1 Constitutional Law 1 | Second Exam (Summer 2017) | Atty.
Malig-on
DELEGATION OF POWERS
General Rule: What is delegated cannot anymore be delegated (potestas
delegate non potest deligare)
Reason: Not just a right but duty perform by the delegate through the
instrumentality of his own judgment and through the mind of another.
Ratio: When the sovereign delegated the powers to Congress it creates a
trust hence it cannot be anymore delegated to another entity otherwise
there will be a breach of the trust imposed. Further, it is already a
delegated power from the sovereign.
Exception: When delegation is allowed by reason of necessity:
1) Delegation to the President on tariff imports and quotas
(Article 6, Section 28)
Ratio: Import is very fast. There will be a law to be passed by
Congress authorizing the President. Hence, delegation by law
which is allowed by the Constitution.
2) Delegation to the people (referendum and plebiscite)
-both a delegated power and original power because the power
originates from the people but the people dont have the
mechanism. Hence, Congress passed a law.
Example: RA 6735 (Initiative and Referendum Act)
3) Delegation to LGU
-the LGU has given the power to expropriate under the General
Welfare Clause and can also impose taxes
4) Delegation of emergency of powers to the President
-one source where the President can make laws provided the
following are present:
a) authorized by Congress by passing a law
b) delegation is for a limited period (in the absence, the
default rule as provided by the Constitution, until
next adjournment of Congress to put the checks and
balance in the exercise of such powers)
c) delegation may be ended by a resolution
Nota Bene:
Resolutions passed by Congress do not need to be vetoed by the
President.
Only bills can be vetoed.
Resolutions are not bills.
Article 6, Section 23 vs Article 12, Section 17
Article 6, Section 23 Article 12, Section 17
-to be exercised by the President -to be exercised by the State
National interest or emergency
In the exercise of the Presidents emergency powers under Section 17,
it does not include the power to take over or direct the operation of
newspapers without the authorization from Congress
David vs Arroyo
PGMA declared national emergency, one of the acts she promulgated
was to taker took over some newspapers under Section 17.
Supreme Court declared it as unconstitutional because the power is an
exercise of state power and so the President cannot exercise such
without authority from Congress. In the same manner that Section 23
cannot be exercised also without authority from Congress.
The President has been authorized by several laws pursuant to the
corollary constitutional justification under Section 17 hence despite
the absence of the specific law to exercise such powers it is valid
Divinagracia vs Consolidated Broadcasting Inc.
It involves a TV franchising station which was cancelled by the
President during the time of rebellion or coup d etat. Such cancellation
was questioned because it was an invalid exercise of section 17.
Supreme Court said it was valid because under the Franchise Law, it
provides that the President can cancel the franchise. Hence, it is
already delegated to the President-the cancellation of the franchise to
the particular grantee.
Atty. M: The cancellation of the franchise to the particular grantee is already
delegated to the President unlike in the case of PGMA, it was a generic order to take
over certain newspapers. She did not have the authority from Congress at that time.
Hence it was an unlawful act.
5) Delegation to Administrative Agencies
How Exercise
Subordinate Legislation
Definition: Administrative Bodies are authorized to fill in the details
which Congress may not have the opportunity or competence to provide.
This is effected by promulgation of implementing rules and regulations
known as supplementary sources. (Gujilde, 2017)
Reason: Because of modern complexities there is a need to create agencies
to act immediately on the needs or cater the needs.
Example: -grant of franchise on taxis by the LTFRB
-sets the minimum wage by the RTWPB
CAVEAT: In delegating such powers, it must be in compliance with the
two tests:
i. Completeness Test
ii. Sufficient Standard Test
Nota Bene:
The orders issued by the administrative agencies have theforce
and effect of law hence obligatory.
Completeness Test
Definition: The law must be complete in all its essential terms and
conditions when it leaves the legislature so that there will be nothing left
or the delegate to do when it reaches him except to enforce it.
Example: Pacquiao proposes a law that those who are batig
nawong will have community service and a body will be created
supervising them.
Incomplete. Because it does not provide for the extent of powers to be
exercised; no timeframe provided; no specific services to be performed;
no sufficient standard given; no age provided. In other words, the
administrative agency has the discretionary to decide on what to do
(law-making body)-delegation of legislative powers which is prohibited.
Atty. M: Under the completeness test, there is nothing to do by the administrative
agency except to enforce and implement it. If under the sufficient standard test,
there is a standard provided as to how it is to be implemented, who will be affected
or covered and penalties therein. So that the implementing body will not abuse its
authority.
The law is unconstitutional if it fails to comply with the two tests
US vs Ang Tang Ho
A law authorized the Governor-General whenever, for any cause,
conditions arise resulting in extraordinary rise in the price of palay,
rice or corn, to issue and promulgate, with the consent of the Council
of State, temporary rules and emergency measures for carrying put
the purposes of this Ac.t Pursuant to this law, GG issued regulations
fixing ceiling prices for said regularization. Ang Tang Ho, who was a
rice dealer, was prosecuted for selling above the said ceiling prices.
Supreme Court said that the law is incomplete. By its very terms, the
promulgation of temporary rules and emergency measures is left to
the discretion of the GG. The Legislature does not undertake to specify
or define under what conditions or for what reasons the GG shall issue
proclamation and the definition of what is an extraordinary increase
in the price of palay, rice or other cereal, instead, provided that it may
be issued for any cause and leaves the question of what the law now
to the discretion of the GG.
Atty. M: Hence, what is lacking in the delegation are: 1) there is no standard as
to what constitutes the extraordinary increase, and 2) it is also incomplete
because there is no conditions as to the cause that would be available for the GG
to act.
6) Delegation to the President the power to ascertain the facts by
which the law can be imposed
Example: power to fix and declare holidays (needs
proclamation which specifies the dates of the
holidays)
The ascertainment of facts by the President pursuant to the conditions
imposed by Congress is a valid delegation
Abakada Guro Party List vs Executive Secretary
There was a law raising the VAT from 10% to 12%. In the law,
Congress deemed it proper to delegate to the president the power to
determine the tax by which the 12% will be imposed. It was already
decided to increase the VAT but left it to the president to determine
whether the facts are there such that the 12% can already be imposed.
Now, there was a challenge questioning the constitutionality of the
2 Constitutional Law 1 | Second Exam (Summer 2017) | Atty. Malig-on
delegation because it was alleged that the president was the one
imposing the 12%.
The SC said there was no undue delegation because what was
delegated to the president by law was the determination of the
conditions of the facts. The decision to increase was already made by
Congress itself. Thus the kind of delegation that is the power to
ascertain facts does not violate the principle of undue delegation of
power.
Nota Bene:
The kind of delegation that is the power to ascertain facts does
not violate the principle of undue delegation of power.
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Legislative Power
Evolution
1935 Constitution 1975 Constitution 1987 Constitution
-Bicameral Congress: -Unicameral: Bicameral:
1. House of Batasang 1. House of
Representatives Pambansa or Representatives
2. House of National 2. House of
Congress Assembly Congress
Composition of Congress
Senate House of Representatives
- 24 members -250 members + as may be
- Elected for 6 years provided by law
- 3 years with maximum of 9
years
- 20% is for party list (i.e. 50
members for party list)
Allocation per district is proportional representation
Macias vs COMELEC
There was an apportionment law that was declared unconstitutional
because smaller provinces get more representatives compared to the
bigger provinces. Because we have a democratic government it should
be proportional representation provided that every province, no
matter how small will have one representative. And every city that has
250,000 population is entitled also to one representative.
The Supreme Court held that there is no need for a plebiscite when a
district is formed. Creating a district is not creating a local government
unit or altering boundaries. It is only in a declaration, merger, or
abolition of local government units that will result to alteration of
boundaries that there will be a need for a plebiscite. But in a district,
there is only a lack of municipalities and cities but the boundaries do
not change, it is still the same so there is no need for a plebiscite.
The title of the bill need not catalog or index all provisions therein
because what is required is that the provisions are germane to the
purpose for which the bill is enacted
Tobias vs COMELEC
Mandaluyong and San Juan used to be one, and then Mandaluyong
became a city. A city with 250,000 population is entitled to 1
representative. The challenge in this case is the same as in the case of
Makati, in the law converting Mandaluyong to a highly urbanized city
there is no provision that it is entitled to a representative. There was
only a law converting it into a city but perhaps by negligence or
inadvertence, there was no provision entitling Mandaluyong to a
representative. Thus there was a challenge that the law violates the
one subject-one title rule. Alleging that the subject and the title is only
the conversion of Mandaluyong into a highly urbanized city. There
cannot be another topic because it will violate that rule because it will
violate the due process clause because the public is not informed that
there will also be a creation of another district.
SC ruled that the law is valid because the creation of the district is a
consequence of the creation of Mandaluyong as a highly urbanized
city. Thus it need not be stated in the title of the law.
2 structures in the Congress as part of the Constitutional set-up
1) Commission on Appointment
-12 members from the H. of Representatives
-12 members from the Senate
-Senate president is the Chairman
2) Electoral Tribunal
- House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
- Senate Electoral Tribunal
- 9 members (3 from SC, 6 from parties in proportional
representation)
- Senior Justice becomes the presiding officer
The House of Representative Electoral Tribunal is an independent
body performing quasi-judicial functions
Bondoc vs Pineda
There was an election, Bondoc versus Pineda. It was Pineda who won
but Bondoc was proclaimed. Pineda filed a case at the HRET. In the
recount, Pineda won but before the decision can be promulgated, one
of the members of the HRET from the lower house told the party
chairman of LDP that he is voting against a party member. Bondoc was
a member of LDP and Pineda was not. The party chair did not take it
lightly because according to him it was a trial of party interest. So what
happened, they replaced the representative of LDP to HRET. The 3
justices also boycotted the promulgation in protest of the LDP actions.
Their contention was that they dont want interference in the house.
The house contended that since the representative is from LDP then
they have the right to pull him out. Thus a case was filed in the SC
alleging abuse of discretion.
Issue: Whether or not one of the justices of HRET can abstain or
withdraw from the proceedings in HRET?
SC said NO, because it is the duty of the justice that he has to perform.
The justices were ordered to go back. The presence of the justices
makes the body apolitical. The nature of the HRET is that its not a part
of Congress, it is an independent body created by the Constitution, and
it is performing a quasi-judicial function. When it performs this
function, it should not be subject to political interference.
Issue: LDP alleged that SC should not take cognizance of the case
because according to Art. 6 sec 16 HRET is the sole judge of contests
relating to election, qualifications, and returns of its members therefore
the SC should not interfere?
Supreme Court said that there is no question that HRET is the sole
judge but when there is abuse of power SC can still review. Sole judge
means that there can never be a law transferring jurisdiction to
another body but it does not mean that it cannot be subject to review.
The review is not on the wisdom of its decision but is in compliance
with constitutional provisions. SC reversed its decision, stated that
there was grave abuse of discretion because a member of the HRET
cannot be replaced on the basis of partisan interest because it is not
doing a political function but rather a quasi-judicial function. The
representative can still be replaced in case of death or resignation, but
just not on the reason that it goes against the interest of the party
because he is not anymore beholden to the party.
Nota Bene:
The House of Representative Electoral Tribunal is not under
Congress rather it is an independent body performing quasi-
judicial functions.
There is no remedy for decisions from the electoral tribunal.
This is not provided in the Constitution.
CAVEAT: Bondoc v Pineda case instituted that SC can review
electoral tribunal decisions via petition for certiorari.
Commission of Appointments
Function: Approves the nominees of the President.
Basis: Article 6, Section 16 of the Constitution provides that within 30
days from the inaugural, the respective house is expected to elect its
Speaker and President. Within 30 days also, the House and the Senate will
constitute the Commission on Appointments.
Grave abuse cannot be ascribed because there is no standard by which
allegations can be based
Santiago vs Guingona
There was an election for Senate Minority Leader and the one who was
nominated was not coming from the minority group. Santiago
contended that the Senate Minority Leader should be coming from the
minority group. Thus Santiago filed a case in SC alleging grave abuse
of discretion.
SC said there was no grave abuse of discretion as under Section 16.
What is provided is only election for president and speaker, all other
3 Constitutional Law 1 | Second Exam (Summer 2017) | Atty. Malig-on

officers, the house will determine. In other words, grave abuse cannot of power, so if we strictly follow the 2% threshold for every seat kay
be ascribed because there is no standard by which allegations can be dili ma achieve ang constitutional intent therefore it is violative of the
based. Constitution. The SC said there is now partial declaration, partially
constitutional in so far as it requires 2% equivalent for 1 seat in the
Kinds of appointments first round of guaranteed seats. So mahitabo ani under the Banat case
AD INTERIM REGULAR ang iya buhaton kay naa siyay 1st round so first round ang mga naka
- Appointment made when - Appointment made while kuha ug 2% ang entitled to the seats. After that nga assuming lang na
Congress is in recess Congress is in session 10 ni sila kabuok na nakakuha ug guaranteed seats sa first round ang
- Appointee automatically - Appointee cannot assume mabilin kay 40 diba, kaning 40 seats mao ni I distribute sa 2nd round,
assumes office because office until there is How ? I rank nasad ni sila sa 2nd round according gihapon sa highest
there is no Commission that confirmation ug lowest so tagaan gihapon sila ug seats bisag dili sila ka abot sa 2%
can deliberate on the na threshold basta not one partylist will get more that 3 seats. So
appointment - There is no need for mahitabo ani kanang sa atung example si partylist naka kuha lang ug
- Appointee is considered appointee to resign from his 100k votes kay possible na siyia makakuha ug seat because it
resigned from his current current office, and if distribute na ang mga nabilin na seats. In that sense maabot jud ang
office, if appointment is appointment is rejected he 20% and therefore complied with the constitutional intent. In
rejected when Congress can still go back to his summary, sa 1st round you get the guaranteed seats, 2nd round you
back in session, he can no current office distribute the remaining in proportion gihapon, imo sila I rank,
longer go back to the Including those who garnered the guaranteed seats kay naa baya to
previous office at the same sila sobra aron mahulog jud siyag total representation.
time he will lose his
appointive office Atty. M: Is a regular political party entitled to join the election in the partlist system?
In the case of Veterans the answer is now, kay ana didto na the very purpose of the
- Appointment is acted upon
partylist system is to democratize the access to power. Kay awa if ang partylist
in the next session of the makig kontra ug regular na party kay ma pildi jud (daghan bayag kwarta ang regular
Congress na party kay sa partylist hahaha). But in the case of Banat this was change. Banata
- Can only be extended 3 Case: wala man ni ingon ang Constitution na bawal mo apil ang mga regular party sa
times as by the Rules of the election sa partylist. Ang g ingon lang kay maka apil ang regular party through their
Senate sectoral wing. Example ang LP nya mag tukod silag Youth LP nya ang later kay I
- Permanent but temporary register nila as partylist. Kani ang Youth LP ang mo apil as partylist and not the LP.
In other words political parties can join as long as it is a wing or a sectorial wing of
because appointee can
that political party but not the regular party.
already assume office but is
still subject to confirmation Who are entitled to join the partylist.? With the case of Atong Paglaum this was
by the CoA answered. The idea there as explained by Comelec in this case: Pag panahon ni Gloria
daghan na partylist na walay hinungdan. Pag abot ni Pnoy, the new Commissio ner
Nota Bene: Brialliantes made an order to cancel the registration of existing partylist whom it
Appointment not acted upon by Congress becomes by pass, considers as not representing the marginalized and the underprivilege and those
whose nominees are not representative of the sectors which they represent. Ako
meaning the appointment expires. President cannot re-appoint
simplehon: ila ipa cancel ang mga existing na partylist kay according to them kay
those who are already rejected by the Commission on based daw sa standard nga g butang sa Veterans Case, nga wala kuno mag represent
Appointment. sa mga marginalized ug underprivilege. 2nd ila ipa cancel tong mga partylist na ang
Consul is regular appointment while an ambassador is not nominee wala mag represent sa sector. So thats why I made an article an said that
because the latter depends on the pleasure of the appointing I think that is not correct because according to the idea is ang nominee is a an
authority-President. advocate or representative of the partylist, he need not be belong to the sector. For
example representative sa pwd di sad kailangan na pwd sad ka unsaon pa sulti nimu
especially if deafmute ka kay ikaw ray makasabot. Just like in the court room you
Procedure of appointment
need a council to represent your interest because not everyone is knowledgeable of
1. Nomination the law. Mao na kailagan ka ug representative kay for example dili man kabaw ang
2. Confirmation/rejection mga fisherfolks about sa law making. In the court room if the case involves LGBT dili
3. Issuance of commission of appointments kinahanglan na ang abogado kay lgbt pud as long as he understands the cause and
4. Oath believes in the cause so it is unfair to discriminate and that what the SC had ruled
that provided lang na:
Party-list system He does not have to belong to the sector he is representing
He must be a party member
Basis: Section 5, Paragraph 1, Article 6 of the 1987 Constitution which
He has a record or experience or track record of the advocacy
provides for an opportunity to restructure our political set-up.
Characteristics: They will not run against regular candidates but they run Ergo he may belong to the sector or he may not as long as he has a track record of
against a fellow party list. The people will vote not the person to avoid the advocacy and that you must belong to the party (dapat member ka). In this case
personality politics but to the party. And they will not join in the election the first issue is whether or not a partylist should be the representative only of the
in the regular district. sector or marginalized sectors and the underprivilege the answer there is NO!
because if you read section 5 paragraph 1 as as provided by law shall be elected a
partylist system of registered national, regional, and sectoral
Veterans vs COMELEC and Banat v COMELEC
parties/organizations. So ni ana ang SC na ang partylist may come from National,
*Note: Verbatim ni para easier sabton. *
Regional , and Sectoral, ni ana ang SC na ang sectoral kay lahi sad ni sila na group
Assuming for example ang ni apil sa partylist is mao ni ang gikan sa mga peasant, fisherfolk, women etc Pwede regional, mao ni
ang mga Ang Waray, Ang Bisaya etc National So pwede any, dili exclusive to
Ladlad -500 votes = 2 seats (100k na wala na apil diba)
sectoral ang maka join sa election sa partylist basid on paragraph 1 of section 5.
Tago -400 votes = 2 seats
Gabriella -300 votes = 1 seat( naay 100k na dili ma represent) What are the restrictions to a member of the HOR?
BayanMuna -200 votes = 1 seat Dili pwede naa silay financial interest
Ang Waray-100 votes = 0 Dili pwede mo appear in court or quasi judici al bodies
Assuming ang ni botar sa partylist kay 10 million. Under sa partylist Cannot be appointed to another office (incompatible and forbidden
law kailagan ug 2% right? To earn one seat, so thats how much? 200k office)
am I correct? Yes. Under the partylist law pila man ma kuha nila na
seat ? (refer sa taas kung pila ka seats ma kuha nila). Is this not unfair? Forbidden office- is an office created by the member of congress and then
It is unfair kay dili siya proportional representation. Not only that, it after the end of term nag pa appoint siya didto so dili na pwede
will also not result in 20% composition. Before the Banat case there
were only around 12 partylist members sa HOR which is not 20% Privileges of Members of Congress
because 20% of 250 is 50, so always dili siya ka abot sa 50. Ni ingon Freedom from arrest on certain conditions
ang SC its about time we review whether that law is constitutional or Freedom of speech (absolute)
not and if whether or not it achieves the constitutional intent. This was Freedom of speech of is absolute, the reason for these
answered in Banat. In the Banat case the challenge is whether or not privileges is not to benefit the congressmen personally, but to
the 2% threshold requirement is constitutional. The SC in this case protect the constituent of that representative that they will not
that the objective of the partylist system is to democratize the access be deprive of the representation of their representative.
4 Constitutional Law 1 | Second Exam (Summer 2017) | Atty. Malig-on
Freedom from arrest
Atty. M: dili na sila pwedeng ma arrest except if the penalty imposed is
more than 6 years and when congress is not in session. Nganu si Delima
na priso man lage to, because the charge imposes a higher penalty of 6
years. Awa ang facts ug unsa na klase ang g charge.
Freedom of Speech
Atty. M: if you relate this with label for every defamatory
remark, there is a presumption of intent to defame.
Exception:
-involves absolute immunity or conditional immunity.
Absolute immunity
Atty. M: when a member of congress delivers a speech in congress while congress is
in session or any of the committees thereof he is free from any threat of a case for
label so even if mo attake siya sa kauban niya na membro or sa president or whoever,
but even there is mudslinging, kay ordinarily libelous mana, but that is a privilege
of a member of congress. If he makes a speech even if it is libelous he is free from a
case. The reason is not to give him a special protection but to allow discourse
exchange of ideas. Because there is a higher need for members of the congress to
express themselves without threat of prosecution. The higher policy is to allow
members of the congress to engage in a informed debate and because of that you
remove the threat of libel. What if mo abuse his privilege? There is a actually a
measure congress itself can discipline that member. In other words dili totally
protected, protected lang siya sa mga a ordinary law suits, but he is not protect from
disciplinary measures from his own peers. That is the case of Osmena. He criticized
the president when congress was not anymore in session. Ni invoke daun siya nan
aa siyay privilege speech ug freedom from arrest, the SC said yes but pwede ka ma
discipline sa imong kaugalingon na house. He can be subjected to suspension or
expulsion if 2/3 of the members decides to remove him from congress but not under
the libel law! Absolute jud na. Any of the committees thereof, so if magpublic hearing
dire sa Cebu niya naay isa ka congressman mang accuse by insinuation he cannot be
charge of libel, because that is part of congress that is any of the committee thereof.
Pero if wala mag session ang congress nya ni deliver siya ug speech sa Rotary niya
iya gi criticize si X and it is defamatory then the protection is not available because
it is not in the performance of his functions. Pero if congressional hearing to bisag
naa sa Cebu, pwede niya ma avail ang protection.
The case of Miriam, iya gi birahan si Justice Panganiban, you the brain of an insect.
She delivered speech criticizing the SC defaming the Chief Justice. A case was filed,
the SC said that the remarks of Santiago was interfering, which should be subject to
sanction. Because the protection is not granted to her personally but to the
constituents, so if she makes remarks outside of her job there is no protection. Ni
ana ang supreme court na pwede jud siya ma sanction bias pa ug iya pa to gi deliver
sa Senate. So bisag wala to nila g sanction, pero g butang na sa SC ang premise na if
naay mo buhaht pa atu kay pwede na ma sanction bisag sa congress pa to I deliver.
The protection does not allow members of congress to insult personally because to
insult personally is outside the function. But if in relation pa to sa committee hearing
subject to sa floor debates sa usa ka bill aw wala tay ma himo ana, bisan pag maka
insult ka part na siya sa protection. Pag mo criticize kas member sa SC na walay labot
sa imong trabaho, dili na protected. But I follow lang ang general rule na if didto na
g discuss sa congress then protected na siya.
Enrolled bill vs Journal
Enrolled Bill Journal
-actual copy which is the result of -minutes of the deliberation
the deliberation
Nota Bene:
The enrolled bill prevails over the journal because it was
certified by the secretary of the house or the speaker of the
senate and approve by the president. There is the presumption
that it was passed with regularity.
Between an enrolled bill and a transcript, it is the enrolled bill that
will prevail
Arroyo vs de Venecia
A bill was passed without a quorum. Arroyo argued that there was no
quorum but the records speak that there was quorum.
SC said that we have to give respect to a co-equal body. If the records
proved that the transaction was regular, then it is regular. You do not
go beyond that fact. Between an enrolled bill and a transcript, it is the
enrolled bill that will prevail.
Except when the signature of the President was withdrawn
Astorga vs Villegas
Involves a succession here there was a vacancy in the office of the city
mayor. In his stead, the mayor designated the city engineer instead of
the vice-mayor. The vice-mayor objected because according to him, he
should have been designated as acting mayor. The city engineer
contended that under the law governing the city of Manila, in the
absence of the city mayor, he may designate somebody else other than
the vice-mayor.
But when a case was filed concerning the issue, the Senate President
and the President of the Republic withdrew their signature on the
enrolled bill.
Supreme Court upheld the validity of what appeared in the journal. But
take note that there was no conflict in this case because there is no
more enrolled bill to speak of. In other words, since the Senate
President withdrew his signature from the bill it cannot be considered
as same to that of an enrolled bill.
Legislative Mill: How A Bill Becomes a Law?
Atty M: Always, the correct statement is that the bill will be transferred to the other
house, not that the bill comes from House of Representatives then transferred to
House of the Senate.
Example: When a House of Rep bill is made
1. If there is a House bill, it will undergo to a first reading, which
it will be the title and be referred to a committee for Public
hearing.
2. After Public hearing, the committee now will make a report
TN: the Committee can join other pending bill.
3. The report now will be submitted on the Committee of House
Rules, and will be scheduled for a second reading.
4. On the Second Reading, plenary debates takes place, and this is
where Congress will make debates on the objections and
amendments. Amendments and Objections can be discussed
line by line item.
5. After discussion, a final copy will be printed and be distributed
3 days before 3rd reading to the lawmakers. The reason would
let everyone of the members can read the Bill.
Principle of the 3 Reading and 3 days rule
General Rule: That ever bill shall be passed within 3 readings and 3 days
separately.
Exception: When the bill is certified as urgent by the President.
Certification of the bill by the President can be subject to judicial
challenge
Tolentino vs Secretary of finance
Tolentino said that the expanded VAT is Unconstitutional since the
Senate only substituted its own version of the expanded VAT bill,
which runs counter to the rule that revenue bill must be originated
from the HOR.
SC decided the case on the negative. The bill still comes from the HOR
by reason that the senate has the power to propose or concur with
amendments.
Issue: Can the Presidents certification on urgency be challenge?
In this case, there was no national emergency requiring such urgency.
SC held in the negative. It is entirely a political question. Absence in
the Constitution on the standard for the certificate of urgency.
6. After the passage of the bill at 3rd reading, it will be transmitted
to the Senate. In the Senate it will still undergo 3 readings as
well.
If comes from the Senate then transmitted to the House of Reps
then undergo with the 3 readings.
Nota Bene:
Bills can be made simultaneous. If there are
differences/conflict, both houses will have to make a bi-
conference committee.
The Bicameral Conference Committee can make amendments
and they can create a new version.
7. The bill then is transmitted to the respective representative
houses and after which transmitted to the President.
8. The President can approve the bill and be made as a law by
signing it or let it lapse 30 days. He can also deny it through a
Veto to the bill. However, a veto bill can still be approved by the
house through 2/3 votes.
General Rule: Bills must originate from either house.
Exception: Bills must originate in the HOR when it refers to the following:
a. Appropriation bill- ex. General Appropriation Act
b. Revenue bill
5 Constitutional Law 1 | Second Exam (Summer 2017) | Atty. Malig-on
c. Bills authorizing public increase of the public debt
d. Bills of local application
e. Private bills
Nota Bene:
Must originate from the HOR but the Senate may propose or
concur with amendments.
Effect on the Certificate of urgency as made by the president
It will remove the 3 reading and 3 days rule.
The Budget Cycle
1. Budget Preparation by the Executive Branch. Regional
submission to NEDA, then Collated/Collected by DBM for the
entire Government (Includes Legislative and Judiciary), then
submitted to the President.
2. The President will now submit the budget to Congress, entitled
as The Proposed GAA
3. If Proposed GAA is approved by the congress by its entirety or
with amendments. It will result to a law and be coined as
Budget Authorization. It is the law that will authorize the
disbursement of money.
4. Then execution of the approved GAA.
5. After implementation, if there is excess money, it can be
considered in the following:
a. As savings. The savings can be used as bonuses
b. Budget reversion-the money will be reverted back to the
appropriation for the next year.
6. If no excess, then considered as Shortfall. There is a budget
deficit.
Atty M: What happens if no GAA for the next year?
A: The approved budget last year will be implemented for the next year.
Atty M: VETO power of the President as a general rule cannot have a partial Veto.
Except the General Appropriation Act, where he can veto line item by line item.
Undue delegation of Powers
Araullo vs Executive Secretary
Sequestering of funds from the department in the middle of the year
and be considered as savings. And funds/savings is used with other
items not existing in the budget.
SC held that DAP is Unconstitutional for the following reasons:
1. You cannot declare savings before the end of the year.
2. The president cannot use to finance or augment expenses
an item not existing in the Budget Authorization
3. You cannot transfer a saving to another Branch. Known as
cross-border transfer.
4. Operation of the Operative Fact Doctrine.
Atty M: The budget will only be augmented within the department and must be an
existing item. E.g. if savings is augmented to buy a presidential yacht then it cannot
be considered by the President as it is not an existing item in the budget as approved
by Congress.
In the Araullo case, remember, that case was a good example of undue delegation
of legislative power because in this case na-test pud ang malampaya fund and
president social fund (shares sa earning sa PAGCORP). So there was a presidential
decree made by Marcos that states the President can use the fund for any priority
energy projects or any development projects he may deem otherwise. All this time,
Presidents have been following that Presidential decree; its like the pork barrel of
the President. Hence it was questioned if the said section constitutes undue
delegation of legislative power because through the said section, the President now
can decide how to utilize the fund. Remember: Budget utilization is always a power
of Congress hence to give the President that power is an example of undue
delegation of legislative power. Therefore, decree is unconstitutional as the power
of the purse is in the Congress.
The separation of powers between and among the three branches
shall be inviolable
Belgica vs Executive Secretary
Atty. M: background of pork barrel:
What is a pork barrel? In the past, it was called a country wide development fund
(CDF). Since the CDF became a negative connotation, it was changed to PDAF.
Procedures of pork barrel before declared unconstitutional:
-Example: naai budget gi propose ang malacanang, DPWH. Ang buhaton ana, naa
lista ang malacanang ug regular infra-projects (roads, maintenance of roads,
buildings, etc.) and lump sum [(PDAF)(sauna, wala ni lista unsa sulod ani, basta
nag sabot na ang congress nga ang members sa HR naa sila 70M and 200M if
senator)]. The idea is that, if wala ang PDAF, ang maka pabor ra ang taga manila
rajud. But because of PDAF, each district is entitled to the minimum of 70M.
-And iinig approve sa budget, inig implementation ana, musulat ra ang
congressman, in this case to the DPWH, to release the allotted budget to the
district. BUT this letter is made after the budget is already approved. The letter
is given to the DBM. Then the DBM makes an order to the regional offices or to
the office concerned (SARO), this is an order telling the agency the authorization
of the release of funds chargeable under the GAA.
-After the SARO, there is another document called NCA (notice of cash
allocation). Upon bidding, there is no need of actual cash, what is important is
that there is authority to disburse. Inig deliver, the government will send notices
(credit memo) to the banks.
THE CASE:
Supreme Court said that when the budget is approved by congress, it
is the executive that implements the law, so when a member of the
house participates in the execution, by writing a letter, thats already
a violation of the separation of powers. They should not participate
directly or indirectly in the execution of the budget.
And when the congressman writes a letter, the congressman is
actually amending the law. No member of congress is allowed to
amend a law because that is now delegation of power to a member of
congress. It is the congress itself who can amend a law, not the
individual member.
There is the violation of the veto power of the President. Because there
is the principle of valid presentment of budget rule (the budget
presented to the president for him to veto or sign). How can the
president exercise his veto powers if there are no items shown in the
lump sum budget? The president has the power of partial veto (he can
veto line items in the budget), in which, he cannot exercise in lump
sum budget because there are no items shown. If in case he wants to
veto it, the whole amount in the lump sum should be vetoed. Thus, it
is therefore a violation of the veto powers of the president because you
are depriving him of his line item veto right. To put 100M as a lump
sum is a violation of the veto powers of the president.
Nota Bene:
When a line item in the budget is not germane to the budgetthat
is called rider.
(Found this in the Separate Opinion of the Belgica Case: a rider
being a provision not germane to the subject matter of the bill
and it is violative of the one subject-one title rule.)
Veto Power of the President
Bolinao Electronics vs Valencia
When the president vetoes a line item, it includes the conditions in the
item. A partial veto is generally not allowed unless on tariff,
appropriation or revenue bills.
Plenary Powers of Congress means that Congress could amend and
repeal its own laws
League of Cities vs COMELEC
There were several bills passed to convert municipalities into cities.
When these bills were deliberated and subsequently were passed, 16
municipalities were not included. The petitioners contentions were in
the LGC of 1991 (approved) or 1992 (effected), there is a provision on
criteria on creating cities and municipalities. For cities, it should have
an income of 20M (before amendment). And I the IRA (collections of
taxes) will be allotted to the cities, municipalities.
There are several municipalities wanted to be a city so that their IRA
will increase. But the league of cities donot want them to be a city
because it would cause the decrease of their share from the IRA. And
so the league of cities lobbied to amend the LGC to increase the 20M to
100M for a municipality to become a city. This was subsequently
approved. Unfortunately for the 16, the 100M was now the law. Upon
the next congress, their bills were deliberated. Despite the 100M
requirement, congress still passed the bills of the 16 municipalities. A
case was filed arguing that it was a violation of the LGC and the equal
protection clause.
Because of the several motion for reconsideration, the final ruling of
the SC is the law which makes them as a city is not violative of the LGC.
If congress amended the LGC from 20 to 100, there is no stopping
congress form amending the 100 by allowing 16 municipalities to
become cities. These laws were considered as special amendments to
the existing law. They are actually their own law in so far as the 16 is
concerned. Its like a partial amended in so far as the 16. Further, it is
within its plenary powers to make any laws.
It does not violate the equal protection clause because the laws are
intended to cure the discrimination. Because at that time that the bills
of the 16 municipalities were pending, they were already qualified. So
it was not therefore their fault that it was not passed by congress when
the LGC was changed.
6 Constitutional Law 1 | Second Exam (Summer 2017) | Atty. Malig-on
Bottom line is, the Congress, having plenary powers, can enact any
law so long as it does not violate the constitution. It can also amend
and repeal its own laws.
The order of suspension prescribed by RA. 3019 or any specific or
special law is distinct from the power of Congress to discipline its own
ranks under the Constitution
Santiago vs Sandiganbayan
Prior to becoming a Senator, she was the Commissioner of the Bureau
of Immigration. When she became a senator, thats the time the
ombudsman filed a case against her in the Sandiganbayan relating to
her former position. Sandiganbayan issued a warrant of arrest against
her.
Santiago went to SC to question the warrant of arrest arguing that it
violates the separation of powers (it is only the congress that can
suspend, discipline, etc. its own members)
SC said no. The suspension provided in Article VI refers to
administrative penalties made by the house. It is the penalty as a result
of its investigation through its committee specifically the Committee
on Ethics. Consequently, it is the House which will impose on its
member such penalty. On the other hand, the arrest issued by the
Sandiganbayan against a specific member of the House is not a penalty
but it is preventive measure as a result of an investigation which does
not relates to the investigation made by the Houses Committee nor it
arises from an administrative investigation but by virtue of a separate
law or RA 3019 on Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Atty. M: So, what is your answer in the bar? You say, i-suspend gyud because this is
not an administrative proceeding. It is not a penalty but a preventive suspension and
based on a law.
Legislative Inquiry
Basis: Article 6, Section 21 (Legislative Inquiry) and Section 22 (Question
Hour)
Characteristics: Both are part of the checks and balance, its in fact part of
the congressional oversight provision.
Congressional oversight power
Senate v. Ermita
In the case when PGMA made EO 464 where all cabinet secretaries as
well as generals under Gloria shall ask consent before appearing in
Congress for an investigation. So, this EO was challenged for its
constitutionality alleging that it is a violation of invitation to legislative
inquiry.
SC said valid as to the first item meaning all cabinet members who are
called for question hour in other words not in aid of legislation kanang
regular lang na hearing for their budget etc., needs consent from the
President because it falls under Section 22 but those called for
legislative inquiry, apply Section 21.
SC said those invited to legislative inquiry will not need the consent of
the President however the President can actually refuse to attend
provided only the President can invoke the privilege or the executive
secretary in behalf of the President.
Hence, in these cases, the Congress cannot compel said person to
attend to respect the co-equality of the branches of the Government.
Atty. M: So in actual scenarios: padal-an dayon kag subpoena for inquiry so you
go to President for clearance to attend.
Nota Bene:
Section 21 does not need consent.
Atty. M: However, you relate it with other principles of law that although
Section 21 does not need consent of the President, we still recognize that the
President has executive privilege, that he can refuse to attend any inquiry of a
co-equal branch because there are certain information that President shall
keep in secret like State secrets, military secrets, and national security.
For military generals approval from the President is needed
Gudani vs Senga
The military generals were invited for a hearing but they sought
approval from the President and the President declined.
ISSUE: WON the directive is valid and constitutional (Can the
President prohibit the Generals to attend the legislative inquiry?)
Supreme Court said it is valid. Nevertheless, the President as
Commander in chief, regardless of EO 464, she has the power to
prevent the generals from attending the said inquiry by exercising her
power to control the movement of her troops as Commander-in-chief.
Atty. M: The fact na nananghid si Gudani to the Chief of Staff before going to
Manila is already a recognition that his movement is under the control of the
President.
Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee
ISSUE: Whether or not the inquiry sought by the SBRC be granted?
Supreme Court said no because it was not in aid of legislation. Why?
Because the speech of Enrile did not identify any proposed measure to
be amended or any proposal to be filed. It was just an attack. There
should be a reference to a law being amended or a proposed measure
to become in aid of legislation.
Hence, any referral to legislative inquiry butangan na jud nag in aid
of legislation.
Atty. M: So mao to ang reason ngano gi-consider ang inquiry to be invalid.
Standard Charter vs Senate
Atty. M: Now in Standard Charter case there were pending cases in Court
already. The defense of the Standard Charter bank, they were already facing
criminal suits in Sandiganbayan which is the same subject of inquiry. Was it in
aid of legislation? No, because the objective of legislative inquiry is to craft
legislation not prosecution. So therefore, walay similarity of the objective.
Second, in legislative inquiries, it will not proclaim you guilty only Court have
the power to do so.
Now if you are invited to a Senate inquiry, can you refuse? You cannot! Because
it is not a criminal proceeding, remember the right to refuse to testify against
oneself is only available in a criminal proceeding but in civil cases, this sui
generis is not available. In civil cases, pwede ka ma-compel to testify but you can
refuse to answer in the actual testimony on incriminating questions. So in
summary, in civil cases, you can compel the adverse party to testify but in
criminal cases, you cannot compel the accused to testify. Congressional inquiry,
you cannot refuse to testify because it is not a criminal proceeding but you can
invoke the right not to answer incriminatory questions thats why you are
provided with a counsel. It is also to be remembered that those people who
appear in congressional inquiries are not accused, they are actually resource
persons. Sources of information.
Duly Published Rules of Proceedings
Neri vs Senate Committee
Atty. M: Now in the Neri case, Neri was the Secretary of NEDA. Why was Neri
involved because ni-ingon si Lozada nga, do you remember the case? Katong
NBN ZTE Deal. There was a scandal na gibayran daw ug 200M si Abalos, Pineda,
and naapil si Neri and it was alleged that Neri was asked by the President about
his opinion over the ZTE project and that he was paid with money. Hence, Neri
was invited for an inquiry. At first he attended the inquiry however, in the
second invitation Neri already refused. The reason is that the subject of the
inquiry will violate the privileged information he has to protect that may involve
conversations with the President which might be part of the executive privilege.
One of those protected are: conversations with the President, policy
recommendations, cabinet meetings.
ISSUE: Can the Senate impose contempt on Neri?
Supreme Court said no, refusal of Neri to attend the inquiry is covered under the
executive privilege and therefore there was no malice in his refusal. Second, the
rules of the Senate were not published and according to the Constitution it
should be published.
Garcillano Case
Similar issued with the Neri Case . Gi-allege na gipublish daw ang rules
in the website, SC said that is not the publication required as what is
required is to be published in Official Gazette.