret privilegeinvoked by Presidents on the ground that the information is of
such nature that its disclosure would subvert crucial military or diplomatic objective.
2. Informersprivilegeprivilegeofthegovernmentnottodisclosetheidentityof persons who
furnish information in violations of law to officers charged with the enforcement of the law.
3. Generic privilegefor internal deliberations has been said to attach to intra- governmental
documents reflecting advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a
process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated.

In determining the validity of a claim of privilege, the question that must be asked is not only
whether the requested information falls within one of the traditional privileges, but also whether that
privilege should be honored in a given procedural setting.
Senate vs. Ermita, G.R. No. 169777, April 20, 2006, executive privilege, whether asserted
against Congress, the courts, or the public, is recognized only in relation to certain types of
information of a sensitive character. While executive privilege is a constitutional concept, a claim
thereof may be valid or not depending on the ground invoked to justify it and the context in which it
is made. Noticeably absent is any recognition that executive officials are exempt from the duty to
disclose information by the mere fact of being executive officials. Indeed, the extraordinary
character of the exemptions indicates that the presumption inclines heavily against executive
secrecy and in favor of disclosure.
General rule: DISCLOSURE(policy on transparency)
Exceptions: Disclosure would subvert crucial diplomatic or military objective.
1. Supreme Court
2. Executive Secretary
3. Presidentmust invoke executive privilege
PROTOCOL DE CLOTUREa final act; an instrument which records the winding up of the
proceedings of a diplomatic conference and usually includes a reproduction of the text of treaties,
conventions, recommendations and other acts agreed upon and signed by the plenipotentiaries
attending the conference. It is not the treaty itself. It is rather a summary of the proceedings of a
protracted conference which may have taken place over several years. It will not require the
concurrence of the Senate. The documents contained therein are deemed adopted without need for
ratification. (Taada vs. Angara, 272 SCRA 18, 1997)
Commission on Appointments(Section 18, Article VI)
The Commission is independent of the two Houses of Congress; its employees are not,
technically, employees of Congress. It has the power to promulgate its own rules of proceedings.
Powers: Act on all appointments submitted to it within 30 session days of Congress from their
submission; to act on Presidential appointments; has power to promulgate its own rules of
proceedings.
Composition:
Senate Presidentacts as Ex-Officio Chairman
12 Senators and 12 Members of the House of Representatives, elected by each house on the
basis of proportional representation from the political parties and organizations registered under the
party-list system represented therein.
Chairman shall not vote except in case of a tie.
In Guingona vs. Gonzales, 214 SCRA 789, a political party must have at least two (2) elected
senators for every seat in the Commission on Appointments. Thus, where there are two or more
political parties represented in the Senate, a political party/coalition with a single senator in the
Senate cannot constitutionally claim a seat in the Commission on Appointments. It is not mandatory
to elect 12 senators to the Commission; what the Constitution requires is that there must be at least
a majority of the entire membership.

POWERS OF CONGRESS
Classification:
1. LEGISLATIVE
General plenary power;
Specific power of appropriation;
Taxation and expropriation;
Legislative investigations (Section 21, Art. VI); and
Question hour (Section 22, Art. VI).
2.NON-LEGISLATIVEincludes power to:
Canvass presidential election (Section 4, Art. VII);
Declare the existence of state of war (Section 23, par.1, Art. VI);
Exercise delegation of emergency powers;
Call special election for President and VP (Section 10, Art. VII);
Give concurrence to treaties and amnesties (Sections 19 and 21, Art. VII);
Propose constitutional amendments (constituent power) (Sections 1-2, Art. XVII);
Confirm certain appointments (Section 9 and 16, Art. VII);
Impeach (Section 2, Art. XI);
Decide the disability of President because majority of the Cabinet disputes his assertion that he is
able to discharge his duties (Section 11, Art. VII);
Revoke or extend proclamation of suspension of privilege of writ of habeas corpus or declaration
of martial law (Section 18, Art. VII);
Set the rules regarding the utilization of natural resources (Section 2, Art. XII).
Limitations on the Powers of Congress:
1. SUBSTANTIVE
a. Express:
i. Bill of Rights (Article III);
ii. On Appropriations (Sections 25 and 29 paragraphs 1 and 2, Article VI);
iii. On taxation (Sections 28 and 29, paragraph 3, Article VI);
iv. On Constitutional appellate jurisdiction of SC (Section 30, Article VI);
v. No law granting title of royalty or nobility shall be passed (Section 31, Article VI);
vi. No specific funds shall be appropriated or paid for use or benefit of any religion,
sect, etc., except for priests, etc., assigned to AFP, penal institutions, etc. (Sections 29, paragraph
2, Article VI).
b. Implied:
i. Prohibition against irrepealable laws;
ii. Non-delegation of powers.
2. PROCEDURAL
a. Only one subject, to be stated in the title of the bill (Sec. 26, par. 1, Article VI);
b. Three (3) readings on separate days; printed copies of the bill in its final form
distributed to members 3 days before its passage, except if President certifies to its immediate
enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency; upon its last reading, no amendment allowed
and the vote thereon taken immediately and the yeas and nays entered into the Journal (Section

26, paragraph 2, Article VI;

c. Appropriation, revenue and tariff bills shall originate exclusively in the House of
Representatives.
How a bill becomes a law?
1. Approved and signed by the President;
2. Presidential veto overridden by 2/3 votes of all the members of both Houses;
3. Failure of the President to veto the bill and to return it with his objections to the House where it
originated, within 30 days after the date of receipt;
4. A bill calling a special election for President and Vice-President under Section10, Article VII
becomes a law upon third and final reading.
Bills exclusively originated in the House of Representative: (APRIL)
1. Appropriation bills;
2. Private bills;
3. Revenue or tariff bills;
4. Bills authorizing Increase in public debts; and
5. Bills of Local application.
However, although these bills are required to originate exclusively in the House of
Representatives, the Senate may propose or concur with amendments (Sec. 24, Art. VI).
Amendments may include amendments by substitution. (Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance)
What is required to originate exclusively in the House of Representatives is the bill, not the
law itself. (Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance)
If the nays prevail, then it is about time that a new bicameral committee be created until the bill will
be accepted by both houses. (Bill is not killed.)
If yeas prevail, the bill is signed by the Executive Secretary.
Two (2) Rules to be observedSection 26, Article VI:
1. One (1) subject, One (1) Title Ruleto prevent RIDERStotally unrelated matters
2. Three (3) Readings on Separate Days
Except: when the President certifies to the necessity of the immediate enactment of the bill to meet
the public calamity and emergency political questionnot subject to judicial review
Section 26 (par. 1), Article VIevery bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one
subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.
The objectives of the above provision are:
1. To prevent hodge-podge or log-rolling legislation;
2. To prevent surprise or fraud upon the legislature by means of provisions in bills of which the titles
gave no information, and which might therefore be overlooked and carelessly and unintentionally
adopted; and 3. To fairly appraise the people, through such publication of legislative proceedings as
is usually made, of the subjects of legislation that are being considered, in order that they may have
opportunity of being heard thereon by petition or otherwise if they shall so desire.

Literal interpretationthe subject or title need not be an index or catalogue. It must be germane
and related to the subject matter.
Agripino A. De Guzman, Jr., et al. vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 129118, July 19, 2000,
Section 26 (1), Article VI is sufficiently complied with where the title is comprehensive enough to
embrace the general objective it seeks to achieve, and if all the parts of the statute are related and
germane to the subject matter embodied in the title or so long as the same are not inconsistent with
or foreign to the general subject and title.
Section 26, par. 2 of Article VINo bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has
passed three readings on separate days, and printed copies thereof in its final form have been
distributed to its Members three days before its passage, except when the President certifies to the
necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency.
ENROLLED BILL DOCTRINE
It is one duly introduced and finally passed by both houses, authenticated by the proper officer of
each, and approved by the President. It is conclusive upon the courts as regards the tenor of the
measure passed by Congress and approved by the President.
Once the bill becomes an enrolled bill, it is conclusive upon the court of its due enactment. Courts
may no longer validly inquire into the bill because of the doctrine of separation of powers.
Casco (Phil) Chemical Co. vs. Gimenez, 7 SCRA 347, if a mistake was made in the printing of
the bill before it was certified by Congress and approved by the President, the remedy is
amendment or corrective legislation, not a judicial decree.
The enrolled bill rule rests on the following considerations:
x x x As the President has no authority to approve a bill no passed by Congress, an enrolled
act in the custody of the Secretary of State, and having the official attestations of the Speaker of
the House of Representatives, of the President of the Senate, and of the President of the United
States, carries, on its face, a solemn assurance by the legislative and executive departments of the
government, charged, respectively, with the duty of enacting and executing the laws, that it was
passed by the Congress. the respect due to co-equal and independent departments requires the
judicial department to act upon the assurance, and to accept, as having passed Congress, all bills
authenticated in the manner stated; leaving the court to determine, when the question properly
arises, whether the Act, so authenticated, is in conformity with the Constitution. (Marshall Field &
Co. vs. Clark, 143 US 649)
BICAMERAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEEthe mechanism for compromising differences
between the Senate and the Housecapable of producing unexpected resultbill will have to be
sent back to both houses and subject to votation.
A conference committee may deal generally with the subject matter or it may be limited to
resolving the precise differences between the two houses. Even where the conference committee is
not by rule limited in its jurisdiction, legislative custom severely limits the freedom with which new
subject matter can be inserted in to the conference bill. But occasionally it produces unexpected
results, results beyond its mandate. These e4xcursions occurs even where the rules impose strict
limitations on conference committee jurisdiction. This is symptomatic of an authoritarian power of
conference committee. (Philippine Judges Association vs. Prado, 227 SCRA 703, November

11, 1993)
DOCTRINE OF SHIFTING MAJORITY
For each house to pass a bill, only the votes of the majority of those present in the session, there
being a quorum, is required.
QuorumA majority of each House, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day and may
compel the attendance of absent members in such manner and under such penalties as such
house may determine.
Avelino vs. Cuenco, 83 Phil 17, the basis in determining the existence of a quorum in the Senate
shall be the total number of Senators who are in the country and within the coercive jurisdiction of
the Senate.
Arroyo vs. De Venecia, G.R. No. 127255, June 26, 1998, the SC declared that the question of
quorum cannot be raised repeatedly, especially when a quorum is obviously present for the
purpose of delaying the business of the House.
LEGISLATIVE JOURNALregarded as conclusive with respect to matters that are required by the
Constitution to be recorded therein. With respect to other matters, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, the journals have also been accorded conclusive effects. Thus, in US vs. Pons, this Court
spoke of the imperatives of public policy for regarding the Journals as public memorials of the most
permanent character, thus: They should be public, because all are required to conform to them;
they should be permanent, that rights acquired today upon the faith of what has been declared to
be law shall not be destroyed tomorrow, or at some remote period of time, by facts resting only in
memory of individuals. (Arroyo vs. De Venecia, 277 SCRA 268)
Matters that are required to be entered on the Journal:
1. The yeas and nays on the 3rd and final reading of a bill;
2. The yeas and nays on any question, at the request of 1/5 of the members
present;
3. The yeas and nays upon re-passing a bill over the Presidents veto; and 4. The
objection to a bill he had vetoed. (Arroyo vs. De Venecia, 277
SCRA 268)

Presidents

Journal entry vs. enrolled bill

Enrolled bill prevails, except to matters, which under the Constitution, must entered into the
Journal. (Morales vs. Subido, 26 SCRA 150)
Presidents Options:
1. Sign and the bill becomes a law.
2. Vetoes the bill, it does not become a law.
2/3 votes of all its Members (for Congress to override)
3. Inactionthe bill automatically becomes a law within 30 days upon receipt of the
bill from Congress.
Avelino vs. Cuenco, 83 Phil 17, the basis in determining the existence of a quorum in the Senate
shall be the total number of Senators who are in the country and within the coercive jurisdiction of

the Senate.
Arroyo vs. De Venecia, G.R. No. 127255, June 26, 1998, the SC declared that the question of
quorum cannot be raised repeatedly, especially when a quorum is obviously present for the
purpose of delaying the business of the House.
LEGISLATIVE JOURNALregarded as conclusive with respect to matters that are required by the
Constitution to be recorded therein. With respect to other matters, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, the journals have also been accorded conclusive effects. Thus, in US vs. Pons, this Court
spoke of the imperatives of public policy for regarding the Journals as public memorials of the most
permanent character, thus: They should be public, because all are required to conform to them;
they should be permanent, that rights acquired today upon the faith of what has been declared to
be law shall not be destroyed tomorrow, or at some remote period of time, by facts resting only in
memory of individuals. (Arroyo vs. De Venecia, 277 SCRA 268)

constitutionally vested power. But even as the Constitution grants the power, it also provides
limitations to its exercise. The veto power is not absolute.
xxx
The OSG is correct when it states that the Executive must veto a bill in its entirety or not at
all. He or she cannot act like an editor crossing out specific lines, provisions, or paragraphs in a bill
that he or she dislikes. In the exercise of the veto power, it is generally veto, however, when it
comes to appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, the Administration needs the money to run the
machinery of the government and it can not veto the entire bill even if it may contain objectionable
features. The President is, therefore, compelled to approve into law the entire bill, including its
undesirable parts. It is for this reason that the Constitution has wisely provided the item veto
power to avoid inexpedient riders being attached to an indispensable appropriation or revenue
measures.

Matters that are required to be entered on the Journal:

1. The yeas and nays on the 3rd and final reading of a bill;
2. The yeas and nays on any question, at the request of 1/5 of the members
present;
3. The yeas and nays upon re-passing a bill over the Presidents veto; and
4. The Presidents objection to a bill he had vetoed. (Arroyo vs. De Venecia, 277
SCRA 268)

The Constitution provides that only a particular item or items may be vetoed. The power to
disapprove any item or items in an appropriation bill does not grant the authority to veto a part of an
item and to approve the remaining portion of the same item. (Bengzon vs. Drilon, 208 SCRA 133,
April 15, 1992)

Journal entry vs. enrolled bill

Enrolled bill prevails, except to matters, which under the Constitution, must entered into the
Journal. (Morales vs. Subido, 26 SCRA 150)

Exception: Paragraph 2 of Section 27, Article VIItem/Line veto

Only Appropriation, Revenue and Tariff Bills (ART)selective veto is allowed here
provided the vetoed bill shall not affect the items which was not vetoed.

Presidents Options:
1. Sign and the bill becomes a law.
2. Vetoes the bill, it does not become a law.
?2/3 votes of all its Members (for Congress to override)
3. Inactionthe bill automatically becomes a law within 30 days upon receipt of the bill from
Congress.

ItemRefers to the particulars, the details, the distinct and severable parts of the bill. It is an
indivisible sum of money dedicated to a stated purpose.

There is no such thing as pocket veto here in the Philippines because inaction by the
President for 30 days never produces a veto even if Congress is in recess. The President must still
act to veto the bill and communicate his veto to the Congress without need of returning the vetoed
bill with his veto message.
Pocket veto occurs when:
a. The President fails to act on the bill;
b. The reason he does not return the bill to the Congress is that Congress is not in session.
PRESIDENTIAL VETO
VETOSection 27, Article VI
1. General veto of the Presidentparagraph 1 of Section 27, Article VI
2. Item/Line veto of the Presidentparagraph 2 of Section 27, Article VI
The act of the Executive in vetoing the particular provisions is an exercise of a

General rule: Selective/partial veto is not allowed. The President may not veto a provision of the
bill without vetoing the whole/entire bill itself.

Exceptions to the Exception:

1. DOCTRINE OF INAPPROPRIATE PROVISIONSection 25 (2), Article VI
A provision that is constitutionally inappropriate for an appropriation bill may be singled out
for veto even if it is not an appropriation or revenue item.
It was invoked in the case of Gonzalez vs. Macaraig wherein President Aquino vetoed a provision
of the general appropriation bill. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the veto power of the
President. Section 25 (2), Article VINo provision or enactment shall be embraced in the general
appropriation bill unless it relates specifically to some particular appropriation therein.Items which
the President does not object, otherwise it becomes an inappropriate provisionit may be treated
as an itemsubject to the item veto of the President.
2. Executive Impoundmentrefusal of the President to spend funds already allocated by
Congress for specific purpose. It is the failure to spend or obligate budget authority of any type.
This power is derived from Section 38 of the Administrative Code of 1987 on suspension.
Appropriation Reserves
Section 37 of the Administrative Code authorizes the Budget Secretary to establish reserves
against appropriations to provide for contingencies and emergencies which may arise during the
year. This is merely expenditure deferral, not suspension, since the agencies concerned can still

draw on the reserves if the fiscal outlook improves.

3. Legislative Vetoa congressional veto is a means whereby the legislature can block or modify
administrative action taken under a statute. It is a form of legislative control in the implementation of
particular executive action. The formmay either be:
a. Negativesubjecting the executive action to disapproval by Congress; or
b. Affirmativerequiring approval of the executive action by Congress.
A congressional veto is subject to serious questions involving the separation of powers.
Local Chief Executives have veto power except the Punong Barangay.
POWER OF APPROPRIATION
The spending power, called the power of purse belongs to the Congress, subject only to the veto
power of the President. it carries with it a power to specify the project or activity to be funded under
the appropriation law.
Appropriations LawA statute, the primary and specific purpose of which is to authorize release
of public funds from the treasury.
The existence of appropriations and the availability of funds are indispensable pre-requisites to or
conditions sine qua non for the execution of government contracts. (COMELEC vs. Judge
Quijano
Padilla and Photokina Marketing Corp., G.R. No. 151992, September 18, 2000)
Classification:
1. General Appropriation Lawpassed annually, intended to provide for the
financial operations of the entire government during one fiscal period.
2. Special Appropriation Lawdesigned for a specific purpose.
Implied (Extra-Constitutional) Limitations on Appropriation Power:
1. Must specify public purpose; and
2. Sum authorized for release must be determinate, or at least determinable.
Constitutional Limitations on Special Appropriation Measures:
1. Must specify public purpose for which the sum was intended; and
2. Must be supported by funds actually available as certified by the National
Treasurer or to be raised by corresponding revenue proposal included therein.
Constitutional Rules on General Appropriation Laws: Section 25, Article VI
1. Congress may not increase appropriations recommended by the President for operation of the
Governmentto prevent big budget deficits;
2. Form, content and manner of preparation of budget shall be provided by law;
3. No provision or enactment shall be embraced unless it relates specifically to
some particular appropriations therein;
4. Procedure for approving appropriations for Congress shall be the same as that of
other departmentsto prevent sub rosa appropriations by Congress;
5. Prohibition against transfer of appropriations (Doctrine of Augmentation),
however:

a. President;
b. Senate President;
c. Speaker of the House;
d. ChiefJustice;and
e. Heads of Constitutional Commissions
may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their
respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.
6. Prohibition against appropriations for sectarian benefit; and
7. Automatic re-appropriation.
POWER OF TAXATION
Limitations:
1. Rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable and Congress shall evolve a progressive system
of taxation.
2. Charitable institutions, etc., and all lands, buildings and improvements actually, directly and
exclusively used for religious, charitable or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation.
3. All revenues and assets of non-stock, non-profit educational institutions used actually, directly
and exclusively for educational purposes shall be exempt from taxes and duties.
4. Law granting tax exemption shall be passed only with the concurrence of a majority of all the
members of Congress.
ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL Section 17, Article VSenate and House of Representativessole
judge of all contest relating to the election returns and qualifications of their respective Members
*No appeal lies. Appeal is merely statutory. The remedy is Rule 65, Certiorari (Special Civil Action)
based on Grave Abuse of Discretion.
HRETalthough attached to the Congress, has separate and distinct personality. It was created as
a non-partisan court. It must be independent of Congress and devoid of partisan influence and
consideration. Members of HRET, once appointed thereto, they shall be accorded thereto of
security of tenure to ensure their impartiality and independence.
Bondoc vs. Pineda, 201 SCRA 792, Disloyalty to the party and Breach of party discipline are not
valid grounds for the expulsion of a member. HRET members enjoy security of tenure; their
membership may not be terminated except for a just cause such as the expiration of congressional
term, death, resignation from the political party, formal affiliation with another political party, or
removal for other valid causes.
Pimentel vs. HRET, G.R. No. 141489, November 29, 2002, the SC said that even assuming that
the party-list representatives comprise a sufficient number and have agreed to designate common
nominees to the HRET and Commission on Appointments, their primary recourse clearly rests with
the House of Representatives and not with the Court. Only if the House fails to comply with the
directive of the Constitution on proportional representation of political parties in the HRET and
Commission on Appointments can the party-list representatives seek recourse from this Court
through judicial review. Under the doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction, prior recourse to
the House is necessary before the petitioners may bring the case to Court.
Imelda Romualdez-Marcos vs. COMELEC, 248 SCRA 300As to the HRETs supposed

assumption of jurisdiction over the issue of petitioners qualifications after the May 8, 1995
elections, suffice it to say that HRETs jurisdiction as the sole judge of all contests relating to the
elections, returns and qualifications of members of Congress begins only after a candidate has
become a member of the House of Representatives (Article VI, Section 17 1987 Constitution).
Petitioner not being a member of the House of Representatives, it is obvious that HRET at this
point has no jurisdiction over the question. COMELEC is not ousted of jurisdiction. See also
Section 6 of RA 6646.
Guerrero vs. COMELEC, 336 SCRA 458 (July 26, 2000) While the Congress is vested with the
power to declare valid or invalid certificate of candidacy, its refusal to exercise the power following
the proclamation and assumption of Farias is a recognition of the jurisdictional boundaries
separating the COMELEC and the HRET. Under Article VI, Section 17 of the Constitution, the
HRET has the sole and exclusive jurisdiction over all contests relative to the elections, returns and
qualifications of members of the House of Representatives. Thus, once a winning candidate has
been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed office as a member of the HOR, COMELECs
jurisdiction over election contests relating to his elections, returns and qualifications ends, and the
HRETs own jurisdiction begins. Thus, the COMELECs decision to discontinue exercising
jurisdiction over the case is justifiable, in deference to the HRETs own jurisdiction and functions.
Appeal from SET or HRET Decision
The Constitution mandates that the HRET and the SET shall each, respectively, be the sole judge
of all contest relating to the elections, returns and qualifications of their respective members.
The Court has stressed that so long as the Constitution grants the HRET the power to be the sole
judge of all contests relating to the elections, returns and qualifications of members of the House of
Representatives, any final action taken by the HRET on a matter within its jurisdiction shall, as a
rule, not be reviewed by the Supreme Court. The power granted to the Electoral Tribunal excludes
the exercise of any authority on the part of this Court that would in any wise restricts it or curtail it or
even affect the same.
In Robles vs. HRET, the Court has explained that while the judgments of the Tribunal are beyond
judicial interference, the Court may do so, however, but only in the exercise of the SCs so-called
extraordinary jurisdiction upon determination that the Tribunals decision or resolution was rendered
without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, or upon a clear showing of
such arbitrary and improvident use by the Tribunal of its power as constitutes a denial of due
process of law, or upon demonstration of a very clear unmitigated error, manifestly constituting such
grave abuse of discretion that there has to be remedy for such abuse.
The Court does not venture into the perilous area of correcting perceived errors of independent
branches of government; it comes in only when it has to vindicate a denial of due process or correct
an abuse of discretion so grave or glaring that no less than the Constitution itself calls for remedial
action. (Libanan vs. HRET, 283 SCRA 520)
Section 21, Article VIThe Senate or the HOR or any of its respective committees may conduct
inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules and procedure. The right of
persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.
?Constitutional limitation on inquiries in aid of legislation

POWER OF LEGISLATIVE INVESTIGATION(Section 21, Article VI)

Power to conduct inquiries in aid of legislationInvestigatorial Powernot absolute; subject
judicial review in view of the expanded power of the court to determine whether there has been
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Limitations:
1.The inquiry must be in aid of legislation;
2. It must be in accordance with duly published rules and procedure of the House
concerned; and
3.The right of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be
respected.
Remedy: invoke the Right against Self-Incrimination
Section 21 (Legislative investigation) vs. Section 22(Question Hour)
1.Inquiry in aid of legislationthey may not validly refuse to appear: sIt will impair the work of
Congress sIt will violate the rights of the people to information on matters of public concern (Section
7, Article III)
2.Members of the executive cabinet in view of EO 464
*These two (2) sections should not be considered as pertaining to the same power of Congress.
One specifically relates to the power to conduct inquiry in aid of legislation, the aim of which is to
elicit information that may be used for legislation, while the other pertains to the power to conduct a
question hour, the objective of which is to obtain information in pursuit of Congress oversight
function.
Section 21 (Legislative investigation)
1.Any person may appear
2.The Committees conduct the investigation
3.The subject matter is any matter for the
purpose of legislation
4. Appearance is mandatory

Section 22(Question Hour)

1.Only department head may appear
2. The entire body conduct the investigation
3. The subject matters are matters relatedto the
department only
4.Appearance is Discretionary

Senate vs. Ermita, G.R. No., 169777, April 20, 2006, while attendance to Congressional hearings
is discretionary on the part of the department heads during question hour, such is not in the case
in inquiries in aid of legislation, except upon a valid and express claim of executive privilege.
The principle of separation of powers is the reason why executive officials may not be compelled to
attend hearings when Congress exercises its oversight functions. Though, this is not the case when
the Congress exercises its power of inquiry in aid of legislation. Sections 21 and 22 of Article VI,
therefore, while closely related and complementary to each other, should not be considered as
pertaining to the same power of Congress. one specifically relates to the power to conduct an
inquiry in aid of legislation, the aim of which is to elicit information that may be used for legislation,
while the other pertains to the power to conduct a question hour, the object of which is to obtain
information in pursuit of Congress oversight function.
Sabio vs. Sen. Gordon, G.R. No. 174340, October 17, 2006, the Congress power of inquiry,
being broad, encompasses everything that concerns the administration of existing laws as well as

proposed or possibly needed statutes. It even extends to government agencies created by

Congress and officers whose positions are within the power of Congress to regulate or even
abolish. A mere provision of law cannot pose a limitation to the broad power of Congress, in the
absence of any constitutional basis.
QUESTION HOURintegral in a parliamentary government; the heads of departments may, upon
their own initiative, with the consent of the President, or upon the request of either house, as the
rules of each house shall provide, appear before and be heard by such house on any matter
pertaining to their departments. Written questions shall be submitted to the President of the Senate
or the Speaker of the House at least 3 days before their scheduled appearance. Interpolations shall
not be limited to written questions, but may cover matters related thereto. When the scrutiny of the
State or the public interest so requires, the appearance shall be conducted in executive session
Arnault vs. Nazareno, 87 Phil. 29the inquiry, to be within the jurisdiction of the legislative body
making it, must be material or necessary to the exercise of a power in it vested by the Constitution,
such as to legislate or to expel a member. (The power to conduct Inquiry is integral and implied of
legislative power)
Standard Chartered Bank vs. Senate Committee on Banks, G.R. No. 167173, December 27,
2007, the mere filing of a criminal or an administrative complaint before a court or a quasi-judicial
body should not automatically bar the conduct of legislative investigation. Otherwise, it would be
extremely easy to subvert any intended inquiry by Congress through the convenient ploy of
instituting a criminal or administrative complaint.
Congressional Oversight Functions (Makalintal vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 157013, July 10,
2003)
It embraces all activities undertaken by Congress to enhance its understanding of and
influence over the implementation of legislation it has enacted. Clearly, oversight concerns postenactment measures undertaken by Congress:
a.To monitor bureaucratic compliance with program objectives;
b.To determine whether agencies are properly administered;
c.To eliminate executive waste and dishonesty;
d.To prevent executive usurpation of authority; and
e.To assess executive conformity with the congressional perception of public interest.
The power of oversight has been held to be intrinsic in the grant of legislative power itself
and integral to the checks and balances inherent in a democratic system of government.
The oversight power has also been used to ensure the accountability of regulatory
commissions like the SEC. Unlike other ordinary administrative agencies, these bodies are
independent from the executive branch and are outside the executive department in the discharge
of their functions.
Categories of Congressional Oversight Functions:
a. Scrutinyimplies a lesser intensity and continuity of attention to administrative operations. Its
primary purpose is to determine economy and efficiency of the operation of government activities.
In the exercise of legislative scrutiny, Congress may request information and report from the other
branches of government. It can give recommendations or pass resolutions for consideration of the

agency involved.
It is based primarily on the power of appropriation of Congress. xxx But legislative scrutiny does not
end in budget hearings. Congress can ask the heads of departments to appear before and be
heard by either the House of Congress on any matter pertaining to their department.
Likewise, Congress exercises legislative scrutiny thru its power of confirmation to find out whether
the nominee possesses the necessary qualifications, integrity and probity required of all public
servants.
b. Congressional investigationinvolves a more intense digging of facts. It is recognized under
Section 21, Article VI. Even in the absence of constitutional mandate, it has been held to be an
essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative functions.
c. Legislative supervisionit connotes a continuing and informed awareness on the part of
congressional committee regarding executive operations in a given administrative area. It allows
Congress to scrutinize the exercise of delegated law-making authority, and permits Congress to
retain part of that delegated authority.
Congress exercises supervision over the executive agencies through its veto power. It typically
utilizes veto provisions when granting the President or an executive agency the power to
promulgate regulations with the force of law. These provisions require the President or an agency
to present the proposed regulations to Congress, which retains a right to approve or disapprove
any regulation before it takes effect. Such legislative veto provisions usually provide that a
proposed regulation will become a law after the expiration of a certain period of time, only if
Congress does not affirmatively disapprove of the regulation in the meantime. Less frequently, the
statute provides that a proposed regulation will become a law if Congress affirmatively approves it.
POWER OF CONCURRENCE
The Constitution requires the concurrence of the Congress to an amnesty and to a treaty.
THE WAR POWER
The Congress, by a vote of 2/3 of both houses in joint session assembled, voting separately, shall
have the sole power to declare the existence of a state of war.
LAW-MAKING POWERS OF CONGRESS
Pertinently, the power to make lawslegislative poweris vested in Congress. Congress may not
escape its duties and responsibilities by delegating that power to any other body or authority. Any
attempt to abdicate the power is unconstitutional and void, on the principle of delegari potesta non
potest delegaridelegated power may not be delegated. The rule which forbids the delegation of
legislative power, however, is not absolute and inflexible. It admits of exceptions. An exception
sanctioned by immemorial practice permits the legislative body to delegate its licensing power to
certain persons, municipal corporations, towns, boards, councils, commissions, commissioners,
auditors, bureaus and directors. Such licensing power includes the power to promulgate necessary
rules and regulations. (Chavez vs. Romulo, G.R. No. 157036, June 9, 2004)