Sunteți pe pagina 1din 2

PHILCONSA vs.

Gimenez
15 SCRA 479
December 18, 1965
Ponente: Justice Regala

Facts:

The Philippine Constitution Association Inc. (PHILCONSA) questioned the


validity of Republic Act 3836; Increase in emoluments of members of the
Congress, that provides for the retirement benefits for members of the Congress which,
in effect, are increases in the emoluments of Senators and Members of the House of
Representatives, to take effect upon the approval of the Act, which was on June 22,
1963, whereas the said Act is in contrary to Section 14, Article VI of the Constitution
that states that:

“The Senators and the Members of the House of


Representatives shall, unless otherwise provided by law,
receive an annual compensation of seven thousand two
hundred pesos each, including per diems and other
emoluments or allowances, and exclusive only of travelling
expenses to and from their respective districts in the case of
Members of the House of Representatives and to and from
their places of residence in the case of Senators, when
attending sessions of the Congress. No increase in said
compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of the
full term of all the Members of the Senate and of the House of
Representatives approving such increase. Until otherwise
provided by law, the President of the Senate and the Speaker
of the House of Representatives shall each receive an annual
compensation of sixteen thousand pesos.”

Issues:

Whether or not R.A. 3836 complied with the constitutional provisions of:

1. Prohibition as to the increase in the salaries of Members or Congress – In the


Republic Act 3836, the retirement benefits is in effect upon the approval of such,
whereas contrary to Section 14, Article VI of the Constitution that emoluments shall only
take effect “after the expiration of the full term of the Members of the Senate and of the
House of Representatives approving such increase.”
2. The equal protection clause – While the said law provides for the retirement
benefits of the Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives, who are
elective officials, the same cannot be said for other elective officials in the Philippines
such as governors of the provinces, members of the provincial boards, and those of the
municipalities and chartered cities.

3. The title of the bill not embracing more than one subject – It violates the
mandatory requirement under Paragraph 1, Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution
that states that : “No bill which may be enacted into law shall embrace more than one
subject which shall be expressed in the title of the bill.”

HELD:

The court concluded that the title of said Republic Act 3836 is void as it is not
germane to the subject matter and is a violation of the aforementioned Paragraph 1,
Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution.

Republic Act No. 3836 declared null and void in so far as it refers to retirement of
members of Congress and the elected officials thereof.

S-ar putea să vă placă și