Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
586 SCRA 210 Political Law Constitutional Law Legislative Department Party
List System; Proportional Representation; Proper Computation
Statutory Construction Rule in Interpreting the Constitution Intent of the Framers vs
Intent of the People
NOTE: This case is consolidated with BAYAN Muna vs COMELEC (G.R. No. 179295).
In July and August 2007, the COMELEC, sitting as the National Board of Canvassers, made
a partial proclamation of the winners in the party-list elections which was held in May
2007.
In proclaiming the winners and apportioning their seats, the COMELEC considered the
following rules:
1. In the lower house, 80% shall comprise the seats for legislative districts, while the
remaining 20% shall come from party-list representatives (Sec. 5, Article VI, 1987
Constitution);
2. Pursuant to Sec. 11b of R.A. 7941 or the Party-List System Act, a party-list which garners
at least 2% of the total votes cast in the party-list elections shall be entitled to one seat;
3. If a party-list garners at least 4%, then it is entitled to 2 seats; if it garners at least 6%,
then it is entitled to 3 seats this is pursuant to the2-4-6 rule or the Panganiban
Formula from the case of Veterans Federation Party vs COMELEC.
4. In no way shall a party be given more than three seats even if if garners more than 6%
of the votes cast for the party-list election (3 seat cap rule, same case).
The Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT), a partylist candidate, questioned the proclamation as well as the formula being used. BANAT
averred that the 2% threshold is invalid; Sec. 11 of RA 7941 is void because its provision
that a party-list, to qualify for a congressional seat, must garner at least 2% of the votes
cast in the party-list election, is not supported by the Constitution. Further, the 2% rule
creates a mathematical impossibility to meet the 20% party-list seat prescribed by the
Constitution.
BANAT also questions if the 20% rule is a mere ceiling or is it mandatory. If it is mandatory,
then with the 2% qualifying vote, there would be instances when it would be impossible to
fill the prescribed 20% share of party-lists in the lower house. BANAT also proposes a
new computation (which shall be discussed in the HELD portion of this digest).
On the other hand, BAYAN MUNA, another party-list candidate, questions the validity of the
3 seat rule (Section 11a of RA 7941). It also raised the issue of whether or not major
political parties are allowed to participate in the party-list elections or is the said elections
limited to sectoral parties.
ISSUES:
I. How is the 80-20 rule observed in apportioning the seats in the lower house?
II. Whether or not the 20% allocation for party-list representatives mandatory or a mere
ceiling.
III. Whether or not the 2% threshold to qualify for a seat valid.
IV. How are party-list seats allocated?
V. Whether or not major political parties are allowed to participate in the party-list
elections.
VI. Whether or not the 3 seat cap rule (3 Seat Limit Rule) is valid.
HELD:
I. The 80-20 rule is observed in the following manner: for every 5 seats allotted for
of 55 seats. Because of the operation of the two percent threshold, this situation will
legislative districts, there shall be one seat allotted for a party-list representative.
repeat itself even if we increase the available party-list seats to 60 seats and even if we
Originally, the 1987 Constitution provides that there shall be not more than 250 members
increase the votes cast to 100 million. Thus, even if the maximum number of parties get
of the lower house. Using the 80-20 rule, 200 of that will be from legislative districts, and
two percent of the votes for every party, it is always impossible for the number of occupied
party-list seats to exceed 50 seats as long as the two percent threshold is present.
Congress to fix the number of the membership of the lower house as in fact, it can create
additional legislative districts as it may deem appropriate. As can be seen in the May 2007
It is therefore clear that the two percent threshold presents an unwarranted obstacle to the
elections, there were 220 district representatives, hence applying the 80-20 rule or the 5:1
full implementation of Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution and prevents the
How did the Supreme Court arrive at 55? This is the formula:
IV. Instead, the 2% rule should mean that if a party-list garners 2% of the votes cast, then
(Current Number of Legislative DistrictRepresentatives 0.80) x (0.20) = Number of Seats
it is guaranteed a seat, and not qualified. This allows those party-lists garnering less
Hence,
But how? The Supreme Court laid down the following rules:
1. The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked from the highest to the lowest
based on the number of votes they garnered during the elections.
II. The 20% allocation for party-list representatives is merely a ceiling meaning, the
number of party-list representatives shall not exceed 20% of the total number of the
2. The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least two percent (2%) of the total
members of the lower house. However, it is not mandatory that the 20% shall be filled.
votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled to one guaranteed seat each.
III. No. Section 11b of RA 7941 is unconstitutional. There is no constitutional basis to allow
that only party-lists which garnered 2% of the votes cast are qualified for a seat and those
shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes until all the
which garnered less than 2% are disqualified. Further, the 2% threshold creates a
mathematical impossibility to attain the ideal 80-20 apportionment. The Supreme Court
explained:
4. Each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than three (3) seats.
To illustrate: There are 55 available party-list seats. Suppose there are 50 million votes
In computing the additional seats, the guaranteed seats shall no longer be included
cast for the 100 participants in the party list elections. A party that has two percent of the
because they have already been allocated, at one seat each, to every two-percenter. Thus,
votes cast, or one million votes, gets a guaranteed seat. Let us further assume that the
the remaining available seats for allocation as additional seats are the maximum seats
first 50 parties all get one million votes. Only 50 parties get a seat despite the availability
reserved under the Party List System less the guaranteed seats. Fractional seats are
disregarded in the absence of a provision in R.A. No. 7941 allowing for a rounding off of
Rounding off to the next higher number is not allowed so 2.79 remains 2. BUHAY is a two-
fractional seats.
percenter which means it has a guaranteed one seat PLUS additional 2 seats or a total of 3
seats. Now if it so happens that BUHAY got 20% of the votes cast, it will still get 3 seats
In short, there shall be two rounds in determining the allocation of the seats. In the first
because the 3 seat limit rule prohibits it from having more than 3 seats.
round, all party-lists which garnered at least 2% of the votes cast (called the twopercenters) are given their one seat each. The total number of seats given to these two-
Now after all the tw0-percenters were given their guaranteed and additional seats, and
percenters are then deducted from the total available seats for party-lists. In this case, 17
there are still unoccupied seats, those seats shall be distributed to the remaining party-lists
party-lists were able to garner 2% each. There are a total 55 seats available for party-lists
and those higher in rank in the voting shall be prioritized until all the seats are occupied.
hence, 55 minus 17 = 38 remaining seats. (Please refer to the full text of the case for the
tabulation).
V. No. By a vote of 8-7, the Supreme Court continued to disallow major political parties (the
likes of UNIDO, LABAN, etc) from participating in the party-list elections.
The number of remaining seats, in this case 38, shall be used in the second round,
particularly, in determining, first, the additional seats for the two-percenters, and second,
Although the ponencia (Justice Carpio) did point out that there is no prohibition either from
in determining seats for the party-lists that did not garner at least 2% of the votes cast,
the Constitution or from RA 7941 against major political parties from participating in the
and in the process filling up the 20% allocation for party-list representatives.
party-list elections as the word party was not qualified and that even the framers of the
Constitution in their deliberations deliberately allowed major political parties to participate
in the party-list elections provided that they establish a sectoral wing which represents the
marginalized (indirect participation), Justice Puno, in his separate opinion, concurred by 7
Get the total percentage of votes garnered by the party and multiply it against the
other justices, explained that the will of the people defeats the will of the framers of the
remaining number of seats. The product, which shall not be rounded off, will be the
Constitution precisely because it is the people who ultimately ratified the Constitution
additional number of seats allotted for the party list but the 3 seat limit rule shall still be
and the will of the people is that only the marginalized sections of the country shall
observed.
participate in the party-list elections. Hence, major political parties cannot participate in
the party-list elections, directly or indirectly.
Example:
VI. Yes, the 3 seat limit rule is valid. This is one way to ensure that no one party shall
In this case, the BUHAY party-list garnered the highest total vote of 1,169,234 which is
7.33% of the total votes cast for the party-list elections (15,950,900).
Applying the formula above: (Percentage of vote garnered) x (remaining seats) = number
of additional seat
Hence, 7.33% x 38 = 2.79
untruthful statements in its petition when it alleged its national existence contrary to
actual verification reports by COMELECs field personnel.
Facts:
Issue:
Petitioner is a national organization which represents the lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and
trans-genders. It filed a petition for accreditation as a party-list organization to public
respondent. However, due to moral grounds, the latter denied the said petition. To buttress
their denial, COMELEC cited certain biblical and quranic passages in their decision. It also
Held:
stated that since their ways are immoral and contrary to public policy, they are considered
nuissance. In fact, their acts are even punishable under the Revised Penal Code in its
Article 201.
Respondent mistakenly opines that our ruling in Ang Bagong Bayani stands for the
proposition that only those sectors specifically enumerated in the law or related to said
sectors (labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly,
A motion for reconsideration being denied, Petitioner filed this instant Petition on Certiorari
registered under the party-list system. As we explicitly ruled in Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW
Ang Ladlad argued that the denial of accreditation, insofar as it justified the exclusion by
using religious dogma, violated the constitutional guarantees against the establishment of
represented sectors is not exclusive. The crucial element is not whether a sector is
religion. Petitioner also claimed that the Assailed Resolutions contravened its constitutional
rights to privacy, freedom of speech and assembly, and equal protection of laws, as well as
Our Constitution provides in Article III, Section 5 that [n]o law shall be made respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. At bottom, what our
In its Comment, the COMELEC reiterated that petitioner does not have a concrete and
genuine national political agenda to benefit the nation and that the petition was validly
dismissed on moral grounds. It also argued for the first time that the LGBT sector is not
neutrality. We thus find that it was grave violation of the non-establishment clause for the
among the sectors enumerated by the Constitution and RA 7941, and that petitioner made
COMELEC to utilize the Bible and the Koran to justify the exclusion of Ang Ladlad. Be it
noted that government action must have a secular purpose.
Atong Paglaum, Inc. VS COMELEC
Respondent has failed to explain what societal ills are sought to be prevented, or why
694 SCRA 477 Political Law Constitutional Law Legislative Department Party-List
special protection is required for the youth. Neither has the COMELEC condescended to
justify its position that petitioners admission into the party-list system would be so harmful
System
This case partially abandoned the rulings in Ang Bagong Bayani vs COMELEC and BANAT
vs COMELEC.
We also find the COMELECs reference to purported violations of our penal and civil laws
Atong Paglaum, Inc. and 51 other parties were disqualified by the Commission on Elections
flimsy, at best; disingenuous, at worst. Article 694 of the Civil Code defines a nuisance as
in the May 2013 party-list elections for various reasons but primarily for not being qualified
as representatives for marginalized or underrepresented sectors.
any act, omission, establishment, condition of property, or anything else which shocks,
defies, or disregards decency or morality, the remedies for which are a prosecution under
Atong Paglaum et al then filed a petition for certiorari against COMELEC alleging grave
abuse of discretion on the part of COMELEC in disqualifying them.
the Revised Penal Code or any local ordinance, a civil action, or abatement without judicial
proceedings. A violation of Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code, on the other hand,
ISSUE: Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying
the said party-lists.
requires proof beyond reasonable doubt to support a criminal conviction. It hardly needs to
be emphasized that mere allegation of violation of laws is not proof, and a mere blanket
HELD: No. The COMELEC merely followed the guidelines set in the cases of Ang Bagong
Bayani and BANAT. However, the Supreme Court remanded the cases back to the
invocation of public morals cannot replace the institution of civil or criminal proceedings
COMELEC as the Supreme Court now provides for new guidelines which abandoned some
principles established in the two aforestated cases. The new guidelines are as follows:
As such, we hold that moral disapproval, without more, is not a sufficient governmental
interest to justify exclusion of homosexuals from participation in the party-list system. The
denial of Ang Ladlads registration on purely moral grounds amounts more to a statement
of dislike and disapproval of homosexuals, rather than a tool to further any substantial
public interest.
I. Parameters. In qualifying party-lists, the COMELEC must use the following parameters:
1. Three different groups may participate in the party-list system: (1)national parties or
organizations, (2) regional parties or organizations, and (3) sectoral parties or
organizations.
II. In the BANAT case, major political parties are disallowed, as has always been the
organize along sectoral lines and do not need to represent any marginalized and
practice,
underrepresented sector.
no constitutional prohibition nor a statutory prohibition, major political parties can now
from
participating
in
the
party-list
elections.
But,
since
theres
really
participate in the party-list system provided that they do so through their bona fide
3. Political parties can participate in party-list elections provided they register under the
party-list system and do not field candidates in legislative district elections. A political
party, whether major or not, that fields candidates in legislative district elections can
participate in party-list elections only through its sectoral wing that can separately register
elections will encourage them to work assiduously in extending their constituencies to the
under the party-list system. The sectoral wing is by itself an independent sectoral party,
constituencies.
Ultimately,
the Constitutional Commission when they were drafting the party-list system provision of
pertains to the special interest and concerns of their sector. The sectors that are
the Constitution. The Commissioners deliberated that it was their intention to include all
parties into the party-list elections in order to develop a political system which is pluralistic
and multiparty. (In the BANAT case, Justice Puno emphasized that the will of the people
sectors that lack well-defined political constituencies include professionals, the elderly,
should defeat the intent of the framers; and that the intent of the people, in ratifying the
1987 Constitution, is that the party-list system should be reserved for the marginalized
the
Supreme
Court
gave
weight
to
the
deliberations
of
sectors.)
5. A majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that represent the
marginalized
and
underrepresented
must
belong
to
the
marginalized
and
III. The Supreme Court also emphasized that the party-list system is NOT RESERVED for
the marginalized and underrepresented or for parties who lack well-defined political
parties or organizations that lack well-defined political constituencies must belong to the
constituencies. It is also for national or regional parties. It is also for small ideology-based
sector they represent. The nominees of sectoral parties or organizations that represent the
and cause-oriented parties who lack well-defined political constituencies. The common
denominator however is that all of them cannot, they do not have the machinery unlike
political constituencies, either must belong to their respective sectors, or must have a
major political parties, to field or sponsor candidates in the legislative districts but they can
track record of advocacy for their respective sectors. The nominees of national and
acquire the needed votes in a national election system like the party-list system of
elections.
organizations.
If the party-list system is only reserved for marginalized representation, then the system
6. National, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations shall not be disqualified if some
itself unduly excludes other cause-oriented groups from running for a seat in the lower
of their nominees are disqualified, provided that they have at least one nominee who
house.
remains qualified.
person validly in prison. The duties imposed by the "mandate of the people" are
multifarious. The accused-appellant asserts that the duty to legislate ranks highest in the
hierarchy of government. The accused-appellant is only one of 250 members of the House
of Representatives, not to mention the 24 membersof the Senate, charged with the duties
of legislation. Congress continues to function well in the physical absence of one or a few
of its members. x x x Never has the call of a particular duty lifted a prisoner into a different
classification from those others who are validly restrained by law.
Trillanes case fails to compare with the species of allowable leaves
Emergency or compelling temporary leaves from imprisonment are allowed to all
prisoners, at the discretion of the authorities or upon court orders. That this discretion was
gravely abused, petitioner failed to establish. In fact, the trial court previously allowed
petitioner to register as a voter in December 2006, file his certificate of candidacy in
February 2007, cast his vote on May 14, 2007, be proclaimed as senator-elect, and take his
oath of office on June 29, 2007. In a seeming attempt to bind or twist the hands of the trial
court lest it be accused of taking a complete turn-around, petitioner largely banks on these
prior grants to him and insists on unending concessions and blanket authorizations.
In his sworn letter/complaint dated December 22, 2006, with enclosures, Antero J. Pobre
asked the Supreme Court to undertake disbarment proceedings or other disciplinary action
against Senator Santiago on the ground that her statements reflected a total disrespect on
the part of the speaker towards then Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and other members
of the Court and constituted direct contempt of court.
Senator Santiago, however, invoked Article VI, Section 11 of the Constitution explaining
that those statements were covered by the constitutional provision on parliamentary
immunity, being part of a speech she delivered in the discharge of her duty as member of
Congress or its committee. The purpose of her speech according to her was to bring out in
the open controversial anomalies in governance with a view to future remedial legislation.
ISSUE
May Senator Santiago be disbarred or be imposed with disciplinary sanction for her
intemperate and highly improper speech made on the senate floor?
FACTS
After Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago was not considered for the position of Chief Justice
by the Judicial and Bar Council, she delivered a speech on the Senate floor and was quoted
as saying:
HELD
No. A lawyer-senator who has crossed the limits of decency and good professional conduct
by giving statements which were intemperate and highly improper in substance may not
be disbarred or be imposed with disciplinary sanctions by the Supreme Court.
It is true that parliamentary immunity must not be allowed to be used as vehicle to
ridicule, demean, and destroy the reputation of the Court and its magistrates, nor as
armour for personal wrath and disgust. However, courts do not interfere with the
legislature or its members in the manner they perform their functions in the legislative
floor or in committee rooms. Any claim of an unworthy purpose or of the falsity and mala
fides of the statement uttered by member of the Congress does not destroy the privilege.
The disciplinary authority of the assembly and the voters, not the courts, can properly
discourage or correct such abuses committed in the name of parliamentary immunity.
The Supreme Court agreed with Senator Santiago, it ruled:
member of the Bar, used in her speech and its effect on the administration of
justice. To
the Court, the lady senator has undoubtedly crossed the limits of decency and
good
professional conduct. It is at once apparent that her statements in question were
intemperate and highly improper in substance.
In the Decision, the Court held that (1) the respondent did not forfeit his seat in the
Senate when he accepted the chairmanship of the PNRC (Philippine National Red
Cross) Board of Governors as the office of the PNRC Chairman is not a government
office or an office in a government-owned or controlled corporation for purposes of
the prohibition in Section 13, Art 6 of the 1987 Constitution; and that (2) it
declared void the PNRC Charter insofar as it creates the PNRC as a private
corporation and consequently ruled that the PNRC should incorporate under the
Corporation Code and register with the Securities and Exchange Commission if it
wants to be a private corporation.
PNRC filed a Motion for Reconsideration on August 2007, 2009 praying that the
Court sustains the constitutionality of its Charter because aside from it was never
an issue to this case, its structure is sui generiswhile it is performing
humanitarian functions as an auxiliary to government, it is a neutral entity
separate and independent of government control, yet it does not qualify as strictly
private in character.
Article 12 of Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution states: The Congress shall not,
except by general law, provide for the formation, organization, or regulation of
As cited in the case of Alvarez v. PICOP Resources, Inc, the Court will not touch the
issue of unconstitutionality unless it is the very lismota. It is a well-established rule that a
court should not pass upon a constitutional question and decide a law to be
unconstitutional or invalid, unless such question is raised by the parties. In this case, the
parties never raised such issue, hence the Court should not have declared certain
provisions of such as unconstitutional.
Gordons Motion for Clarification and/or Reconsideration and PNRCs Motion for
Partial Reconsideration or the Decision dated July 15, 2009 are GRANTED. The
constitutionality of R.A. 95, as amended, the charter of the Philippine National Red Cross,
was not raised by the parties as an issue and should not have been passed upon by the
Court. The structure of the PNRC is sui generis being neither strictly private nor public in
nature. R.A. No. 95 remains valid and constitutional in its entirety. The dispositive portion of
the Decision should therefore be modified by deleting the second sentence.
PNRC does not violate Section 16 of Article 12 of the Constitution as (1) the PNRC is
not organized for profit. It is an organization dedicated to assist victims of war and
administer relief to those who have been devastated by calamities, among others; (2) it is
created in order to participate in the mitigation of the effects of war, as embodied in the
Geneva Convention and hence its creation is in compliance with international treaty
obligations; and (3) it is a National Society, an auxiliary of the government (sui generis)
and is directly regulated by international humanitarian law.
SEN. MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO and SEN. FRANCIS S. TATAD, petitioners,
vs.
SEN. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR. and SEN. MARCELO B. FERNAN, respondents
G.R. No. 134577
PANGANIBAN, J. November 18, 1998
FACTS
On July 27, 1998, the Senate of the Philippines convened for the first regular session of the
11th Congress. On the agenda for the day was the election of officers. Senator Francisco S.
Tatad and Senator Marcelo B. Fernan were nominated for the position of Senate President.
By a vote of 20 to 2, Senator Fernan was duly elected President of the Senate.
Thereafter, Senator Tatad manifested, with the agreement of Senator Miriam Defensor
Santiago, he was assuming the position of minority leader. He explained that those who
had voted for Senator Fernan comprised the majority while those who voted for him,
belonged to the minority. During the discussion, Senator Juan M. Flavier also manifested
that the senators belonging to the LAKAS-NUCD-UMDP -- numbering 7, and, thus, also a
HELD
minority -- had chosen Senator Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr. as minority leader. No consensus
was arrived at during the following days of session.
The Court took jurisdiction over the petition stating that it is well within the power and
jurisdiction of the Court to inquire whether indeed the Senate or its officials committed a
On July 30, 1998, the majority leader, informed the body that he received a letter from the
violation of the Constitution or gravely abused their discretion in the exercise of their
7 members of the LAKAS-NUCD-UMDP, stating that they had elected Senator Guingona as
minority leader. The Senate President then recognized Senator Guingona as minority
leader of the Senate.
The following day, Senators Santiago and Tatad filed before the Supreme Court a petition
Petitioners claim that there was a violation of the Constitution when the Senate President
for quo warranto alleging that Senator Guingona has been usurping, unlawfully holding and
exercising the position of Senate minority leader, a position that, according to them,
rightfully belongs to Senator Tatad.
The Court, however, did not find any violation since all that the Charter says is that "[e]ach
House shall choose such other officers as it may deem necessary." The court held that,
the method of choosing who will be such other officers is merely a derivative of the
exercise
ISSUE
of
the
prerogative
conferred
by
the
aforequoted
constitutional
provision. Therefore, such method must be prescribed by the Senate itself, not by this
Court.
1.
2.
Notably, Rules I and II of the Rules of the Senate do not provide for the positions of
3.
Was Respondent Guingona usurping, unlawfully holding and exercising the position
majority and minority leaders. Neither is there an open clause providing specifically for
of
such offices and prescribing the manner of creating them or of choosing the holders
Senate minority leader?
4.
Respondent
Guingona as the minority leader?
thereof. However, such offices, by tradition and long practice, are actually extant. But, in
the absence of constitutional or statutory guidelines or specific rules, this Court is devoid
of any basis upon which to determine the legality of the acts of the Senate relative
thereto. On grounds of respect for the basic concept of separation of powers, courts may
not intervene in the internal affairs of the legislature.
FACTS:
Congress has enacted several laws pertaining to the elections in Autonomous
Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM). Republic Act (RA) No. 6734 on August 1, 1989 is
the organic act that established ARMM wherein a plebiscite was held on November 6, 1990
as required scheduling the first regular elections for the regional offices on a date not
earlier than 60 days nor later than 90 days after its ratification. Republic Act No. 9054
was passed further amending and refining the basic ARMM structure and resetting the
regular elections to the second Monday of September 2001.
Congress then passed Republic Act No. 9140 on June 22, 2001 resetting the first
regular elections under RA No. 9054 to November 26, 2001 and setting the plebiscite to
ratify RA No. 9054 which was held on August 14, 2001. Republic Act No. 9333 was
subsequently passed by Congress to reset the ARMM elections to the 2nd Monday of
August 2005, and on the same date every 3 years thereafter but unlike RA No. 6734 and
RA No. 9054, RA No. 9333 was not ratified in a plebiscite.
Pursuant to RA No. 9333, the next ARMM regional elections should have been on
August 8, 2011 but on June 30, 2011, Republic Act No. 10153, entitled An Act Providing
for the Synchronization of the Elections in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao
(ARMM) with the National and Local Elections and for Other Purposes was enacted. The law
resets the ARMM elections from the 8th of August 2011, to the second Monday of May
2013 and every three (3) years thereafter, to coincide with the countrys regular national
and local elections. The law also granted the President the power to appoint officers-incharge (OICs) for the Office of the Regional Governor, the Regional Vice-Governor, and the
Members of the Regional Legislative Assembly, who shall perform the functions pertaining
to the said offices until the officials duly elected in May 2013 elections shall have qualified
and assumed office.
Republic Act No. 10153 originated in the House of Representatives as House Bill
(HB) No. 4146 which was passed on June 6, 2011 with one hundred ninety one (191)
members voting in its favor. The Senate received HB No. 4146 and adopted its own
version, Senate Bill (SB) No. 2756 on June 6, 2011 with thirteen senators voting favorably
for its passage. On June 7, 2011, the House of Representatives concurred with the Senate
amendments and on June 30, 2011, the President signed RA No. 10153 into law. Petitioners
assailed the validity of RA No. 10153.
ISSUES:
2.) Whether or not the passage of RA No 10153 violates Section 26 (2), Article VI
of the 1987 Constitution?
3.) Whether or not the passage of RA No. 10153 requires a supermajority vote and
plebiscite
a.
b.
c.
b.
c.
5.) Whether or not the proposal to hold special elections is constitutional and
legal?
RULING: The Supreme Court resolved to dismiss the peitions and thereby uphold the
constitutionality of RA No. 10153 in toto.
1. Yes, the 1987 Constitution mandates the synchronization of elections
While the Constitution does not expressly state that Congress has to synchronize
national and local elections, the clear intent towards this objective can be gleaned
from the Transitory Provisions (Article XVIII) of the Constitution which show the
extent to which the Constitutional Commission, by deliberately making
adjustments to the terms of the incumbent officials, sought to attain
synchronization of elections.
The objective behind setting a common termination date for all elective officials,
done among others through the shortening the terms of the twelve winning
senators with the least number of votes, is to synchronize the holding of all future
elections whether national or local to once every three years. This intention finds
full support in the discussions during the Constitutional Commission deliberations.
to Members of Congress is 1.) to inform the legislators of the matters they shall
vote on and (2) to give them notice that a measure is in progress through the
enactment process.
We find, based on the records of the deliberations on the law, that both advocates
and the opponents of the proposed measure had sufficient oppotunites to present
their views. In this light, no reason exists to nullify RA No. 10153 on the cited
ground.
3.) No, the passage of RA No. 10153 does not require a supermajority vote
and plebiscite
a.
RA No. 9333 and RA No. 10153 are not amendments to RA No. 9054. RA No
8746, RA No. 8753, and RA No. 9012 were all enacted by Congress to fix the
dates of the ARMM elections. Since these laws did not change or modify any
part or provision of RA No. 6734, they were not amendments to this latter law.
Consequently, there was no need to submit them to any plebiscite for
ratification.
From these legislative actions, we see the clear intention of Congress to treat
the laws which fix the date of the subsequent ARMM elections as separate and
distinct from the Organic Acts. Congress only acted consistently with this intent
when it passed RA NO. 10153 without requiring compliance with the
amendment prerequisites embodied in Section 1 and Section 3, Article XVII of
RA No. 9054.
b.
requires for the passage of bills, and served to restrain the plenary powers of
Congress to amend, revise or repeal the laws it had passed.
Section 18, Article X of the Constitution plainly states that the creation of the
autonomous region shall be effective when approved by the majority of the
votes case by the constituent units in a plebiscite called for the purpose. With
these wordings as standard, we interpret the requirement to mean that only
amendments to, or revisions of, the Organic Act constitutionally-essential to
the creation of autonomous regions i.e., those aspects specifically mentioned
in the Constitution which Congress must provide for in the Organic Act require
ratification through a plebiscite.
4.) No, the grant of power of the President to appoint OICs is constitutional
since during the oral arguments, the Court identified the three options
open to Congress in order to resolve this problem. The options are: 1) to
allow the elective officials in the ARMM to remain in office in a hold over
capacity, pursuant to Section 7 (1), Article VII of RA No. 9054, until those
elected in the synchronized elections assume office; (2) to hold special
elections in the ARMM, with the terms of those elected in the
synchronized elections assume office; or (3) to authorize the President to
appoint OICs, pursuant to Section 3 of RA No. 10153, also until those
elected in the synchronized elections assume office.
As will be abundantly clear in the discussion, Congress, in choosing to
grant the President the power to appoint OICs, chose the correct option
and passed RA No. 10153 as a completely valid law.
5.) The COMELEC has no authority to order special elections
The petitioners contended that the act is unconstitutional for violation of three provisions
of the constitution. First, it violates the one subject one bill rule. The bill provides for the
conversion of Mandaluyong to HUC as well as the division of congressional district of San
Juan and Mandaluyong into two separate district. Second, it also violate Section 5 of Article
VI of the Constitution, which provides that the House of Representatives shall be composed
of not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law. The
division of San Juan and Mandaluyong into separate congressional districts increased the
members of the House of Representative beyond that provided by the Constitution. Third,
Section 5 of Article VI also provides that within three years following the return of every
census, the Congress shall make a reapportionment of legislative districts based on the
standard provided in Section 5. Petitioners stated that the division was not made pursuant
to any census showing that the minimum population requirement was attained.
Issue:
FACTS:
(1) Does RA 7675 violate the one subject one bill rule?
(2) Does it violate Section 5(1) of Article VI of the Constitution on the limit of number of
rep?
(3) Is the inexistence of mention of census in the law show a lack of constitutional
requirement?
The maintarget of this petition is Section 35 of R.A. No. 7354 as implemented by the
Philippine Postal Corporation throughitsCircular No. 92-28. These measures withdraw the
frankingprivilege from the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, the Regional Trial Courts,
the Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts, and the Land
RegistrationCommission
and
its
Registers
of
Deeds,
along
with
certainothergovernmentoffices.
Rulings: The Supreme Court ruled that the contentions are devoid of merit. With regards
to the first contention of one subject one bill rule, the creation of a separate congressional
district for Mandaluyong is not a separate and distinct subject from its conversion into a
HUC but is a natural and logical consequence. In addition, a liberal construction of the "one
title-one subject" rule has been invariably adopted by this court so as not to cripple or
impede legislation.
The second contention that the law violates the present limit of the number of
representatives, the provision of the section itself show that the 250 limit is not absolute.
The Constitution clearly provides that the House of Representatives shall be composed of
not more than 250 members, "unless otherwise provided by law. Therefore, the increase
in congressional representation mandated by R.A. No. 7675 is not unconstitutional.
The petition assails the constitutionality of R.A. No. 7354 (An ActCreating the Philippine
Postal Corporation, Definingits Powers, Functions and Responsibilities, Providing for
Regulation of the Industry and for Other Purposes ConnectedTherewith) on the
groundsthat:
With regards, to the third contention that there is no mention in the assailed law of any
census to show that Mandaluyong and San Juan had each attained the minimum
requirement of 250,000 inhabitants to justify their separation into two legislative districts,
unless otherwise proved that the requirements were not met, the said Act enjoys the
presumption of having passed through the regular congressional processes, including due
Sec. 35 of R.A. No. 7354, which is the principal target of the petition, reads as follows:
Sec. 35. RepealingClause. All acts, decrees, orders, executiveorders,
instructions, rules and regulations or parts thereofinconsistent with the
provisions of thisActarerepealed or modifiedaccordingly.
All
frankingprivilegesauthorized
by
lawareherebyrepealed,
exceptthoseprovided
for
under
Commonwealth
Act
No.
265,
RepublicActsNumbered 69, 180, 1414, 2087 and 5059. The Corporation
maycontinue the frankingprivilege under Circular No. 35 datedOctober 24,
1977 and that of the Vice President, under such arrangements and
conditions as mayobviateabuse or unauthorizedusethereof.
It is the submission of the petitioners thatSection 35 of R.A. No. 7354 whichwithdrew the
frankingprivilege from the Judiciary is not expressed in the title of the law, nor does it
reflectits purposes.
The petitionersalsochallengedthe equalprotectionclause.
It is allegedthat R.A. No. 7354 is discriminatorybecausewhilewithdrawing the
frankingprivilege from the Judiciary, it retains the same for the President of the Philippines,
the Vice President of the Philippines; Senators and Members of the House of
Representatives, the Commission on Elections; former Presidents of the Philippines; the
National Census and Statistics Office; and the general public in the filing of
complaintsagainst public offices and officers
ISSUE:
The equalprotection of the laws is embraced in the concept of due process, as every unfair
discriminationoffends
the
requirements
of
justice
and
fair
play.
It
has
nonethelessbeenembodied in a separate clause in Article III Sec. 1., of the Constitution to
provide for a more, specificguarantyagainstany form of unduefavoritism or hostility from
the government. Arbitrariness in general maybechallenged on the basis of the due
processclause. But if the particularactassailedpartakes of an unwarrantedpartiality or
prejudice, the sharperweapon to cut it down is the equalprotectionclause.
Wearrive at theseconclusions with a fullawareness of the criticism it is certain to provoke.
Whilerulingagainst the discrimination in this case, wemayourselvesbeaccused of
similardiscriminationthrough the exercise of ourultimate power in ourownfavor. This is
inevitable. Criticism of judicialconduct, howeverundeserved, is a fact of life in the political
system thatweareprepared to accept.. As judges, wecannotdebate with ourdetractors.
Wecanonlydecide the cases beforeus as lawimposes on us the duty to be fair and
ourownconscience gives us the light to be right.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is partially GRANTED and Section 35 of R.A. No. 7354 is
declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Circular No. 92-28 is SET ASIDE insofar as it withdraws the
frankingprivilege from the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, the Regional trail Courts,
the Municipaltrial Courts, and the National Land Registration Authority and its Register of
Deeds
to
all
of
whichoffices
the
saidprivilegeshallbe
RESTORED.
The
temporaryrestrainingorderdated June 2, 1992, is made permanent.
Facts:
WON the title of the challengedactviolates the Constitution.
HELD:
In sum, wesustain R.A. No. 7354 against the attackthatitssubject is not expressed in itstitle
and that it was not passed in accordance with the prescribed procedure. However,
weannulSection 35 of the law as violative of Article 3, Sec. 1, of the
Constitutionprovidingthatno person shall "bedeprived of the equalprotection of laws."
Three senators and eight representatives had been proclaimed by a majority vote
of the Commission on Elections as having been elected senators and
representatives in the elections held on 23 April 1946.
The three senators were suspended by the Senate shortly after the opening of the
first session of Congress following the elections, on account of alleged irregularities
in their election. The eight representatives since their election had not been
allowed to sit in the lower House, except to take part in the election of the Speaker,
for the same reason, although they had not been formally suspended.
A resolution for their suspension had been introduced in the House of
Representatives, but that resolution had not been acted upon definitely by the
House when the petition for prohibition was filed. As a consequence these three
senators and eight representatives did not take part in the passage of the
congressional resolution, designated "Resolution of both houses proposing an
amendment to the Constitution of the Philippines to be appended as an ordinance
thereto," nor was their membership reckoned within the computation of the
necessary three-fourths vote which is required in proposing an amendment to the
Constitution. If these members of Congress had been counted, the affirmative
votes in favor of the proposed amendment would have been short of the necessary
three-fourths vote in either branch of Congress.
The petition for prohibition sought to prevent the enforcement of said
congressional resolution, as it is allegedly contrary to the Constitution. The
members of the Commission on Elections, the Treasurer of the Philippines, the
Auditor General, and the Director of the Bureau of Printing are made defendants.
Eight senators, 17 representatives, and the presidents of the Democratic Alliance,
the
Popular
Front
and
the
Philippine
Youth
Party.
Whether the Court may inquire upon the irregularities in the approval of the
resolution
proposing
an
amendment
to
the
Constitution.
In April 2007, DOTC entered into a contract with Zhong Xing Telecommunications
Equipment (ZTE) for the supply of equipment and services for the National
Broadband
Held:
Issue:
its charge by the Constitution itself. The exercise of this power is even in
dependent of any intervention by the Chief Executive. If on grounds of expediency
scrupulous attention of the judiciary be needed to safeguard public interest, there
is less reason for judicial inquiry into the validity of a proposal then into that of
ratification.
Network
(NBN)
Project
in
the
amount
of
$329,481,290.00
(approximately P16 Billion Pesos). The Project was to be financed by the Peoples
It is a doctrine too well established to need citation of authorities that political
questions are not within the province of the judiciary, except to the extent that
power to deal with such questions has been conferred upon the courts by express
constitutional or statutory provision. This doctrine is predicated on the principle of
the separation of powers, a principle also too well known to require elucidation or
citation of authorities. The difficulty lies in determining what matters fall within the
meaning of political question. The term is not susceptible of exact definition, and
precedents and authorities are not always in full harmony as to the scope of the
restrictions, on this ground, on the courts to meddle with the actions of the political
departments of the government. If a political question conclusively binds the
judges out of respect to the political departments, a duly certified law or resolution
also binds the judges under the "enrolled bill rule" born of that respect. If
ratification of an amendment is a political question, a proposal which leads to
ratification has to be a political question. The two steps complement each other in
a scheme intended to achieve a single objective. It is to be noted that the
amendatory process as provided in section I of Article XV of the Philippine
Constitution "consists of (only) two distinct parts: proposal and ratification." There
is no logic in attaching political character to one and withholding that character
from the other. Proposal to amend the Constitution is a highly political function
performed by the Congress in its sovereign legislative capacity and committed to
Republic of China. The Senate passed various resolutions relative to the NBN deal.
On the other hand, Joe De Venecia issued a statement that several high executive
officials and power brokers were using their influence to push the approval of the
NBN Project by the NEDA.
Neri, the head of NEDA, was then invited to testify before the Senate Blue Ribbon.
He appeared in one hearing wherein he was interrogated for 11 hrs and during
which he admitted that Abalos of COMELEC tried to bribe him with P200M in
exchange for his approval of the NBN project. He further narrated that he informed
President Arroyo about the bribery attempt and that she instructed him not to
accept the bribe. However, when probed further on what they discussed about the
NBN Project, Neri refused to answer, invoking executive privilege. In particular,
he refused to answer the questions on (a) whether or not President Arroyo followed
up the NBN Project, (b) whether or not she directed him to prioritize it, and (c)
whether or not she directed him to approve. He later refused to attend the
Ermita
sent
letter
to
the
SBRC averring
that
the
communications between GMA and Neri is privileged and that the jurisprudence
laid down in Senate vsErmita be applied. The SBRC cited Neri for contempt.
ISSUE: Whether or not the three questions sought by the SBRC to be answered
falls under executive privilege.
power of the President, i.e. the power to enter into an executive agreement with
other
countries.
This
authority
of
the
President
to
enter
into executive
2nd, the communications are received by a close advisor of the President. Under
the operational proximity test, petitioner can be considered a close advisor,
being a member of President Arroyos cabinet. And
3rd, there is no adequate showing of a compelling need that would justify the
limitation of the privilege and of the unavailability of the information elsewhere
by an appropriate investigating authority.
of the BIR and the BOC. The guarantee of security of tenure only means that an
employee cannot be dismissed from the service for causes other than those
provided by law and only after due process is accorded the employee.
Under RA9335, the yardstick for removal is when the revenue collection falls short
of the target by at least 7.5% with due consideration of all relevant factors
affecting the level of collection. This standard is similar to inefficiency and
incompetence in the performance of official duties which is a ground for
disciplinary action under civil service laws. Besides, the removal here is subject to
civil service laws, rules and regulations and compliance with substantive and
procedural due process.
1) Actual case and ripeness petitioners fail to assert any specific and concrete
legal claim to demonstrate the laws adverse effect on them. What they have is a
general claim that there is a judicial controversy by reason of the enactment of the
law.
2) Accountability of public officers the fear that the BIR and BOC officials will
become bounty hunters doing their best only because of the reward is speculative.
Public officials enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their
duties. A system of incentives for exceeding the set expectations of public office is
not contrary to the concept of public accountability but in fact reinforces ones
dedication to his duty and loyalty to the public service.
3) Equal protection When things or persons are different in fact or circumstance,
they may be treated by law differently. Here, since the subject of the law is
revenue generation capability and collection of the BIR and BOC, necessarily, the
incentives must also pertain to them. Besides, the law concerns itself only with the
BIR and BOC because they have the common distinct primary function of
generating revenues for the national government through the collection of taxes,
customs duties, fees and charges.
4) Separation of powers RA9335 created a Joint Congressional Oversight
Committee for the purpose of approving the IRR proposed by certain admin
agencies for the implementation of the law. Actually, the Committee has already
ceased to exist after it approved the IRR.
A congressional oversight committee does not per se encroach upon the executive
power to implement laws. However, to prevents a congressional encroachment
beyond the legislative sphere, the Constitution imposes some restraints on
congress: 1) it may not vest itself or any of its committees or members with
executive or judicial power and 2) when it exercises legislative power, it must
follow the single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered procedures specified
under the Constitution. Hence, any post-enactment congressional measure (such
as the action of the joint congressional oversight committee in this case which
approved the IRR) must be confined to scrutiny and investigation only. Any
legislative veto undermines the separation of powers of the state. Thus, section12
of RA9335 which grants to the oversight committee the power to approve
the IRR (more than just scrutinize and investigate it --- thus, they have
the power to veto some of the proposed rules) is unconstitutional.
MENDOZA, J.
FACTS:
Republic Act No. 7716 otherwise known as the Expanded Value Added Tax (EVAT)
Law was drafted in seek of widening the tax based on the existing VAT system and
enhance its administration through amending the National Internal Revenue Code.
Suits for certiorari were filed by petitioners Tolentino, et al questioning the
constitutionality of the said act. The petitioners contended that R.A 7716 was
passed in such a manner that it did not originate from the House of
Representatives and thereby it has not become a law for it has violated several
provisions in the Constitution such as, Sec 24 and 26 of Article 2. Tolentino et al
also claimed that the bill was not passed by the Senate but was simply
consolidated with the Senate version known as Senate Bill 1630 through the
Conference Committee to produce the bill and which the president signed into law.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Republic Act No. 7716 is procedurally unconstitutional?
RULING:
No. The Supreme Court held that it is within the power of the conference
committee to include in its reports an entirely new provision that is not found
either in House Bill or in the Senate Bill. The court said that the procedural
requirements of the constitution have been complied by Congress such that the
formal requirements for the enactment of statutes-beyond those prescribed by the
Constitution- have been observed and is precluded in the separation of powers.
What the constitution implies in the initiative for filing revenue, tariff or tax bills
authorizing increase of public debt, private bills, and bills of local application must
come from the House of Representatives while the senate is also expected to
approach the same problems in national perspective. This practice of amendment
by substitution has always been accepted
Wherefore, the petitions in this case were dismissed.
Petitioner, who had a total of 9 yrs, 4 mos and 12 days of accumulated active
service on July 11, 1956, was a reserve officer of AFP until his reversion to inactive
status on No. 15, 1960 pursuant to RA 2332.
On July 11, 1956, the date when RA 1600 took effect, petitioner has an
accumulated active commissioned service of 10 years, 5 mos and 5 days in the
AFP, and his reversion to inactive status on NO. 15 1960 was neither of cause at
this won request, nor after court-martial proceedings;
Petitioner filed a petititon with the offices of the AFP Chief of Staff, The Secretary of
National Defense and the President, respectively, but received reply only form the
Chief of Staff, as a consequence on September 17, 1969 brought an action for
Mandamus and Recovery of a Sum of Money compelling the respondents to
reinstate him in the active commissioned service of the AFP and to readjust his
rank, and to pay all the emoluments and allowances due to him form the time of
his reversion to inactive status.
The Trial court dismissed the petition and ruled Paragraph 11 of the Special
Provisions for the AFP in RA 1600 as invalid, unconstitutional and inoperative; Thus,
the herein petition for certiorari to review
Respondent contend that the said the said provision has no relevance or
pertinence to the budget in question or to any appropriation item contained therein
and is therefore proscribed by Art. VI, Section 19 of the 1935 Constitution tat No
provision or enactment shall be embraced in the general appropriation bill unless it
related specifically to some particular appropriation therein; and any such
provision or enactment shall be limited in its operation to such appropriation
embraced in the subject of the act, as expressed in the title, such provisions are void,
inoperative and without effect.
SECTION 11 is unconstitutional. Garcia cannot compel the AFP to
reinstate him.
The Supreme Court DENIED the instant petition and the decision of the lower court
dismissing the complaint is AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.
Petitioners Teofisto Guingona Jr., and Aquilino Pimentel Jr, both Senators of the
Philippines, filed a petition before the Constitution seeking the declaration of the
unconstitutionality of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 81, Section 31 of PD 1177, and
PD 1967, which involve the appropriation of government funds to pay the principal,
interests and other charges of foreign and local borrowings of the government.
2.
Respondents Guillermo Carague and Rozalina Cajucom are the Secretary of Budget
and Management, and National Treasurer, respectively.
3.
Petitioners alleged that the 1990 Budget consisting of P98.4 Billion in automatic
appropriation (with P86.8 billion for debt service) and of P155.3 Billion
appropriated under Republic Act (RA) No. 6841, otherwise known as the General
Appropriations Act, or a total of P233.5 Billion, and of P27,017,813,000 for
Department of Education, Culture and Sports is unconstitutional, because the same
violates Section 5 of Article XIV, and that PDs 81, 1177 and 1967 violate Section 29
(1) of Article VI of the Constitution.
4.
Petitioners argued that the aforesaid decrees became functus officio (ceased to
exist) when President Marcos was ousted in February 1986, that the legislative
power was restored to Congress pursuant to the Constitution, and that, since
Congress has not yet enacted a legislation concerning automatic appropriation, the
1990 budget is an administrative act that rests on no law, and hence, cannot be
enforced.
Held :
SC: The incongruity and irrelevancy are already evident. Section 11 of RA 1600
fails to disclose the relevance to any appropriation item. RA 1600 is an appropriation law
for the operation of government while Section 11 refers to a fundamental governmental
policy of calling to active duty and the reversion of inactive statute of reserve officers in
the AFP.
ISSUES:
1.
2.
3.
Whether the appropriation of P86 billion for debt service a violation of Section 5 of
Article XIV of the Constitution?
Whether PDs 81, 1177, and 1967 are still operative under the Constitution?
Whether these PDs violate Section 29(1) of Article VI of the Constitution (undue
legislative delegation)?
RULING:
1.
The appropriation of P86 billion for debt service under the 1990 Budget does not
violate Section 5 of Article XIV of the Constitution. While Congress is mandated to
assign the highest budgetary priority to education in order to ensure that
teaching will attract and retain its rightful share of the best available talents
through adequate remuneration and other means of job satisfaction and
fulfillment, Congress is not deprived of its power to respond to the imperatives of
the national interest and for the attainment of other state policies or objectives.
incurred when they shall be due, without the need to enact a separate law as the
need arises. The purpose of these laws is to enable the government to make
prompt payment and/or advances for all loans to protect and maintain the credit
standing of the country. Therefore, these laws constitute lawful authorizations or
appropriations. The Executive merely complied with its duty to implement the
same.
In fact, since 1985, the budget for education has tripled to upgrade and improve
the facilities of the public school system, and the compensation of teachers has
doubled. The amount set aside for DECS under the General Appropriations Act is
the highest among all department budgets. This is a clear compliance of the
constitutional mandate for highest priority to education.
Having the very survival of our economy at stake, Congress, if in the process,
appropriated an amount for debt service bigger than the share allocated for
education, the Court finds and so holds that said appropriation cannot be thereby
assailed as unconstitutional.
2.
Section 3, Article XVIII of the Constitution recognizes that All existing laws,
decrees, executive orders, proclamations, letters of instruction, and other
executive issuances not inconsistent with the Constitution shall remain operative
until amended, repealed or revoked. This provision has precisely been adopted by
the framers to preserve the social order so that the legislation by President Marcos
may be recognized. Such laws remain in force and effect unless they are
inconsistent with the Constitution or, are otherwise amended, repealed or revoked.
The aforementioned PDs show the clear intent that the amounts needed to cover
the payment of the principal and interests on all foreign loans should be made
available when they shall become due precisely without the necessity of periodic
enactments of separate laws since both the periods and necessities are incapable
of determination in advance.
As explained by the Solicitor General, the effective execution of debt management
policies enables the government to take advantage of favorable market conditions.
The argument of petitioners that the said PDs did not meet the requirement and
are therefore inconsistent with Sections 24 and 27 of Article VI of the Constitution
requiring all appropriations, bills authorizing increase of public debt must be
passed by Congress and approved by the President is untenable. The framers of
the Constitution did not contemplate that existing laws in the statute books
including existing PDs appropriating public money are reduced to mere bills that
must again go through the legislative mills. The only reasonable interpretation of
said provisions which refer to bills is that they mean appropriation measures still
to be passed by Congress.
3.
The Court finds that the questioned PDs are complete in all their essential terms
and conditions and sufficient standards are indicated therein. The legislative intent
of RA 4860 as amended, PDs 1177 and 1967 is that the amount needed should be
automatically set aside in order to enable the Republic of the Philippines to pay the
principal, interests, taxes and other charges on the loans, credits, or indebtedness
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
The Constitution
What is a Constitution?
o Written instrument where the fundamental powers of government are established, limited,
defined, and by which these powers are distributed among several departments, for their
o
more safe and usual exercise, for the benefit of the body politic.
The Constitution is a living testament and memorial of the sovereign will of the people
o
o
o
There was a time there was no Phil. constitution (Feb to Mar 1987)
But protections existed under the ICCPR and UDHR
One cannot invoke protections under the BOR during this period, because there was no
BOR
What is the nature of the preamble?
o It does not give rights and obligations; just identifies author of the Constitution (we the
o
litigation between Church and State (imploring the aid of almighty God proof that there
is no hostility to religion)
It sets the tone by establishing:
Because this provision was approved when the Con. Comm. thought we
o
v. COMELEC)
parliamentary.
Takes effect on the day it was ratified
How is it ratified?
o Through a plebiscite, where a majority of votes is needed
N.B. that A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC puts this right into further fruition)
Protect and promote a right to health Sec. 15 is also recognized as executory
Whereas the other provisions are worded differently The State affirms
Tondo Medical Center v. CA appeal was made using several provisions in Art. II, but the
SC disclaimed these, saying these are not self-executory provisions
General considerations
But for territories outside the archipelago, the law considered those as regime of
islands each would have their own baselines, and not included in one baseline
1. Diplomatic agents
o
o
constitution provided for such, but Marcos never relinquished his supremacy from
against it
When can there be suit against the State?
1. Waiver
o When is there consent to be sued?
an injustice
or proprietary acts.
needed
What is the subsidiary principle?
De facto or de jure
Democracy:
o
o
down here)
1. Completeness
2. Sufficient standards
o When rules and regulations can have the force of penal law:
3. Publication in OG or newspaper of GC
Valid delegation:
o Abakada v. Executive Sec.: The Presidents power in the VAT law to increase the VAT
according to the existence of certain conditions is a valid contingent legislation.
Gerochi v. DENR: the power delegated to the ERB to impose universal charge on
electricity end-users is not undue delegation of power to tax, because its purpose is
actually not revenue generation by regulation thus, police power. Moreover, the
Legislative power
to those who surpass BIR targets and sanction those who fall short. Is the setting of the
targets unduly delegated to the President?
HELD: No. Because the targets set are based on estimated revenue collection
HELD: Invalid.
Undue delegation:
o People v. Dacuycuy: RA 4670 provides the penalty of imprisonment, in the discretion of
the court.
Legislative Department
Subdivisions:
3. No irrepealable laws
General rule: Cannot be delegated.
o What are the exceptions?
Houses of Congress
Senate
24 members
o 1. Natural born citizen
o 2. On day of election, at least 35 years old
o 3. Able to read and write
o 4. Registered voter
o 5. On the day preceding election day, resident of Philippines for at least 2 years
Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board: Cannot add or subtract from these
qualifications. (apply to HOR too see Maquera v. Borra, where a property bond was disallowed)
Six year term, beginning June 30
Two consecutive terms, maximum
o Voluntary renunciation of office not considered an interruption
o What about involuntary severance?
o
o
o
election
3. Able to read and write
4. Registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected
5. On the day immediately preceding election day, resident for at least 1 year in the district
in which he shall be elected
is required
Special requirement for PL representatives?
1. Animus manendi
2. Animus non-revertendi.
o Actual physical presence is not enough, as there must be proof of permanence. Merely
leasing a lot in the supposed new domicile and registering as a voter in another place fails
to establish this.
here.
Valles v. COMELEC: Mere possession of alien passport or alien certificate of registration
is not automatically a renunciation of Filipino citizenship, which must be express. It is just
HOR
Not more than 250 members unless provided by law
o Now, there are more than 250 members, obviously
o 1. Natural born citizen of the Philippines
o 2. On the day of the election, at least 25 years old
For youth party-list representative, at least 25 and not more than 30 on the day of
voluntary renunciation
Citizenship:
o Co v. HRET: Those born of Filipino mothers before Jan. 17, 1973 who elect Filipino
Filing for candidacy is ipso facto resignation for appointive official, but not elective
official
Two types:
o District representatives
o Party-list representatives
o (No more sectoral representatives after 1998)
Apportionment of districts:
o From provinces, cities, and MM area contiguous, compact, and adjacent (CCA) territory
Gerrymandering is prohibited.
o According to population uniform and progressive ratio
o At least one representative for:
2. Each province
Aquino III v. COMELEC: ONLY cities have to comply with the minimum 250K. In
this case, however, proportionate representation was ignored (sadly).
o Reapportionment of districts within 3 years after every census return
On creation of new districts:
o When a municipality is converted into a city large enough to entitle it to one district,
the incidental effect is splitting the district into two. Does this need census?
No need for plebiscite under Art. X of the Constitution when one district is split
into two, because you are not creating new juridical personalities or dividing the
territory per se. There is only a need for plebiscite if you are creating a new Local
Government Unit.
When the increase of districts creates an imbalance, can COMELEC correct the
Its constitutional. It prevents a party from dominating the party-list system. The
Religious
religious groups
Advocates violence or unlawful means to seek goal
Receiving support from foreign government or organization for partisan election
purposes
Violates election laws
Untruthful statements in petition
Ceases to exist for at least 1 year
Failed to participate in last 2 preceding elections (or fails to obtain at least 2% of
votes cast in 2 prior elections CHANGED to failure to obtained a seat in the
o
o
prior 2 elections
3. Must not be indirectly funded or assisted by government
VC Cadangen v. COMELEC: COMELEC has jurisdiction to determine whether an
organization applying for the party list system represents marginalized sector. It cannot be
challenged by certiorari because the decision is based on facts and the SC does not try
facts.
Guidelines for PL representatives:
o 1. Must not have lost for an elective office in the immediately preceding election
o 2. Five are nominated
o 3. No change in the names or order unless when (as approved by COMELEC):
A. A nominee dies
C. Incapacitated
4. Must be bona fide member of the PL he seeks to represent at least 90 days before
election
Elections
A) at least 1.5 years before the next regular election for Senators
B) at least 1 year before the next regular election for members of HOR
o What must be passed:
1. Declaration of vacancy
2. Calling for special election 45-90 days from date of resolution or certification
There are five: a) salaries, b) arrest, c) financial and business interest, d) other positions, e)
prohibited involvements
(A) Salaries
Determined by law
No increase in compensation takes effect until after the expiration of the full term of all the Senators
Is a new Senator or representative elected through special election entitled to the new salary
rate?
o
No. The new members are serving the terms of those who approved the increase and are
increases.
Are allowances allowed?
o Yes since these do not constitute salary. The only limit is moral.
(B) Arrest
1. Senators and reps privileged from arrest for all offenses punishable by not more than six years
o When does this privilege apply?
Congress need not actually be in session. (So compare with Arrest, where there
During term
o Or else, forfeit his seat
o Liban v. Gordon: Gordon, upon assuming position as Phil. National Red Cross chair, did
not forfeit his seat because PNRC is a private corporation, albeit performing public
functions. It is not among the prohibited positions.
2. Second prohibition:
o Cannot be appointed to:
subsidiary:
o 1. Contract
o 2. Franchise
o 3. special privilege
Cannot intervene in any matter, before any office of government for pecuniary benefit or where he
but she was held to have been protected by parliamentary immunity, although the SC said
she crossed the limits of decency and good conduct.
(C) Financial and business interests connected with bill
suit before the SEC and appear in intervention. This is a circumvention of the constitutional policy.
member is not subject to judicial review because each House is the sole judge of
Session
Regular session:
o Once a year, on fourth Monday of July
o
o
Journal rules:
o 1. Published from time to time
minority leader position. But Guingona assumed it. Filed Quo Warranto case.
o HELD: The Senate has prerogative to choose how to elect other officers apart from the SP
Internal order
Officers
government.
What is the exception to the above matter?
When the Senate President withdraws his signature from the enrolled bill, then
the journal prevails.
What if an enrolled bill conflicts with the journal on a matter required by the
Open matter
There will also be a record of proceedings
During sessions, cannot do the ff without the consent of the other house:
o 1. Adjourn for more than 3 days
o 2. Hold session in any other place than that in which the two houses are sitting
Electoral tribunals
Two ETs:
o 1. SET
o 2. HRET
What is their Jurisdiction?
o Sole judge of all contests relating to election, returns, and qualifications of members
(ERQ)
Composition?
o 9 members each
organizations
What is an election contest?
o The defeated candidate challenges the qualification and claims the seat of a proclaimed
o
o
winner.
o There must be an election contest for the ET to have jurisdiction.
When does a case pass from COMELEC to ET?
o When a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed office.
o Lazatin: After this point, COMELEC rules do not apply anymore, but the ET rules.
What is the Supreme Court jurisdiction over ET?
o When there is GADALEJ.
o Bondoc v. Pineda: When a party expelled a member who disclosed that he was not
jurisdiction. The ET would have to decide as well whether the proclamation was valid or not.
Abayon v. COMELEC: The COMELEC decides whether the party-list organization is qualified to
qualified.
from submission
For positions required to be confirmed by the CONA
join the party-list system. But it is the HRET that can decide whether the party-list representative is
the replacements would face the same challenge. No other body can replace the SETs function.
least 8.4% representation to win a seat in the CONA (for the HOR), under that election.
Guingona v. Gonzales: No need to complete all 12 seats for a house. So in this case
where one party only had 1 representative in the Senate, this would entitle the party to 0.5
cash deposit required by the HRET rules. Since the nature of the case is sensitive, it
voting for the party candidate in an election contest, the SC invalidated the expulsion,
saying that it impaired the ETs prerogative to be the sole judge of election contests.
Garcia v. HRET: There is no GADALEJ when the ET dismisses a case for failure to pay
Composition (25):
o 1. Senate President (ex-officio chairman)
o 2. 12 Senators
o 3. 12 HOR representatives
Representation chosen based on proportional representation of the parties (and party-list system)
o Daza v. Singson: The party need not be registered. If there are changes in the party
When constituted?
o Constituted within 30 days after Senate and HOR have been organized
o When are the Senate and HOR organized?
Publishes annually an itemized list of amounts paid to and expenses incurred for
each member
Inquiry powers
subject to judicial supervision since Each house shall determine the rules of its proceedings. The
1. President
2. SC Justice
o Even a department head who is an alter ego of the President may be summoned.
The rights of persons appearing in or affected by inquiries shall be respected apply the Bill of
Rights
o Ex. Right against self-incrimination
Does the filing of a criminal case divest the legislative of power to conduct the inquiry?
o No. The inquiry is not in the nature of a criminal prosecution. Also, cannot invoke in
general right against self-incrimination because the process is not to impute liability per se
De la Paz v. Senate: Violation of internal procedures of Senate cannot be, as a general rule,
exceptions are when there is arbitrary and improvident use of power, which ultimately denies due
process.
o
o
1. State secrets
2. Informers privilege
1. By resolution of Congress
o
o
HOR. The bill is the only one that must be originated, but not the law.
The Senate can even anticipate the house bill, provided the HOR bill was filed prior to the Senate
unconstitutional because it did not state that these must be savings from other items in his
Is a bill that creates an office and appropriates money for it an appropriations bill?
o No. The primary and specific aim must be the allocation of sum of money, and not just
incidental.
Congress may not increase appropriations recommended by President for executive branch
No provision or enactment embraced in general appropriations bill unless it relates specifically to
some appropriation therein
o Provision or enactment limited to the appropriation to which it relates
o Garcia v. Mata: An example of a rider is the Appropriations Act of 1956-7, which
contained a prohibition for reserve officers called for tour of active duty for more than 2
respective appropriations
o This list is exclusive.
Discretionary funds:
o Appropriated for particular officials
o Must only be disbursed for public purpose
o And supported by vouchers and subject to guidelines under law
Automatic renewal of prior years appropriation bill if at the end of a fiscal year, Congress fails to
pass the GAB
o Remains in effect until the GAB is passed
version.
Appropriations
appropriations:
1. President
2. Senate President
3. SOH
4. CJ
5. Heads of Con-Comm.
Demetria v. Alba: A law allowing the President to transfer funds was declared
Passage of laws
Liberally allow if title is general and all provisions are germane to this general
o
subject
Tio v. Videogram Regulaory Board: Act Creating Videogram Regulatory Board included
30% tax on gross receipts on video transactions.
industry.
Phil. Judges Association v. Prado: Act creating Phil. Postal Corp., defining powers,
o
HELD: Valid.
Banat v. COMELEC: RA 9369, which speaks of poll automation, contains substantial
HELD: Valid.
How does a bill become law?
o 3 readings on separate days
Debates held,
Amendments introduced
o Third reading:
No amendment allowed
house journal.
What is the process of reconsideration, where the legislation can override a
Presidential veto?
2/3 approval on originating house, then sent along with objections to the
other house.
Yes.
Must the President veto the entire bill?
Yes.
veto.
Yes. Item veto does not mean the President can only veto an entire section.
He can veto within a section, as long as there is a subject and a tax rate (that is
o
an item).
What is the doctrine of inappropriate provisions?
Taxes
Characteristics of taxation:
o 1. Uniform and equitable.
government
Can the power to tax be delegated to the executive?
o Yes. Power to tax is legislative, but Sec. 28(2) allows Congress to delegate it to the
Misc
cemeteries
o NOTE: These are only property tax exemptions
No law granting tax exemption can be passed without concurrence of majority of all members of
PPI, a private company, viable. HELD: invalid, because it was not for a public purpose.
1.Armed forces
2. Penal institution
3. Government orphanage
4. Government leprosarium
What is the rule on special funds?
o Money collected on tax levied for special purpose must be paid for that purpose only
o What if they are not used or the purpose is fulfilled or abandoned?
Ex. OMB Act directly allowed appeals from OMB to SC was unconstitutional.
Can the law grant title of nobility or royalty?
o No.
Money
fixed amount?
o No. It is valid. The amount can be fixed by the simple act of looking into Treasury books.
Is a continuing appropriation law valid?
o Yes. The law does not require yearly or annual appropriation.
Philconsa v. Enriquez: CDF/Pork barrel was approved by SC, stating that the Congress already
subject to Presidents approval. (Fr. B doesnt like this.)
contribution for each sale of a bag of fertilizer until adequate capital is present to make
power.
Is a law requiring automatic reappropriation for foreign debts invalid because there is no
specified uses of the power, and power given to the executive officials was merely recommendatory,
Congress
General limit to power to tax: must be for public purpose
o Planters v. Fertiphil: LOI 1465, a piece of martial law legislation, imposed a P10 capital
No, because it was not pursuant to the power to tax. It was pursuant to police
12%-3%
o 2. Initiative on Statutes (national legislation)
10%-3%
o 3. Initiative on Local Legislation
2/3 vote
Majority vote
1/3 vote
1/5
vote
veto
(originating
present)
house, then
the other)
Revoking proclamation
of President of martial
law or suspension of
privilege of WHC (joint
vote)
Extension of period of
martial law or
suspension of privilege
Proposing
Suspension
Election of SP and
Passing
To
amendme
of a member
SOH, by their
articles of
record
nts or
by his
impeachm
yeas
revisions
respective
smembers)
ent
and
he can discharge
to the
house (all
(House of
nays
Constitutio
members)
Represent
(mem
n (one
atives
bers
says otherwise
Validating a treaty (only
house,
alone)
prese
nt)
then the
Senate)
Deciding to impeach an
officer (Senate)
Confirming the
other, all
members)
Calling a
Constitutional
appointee as new VP is
Constitution
al
convention
separately)
resolved in a plebiscite
Commission on
of State of
appointments, both
war (joint
session, but
separate
vote)
Overriding
Presidential
exemption (all