1

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I Unless otherwise provided by law, Unless otherwise provided by law,
term of office commence at noon term of office commence at noon of
of June 30, next following the June 30, next following the election.
File No. 7 Term Limit election.
Not more than 3 consecutive years.
Not more than 2 consecutive
years.
V. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

a. SENATE (COMPOSITION; QUALIFICATIONS; TERM OF OFFICE) SEC. 2, 3 AND 4.

Note: The qualifications of both Senators and Members of the House are limited to those
Section 2. The Senate shall be composed of twenty-four Senators who shall be provided by the Consttution. Congress cannot, by law, add or subtract from these
elected at large by the qualified voters of the Philippines, as may be provided by qualifications.
law.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator unless he is a natural-born citizen of the i) Composition (District Representatives; Party-list
Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at least thirty-five years of age, Representatives) Sec. 5
able to read and write, a registered voter, and a resident of the Philippines for Section 5. (1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than
not less than two years immediately preceding the day of the election. two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be
Section 4. The term of office of the Senators shall be six years and shall elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and
commence, unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on the thirtieth day of the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective
June next following their election. No Senator shall serve for more than two inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who,
consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time as provided by law, shall be elected through a party-list system of registered
shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.
full term of which he was elected. (2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total
number of representatives including those under the party list. For three
b. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the seats
allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by
selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural
Particulars Senate House of Representative communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by law,
except the religious sector.
Composition 24 Senators Not more than 250 (3) Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous,
compact, and adjacent territory. Each city with a population of at least two
Age 35 yrs. old 25 yrs. old. hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least one representative.
(4) Within three years following the return of every census, the Congress shall
Citizenship Natural-born citizen of the Phils. Natural-born citizen of the Phils. make a reapportionment of legislative districts based on the standards provided
in this section.
Able to read and write Able to read and write
Senate – 24 elected at large by the qualified voters of the Philippines;
Registered voter Registered voter in the district in
which he shall be elected – n/a party House of Representatives – not more than 250 members consisting of:
list
Residency Resident of the a. District Representatives – elected from legislative districts apportioned among the
Philippines for at least 2 years Resident of the said district for at provinces, cities and the Metropolitan Manila area;
immediately preceding the least 1 year immediately preceding
election election – n/a to party-list b. Party-list Representatives – shall constitute 20% of the total number of representatives
Term elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional and sectoral parties
6 years 3 years or organizations.
2

declared therein a policy to promote "proportional representation" in the election of

District Representative Party-list Representative party-list representatives in order to enable Filipinos belonging to the marginalized
and underrepresented sectors to contribute legislation that would benefit them. It
however deemed it necessary to require parties, organizations and coalitions
Elected according to legislative district by the Elected nationality with party-list
participating in the system to obtain at least two percent of the total votes cast for the
constituents of such district. organizations garnering at least 3% of all
party-list system in order to be entitled to a party-list seat. Those garnering more than
votes cast for the party-list system
this percentage could have "additional seats in proportion to their total number of
entitled to 1 seat, which is increased
votes." Furthermore, no winning party, organization or coalition can have more than
according to proportional representation,
three seats in the House of Representatives.
but is in no way to exceed 3 seats per
Must be a resident of his legislative district for organization
In imposing a two percent threshold, Congress wanted to ensure that only those
at least 1 year immediately before the
parties, organizations and coalitions having a sufficient number of constituents
election. No special residency requirement.
deserving of representation are actually represented in Congress. This intent can be
gleaned from the deliberations on the proposed bill. The two percent threshold is
Elected personally, by name.
consistent not only with the intent of the framers of the Constitution and the law, but
Voted upon by party or organization. It
with the very essence of "representation." Under a republican or representative state,
is only when a party is entitled to
all government authority emanates from the people, but is exercised by
representation that it designates who
representatives chosen by them. But to have meaningful representation, the elected
Does not lose seat if he/she changes party or will sit as representative.
persons must have the mandate of a sufficient number of people. Otherwise, in a
affiliation.
legislature features the party-list system, the result might be the proliferation of small
If he/she changes party or affiliation,
groups which are incapable of contributing significant legislation, and which might
loses his seat, in which case he/she will
even pose a threat to the stability of Congress. Thus, even legislative districts are
be substituted by another qualified
apportioned according to "the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis
person in the party / organization based
of a uniform and progressive ratio" to ensure meaningful local representation.
In case of vacancy, a special election may be on the list submitted to the COMELEC.
held provided that the vacancy takes place at
The three-seat limit ensures the entry of various interest-representations into the
least 1 year before the next election. In case of vacancy, a substitution will be
legislature; thus, no single group, no matter how large its membership, would
made within the party, based on the list
dominate the party-list seats, if not the entire House (Veterans Federation Party vs.
A district representative is not prevented from submitted to the COMELEC.
COMELEC, GR 136781, Oct. 06, 2000).
running again as a district representative if
he/she lost during the previous election. A party-list representative cannot sit if
he ran and lost in the previous election.  Under the Constitution and RA 7941, private respondents cannot be disqualified
A change in affiliation within months prior to from the party-list elections, merely on the ground that they are political parties.
election does not prevent a district Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution, provides that members of the House of
representative from running under his new A change in affiliation within 6 months Representatives may "be elected through a party-list system of registered national,
party. prior to election prohibits the party-list regional, and sectoral parties or organizations." For its part, Section 2 of RA 7941 also
representatives from listing as provides for "a party-list system of registered national, regional and sectoral parties or
representative under his new party or organizations or coalitions thereof, . . .." Section 3 expressly states that a "party" is
organization. "either a political party or a sectoral party or a coalition of parties." More to the point,
the law defines "political party" as "an organized group of citizens advocating an
ideology or platform, principles and policies for the general conduct of government
and which, as the most immediate means of securing their adoption, regularly
CASES nominates and supports certain of its leaders and members as candidates for public
office."
 We rule that a simple reading of Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution, easily
Sec. 2 of RA 7941 mandates a state policy of promoting proportional representation
conveys the equally simple message that Congress was vested with the broad power
by means of the Filipino-style party-list system, which will "enable" the election to the
to define and prescribe the mechanics of the party-list system of representation. The
House of Representatives of Filipino citizens, who belong to marginalized and
Constitution explicitly sets down only the percentage of the total membership in the
underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties; and who lack well-defined
House of Representatives reserved for party-list representatives. In the exercise of its
constituencies; but who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of
constitutional prerogative, Congress enacted RA 7941. As said earlier, Congress
3

appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole. "Proportional

representation" here does not refer to the number of people in a particular district, CASES
because the party-list election is national in scope. Neither does it allude to numerical
strength in a distressed or oppressed group. Rather, it refers to the representation of  According to the Constitution, "the Congress shall by law, make an apportionment
the "marginalized and underrepresented" as exemplified by the enumeration in (of Members of the House) within three years after the return of every enumeration,
Section 5 of the law; namely, "labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous and not otherwise." It is admitted that the bill, which later became Republic Act 3040,
cultural communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas was based upon a report submitted to the President by the Director of the Census on
workers, and professionals." November 23, 1960. Petitioners maintain that the apportionment could not legally rest
on this report since it is merely "preliminary" and "may be subject to revision." On the
However, it is not enough for the candidate to claim representation of the other hand, respondents point out that the above letter says the report should be
marginalized and underrepresented, because representation is easy to claim and to considered "official for all purposes." They also point out that the ascertainment of
feign. The party-list organization or party must factually and truly represent the what constitutes a return of an enumeration is a matter for Congress action. This issue
marginalized and underrepresented constituencies mentioned in Section 5. 36 does not clearly favor petitioners, because there are authorities sustaining the view
Concurrently, the persons nominated by the party-list candidate-organization must be that although not final, and still subject to correction, a census enumeration may be
"Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, considered official, in the sense that Governmental action may be based thereon even
organizations and parties." in matters of apportionment of legislative districts.

Finally, "lack of well-defined constituenc[y]" refers to the absence of a traditionally The Constitution directs that the one hundred twenty Members of the House of
identifiable electoral group, like voters of a congressional district or territorial unit of Representatives "shall be apportioned among the several provinces as nearly as may
government. Rather, it points again to those with disparate interests identified with be according to the number of their respective inhabitants." In our resolution on
the "marginalized or underrepresented." August 23, we held that this provision was violated by Republic Act 3040 because (a)
it gave Cebu seven members, while Rizal with a bigger number of inhabitants got four
The intent of the Constitution is clear: to give genuine power to the people, not only only; (b) it gave Manila four members, while Cotabato with a bigger population got
by giving more law to those who have less in life, but more so by enabling them to three only; (c) Pangasinan with less inhabitants than both Manila and Cotabato got
become veritable lawmakers themselves. Consistent with this intent, the policy of the more than both five members having been assigned to it; (d) Samar (with 871,857)
implementing law, we repeat, is likewise clear: "to enable Filipino citizens belonging to was allotted four members while Davao with 903,224 got three only; (e) Bulacan vs.
marginalized and underrepresented sectors, Organizations and parties, . . ., to with 557,691 got two only, while Albay with less inhabitants (515,691) got three, and
become members of the House of Representatives." Where the language of the law is (f) Misamis Oriental with 387,839 was given one member only, while Cavite with less
clear, it must be applied according to its express terms (Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW inhabitants (379,904) got two. These were not the only instances of unequal
Labor Party vs. Comelec, GR 147589, June 26, 2001). apportionment. We see that Mountain Province has 3 whereas Isabela, Laguna and
Cagayan with more inhabitants have 2 each. And then Capiz, La Union and Ilocos
Norte got 2 each, whereas, Sulu that has more inhabitants got 1 only. And Leyte with
ii) Apportionment of Legislative Districts 967,323 inhabitants got 4 only, whereas Iloilo with less inhabitants (966,145) was
given 5.For all the foregoing, we hereby reiterate our resolution declaring that
1. Maintain proportional representation based on number of inhabitants; Republic Act 3040 infringed the provisions of the Constitution and is therefore void
(Macias vs. Comelec, 3 SCRA 1).
o Each city with not less than 250 thousand inhabitants, entitled to at least one (1)
representative;  The Constitution ordains:
o Each province, irrespective of the number of inhabitants, entitled to at least one The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than one hundred and
(1) representative. twenty Members who shall be apportioned among the several provinces as nearly as
2. Each district must be contiguous compact and adjacent. Gerrymandering is not may be according to the number of their respective inhabitants, but each province
allowed. shall have at least one Member. The Congress shall by law make an apportionment
within three years after the return of every enumeration, and not otherwise. Until such
Gerrymandering – formation of one legislative district out of separate territories for the apportionment shall have been made, the House of Representatives shall have the
purpose of favoring a candidate or a party. same number of Members as that fixed by law for the National Assembly, who shall be
elected by the qualified electors from the present Assembly districts, as far as
3. Reapportionment within 3 years following return of practicable, contiguous and compact territory.
every census. Pursuant to this Section, a representative district may come into existence: (a)
indirectly, through the creation of a province � for "each province shall have at least
4

one member" in the House of Representatives; or (b) by direct creation of several It is conceded that, since the adoption of the Constitution in 1935, Congress has not
representative districts within a province. The requirements concerning the made a valid apportionment as required in said fundamental law. The effect of this
apportionment of representative districts and the territory thereof refer only to the omission has been envisioned in the Constitutional pursuant to which:
second method of creation of representative districts, and do not apply to those
incidental to the creation of provinces, under the first method. This is deducible, not ". . . Until such apportionment shall have been made, the House of Representatives
only from the general tenor of the provision above quoted, but, also, from the fact that shall have the same number of Members as that fixed by law for the National
the apportionment therein alluded to refers to that which is made by an Act of Assembly, who shall be elected by the qualified electors from the present Assembly
Congress. Indeed, when a province is created by statute, the corresponding districts . . ."
representative district comes into existence neither by authority of that statute which
cannot provide otherwise nor by apportionment, but by operation of the Constitution, The provision does not support the view that, upon the expiration of the period to
without a reapportionment. make the apportionment, a Congress which fails to make it is dissolved or becomes
There is no constitutional limitation as to the time when, territory of, or other illegal. On the contrary, it implies necessarily that Congress shall continue to function
conditions under which a province may be created, except, perhaps, if the with the representative districts existing at the time of the expiration of said period
consequence thereof were to exceed the maximum of 120 representative districts (Gonzales vs. Comelec, 21 SCRA 774).
prescribed in the Constitution, which is not the effect of the legislation under
consideration. As a matter of fact, provinces have been created or subdivided into  Reapportionment (attempts to change the way voting districts are delineated)
other provinces, with the consequent creation of additional representative districts issues are justiciable questions, thus enabling federal courts to intervene in and to
without complying with the aforementioned requirements. , the constitutional decide reapportionment cases (Baker vs. Carr, 369 US 186).
command to the effect that "each representative district shall comprise . . . contiguous
and compact territory" is, not absolute, but, qualified by the phrase "as far as  The Court ruled that reapportionment of legislative districts may be made through
practicable." In the case at bar, the delimitation of the provinces involved therein is a special law, such as in the charter of a new city. The Constitution clearly provides
based upon the tribes or ethnic groups inhabiting the same (Felwa vs. Salas, 18 SCRA that Congress shall be composed of not more than two hundred fifty (250) members,
606). unless otherwise fixed by law. As thus worded, the Constitution did not preclude
Congress from increasing its membership by passing a law, other than a general
 It is urged that the last enumeration or census took place in 1960; that, no reapportionment law. This is exactly what was done by Congress in enacting R.A. No.
apportionment having been made within three (3) years thereafter, the Congress of 7854 and providing for an increase in Makati's legislative district. Moreover, to hold
the Philippines and/or the election of its Members became illegal; that Congress and that reapportionment can only be made through a general apportionment law, with a
its Members, likewise, became a de facto Congress and/or de facto congressmen, review of all the legislative districts allotted to each local government unit nationwide,
respectively; and that, consequently, the disputed Resolutions, proposing would create an inequitable situation where a new city or province created by
amendments to the Constitution, as well as Republic Act No. 4913, are null and void. Congress will be denied legislative representation for an indeterminate period of time.
That intolerable situation will deprive the people of a new city or province a particle of
It is not true, however, that Congress has not made an apportionment within three their sovereignty. Sovereignty cannot admit of any kind of subtraction. It is indivisible.
years after the enumeration or census made in 1960. It did actually pass a bill, which It must be forever whole or it is not sovereignty (Mariano vs. Comelec, 242 SCRA 211).
became a Republic Act No, 3040, purporting to in make said apportionment. This Act
was, however, declared unconstitutional, upon the ground that the apportionment  Consistent with the limits of its power to make minor adjustments, Section 3 of the
therein undertaken had not been made according to the number of inhabitants of the Ordinance did not also give the respondent COMELEC any authority to transfer
different provinces of the Philippines. municipalities from one legislative district to another district. The power granted by
Section 3 to the respondent COMELEC is to adjust the number of members (not
Moreover, we are unable to agree with the theory that, in view of the failure of municipalities) "apportioned to the province out of which such new province was
Congress to make a valid apportionment within the period stated in the Constitution, created. . . ."
Congress became an "unconstitutional Congress" and that, in consequence thereof, Presiding from these premises, we hold that respondent COMELEC committed grave
the Members of its House of Representatives are de facto officers. The major premise abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it promulgated section 1 of
of this process of reasoning is that the constitutional provision on "apportionment its Resolution No. 2736 transferring the municipality of Capoocan of the Second
within three years after the return of every enumeration, and not otherwise," is District and the municipality of Palompon of the Fourth District to the Third District of
mandatory. The fact that Congress is under legal obligation to make said Leyte.
apportionment does not justify, however, the conclusion that failure to comply with It may well be that the conversion of Biliran from a sub-province to a regular province
such obligation rendered Congress illegal or unconstitutional, or that its Members brought about an imbalance in the distribution of voters and inhabitants in the five (5)
have become de facto officers. legislative districts of the province of Leyte. This imbalance, depending on its degree,
could devalue a citizen's vote in violation of the equal protection clause of the
5

Constitution. Be that as it may, it is not proper at this time for petitioner to raise this
issue using the case at bench as his legal vehicle. The issue involves a problem of  The Constitution requires that a person seeking election to the House of
reapportionment of legislative districts and petitioner's remedy lies with Congress. Representatives should be a resident of the district in which he seeks election for a
Section 5(4), Article VI of the Constitution categorically gives Congress the power to period of not less than one (I) year prior to the elections. Residence, for election law
reapportion, thus: "Within three (3) years following the return of every census, the purposes, has a settled meaning in our jurisdiction.
Congress shall make a reapportionment of legislative districts based on the standards
provided in this section." In Macias v. COMELEC, we ruled that the validity of a In Co v. Electrocal Tribunal of the House of Representatives this Court held that the
legislative apportionment is a justiciable question. But while this Court can strike down term "residence" has always been understood as synonymous with "domicile" not
an unconstitutional reapportionment, it cannot itself make the reapportionment as only under the previous Constitutions but also under the 1987 Constitution.
petitioner would want us to do by directing respondent COMELEC to transfer the
municipality of Tolosa from the First District to the Second District of the province of Clearly, the place "where a party actually or constructively has his permanent home,"
Leyte (Montejo vs. Comelec, GR 118702, March 19, 1995). 21 where he, no matter where he may be found at any given time, eventually intends
to return and remain, i.e., his domicile, is that to which the Constitution refers when it
speaks of residence for the purposes of election law.
iii) Qualifications (Section 6)
Section 6. No person shall be a Member of the House of Representatives unless As found by the COMELEC en banc petitioner in his Certificate of Candidacy for the
he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is May 11, 1992 elections, indicated not only that he was a resident of San Jose,
at least twenty-five years of age, able to read and write, and, except the party- Concepcion, Tarlac in 1992 but that he was a resident of the same for 52 years
list representatives, a registered voter in the district in which he shall be immediately preceding that election. 23 At the time, his certificate indicated that he
elected, and a resident thereof for a period of not less than one year was also a registered voter of the same district. His birth certificate places
immediately preceding the day of the election. Concepcion, Tarlac as the birthplace of both of his parents Benigno and Aurora. Thus,
from data furnished by petitioner himself to the COMELEC at various times during his
CASES political career, what stands consistently clear and unassailable is that his domicile of
origin of record up to the time of filing of his most recent certificate of candidacy for
 The essential distinction between residence and domicile in law is that residence the 1995 elections was Concepcion, Tarlac.
involves the intent to leave when the purpose for which the resident has taken up his
abode ends. One may seek a place for purposes such as pleasure, business, or health. Petitioner's alleged connection with the Second District of Makati City is an alleged
If a person's intent be to remain, it becomes his domicile; if his intent is to leave as lease agreement of a condominium unit in the area. As the COMELEC, in its disputed
soon as his purpose is established it is residence. It is thus, quite perfectly normal for Resolution noted:
an individual to have different residences in various places. However, a person can The intention not to establish a permanent home in Makati City is evident in his
only have a single domicile, unless, for various reasons, he successfully abandons his leasing a condominium unit instead of buying one. While a lease contract may be
domicile in favor of another domicile of choice. indicative of respondent's intention to reside in Makati City it does not engender the
kind of permanency required to prove abandonment of one's original domicile
The deliberations of the 1987 Constitution on the residence qualification for certain especially since, by its terms, it is only for a period of two (2) years, and respondent
elective positions have placed beyond doubt the principle that when the Constitution Aquino himself testified that his intention was really for only one(1) year, because he
speaks of "residence" in election law, it actually means only "domicile. has other "residences" in Manila or Quezon City.

We have stated, many times in the past, that an individual does not lose his domicile To successfully effect a change of domicile, petitioner must prove an actual removal
even if he has lived and maintained residences in different places. or an actual change of domicile, a bona fide intention of abandoning the former place
of residence and establishing a new one and definite acts which correspond with the
To successfully effect a change of domicile, one must demonstrate: purpose. These requirements are hardly met by the evidence adduced in support of
petitioner's claims of a change of domicile from Tarlac to the Second District of
1. An actual removal or an actual change of domicile; Makati. In the absence of clear and positive proof, the domicile of origin should be
2. A bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of residence and deemed to continue (Aquino vs. Comelec, Sept. 18, 1995).
establishing a new one; and
3. Acts which correspond with the purpose.  The 1987 Constitution enumerates who are Filipino citizens as follows:

In the absence of clear and positive proof based on these criteria, the residence of (1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this
origin should be deemed to continue (Marcos vs. Comelec, 248 SCRA 300). Constitution;
6

(2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines; Philippines and registering said oath in the Local Civil Registry of the place where
(3) Those born before January 17, 1973 of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine the person concerned resides or last resided.
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority, and
(4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law. In Angara v. Republic, the Court held:

There are two ways of acquiring citizenship: (1) by birth, and (2) by naturalization. . . .. Parenthetically, under these statutes [referring to RA Nos. 965 and 2630], the
These ways of acquiring citizenship correspond to the two kinds of citizens: the person desiring to reacquire Philippine citizenship would not even be required to file a
natural-born citizen, and the naturalized citizen. A person who at the time of his petition in court, and all that he had to do was to take an oath of allegiance to the
birth is a citizen of a particular country, is a natural-born citizen thereof. Republic of the Philippines and to register that fact with the civil registry in the place
of his residence or where he had last resided in the Philippines.
As defined in the same Constitution, natural-born citizens "are those citizens of the
Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect his Moreover, repatriation results in the recovery of the original nationality. This means
Philippine citizenship." that a naturalized Filipino who lost his citizenship will be restored to his prior
status as a naturalized Filipino citizen. On the other hand, if he was originally a
On the other hand, naturalized citizens are those who have become Filipino citizens natural-born citizen before he lost his Philippine citizenship, he will be restored
through naturalization, generally under Commonwealth Act No. 473, otherwise to his former status as a natural-born Filipino.
known as the Revised Naturalization Law, which repealed the former Naturalization
Law (Act No. 2927), and by Republic Act No. 530. To be naturalized, an applicant SECTION 4. A natural-born citizen is one who is a citizen of the Philippines from
has to prove that he possesses all the qualifications and none of the birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect his Philippine
disqualifications provided by law to become a Filipino citizen. The decision citizenship.
granting Philippine citizenship becomes executory only after two (2) years from its
promulgation when the court is satisfied that during the intervening period, the Two requisites must concur for a person to be considered as such: (1) a person must
applicant has (1) not left the Philippines; (2) has dedicated himself to a lawful be a Filipino citizen from birth and (2) he does not have to perform any act to obtain
calling or profession; (3) has not been convicted of any offense or violation of or perfect his Philippine citizenship.
Government promulgated rules; or (4) committed any act prejudicial to the interest of
the nation or contrary to any Government announced policies. Under the 1973 Constitution definition, there were two categories of, Filipino citizens
which were not considered natural-born: (1) those who were naturalized and (2)
Filipino citizens who have lost their citizenship may however reacquire the same in those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers who, upon reaching the
the manner provided by law. Commonwealth Act No. 63 (CA No. 63), enumerates the age of majority, elected Philippine citizenship. Those "naturalized citizens" were
three modes by which Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by a former not considered natural-born obviously because they were not Filipinos at birth and
citizen: (1) by naturalization, (2) by repatriation, and (3) by direct act of Congress. had to perform an act to acquire Philippine citizenship. Those born of Filipino
mothers before the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution were likewise not considered
Naturalization is a mode for both acquisition and reacquisition of Philippine natural-born because they also had to perform an act to perfect their Philippine
citizenship. As a mode of initially acquiring Philippine citizenship, naturalization citizenship.
is governed by Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended. On the other hand,
naturalization as a mode for reacquiring Philippine citizenship is governed by The present Constitution, however, now considers those born of Filipino mothers
Commonwealth Act No. 63. Under this law, a former Filipino citizen who wishes to before the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution and who elected Philippine citizenship
reacquire Philippine citizenship must possess certain qualifications 17 and none upon reaching the majority age as natural-born. After defining who are natural-born
of the disqualifications mentioned in Section 4 of C.A. 473. citizens, Section 2 of Article IV adds a sentence: "Those who elect Philippine
citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed
Repatriation, on the other hand, may be had under various statutes by those who lost natural-born citizens." Consequently, only naturalized Filipinos are considered not
their citizenship due to: (1) desertion of the armed forces; (2) service in the natural-born citizens. It is apparent from the enumeration of who are citizens under
armed forces of the allied forces in World War II; (3) service in the Armed Forces the present Constitution that there are only two classes of citizens: (1) those who are
of the United States at any other time; (4) marriage of a Filipino woman to an natural-born and (2) those who are naturalized in accordance with law. A citizen who
alien; and (5) political and economic necessity. is not a naturalized Filipino, i.e., did not have to undergo the process of naturalization
to obtain Philippine citizenship, necessarily is a natural-born Filipino. Noteworthy is the
As distinguished from the lengthy process of naturalization, repatriation simply absence in said enumeration of a separate category for persons who, after losing
consists of the taking of an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippine citizenship, subsequently reacquire it. The reason therefor is clear: as to
such persons, they would either be natural-born or naturalized depending on the
7

reasons for the loss of their citizenship and the mode prescribed by the applicable law
for the reacquisition thereof (Bengson vs. HRET, GR 142840. May 7, 2001) The determination of the issue depends on whether or not the aforementioned
publication falls within the purview of the phrase "speech or debate therein" — that is
to say in Congress — used in this provision.
iv) Term of Office (Section 7, 8 and 9)
Section 7. The Members of the House of Representatives shall be elected for a The publication involved in this case does not belong to this category. According to
term of three years which shall begin, unless otherwise provided by law, at noon the complaint herein, it was an open letter to the President of the Philippines, dated
on the thirtieth day of June next following their election. No Member of the November 14, 1958, when Congress presumably was not in session, and defendant
House of Representatives shall serve for more than three consecutive terms. caused said letter to be published in several newspapers of general circulation in the
Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be Philippines, on or about said date. It is obvious that, in thus causing the
considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for communication to be so published, he was not performing his official duty, either as a
which he was elected. member of Congress or as officer of any Committee thereof. Hence, contrary to the
Section 8. Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election of the Senators finding made by His Honor, the trial Judge, said communication is not absolutely
and the Members of the House of Representatives shall be held on the second privileged (Jimenez vs. Cabangbang, 17 SCRA 714).
Monday of May.
Section 9. In case of vacancy in the Senate or in the House of Representatives, a  As defendant's imputations against plaintiff were not made privately nor officially
special election may be called to fill such vacancy in the manner prescribed by as to be qualifiedly privilege under Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code, the trial
law, but the Senator or Member of the House of Representatives thus elected court correctly held that by virtue of their defamatory and libelous nature against the
shall serve only for the unexpired term. honor, integrity and reputation of plaintiff, malice in law was presumed. It further
correctly ruled that defendant had not overcome such presumption of malice, not
iv) Compensation (Section 10) having shown the truth thereof, or that they were published with good intentions and
Section 10. The salaries of Senators and Members of the House of with justifiable motive or even from the most liberal standpoint that they were made
Representatives shall be determined by law. No increase in said compensation in the exercise of the right of fair comment on the character, good faith, ability and
shall take effect until after the expiration of the full term of all the Members of sincerity of public officials.
the Senate and the House of Representatives approving such increase. The trial court aptly observed that "(A)t the time of the publication of the defamatory
imputation, the plaintiff was not a candidate for any public office there being no
v) Privileges (Section 11) election to be held and his term of office as Senator would not expire until several
Section 11. A Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall, in all years more. As a member of the Senate of the Philippines, he was answerable to said
offenses punishable by not more than six years imprisonment, be privileged body for any misconduct committed as a Senator because it had the authority to take
from arrest while the Congress is in session. No Member shall be questioned nor disciplinary action against any member thereof. Had the defendant been prompted by
be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in a sense of duty, and not because of malice, the charge at least with respect to the
any committee thereof. alleged threat made against an American, should have been filed with the Senate or
any of its Committees. The defendant did not do so but instead made the accusations
a. Freedom from Arrest publicly by causing them to be given widest publication by all the metropolitan
newspapers, obviously in retaliation to the charge filed against him by the plaintiff
 Legislators are privileged from arrest, and not to prosecution for criminal offenses, with the Blue Ribbon. Committee of the Senate."
while Congress is “in session” only (whether regular or special) with respect to offenses The trial court likewise properly rejected defendant-appellant's claim of defensive libel
punishable by up to 6 years of imprisonment. thus: "(S)tress had also been laid by the defendant on the argument that he had been
libeled by the plaintiff and accordingly the former was justified to hit back with
b. Parliamentary Immunity another libel. The emphasis laid had been misplaced and based upon a wrong
premise. The defendant was charged with the commission of certain anomalous
transactions in his capacity as Secretary of Public Works and Communications and the
CASES same were filed with the Investigation Committee (Blue Ribbon) of the Senate of the
Philippines and the Commission on Appointments. Accordingly, the said charges, even
 "The Senators and Members of the House of Representatives shall in all cases assuming that they contain defamatory imputation, would not be libelous because the
except treason, felony, and breach of the peace. be privileged from arrest during their letter sent by the plaintiff was a privileged communication." (Antonino vs. Valencia,
attendance at the sessions of the Congress, and in going to and returning from the 57 SCRA 70).
same; and for any speech or debate therein, they shall not be questioned in any other
place." (Article VI, Section 15.)
8

 Issue: Did the actions of the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security fall within subsidiaries.
the sphere of legitimate legislative activity and not violate the First Amendment? The
Court held that the Senate Subcommittee's actions were legitimate and did not 2. Legislators cannot be appointed to any If the office was created or the emoluments
violate the Fund's First Amendment rights. Chief Justice Burger argued that the power office. thereof increased during the term for which
to investigate, even through a compulsory mechanism like a subpoena, is "inherent in he was elected.
the power to make laws." Furthermore, the investigation was related to and aided in
furthering a "legitimate task of Congress," namely, the investigation of the Internal 3. Legislators cannot personally appear as During his term of office.
Security Act. Burger disregarded the Fund's claim that the investigation was being counsel before any court of justice, electoral
conducted to expose its beliefs, many of which were "unorthodox or unpopular." He tribunal, quasi-judicial and administrative
reasoned that the legitimacy of a congressional investigatory action is not derived bodies.
from the motives of the members or by the information that the investigation During his term office.
uncovers (Eastland vs. US Servicemen’s Fund, 421 US 491). 4. Legislators cannot be financially interested
directly or indirectly in any contrct with or in
 Chief Justice Burger, relying on the Court's finding in Doe v. McMillan (1973), any franchise, or special privilege granted
concluded that while speeches in Congress and discussions with staff were protected by the Government, or any subdivision,
by Section 6, statements in newsletters and press releases were not because they agency or instrumentality thereof, including
were not "essential to the deliberations of the Senate" nor were they part of the any GOCC or its subsidiary. When it is for his pecuniary benefit or where
legislature's "deliberative process (Hutchinson vs. Proxmire, 443 US 111).” he may be called upon to act on account of
5. Legislators cannot intervene in any matter his office.
before any office of the government.
vi) Disqualifications and Disabilities (Section 12, 13 and
14)
Section 12. All Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives shall,
upon assumption of office, make a full disclosure of their financial and business CASES
interests. They shall notify the House concerned of a potential conflict of
interest that may arise from the filing of a proposed legislation of which they are  The performance of legitimate and even essential duties by public officers has
authors. never been an excuse to free a person validly in prison. The duties imposed by the
Section 13. No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may hold any "mandate of the people" are multifarious. The accused-appellant asserts that the duty
other office or employment in the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or to legislate ranks highest in the hierarchy of government. The accused-appellant is
instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations only one of 250 members of the House of Representatives, not to mention the 24
or their subsidiaries, during his term without forfeiting his seat. Neither shall he members of the Senate, charged with the duties of legislation. Congress continues to
be appointed to any office which may have been created or the emoluments function well in the physical absence of one or a few of its members. A strict scrutiny
thereof increased during the term for which he was elected. of classifications is essential lest wittingly or otherwise, insidious discriminations are
Section 14. No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may made in favor of or against groups or types of individuals. The election to the position
personally appear as counsel before any court of justice or before the Electoral of Congressman is not a reasonable classification in criminal law enforcement. The
Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other administrative bodies. Neither shall he, functions and duties of the office are not substantial distinctions which lift him from
directly or indirectly, be interested financially in any contract with, or in any the class of prisoners interrupted in their freedom and restricted in liberty of
franchise or special privilege granted by the Government, or any subdivision, movement. Lawful arrest and confinement are germane to the purposes of the law
agency, or instrumentality thereof, including any government-owned or and apply to all those belonging to the same class (People vs. Jalosjos, GR 132875-76,
controlled corporation, or its subsidiary, during his term of office. He shall not February 03, 2000).
intervene in any matter before any office of the Government for his pecuniary
benefit or where he may be called upon to act on account of his office.
vii) Discipline
Disqualification When Applicable
CASES
1. Cannot hold any other office or During his term. If he does so, he forfeits
employment in the Government or any his seat.  Section 15, Article VI of our Constitution provides that "for any speech or debate"
subdivision, agency or instrumentality in Congress, the Senators or Members of the House of Representatives "shall not be
thereof, including GOCCS or their questioned in any other place." Observe that "they shall not be questioned in any
9

other place" than Congress. Furthermore, the Rules of the House which petitioner Section 16. (1). The Senate shall elect its President and the House of
himself has invoked (Rule XVII, sec. 7), recognize the House's power to hold a member Representatives, its Speaker, by a majority vote of all its respective Members.
responsible "for words spoken in debate." Each House shall choose such other officers as it may deem necessary.
(2) A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a
Our Constitution enshrines parliamentary immunity which is a fundamental privilege smaller number may adjourn from day to day and may compel the attendance of
cherished in every legislative assembly of the democratic world. But it does not absent Members in such manner, and under such penalties, as such House may
protect him from responsibility before the legislative body itself whenever his words provide.
and conduct are considered by the latter disorderly or unbecoming a member thereof. (3) Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its Members
On the question whether delivery of speeches attacking the Chief Executive for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its
constitutes disorderly conduct for which Osmeña may be disciplined, many arguments Members, suspend or expel a Member. A penalty of suspension, when imposed,
pro and con have been advanced. We believe, however, that the House is the judge of shall not exceed sixty days.
what constitutes disorderly behaviour, not only because the Constitution has (4) Each House shall keep a Journal of its proceedings, and from time to time
conferred jurisdiction upon it, but also because the matter depends mainly on factual publish the same, excepting such parts as may, in its judgment, affect national
circumstances of which the House knows best but which can not be depicted in black security; and the yeas and nays on any question shall, at the request of one-fifth
and white for presentation to, and adjudication by the Courts. The theory of of the Members present, be entered in the Journal. Each House shall also keep a
separation of powers fastidiously observed by this Court, demands in such situation a Record of its proceedings.
prudent refusal to interfere. Each department, it has been said, has exclusive (5) Neither House during the sessions of the Congress shall, without the consent
cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction and is supreme within its own sphere of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that
(Osmena vs. Pendatun, 109 Phil 863). in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
 Section 1, Article VIII, of the 1987 Constitution, empowers the Court to act not only
in the settlement of “actual controversies involving rights which are legally i) Sessions, Adjournment, Officers
demandable and enforceable,” but also in the determination of “whether or not there
has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on Sessions: (Sec. 15)
the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. The provision allowing
the Court to look into any possible grave abuse of discretion committed by any Regular Sessions:
government instrumentality has evidently been couched in general terms in order to o Congress convenes once every year on the 4th Monday of July (unless otherwise
make it malleable to judicial interpretation in the light of any emerging milieu. In its provided for by law).
normal concept, the term has been said to imply an arbitrary, despotic, capricious or o Continues in session for as long as it sees fit, until 30 days before the opening of the
whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. When the next regular session, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays.
question, however, pertains to an affair internal to either of Congress or the
Executive, the Court subscribes to the view that unless an infringement of any specific Special Sessions:
Constitutional proscription thereby inheres the Court should not deign substitute its Called by the President at any time when Congress is not in session.
own judgment over that of any of the other two branches of government. It is an
impairment or a clear disregard of a specific constitutional precept or provision that Adjournments:
can unbolt the steel door for judicial intervention. If any part of the Constitution is
not, or ceases to be, responsive to contemporary needs, it is the people, not the 1. Neither House can adjourn for more than 3 days during the time Congress is in
Court, who must promptly react in the manner prescribed by the Charter itself session without the consent of the other House.
(Santiago vs. Sandiganbayan, GR 128055, April 18, 2001). 2. Neither can they adjourn to any other place than that where the two houses are
sitting, without the consent of the other.

c. INTERNAL GOVERNMENT (SECTION 15 AND 16) Officers: (Sec. 16)

Section 15. The Congress shall convene once every year on the fourth Monday of 1. Senate President
July for its regular session, unless a different date is fixed by law, and shall 2. Speaker of the House; and
continue to be in session for such number of days as it may determine until 3. Such other officers as it may deem necessary.
thirty days before the opening of its next regular session, exclusive of
Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. The President may call a special session
at any time. Election of Officers
o By a majority vote of all respective members.
10

Quorum to do business: absence of constitutional or statutory guidelines or specific rules, this Court is devoid
1. Majority of each House shall constitute a quorum. of any basis upon which to determine the legality of the acts of the Senate relative
2. A smaller number may adjourn from day to day and may compel the attendance of thereto. On grounds of respect for the basic concept of separation of powers, courts
absent members. may not intervene in the internal affairs of the legislature; it is not within the province
3. In computing a quorum, members who are outside the country and thus outside of of courts to direct Congress how to do its work. Legislative rules, unlike statutory
each House’s coercive jurisdiction are not included. laws, do not have the imprints of permanence and obligatoriness during their
effectivity. In fact, they "are subject to revocation, modification or waiver at the
Discipline: pleasure of the body adopting them." Being merely matters of procedure, their
1. Suspension – needs concurrence of 2/3 of ALL its members and shall not exceed 60 observance are of no concern to the courts, for said rules may be waived or
days. Or, disregarded by the legislative body 49 at will, upon the concurrence of a majority
2. Expulsion – concurrence of 2/3 of ALL its members. (Santiago vs. Guingona, GR 134577, Nov. 18, 1998).

ii) Quorum
CASES
Majority of each House, but a smaller number may adjourn from day ro day and may
 The term "majority" has been judicially defined a number of times. When referring compel the attendance of absent Members in such manner and under such penalties as
to a certain number out of a total or aggregate, it simply "means the number greater such House may determine (Sec. 16 (2), Art. VI)
than half or more than half of any total." The plain and unambiguous words of the
subject constitutional clause simply mean that the Senate President must obtain the
votes of more than one half of all the senators. Not by any construal does it thereby CASES
delineate who comprise the "majority", much less the "minority," in the said body. And
there is no showing that the framers of our Constitution had in mind other than the  The basis for determining the existence of a quorum in the Senate shall be the total
usual meanings of these terms. number of Senators who are in the country and within the coercive jurisdiction of the
Senate.
In effect, while the Constitution mandates that the President of the Senate must be
elected by a number constituting more than one half of all the members thereof, it When the Constitution declares that a majority of "each House" shall constitute a
does not provide that the members who will not vote for him shall ipso facto quorum, "the House" does not mean "all" the members. Even a majority of all the
constitute the "minority", who could thereby elect the minority leader. Verily, no law or members constitute "the House". (Missouri Pac. vs. Kansas, 63 Law ed. [U. S.], p. 239).
regulation states that the defeated candidate shall automatically become the minority There is a difference between a majority of "all the members of the House" and a
leader. majority of "the House", the latter requiring less number than the first. Therefore an
absolute majority (12) of all the members of the Senate less one (23), constitutes
Majority may also refer to "the group, party, or faction with the larger number of constitutional majority of the Senate for the purpose of a quorum (Avelino vs.
votes," not necessarily more than one half. This is sometimes referred to as plurality. Cuenco, 83 Phil 17).
In contrast, minority is "a group, party, or faction with a smaller number of votes or
adherents than the majority." Between two unequal parts or numbers comprising a
whole or totality, the greater number would obviously be the majority, while the lesser iii) Internal Rules
would be the minority. But where there are more than two unequal groupings, it is not
as easy to say which is the minority entitled to select the leader representing all the o As part of their inherent power, they can determine their own rules. Hence, the courts
minorities. While the Constitution is explicit on the manner of electing a Senate cannot intervene in the implementation of these rules insofar as they affect the members
President and a House Speaker, it is, however, dead silent on the manner of selecting of Congress.
the other officers in both chambers of Congress. All that the Charter says is that
"[e]ach House shall choose such other officers as it may deem necessary." The
method of choosing who will be such other officers is merely a derivative of the CASES
exercise of the prerogative conferred by the aforequoted constitutional provision.
Therefore, such method must be prescribed by the Senate itself, not by this Court.  The President shall nominate and with the consent of the Commission on
Notably, the Rules of the Senate do not provide for the positions of majority and Appointments, shall appoint the heads of the executive departments and bureaus,
minority leaders. Neither is there an open clause providing specifically for such offices officers of the Army from the rank of colonel, of the Navy and air forces from the rank
and prescribing the manner of creating them or of choosing the holders thereof . At of captain or commander, and all other officers of the Government whose
any rate, such offices, by tradition and long practice, are actually extant. But, in the appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and those whom he maybe
11

authorized by law to appoint; but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of Note: Enrolled bill prevails (Field v. Clark, 143 US 649), except to matters, which under the
inferior officers, in the President alone, in the courts, or in the heads of departments. Constitution, must be entered into the Journal (Astorga v. Villegas, 56 SCRA 714).
The other provision is worded thus: "The President shall have the power to make
appointments during the recess of the Congress, but such appointments shall be
effective only until disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the next CASES
adjournment of the Congress." A distinction is thus made between the exercise of
such presidential prerogative requiring confirmation by the Commission on  The Act of Congress, approved July 1, 1902, provides, among other things, in section
Appointments when Congress is in session and when it is in recess. In the former the 7, that the Philippine Assembly "shall keep a journal of its proceedings, which shall be
President nominates, and only upon the consent of the Commission on Appointments published . . . ." Section 275 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the
may the person thus named assume office. It is not so with reference to ad interim existence of the "official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of
appointments. It takes effect at once. The individual chosen may thus qualify and the United States and of the Philippine Islands . . . shall be judicially recognized by the
perform his function without loss of time. His title to such office is complete. In the court without the introduction of proof; but the court may receive evidence upon any
language of the Constitution, the appointment is effective "until disapproval by the of the subjects in this section stated, when it shall find it necessary for its own
Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the Congress (Pacete information, and may resort for its aid to appropriate books, documents, or evidence
vs. Secretary of Commission on Appointment, 40 SCRA 58).” (US vs Pons, 34 Phil 729).”

 The cases, both here and abroad, in varying forms of expression, all deny to the  It will be seen upon examination of section 313 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as
courts the power to inquire into allegations that, in enacting a law, a House of amended by Act No. 2210, that, roughly, it provides two methods of proving
Congress failed to comply with its own rules, in the absence of showing that there was legislative proceedings: (1) by the journals, or by published statutes or resolutions, or
a violation of a constitutional provision or the rights of private individuals. It would be by copies certified by the clerk or secretary or printed by their order; and (2) in case
an unwarranted invasion of the prerogative of a coequal department for this Court of acts of the legislature, by a copy signed by the presiding Officers and secretaries
either to set aside a legislative action as void because the Court thinks the House has thereof, which shall be conclusive proof of the provisions of such Acts and of the due
disregarded its own rules of procedure, or to allow those defeated in the political enactment thereof.
arena to seek a rematch in the judicial forum when petitioners can find their remedy
in that department itself. The Court has not been invested with a roving commission Even if both the journals and an authenticated copy of the Act had been presented,
to inquire into complaints, real or imagined, of legislative skullduggery. It would be the disposal of the issue by the Court on the basis of the journals does not imply
acting in excess of its power and would itself be guilty of grave abuse of its discretion rejection of the enrollment theory, for, as already stated, the due enactment of a law
were it to do so. In the absence of anything to the contrary, the Court must assume may be proved in either of the two ways specified in section 313 of Act No. 190 as
that Congress or any House thereof acted in the good faith belief that its conduct was amended (Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito, 78 Phil 1).
permitted by its rules, and deference rather than disrespect is due the judgment of
that body (Arroyo vs. De Venecia, GR 127255, Aug. 14, 1997).  It is well settled that the enrolled bill — which uses the term "urea formaldehyde"
instead of "urea and formaldehyde" — is conclusive upon the courts as regards the
tenor of the measure passed by Congress and approved by the President. If there has
viii) Journals and Enrolled Bill been any mistake in the printing of the bill before it was certified by the officers of
Congress and approved by the Executive — on which we cannot speculate, without
Journals jeopardizing the principle of separation of powers and undermining one of the
cornerstones of our democratic system — the remedy is by amendment or curative
Enrolled Bill – is the official copy of approved legislation and bears the certifications of legislation, not by judicial decree (Casco Chemical vs. Gimenez, 7 SCRA 347).
the presiding officers of each House. Thus where the certifications are valid and are not
withdrawn, the contents of the enrolled bill are conclusive upon the courts as regards the  The inclusion of desirable enlargements in the statute is addressed to the
provision of that particular bill. judgment of Congress and unless such enlargements are by it accepted courts are
without power to make them. As Mr. Justice Frankfurter put the matter with lucidity:
Conclusive upon the courts as regards the tenor of the measure passed by Congress and "An omission at the time of enactment, whether careless or calculated, cannot be
approved by the President (Mabanag v, Lopez Vito, 78 Phil.1). judicially supplied however much later wisdom may recommend the inclusion….The
vital difference between initiating policy, often involving a decided break with the
General rule: the journal is conclusive upon the courts but an enrolled bill prevails over past, and merely carrying out a formulated policy, indicates the relatively narrow
the contents of the Journal. limits within which choice is fairly open to courts and the extent to which interpreting
law is inescapably making law (Morales vs. Subido, 27 SCRA 131).”
12

 Congress devised its own system of authenticating bills duly approved by both
Houses, namely, by the signatures of their respective presiding officers and The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman.
secretaries on the printed copy of the approved bill. It has been held that this
procedure is merely a mode of authentication, to signify to the Chief Executive that Note: The congressional members of the ET’s shall be chosen on the basis of
the bill being presented to him has been duly approved by Congress and is ready for proportional representation from the political parties and party-list organizations.
his approval or rejection. It may be noted that the enrolled bill theory is based mainly
on "the respect due to coequal and independent departments," which requires the
judicial department "to accept, as having passed Congress, all bills authenticated in CASES
the manner stated." Thus it has also been stated in other cases that if the attestation
is absent and the same is not required for the validity of a statute, the courts may  Is the House of Representatives empowered by the Constitution to interfere with
resort to the journals and other records of Congress for proof of its due enactment. the disposition of an election contest in the House Electoral Tribunal through the ruse
This was the logical conclusion reached in a number of decisions, although they are of "reorganizing" the representation in the tribunal of the majority party? Section 17,
silent as to whether the journals may still be resorted to if the attestation of the Article VI of the 1987 Constitution supplies the answer to that question. Under the
presiding officers is present. said provision, the Justices held the deciding votes, and it was impossible for any
political party to control the voting in the tribunal. The use of the word "sole" in both
The journal of the proceedings of each House of Congress is no ordinary record. The Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution and Section 11 of the 1935 Constitution
Constitution requires it. While it is true that the journal is not authenticated and is underscores the exclusive jurisdiction of the House Electoral Tribunal as judge of
subject to the risks of misprinting and other errors, the point is irrelevant in this case. contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the members of the
This Court is merely asked to inquire whether the text of House Bill No. 9266 signed House of Representatives. The tribunal was created to function as a nonpartisan court
by the Chief Executive was the same text passed by both Houses of Congress. Under although two-thirds of its members are politicians. It is a non-political body in a sea of
the specific facts and circumstances of this case, this Court can do this and resort to politicians. To be able to exercise exclusive jurisdiction, the House Electoral Tribunal
the Senate journal for the purpose. In the face of the manifest error committed and must be independent. Its jurisdiction to hear and decide congressional election
subsequently rectified by the President of the Senate and by the Chief Executive, for contests is not to be shared by it with the Legislature nor with the Courts. The
this Court to perpetuate that error by disregarding such rectification and holding that resolution of the House of Representatives removing Congressman Camasura from
the erroneous bill has become law would be to sacrifice truth to fiction and bring the House Electoral Tribunal for disloyalty to the LDP, because he cast his vote in
about mischievous consequences not intended by the law-making body (Astorga vs. favor of the Nacionalista Party's candidate, Bondoc, is a clear impairment of the
Villegas, 56 SCRA 714). constitutional prerogative of the House Electoral Tribunal to be the sole judge of the
election contest between Pineda and Bondoc (Bondoc vs. Pineda, 201 SCRA 792).

d. ELECTORAL TRIBUNALS  The proposed amendment to the Tribunal's Rules (Section 24) — requiring the
Section 17. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an concurrence of five (5) members for the adoption of resolutions of whatever nature —
Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the is a proviso that where more than four (4) members are disqualified, the remaining
election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members. Each Electoral members shall constitute a quorum, if not less than three (3) including one (1) Justice,
Tribunal shall be composed of nine Members, three of whom shall be Justices of and may adopt resolutions by majority vote with no abstentions. We do not agree with
the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six petitioners' thesis. We opine that in fact the most fundamental objection to such
shall be Members of the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case proposal lies in the plain terms and intent of the Constitution itself which, in its Article
may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional representation from VI, Section 17, creates the Senate Electoral Tribunal, ordains its composition and
the political parties and the parties or organizations registered under the party- defines its jurisdiction and powers. For a Tribunal to be staffed by both Justices of the
list system represented therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall Supreme Court and Members of the Senate, the Constitution intended that both those
be its Chairman. "judicial" and "legislative" components commonly share the duty and authority of
i) Composition deciding all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of Senators.
Every Member of the Tribunal may, as his conscience dictates, refrain from
The Senate and the House shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be composed participating in the resolution of a case where he sincerely feels that his personal
of: interests or biases would stand in the way of an objective and impartial judgment.
What we are merely saying is that in the light of the Constitution, the Senate Electoral
1. 3 Supreme Court Justices to be designted by the Chief Tribunal cannot legally function as such, absent its entire membership of Senators and
Justices; & that no amendment of its Rules can confer on the three Justices-Members alone the
2. 6 members of the Senate or House, as the case may power of valid adjudication of a senatorial election contest (Abbas vs. Senate Electoral
be. Tribunal, 166 SCRA 651).
13

 Article VI thereof states: Sec. 17. The Senate and the House of Representatives
shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests
ii) Powers relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members. . .
.The foregoing constitutional provision is reiterated in Rule 14 of the 1991 Revised
1. Sole judge of all contest relating to the election, returns and qualification of their Rules of the Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives. In the recent case of
respective members (Sec. 17, Art.VI); Rasul v. COMELEC and Aquino-Oreta, the Court, in interpreting the aforesaid
constitutional provision, stressed the exclusivity of the Electoral Tribunal's jurisdiction
2. Rule-making power over its members. In the same vein, considering that petitioner questions the
proclamation of Henry Lanot as the winner in the congressional race for the sole
district of Pasig City, his remedy should have been to file an electoral protest with the
CASES House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) (Caruncho vs. Comelec, GR
135996, Sept. 30, 1999).
 The electoral tribunal clearly assumes jurisdiction over all contests relative to the
election, returns and qualifications of candidates for either the Senate or the House
only when the latter become members of either the Senate or the House of e. COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS (SEC. 18 & 19)
Representatives. A candidate who has not been proclaimed and who has not taken his Section 18. There shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of the
oath of office cannot be said to be a member of the House of Representatives subject President of the Senate, as ex officio Chairman, twelve Senators, and twelve
to Section 17 of Article VI of the Constitution. Even after the elections, the COMELEC Members of the House of Representatives, elected by each House on the basis of
is still empowered by Section 6 (in relation to Section 7) of R.A. 6646 to continue to proportional representation from the political parties and parties or
hear and decide questions relating to qualifications of candidates (Aquino vs. organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein. The
Comelec, GR 120265, Sept. 18, 1995). chairman of the Commission shall not vote, except in case of a tie. The
Commission shall act on all appointments submitted to it within thirty session
 Under Section 17 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, it is the House Electoral days of the Congress from their submission. The Commission shall rule by a
Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns majority vote of all the Members.
and qualification of its members. Since petitioners challenge the qualifications of Section 19. The Electoral Tribunals and the Commission on Appointments shall
Congressman Daza, the appropriate remedy should have been to file a petition to be constituted within thirty days after the Senate and the House of
cancel respondent Daza's certificate of candidacy before the election or a quo Representatives shall have been organized with the election of the President
warranto case with the House Electoral Tribunal within ten (10) days after Daza's and the Speaker. The Commission on Appointments shall meet only while the
proclamation (Sampayan vs. Daza, 213 SCRA 807). Congress is in session, at the call of its Chairman or a majority of all its
Members, to discharge such powers and functions as are herein conferred upon
it.
iii) Jurisdiction over Proclamation Controversy
i) Composition
 Each electoral tribunal shall be the sole judge of all CONTEST relating to the election,
returns; and qualifications of their respective members. This includes determining the 1. Senate President as ex-officio chairman;
validity or invalidity of a proclamation declaring a particular candidate as the winner. 2. 12 Senators: and
 An ‘election contest’ is one where a defeated candidate challenges the qualification 3. 12 Members of the House.
and claims for himself the seat of a proclaimed winner.
 In the absence of an election contest, the Electoral Note: The 12 Senators and 12 Representatives are elected on the basis of proportional
Tribunal is without jurisdiction. However, the power of each House to expel its own representation from the political parties and party-list organizations.
members or even to defer their oath-taking until their qualifications are determines
may still be exercised even without an election contest. Voting / Action
1. The Commission shall rule by majority vote of all members.
2. The chairman shall only vote in case of a tie.
3. The Commission on Appointments shall act on all appointment within 30 session days
from their submission to Congress.
CASES

CASES
14

Fourth, officers lower in rank whose appointments the Congress may by law vest in
 The provision of Section 18 on proportional representation is mandatory in the President alone.
character and does not leave any discretion to the majority party in the Senate to
disobey or disregard the rule on proportional representation; otherwise, the party with The first group of officers is clearly appointed with the consent of the Commission on
a majority representation in the Senate or the House of Representatives can by sheer Appointments. Appointments of such officers are initiated by nomination and, if the
force of numbers impose its will on the hapless minority. By requiring a proportional nomination is confirmed by the Commission on Appointments, the President
representation in the Commission on Appointments, Section 18 in effect works as a appoints.The second, third and fourth groups of officers are the present bone of
check on the majority party in the Senate and helps to maintain the balance of power. contention. Should they be appointed by the President with or without the consent
No party can claim more than what it is entitled to under such rule. To allow it to elect (confirmation) of the Commission on Appointments? In the 1987 Constitution, the
more than its proportional share of members is to confer upon such a party a greater clear and expressed intent of its framers was to exclude presidential appointments
share in the membership in the Commission on Appointments and more power to from confirmation by the Commission on Appointments (Sarmiento vs. Mison, 156
impose its will on the minority, who by the same token, suffers a diminution of its SCRA 549).
rightful membership in the Commission.

A political party must have at least two senators in the Senate to be able to have a f. POWERS OF CONGRESS
representative in the Commission on Appointments, so that any number less than 2
will not entitle such a party a membership in the Commission on Appointments. We
do not agree with respondents' claim that it is mandatory to elect 12 Senators to the i) General Legislative Power
Commission on Appointments. The Constitution does not contemplate that the
Commission on Appointments must necessarily include twelve (12) senators and a. general plenary power (Sec. 1, Art VI);
twelve (12) members of the House of Representatives. What the Constitution requires
is that there be at least a majority of the entire membership. Under Section 18, the Section 1. The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the
Commission shall rule by majority vote of all the members and in Section 19, the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives,
Commission shall meet only while Congress is in session, at the call of its Chairman or except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision on initiative and
a majority of all its members "to discharge such powers and functions herein referendum.
conferred upon it (Guingona vs. Gonzales, 214 SCRA 789).”
b. specific power of appropriation;
c. taxation and expropriation;
ii) Powers d. legislative investigations;
e. question hour.
1. Acts on all appointments submitted to it within 30 session days of Congress from
their submission; and
2. Promulgates its own rules of proceedings. CASES

 The doctrine is well established in the various States of the Union that the
CASES legislatures have no power to establish rules which operates to deprive the courts of
their constitutional authority to exercise the judicial functions. A constitutional court
 Under the provisions of the 1987 Constitution, there are four (4) groups of officers when exercising its proper judicial functions can no more be unreasonably controlled
whom the President shall appoint: by the legislature than can the legislature when properly exercising legislative power
be subjected to the control of the courts. Each acts independently within its exclusive
First, the heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers field. In a certain sense these courts are not constitutional courts. In a broader sense,
and consuls, officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and for the purposes of construing and testing the validity of the Acts of the Philippine
and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution; Legislature, they are constitutional courts, because they, like the Legislature, exist by
virtue of a written Organic Law enacted by the supreme legislative body. The validity
Second, all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise of all legislative Acts must be determined by their compliance with this Organic Law,
provided for by law; and the determination of the legal question of compliance or noncompliance therewith
is a judicial question, which must in the last analysis be determined by the judiciary.
Third, those whom the President may be authorized by law to appoint; This principle is inherent in every government organized under the American system
15

which distributes the powers of government among executive, legislative and judicial 2. Law-making bodies of LGUs;
departments (Ocampo vs. Cabangis, 15 Phil. 626). 3. Public corporations; and
4. Quasi-public corporations

ii) Inherent Legislative Power

iii) Limitations
a. police power

 The power vested in the legislature by the constitutionto make, ordain, and establish a. Substantive Limitations
all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes, and ordinances, either with - Limitations on specific powers (Section 30 and 31)
penalties or without, not repugnant to the Constitution, as they shall judge to be for the Section 30. No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the
good and welfare of the commonwealth, and of the subjects of the same. Supreme Court as provided in this Constitution without its advice and
concurrence.
Law of overruling necessity – power promoting public welfare by restraining and Section 31. No law granting a title of royalty or nobility shall be enacted.
regulating the use of liberty and property. - Bill of Rights
- Implied limitations: no irrepealable law, non-encroachment, non-delegation
Basis : public necessity and the right of the State and of the public to self-protection and
self preservation. b. Procedural Limitations

Who may exercise: generally the legislature, but also upon valid delegation: -One Bill, one subject (Section 26)
 only one subject to be stated in the title of the bill
1. the President (Sec, 26 (1), Art. VI);
2. Administrative bodies  Every bill shall embrace only one (1) subject, as expressed in the title thereof, which
3. Law making bodies of LGU does not have to be a complete catalogue of everything stated in the bill. A title
expressing the general subject of the bill and all the provisions of the statute are germane
to that general subject is sufficient.
b. power of taxation Section 26. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject
which shall be expressed in the title thereof.
 power by which the State raises revenue to defray the necessary expenses of the
Government that covers persons, property, or __________. CASES

Basis : power emanating from necessity. ( ____ theory)  The objectives of Section 26(1), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, that "[e]very bill
passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in
Who may exercise: generally the legislature, but also upon valid delegation: the title thereof", are:

1. Law-making bodies of LGUs (Sec. 5, Art. X); and; 1. To prevent hodge-podge or log-rolling legislation;
2. The President under Sec 28 (2), Art VI of the Constitution or as an incident of 2. To prevent surprise or fraud upon the legislature by means of provisions in bills of
emergency powers that Congress may grant to him under Sec. 23 (2), Art. VI). which the titles gave no information, and which might therefore be overlooked and
carelessly and unintentionally adopted; and
3. To fairly apprise the people, through such publication of legislative proceedings as
c. eminent domain is usually made, of the subjects of legislation that are being considered, in order that
 power of the State to forcibly take private property for public use upon payment of just they may have opportunity of being heard thereon by petition or otherwise if they
compensation. shall so desire.
Section 44 of RA 8189 is not isolated considering that it is related and germane to the
Basis : necessity of the property for public use. subject matter stated in the title of the law. The title of RA 8189 is "The Voter’s
Registration Act of 1996" with a subject matter enunciated in the explanatory note as
Who may exercise: generally the legislature, but also upon valid delegation: "AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A GENERAL REGISTRATION OF VOTERS, ADOPTING A SYSTEM
OF CONTINUING REGISTRATION, PRESCRIBING THE PROCEDURES THEREOF AND
1. the President AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS THEREFOR." Section 44, which provides
16

for the reassignment of election officers, is relevant to the subject matter of  The initiative for filing of ART bills must come from the House, but it does not prohibit
registration as it seeks to ensure the integrity of the registration process by providing the filing in the Senate a substitute bill in anticipation of its receipt of the bill from House,
a guideline for the COMELEC to follow in the reassignment of election officers. It is not so long as the action by the Senate is withheld pending the receipt of the House bill
an alien provision but one which is related to the conduct and procedure of continuing (Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance, 235 SCRA 630).
registration of voters. In this regard, it bears stressing that the Constitution does not
require Congress to employ in the title of an enactment, language of such precision as  Appropriation, revenue and tariff bills (ART Bills) shall originate exclusively in the
to mirror, fully index or catalogue, all the contents and the minute details therein. House of Representatives (sec. 24, Art. VI).
In determining the constitutionality of a statute dubbed as defectively titled, the
presumption is in favor of its validity (Guzman vs. Comelec, GR 129118, July 19, Section 24. All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of
2000). the public debt, bills of local application, and private bills, shall originate
exclusively in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or
concur with amendments.
Sufficiency of Title
CASES
CASES
 Petitioners' contention is that Republic Act No. 7716 did not "originate exclusively"
 The title of the bill is not required to be an index to the body of the act, or to be as in the House of Representatives as required by Art. VI, § 24 of the Constitution,
comprehensive as to cover every single detail of the measure. It has been held that if because it is in fact the result of the consolidation of two distinct bills, H. No. 11197
the title fairly indicates the general subject, and reasonably covers all the provisions and S. No. 1630. This argument will not bear analysis. To begin with, it is not the law
of the act, and is not calculated to mislead the legislature or the people, there is — but the revenue bill — which is required by the Constitution to "originate
sufficient compliance with the constitutional requirement. To require every end and exclusively" in the House of Representatives. It is important to emphasize this,
means necessary for the accomplishment of the general objectives of the statute to because a bill originating in the House may undergo such extensive changes in the
be expressed in its title would not only be unreasonable but would actually render Senate that the result may be a rewriting of the whole (Tolentino vs. Secretary of
legislation impossible. Finance, GR 115455, Aug. 25, 1994).

This is particularly true of the repealing clause, on which Cooley writes: "The repeal of  The enactment of S. No. 1630 is not the only instance in which the Senate
a statute on a given subject is properly connected with the subject matter of a new proposed an amendment to a House revenue bill by enacting its own version of a
statute on the same subject; and therefore a repealing section in the new statute is revenue bill. the power of the Senate to propose amendments must be understood
valid, notwithstanding that the title is silent on the subject. It would be difficult to to be full, plenary and complete "as on other Bills." Thus, because revenue bills are
conceive of a matter more germane to an act and to the object to be accomplished required to originate exclusively in the House of Representatives, the Senate cannot
thereby than the repeal of previous legislations connected therewith."We are enact revenue measures of its own without such bills. After a revenue bill is passed
convinced that the withdrawal of the franking privilege from some agencies is and sent over to it by the House, however, the Senate certainly can pass its own
germane to the accomplishment of the principal objective of R.A. No. 7354, which is version on the same subject matter. This follows from the coequality of the two
the creation of a more efficient and effective postal service system. Our ruling is that, chambers of Congress. In sum, while Art. VI, 24 provides that all appropriation,
by virtue of its nature as a repealing clause, Section 35 did not have to be expressly revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of local
included in the title of the said law (Philippine Judges Assn vs. Prado, GR 105371, Nov. application, and private bills must "originate exclusively in the House of
11, 1993). Representatives," it also adds, "but the Senate may propose or concur with
amendments." In the exercise of this power, the Senate may propose an entirely new
 The question is whether Congress has provided a sufficient standard by which the bill as a substitute measure. Without H. No. 11197, the Senate could not have
President is to be guided in the exercise of the power granted and whether in any enacted S. No. 1630. Because the Senate bill was a mere amendment of the House
event the grant of power to him is included in the subject expressed in the title of the bill, H. No. 11197 in its original form did not have to pass the Senate on second and
law. First, the question of standard. A legislative standard need not be expressed. It three readings. It was enough that after it was passed on first reading it was referred
may simply be gathered or implied. Nor need it be found in the law challenged to the Senate Committee on Ways and Means. Neither was it required that S. No. 1630
because it may be embodied in other statutes on the same subject as that of the be passed by the House of Representatives before the two bills could be referred to
challenged legislation (Chiongbian vs. Orbos, 245 SCRA 253). the Conference Committee (Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance, GR 115455, Motion for
Recon., Oct. 30, 1995).

Bills that must originate exclusively from the House Three readings on separate days
17

 3 readings on separate days; printed copies of the bill in its final form distributed to How a Bill becomes Law;
members 3 days before its passage, except if President certifies to its immediate 1. Approved and signed by the President;
enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency; upon its last reading, no amendment 2. President veto overridden by 2/3 of all members of both Houses;
allowed and the vote thereon taken immediately and the yeas and nays entered into the 3. Failure of the President to veto the bill and to rturn it with his objections to the House
Journal (Sec. 26 (2), Art. VI). where it originated within 30 days after the date of receipt;
(2) No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed three readings 4. A bill calling a special election for President and Vice-President under Sec. 10, Art. VII
on separate days, and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to its becomes a law upon third and final reading.
Members three days before its passage, except when the President certifies to the
necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency. Upon the
last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be ii) Presidential veto
taken immediately thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered in the Journal.
Bicameral Conference Committee General Rule: If the President disapproved a bill enacted by Congress, he should veto the
entire bill. He is not allowed to veto separate item of a bill.
g. LEGISLATIVE PROCESS (SEC. 27)
Section 27. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it becomes a law, Exception : Item-veto in case of appropriation, revenue and tariff bill (Sec. 27(2), Art.
be presented to the President. If he approves the same he shall sign it; VI).
otherwise, he shall veto it and return the same with his objections to the House
where it originated, which shall enter the objections at large in its Journal and Exception to The Exception:
proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of all the
Members of such House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together - Doctrine of inappropriate Provision – a provision that is constitutionally
with the objections, to the other House by which it shall likewise be inappropriate for an appropriation bill may be singled out for veto even if it is not an
reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of all the Members of that House, it appropriation or revenue “item” (Gonzales v. Macaraig, Jr., 191 SCRA 452)
shall become a law. In all such cases, the votes of each House shall be
determined by yeas or nays, and the names of the Members voting for or against - Executive Impoundment - refusal of the President to spend funds already
shall be entered in its Journal. The President shall communicate his veto of any allocated by Congress for specific purpose. It is the failure to spend or obligate budget
bill to the House where it originated within thirty days after the date of receipt authority of any type (Philconsa v. Enriquez, GR. No. 1131105, Aug. 19, 1994).
thereof, otherwise, it shall become a law as if he had signed it.
(2) The President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items in an
appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect the item or iii) Pocket veto
items to which he does not object.
i) Approval of Bills - occurs when :

Bills that must originate in the House of Representatives: 1. the President fails to act on a bill and;
2. the reason he does not return the bill to the Congress is that Congress is not in session.
1. Appropriation bill;
2. Revenue and tariff bills; Note: Not applicable in the Philippines because inaction by the President for 30 days
3. Bill authorizing increase in public debts; never produces a veto even if Congress is in recess. The President must still act to veto
4. Bill of local application; and the bill and communicate his veto to Congress without need of returning the vetoed bill
5. Private bills (Sec. 24, Art. VI) with his veto message.

Procedure for Approval of Bills:

1. Bill is approved by both chambers; iv) Item veto
2. President approves and signs it;
3. If the President vetoes the bill, returns the bill with presidential objections to the House Line – item veto – is the power of an executive to nullify or cancel specific provisions of a
of origin. Veto may be overridden upon vote of 2/3 of all members of the House of origin bill, usually budget appropriations, without vetoing the entire legislative package.
and the other House and;
4. Presidential inaction for 30 days from receipt of the bill (bill becomes a law as if the
same has been signed by him. CASES
18

 The Executive must veto a bill in its entirety or not at all. He or she cannot act like include in an appropriations bill must "relate specifically to some particular
an editor crossing out specific lines, provisions, or paragraphs in a bill that he or she appropriation therein" and "be limited in its operation to the appropriation to which it
dislikes. In the exercise of the veto power, it is generally all or nothing. However, when relates," it follows that any provision which does not relate to any particular item, or
it comes to appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, the Administration needs the money which extends in its operation beyond an item of appropriation, is considered "an
to run the machinery of government and it can not veto the entire bill even if it may inappropriate provision" which can be vetoed separately from an item. Also to be
contain objectionable features. The President is, therefore, compelled to approve into included in the category of "inappropriate provisions" are unconstitutional provisions
law the entire bill, including its undesirable parts. It is for this reason that the and provisions which are intended to amend other laws, because clearly these kind of
Constitution has wisely provided the "item veto powers" to avoid inexpedient riders laws have no place in an appropriations bill. These are matters of general legislation
being attached to an indispensable appropriation or revenue measure. The more appropriately dealt with in separate enactments ( Phil. Constitution Assn vs.
Constitution provides that only a particular item or items may be vetoed. The power Enriquez, 235 SCRA 506).
to disapprove any item or items in an appropriate bill does not grant the authority to
veto a part of an item and to approve the remaining portion of the same item. We
distinguish an item from a provision in the following manner: "The terms item and h. POWER OF THE PURSE (SEC. 24, 25, ART. VI; 20 - Art. VII, SEC. 20 AND 22)
provision in budgetary legislations and practice are concededly different. An item in a
bill refers to the particulars, the details, the distinct and severable parts . . . of the bill. Article VI
An 'item' of an appropriation bill obviously means an item which in itself is a specific
appropriation of money, not some general provision of law, which happens to be put Section 24. All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of
into an appropriation bill.” Thus, the augmentation of specific appropriations found the public debt, bills of local application, and private bills, shall originate
inadequate to pay retirement payments, by transferring savings from other items of exclusively in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or
appropriation is a provision and not an item. It gives power to the Chief Justice to concur with amendments.
transfer funds from one item to another. There is no specific appropriation of money
involved (Bengzon vs. Drilon, 208 SCRA 133). Section 25. (1) The Congress may not increase the appropriations recommended
by the President for the operation of the Government as specified in the budget.
The form, content, and manner of preparation of the budget shall be prescribed
v) Legislative veto; One-House Veto by law.

Legislative veto - exists in governments that separate executive and legislative (2) No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the general appropriations
functions, action by the executive can be rejected by the legislature. bill unless it relates specifically to some particular appropriation therein. Any
such provision or enactment shall be limited in its operation to the appropriation
to which it relates.
CASES
(3) The procedure in approving appropriations for the Congress shall strictly
 The legislative veto was a simple concept to retain some control over power follow the procedure for approving appropriations for other departments and
delegated to the president to reorganize executive branch agencies. At the same time agencies.
it became apparent that the legislative veto might be a means for exercising
congressional control over administrative regulations. However, the rule of law states (4) A special appropriations bill shall specify the purpose for which it is
that Congress may not promulgate a statute granting to itself a legislative veto over intended, and shall be supported by funds actually available as certified by the
actions of the executive branch inconsistent with the bicameralism principle and National Treasurer, or to be raised by a corresponding revenue proposal therein.
Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court held that
the resolution of the House of Representatives vetoing the Attorney General's (5) No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however,
determination is constitutionally invalid, unenforceable, and not binding (Immigration the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of
Service vs. Chadha, 462 US 919, 77 L.Ed.2d 317). Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of
Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in
 The veto power, while exercisable by the President, is actually a part of the the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other
legislative process. That is why it is found in Article VI on the Legislative Department items of their respective appropriations.
rather than in Article VII on the Executive Department in the Constitution. There is,
therefore, sound basis to indulge in the presumption of validity of a veto. The burden (6) Discretionary funds appropriated for particular officials shall be disbursed
shifts on those questioning the validity thereof to show that its use is a violation of the only for public purposes to be supported by appropriate vouchers and subject to
Constitution. As the Constitution is explicit that the provision which Congress can such guidelines as may be prescribed by law.
19

present, has not approved any such law; and thus the said P86.8 Billion automatic
(7) If, by the end of any fiscal year, the Congress shall have failed to pass the appropriation in the 1990 budget is an administrative act that rests on no law, and
general appropriations bill for the ensuing fiscal year, the general appropriations thus, it cannot be enforced. The Court, however, is not persuaded. Section 3, Article
law for the preceding fiscal year shall be deemed re-enacted and shall remain in XVIII of the Constitution recognizes that "All existing laws, decrees, executive orders,
force and effect until the general appropriations bill is passed by the Congress. proclamations, letters of instructions and other executive issuances not inconsistent
with the Constitution shall remain operative until amended, repealed or revoked."
Article VII This transitory provision of the Constitution has precisely been adopted by its framers
to preserve the social order so that legislation by the then President Marcos may be
Section 20. The President may contract or guarantee foreign loans on behalf of recognized. Such laws are to remain in force and effect unless they are inconsistent
the Republic of the Philippines with the prior concurrence of the Monetary with the Constitution or are otherwise amended, repealed or revoked (Guingona vs.
Board, and subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. The Monetary Carague, 196 SCRA 221).
Board shall, within thirty days from the end of every quarter of the calendar
year, submit to the Congress a complete report of its decision on applications for
loans to be contracted or guaranteed by the Government or government-owned ii) Constitutional limitations and rules
and controlled corporations which would have the effect of increasing the Constitutional limitations on special appropriations
foreign debt, and containing other matters as may be provided by law. measures:

Section 22. The President shall submit to the Congress, within thirty days from
the opening of every regular session as the basis of the general appropriations 1. must specify public purpose for which the sum was intended; and
bill, a budget of expenditures and sources of financing, including receipts from 2. must be supported by funds actually available as certified by the National
existing and proposed revenue measures. Treasurer or to be raised by corresponding revenue proposal included therein (Sec.
25(4),Art. VI).
 No money shall be paid out of the National Treasury EXCEPT in pursuance of an
appropriation made by law. Constitutional Rules on General Appropriations Laws (Sec. 25, Art. VI)
 BUT: This rule does not prohibit continuing appropriations. E.g. for debt servicing. This Section 25. (1) The Congress may not increase the appropriations recommended
is because the rule does not require yearly, or annual appropriation. by the President for the operation of the Government as specified in the budget.
The form, content, and manner of preparation of the budget shall be prescribed
Appropriation Law - a statute, the primary and specific purpose of which is to authorize by law.
release of public funds from the treasury. (2) No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the general appropriations
 The existence of appropriations and the availability of funds are indispensable pre- bill unless it relates specifically to some particular appropriation therein. Any
requisites to or conditions sine qua non for the execution of government contracts such provision or enactment shall be limited in its operation to the appropriation
(Comelec v. Judge Quijano-Padilla and Photokina Marketing Corp. GR No. 151992, Sept. 18, to which it relates.
2002). (3) The procedure in approving appropriations for the Congress shall strictly
follow the procedure for approving appropriations for other departments and
agencies.
i) Implied limitations on appropriation measure (4) A special appropriations bill shall specify the purpose for which it is
intended, and shall be supported by funds actually available as certified by the
1. must specify public purpose; and National Treasurer, or to be raised by a corresponding revenue proposal therein.
2. sum authorized for release must be determinate, or at least determinable. (5) No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however,
the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of
CASES Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in
the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other
 Petitioners argue that the said automatic appropriations under the aforesaid items of their respective appropriations.
decrees of then President Marcos became functus oficio when he was ousted in (6) Discretionary funds appropriated for particular officials shall be disbursed
February, 1986; that upon the expiration of the one-man legislature in the person of only for public purposes to be supported by appropriate vouchers and subject to
President Marcos, the legislative power was restored to Congress on February 2, 1987 such guidelines as may be prescribed by law.
when the Constitution was ratified by the people; that there is a need for a new (7) If, by the end of any fiscal year, the Congress shall have failed to pass the
legislation by Congress providing for automatic appropriation, but Congress, up to the general appropriations bill for the ensuing fiscal year, the general appropriations
 20

law for the preceding fiscal year shall be deemed re-enacted and shall remain in
force and effect until the general appropriations bill is passed by the Congress. (2) The transfer or realignment is for the purpose of augmenting the items of
expenditure to which said transfer or realignment is to be made (Phil. Constitution
a. Riders Assn vs. Enriquez, 235 SCRA 506).

i. Is a provision which does not relate to a particular appropriation stated in the bill.
ii. Since it is invalid provision under Section 25(2), the President may veto it as an item. c. Purpose

b.Prohibition against transfer of CASES

appropriation
 Generally, under the express or implied provisions of the constitution, public funds
Rule: No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations BUT the following may be used only for public purpose. The right of the legislature to appropriate funds
may, BY LAW, be authorized to AUGMENT any item in the general appropriations law for is correlative with its right to tax, and, under constitutional provisions against taxation
their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriation 1. except for public purposes and prohibiting the collection of a tax for one purpose and
President, 2. President of the Senate 3. Speaker of the House of Representatives 4. Chief the devotion thereof to another purpose, no appropriation of state funds can be made
Justice of the Supreme Court 5. Heads of the Constitutional Commissions for other than for a public purpose. The test of the constitutionality of a statute
requiring the use of public funds is whether the statute is designed to promote the
public interest, as opposed to the furtherance of the advantage of individuals,
CASES although each advantage to individuals might incidentally serve the public (Pascual
vs. Sec. Of Public Works, 110 Phil 331).
 Under the Constitution, the spending power called by James Madison as "the power of
the purse," belongs to Congress, subject only to the veto power of the President. The  An attempt was made to take money out of the government treasury, which
President may propose the budget, but still the final say on the matter of belongs to the City of Manila, a municipal corporation, and apply it to the payment of
appropriations is lodged in the Congress. a debt which a public corporation claims to have against the city. That proceeding was
in direct conflict with the express provisions of section 3 of the Jones Law. It violates
The power of appropriation carries with it the power to specify the project or activity that portion of the section which says that no money shall be paid out of the treasury
to be funded under the appropriation law. It can be as detailed and as broad as except in pursuance of an appropriation by law; and the other provision which says
Congress wants it to be. The special provision on realignment of the operating that all money collected on any tax levied or assessed for a special purpose shall be
expenses of members of Congress is authorized by Section 16 of the General treated as a special fund in the treasury and paid out for such purpose only. Here, the
Provisions of the GAA of 1994. Each member of Congress is allotted for his own defendants propose to take public money from and out of the government treasury,
operating expenditure a proportionate share of the appropriation for the House to which is in a special fund, and which was assessed, levied and collected for a special
which he belongs. If he does not spend for one item of expense, Sec. 16 of GAA of purpose, and pay it over to a public corporation. No authority has been cited, and
1994 allows him to transfer his allocation in said item to another item of expense. none will ever be found to legalize such a proceeding (Manila to pay the claim of the
Metropolitan Water District against the City of Manila (City of Manila vs. Posadas, 48
Petitioners assail the special provision allowing a member of Congress to realign his Phil 390).
allocation for operational expenses to any other expense category (Rollo, pp. 82-92),
claiming that this practice is prohibited by Section 25(5) Article VI of the Constitution.  The question raised refers to the alleged violation of the Constitution by the
Under the Special Provisions applicable to the Congress of the Philippines, the respondent in issuing and selling postage stamps commemorative of the Thirty-third
members of Congress only determine the necessity of the realignment of the savings International Eucharistic Congress. It is alleged that this action of the respondent is
in the allotments for their operating expenses. They are in the best position to do so violative of the provisions of section 23, subsection 3, Article VI, of the Constitution of
because they are the ones who know whether there are deficiencies in other items of the Philippines, which provides as follows: No public money or property shall ever be
their operating expenses that need augmentation. However, it is the Senate President appropriated ...for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church... except when such
and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, as the case may be, who shall priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces or to any penal
approve the realignment. Before giving their stamp of approval, these two officials will institution, orphanage, or leprosarium. The prohibition herein expressed is a direct
have to see to it that: corollary of the principle of separation of church and state. But, upon very serious
reflection, examination of Act No. 4052, and scrutiny of the attending circumstances,
(1) The funds to be realigned or transferred are actually savings in the items of we have come to the conclusion that there has been no constitutional infraction in the
expenditures from which the same are to be taken; and case at bar, Act No. 4052 grants the Director of Posts, with the approval of the
21

Secretary of Public Works and Communications, discretion to misuse postage stamps property belonging to the same class shall be taxed alike. The rule does not require
with new designs "as often as may be deemed advantageous to the Government taxes to be graded according to the value of the subject or subjects upon which they
( Aglipay vs. Ruiz, 64 Phil 201).” are imposed, especially those levied as privilege or occupation taxes. We can hardly
see wherein the tax in question constitutes double taxation. The fact that the land
upon which the billboards are located is taxed at so much per unit and the billboards
i. POWER OF TAXATION (SEC. 28) at so much per square meter does not constitute "double taxation." Double taxation,
Section 28. (1) The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The Congress within the true meaning of that expression, does not necessarily affect its validity. And
shall evolve a progressive system of taxation. again, it is not for the judiciary to say that the classification upon which the tax is
(2) The Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix within specified based "is mere arbitrary selection and not based upon any reasonable grounds." The
limits, and subject to such limitations and restrictions as it may impose, tariff Legislature selected signs and billboards as a subject for taxation and it must be
rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties presumed that it, in so doing, acted with a full knowledge of the situation (Churchill
or imposts within the framework of the national development program of the vs. Concepcion, 34 Phil 969).
Government.
(3) Charitable institutions, churches and personages or convents appurtenant  The exemption in favor of the convent in the payment of the land tax (sec. 344 [c]
thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and Administrative Code) refers to the home of the parties who presides over the church
improvements, actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable, and who has to take care of himself in order to discharge his duties. In therefore must,
or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation. in the sense, include not only the land actually occupied by the church, but also the
(4) No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the concurrence adjacent ground destined to the ordinary incidental uses of man. Except in large cities
of a majority of all the Members of the Congress. where the density of the population and the development of commerce require the
use of larger tracts of land for buildings, a vegetable garden belongs to a house and,
CASES in the case of a convent, it use is limited to the necessities of the priest, which comes
under the exemption. In regard to the lot which formerly was the cemetery, while it is
 If the Legislature has the power to impose a tax... then "the judicial cannot no longer used as such, neither is it used for commercial purposes and, according to
prescribed to the legislative department of the Government limitation upon the the evidence, is now being used as a lodging house by the people who participate in
exercise of its acknowledge powers." That the Philippine Legislature has the power to religious festivities, which constitutes an incidental use in religious functions, which
impose such taxes, we think there can be no serious doubt, because "the power to also comes within the exemption. Malcolm, in his dissenting opinion elucidate that
impose taxes is one so unlimited in force and so searching in extent, that the courts The Assessment Law exempts from taxation "Cemeteries or burial grounds . . . and all
scarcely venture to declare that it is subject to any restrictions whatever, except such lands, buildings, and improvements use exclusively for religious . . . purposes, but this
as rest in the discretion of the authority which exercises it. It reaches to every trade or exemption shall not extend to property held for investment, or which produces
occupation; to every object of industry, use, or enjoyment; to every species of income, even though the income be devoted to some one or more of the purposes
possession; and it imposes a burden which, in case of failure to discharge it, may be above specified." (Administrative Code, sec. 344; Act No. 2749, sec. 1.) That is the
followed by seizure and sale or confiscation of property. No attribute of sovereignty is applicable law (Bishop of Nueva Segovia vs. Prov. Board, 51 Phil 352).
more pervading, and at no point does the power of the government affect more
constantly and intimately all the relations of life than through the exactions made  A tax refers to a financial obligation imposed by a state on persons, whether
under it." If a case were presented where the abuse of the taxing power of the local natural or juridical, within its jurisdiction, for property owned, income earned,
legislature was to extreme as to make it plain to the judicial mind that the power had business or profession engaged in, or any such activity analogous in character for
been exercised for the sole purpose of destroying rights which could not be rightfully raising the necessary revenues to take care of the responsibilities of government. An
destroyed consistently with the principles of freedom and justice upon which the often-quoted definition is that of Cooley: "Taxes are the enforced proportional
Philippine Government rests, then it would be the duty of the courts to say that such contributions from persons and property levied by the state by virtue of its
an arbitrary act was not merely an abuse of the power, but was the exercise of an sovereignty for the support of government and for all public needs." As distinguished
authority not conferred. The only limitation, in so far as these questions are from other pecuniary burdens, the differentiating factor is that the purpose to be
concerned, placed upon the Philippine Legislature in the exercise of its taxing power is subserved is the raising of revenue. A tax then is neither a penalty that must be
that found in section 5 of the Philippine Bill, wherein it is declared "that the rule of satisfied or a liability arising from contract. Much less can it be confused or identified
taxation in said Islands shall be uniform." A tax is uniform when it operates with the with a license or a fee as a manifestation of an exercise of the police power. It has
same force and effect in every place where the subject of it is found. The words been settled law in this jurisdiction that this broad and all-encompassing
"uniform throughout the United States," as required of a tax by the Constitution, do governmental competence to restrict rights of liberty and property carries with it the
not signify an intrinsic, but simply a geographical, uniformity, and such uniformity is undeniable power to collect a regulatory fee. Unlike a tax, it has not for its object the
therefore the only uniformity which is prescribed by the Constitution. "Uniformity," as raising of revenue but looks rather to the enactment of specific measures that govern
applied to the constitutional provision that all taxes shall be uniform, means that all the relations not only as between individuals but also as between private parties and
22

the political society. To quote from Cooley anew: "Legislation for these purposes it  E.O. 464, to the extent that it bars the appearance of executive officials before
would seem proper to look upon as being made in the exercise of that authority ... Congress, deprives Congress of the information in the possession of these officials. To
spoken of as the police power. The conclusion is difficult to resist therefore that the resolve the question of whether such withholding of information violates the
Motor Vehicle Act requires the payment not of a tax but of a registration fee under the Constitution, consideration of the general power of Congress to obtain information,
police power. Hence the inapplicability of the section relied upon by defendant- otherwise known as the power of inquiry, is in order.The Congress power of inquiry is
appellee under the Back Pay Law. It is not held liable for a tax but for a registration expressly recognized in Section 21 of Article VI of the Constitution. The power of
fee. It therefore cannot make use of a backpay certificate to meet such an obligation inquiry, the Court therein ruled, is co-extensive with the power to legislate. 60 The
(Republic vs. Philippine Rabbit Busline, 32 SCRA 211). matters which may be a proper subject of legislation and those which may be a proper
subject of investigation are one. It follows that the operation of government, being a
legitimate subject for legislation, is a proper subject for investigation. Since Congress
j. POWER OF LEGISLATIVE INVESTIGATION (SEC. 21 AND 22) has authority to inquire into the operations of the executive branch, it would be
Section 21. The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective incongruous to hold that the power of inquiry does not extend to executive officials
committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its who are the most familiar with and informed on executive operations. From the
duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in, or discussion on the meaning and scope of executive privilege, both in the United States
affected by, such inquiries shall be respected. and in this jurisdiction, a clear principle emerges. Executive privilege, whether
Section 22. The heads of departments may, upon their own initiative, with the asserted against Congress, the courts, or the public, is recognized only in relation to
consent of the President, or upon the request of either House, as the rules of certain types of information of a sensitive character. While executive privilege is a
each House shall provide, appear before and be heard by such House on any constitutional concept, a claim thereof may be valid or not depending on the ground
matter pertaining to their departments. Written questions shall be submitted to invoked to justify it and the context in which it is made. Noticeably absent is any
the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives at recognition that executive officials are exempt from the duty to disclose information
least three days before their scheduled appearance. Interpellations shall not be by the mere fact of being executive officials. Indeed, the extraordinary character of
limited to written questions, but may cover matters related thereto. When the the exemptions indicates that the presumption inclines heavily against executive
security of the State or the public interest so requires and the President so secrecy and in favor of disclosure (Senate vs. Ermita (E.O. 464), GR 169777).
states in writing, the appearance shall be conducted in executive session.  The 1987 Constitution expressly recognizes the power of both houses of Congress
to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation. The power of both houses of Congress to
Limitation on Power of Legislative Investigation: conduct inquiries in aid of legislation is not, therefore, absolute or unlimited. Its
exercise is circumscribed by the afore-quoted provision of the Constitution. Thus, as
1. must be in aid of legislation; provided therein, the investigation must be "in aid of legislation in accordance with its
2. in accordance with duly published rules of procedure; and duly published rules of procedure" and that "the rights of persons appearing in or
3. right of person appearing in, or affected by such inquiry shall be respected. affected by such inquiries shall be respected." It follows then that the rights of
persons under the Bill of Rights must be respected, including the right to due process
and the right not to be compelled to testify against one's self (Bengzon vs. Senate
Legislative Blue Ribbon Committee, 203 SCRA 767).
Question Hour (Sec. 22) Investigation (Sec.
21)  The power of inquiry — with process to enforce it — is an essential and appropriate
auxiliary to the legislative function. A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or
As to persons who may appear Only a department head Any person effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the
legislations is intended to affect or change; and where the legislative body does not
As to who conducts the itself possess the requisite information — which is not frequently true — recourse
investigation Entire body Committees must be had to others who do possess it. Experience has shown that mere requests
for such information are often unavailing, and also that information which is
As to the subject matter volunteered is not always accurate or complete; so some means of compulsion is
Matters related to the Any matter for the essential to obtain what is needed. The fact that the Constitution expressly hives to
department only purpose of legislation congress the power to punish its Members for disorderly behaviour, does not by
necessary implication exclude the power to punish for contempt any other person.
Once an inquiry is admitted or established to be within the jurisdiction of a legislative
CASES body to make, the investigating committee has the power to require a witness to
answer any question pertinent to that inquiry, subject of course to his constitutional
right against self-incrimination. The inquiry, to be within the jurisdiction of the
23

legislative body to make, must be material or necessary to the exercise of a power in without waiting for Congress. Congress passed an Act “approving, legalizing, and
it vested by the Constitution, such as to legislate, or to expel a Member; and every making valid all the acts, proclamations, and orders of the President as if they had
question which the investigator is empowered to coerce a witness to answer must be been issued and done under the previous express authority and direction of the
material or pertinent to the subject of the inquiry or investigation. The power of the Congress (The Prize Cases, 67 US 635, 17 L.Ed. 459).
Court is limited to determining whether the legislative body has jurisdiction to
institute the inquiry or investigation; that once that jurisdiction is conceded, this Court  Whether the U.S. involvement was a “War,” and if so could the petitioner be
cannot control the exercise of that jurisdiction or the use of Congressional discretion; ordered by the Executive to participate absent a declaration? The rule is that
and, it is insinuated, that the ruling of the Senate on the materiality of the question Congress shall have the power to declarations of war. Court ruled the issue was not
propounded to the witness is not subject to review by this Court under the principle of justiciable, lacked a controversy on which a determination could be rendered.
the separation of powers (Arnault vs. Nazareno, 87 Phil 29). Conflicts between the Congress and the President are not justiciable issues the
petitioner can raise. The plaintiff argued that the Vietnam conflict is not a war, and if
 It was admitted and we had ruled that the Senate has the authority to commit a so, Congress has not declared it to be such. The defendant argue that the President
witness if he refuses to answer a question pertinent to a legislative inquiry, to compel can take emergency action to protect the security of the U.S. and further military
him to give the information, i. e., by reason of its coercive power, not its punitive action only requires approval of Congress not a formal declaration of war (Mora vs.
power. It is now contented by petitioner that if he committed an offense of contempt McNamara, 389 US 934, 19 L.Ed. 2D 287).
or perjury against the legislative body, because he refused to reveal the identity of
the person in accordance with the demands of the Senate Committee, the legislature
may not punish him, for the punishment for his refusal should be sought through the
ordinary processes of the law, i.e., by the institution of a criminal action in a court of l. INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM, AND RECALL (SEC. 32)
justice. American legislative bodies, after which our own is patterned, have the power
to punish for contempt if the contempt has had the effect of obstructing the exercise Section 32. The Congress shall, as early as possible, provide for a system of
by the legislature of, or deterring or preventing it from exercising, its legitimate initiative and referendum, and the exceptions therefrom, whereby the people
functions. The principle that Congress or any o fits bodies has the power to punish can directly propose and enact laws or approve or reject any act or law or part
recalcitrant witnesses is founded upon reason and policy. Said power must be thereof passed by the Congress or local legislative body after the registration of
considered implied or incidental to the exercise of legislative power, or necessary to a petition therefor signed by at least ten per centum of the total number of
effectuate said power. How could a legislative body obtain the knowledge and registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at
information on which to base intended legislation if it cannot require and compel the least three per centum of the registered voters thereof.
disclosure of such knowledge and information, if it is impotent to punish a defiance of
its power and authority? When the framers of the Constitution adopted the principle of Initiative – power of the people to propose amendments to the Constitution or to propose
separation of powers, making each branch supreme within the realm of its respective and enact legislation through an election called for the purpose.
authority, it must have intended each department's authority to be full and complete,
independently of the other's authority or power. And how could the authority and Referendum - power of the electorate to approve or reject legislation through an election
power become complete if for every act of refusal, every act of defiance, every act of called for that purpose.
contumacy against it, the legislative body must resort to the judicial department for
the appropriate remedy, because it is impotent by itself to punish or deal therewith,
with the affronts committed against its authority or dignity (Arnault vs. Balagtas, 97 CASES
Phil 358).
 Section 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution provides: SEC. 2. Amendments to this
Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a
k. POWER TO DECLARE EXISTENCE OF STATE OF WAR petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of
which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of
the registered voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be authorized
CASES within five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once
every five years thereafter.
 By Acts of Congress the President is authorized to call out the militia and use the
military and naval forces to suppress insurrection against the government of a state or The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right. the
the U.S. The proclamation of the blockade is official and conclusive evidence to the right of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution through the
court that a state of war existed which demanded and authorized a recourse to such a system of initiative would remain entombed in the cold niche of the Constitution until
measure. The President was bound to meet the war in the shape it presented itself, Congress provides for its implementation. Stated otherwise, while the Constitution has
24

recognized or granted that right, the people cannot exercise it if Congress, for or part thereof, passed by Congress; and c.2 Referendum on local law which refers to
whatever reason, does not provide for its implementation. This provision is not self- a petition to approve or reject a law, resolution or ordinance enacted by regional
executory. assemblies and local legislative bodies.
Justice Isagani A. Cruz defines initiative as the "power of the people to propose bills
If Congress intended R.A. No. 6735 to fully provide for the implementation of the and laws, and to enact or reject them at the polls independent of the legislative
initiative on amendments to the Constitution, it could have provided for a subtitle assembly." On the other hand, he explains that referendum "is the right reserved to
therefor, considering that in the order of things, the primacy of interest, or hierarchy the people to adopt or reject any act or measure which has been passed by a
of values, the right of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution legislative body and which in most cases would without action on the part of electors
is far more important than the initiative on national and local laws. become a law." The process and the voting in an initiative are understandably more
complex than in a referendum where expectedly the voters will simply write either
We cannot accept the argument that the initiative on amendments to the Constitution "Yes" of "No" in the ballot.
is subsumed under the subtitle on National Initiative and Referendum because it is In initiative and referendum, the Comelec exercises administration and supervision of
national in scope. Our reading of Subtitle II (National Initiative and Referendum) and the process itself, akin to its powers over the conduct of elections. These law-making
Subtitle III (Local Initiative and Referendum) leaves no room for doubt that the powers belong to the people, hence the respondent Commission cannot control or
classification is not based on the scope of the initiative involved, but on its nature and change the substance or the content of legislation. In the exercise of its authority, it
character. It is "national initiative," if what is proposed to be adopted or enacted is a may (in fact it should have done so already) issue relevant and adequate guidelines
national law, or a law which only Congress can pass. It is "local initiative" if what is and rules for the orderly exercise of these "people-power" features of our Constitution
proposed to be adopted or enacted is a law, ordinance, or resolution which only the (SBMA vs. COMELEC, GR 125416, Sept. 26, 1996).
legislative bodies of the governments of the autonomous regions, provinces, cities,
municipalities, and barangays can pass (Defensor-Santiago vs. COMELEC, GR 127325, ii) Recall
March 19, 1997).

CASES
i) Indirect Initiative
 Recall is a mode of removal of a public officer by the people before the end of his
 Exercise of initiative by the people through a proposition sent to the Congress or the term of office. The people's prerogative to remove a public officer is an incident of
local legislative body for action. their sovereign power and in the absence of constitutional restraint, the power is
implied in all governmental operations. Such power has been held to be indispensable
for the proper administration of public affairs. Not undeservedly, it is frequently
CASES described as a fundamental right of the people in a representative democracy.
Section 3 of its Article X also reiterated the mandate for Congress to enact a local
 There are statutory and conceptual demarcations between a referendum and an government code which "shall provide for a more responsive and accountable local
initiative. In enacting the "Initiative and Referendum Act, Congress differentiated one government structure instituted through a system of decentralization with effective
term from the other, thus: mechanisms of recall, initiative and
referendum. . ..”The Batasang Pambansa then enacted BP 337 entitled "The Local
(a) "Initiative" is the power of the people to propose amendments to the Government Code of 1983." Section 54 of its Chapter 3 provided only one mode of
Constitution or to propose and enact legislations through an election called for the initiating the recall elections of local elective officials, i.e., by petition of at least
purpose.There are three (3) systems of initiative, namely: a.1. Initiative on the twenty-five percent (25%) of the total number of registered voters in the local
Constitution which refers to a petition proposing amendments to the Constitution; a.2. government unit concerned. Effective January 1, 1992, Congress enacted R.A. 7160,
Initiative on statutes which refers to a petition proposing to enact a national otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991which provided for a second
legislation; and a.3. Initiative on local legislation which refers to a petition proposing mode of initiating the recall process through a preparatory recall assembly which in
to enact a regional, provincial, city, municipal, or barangay law, resolution or the provincial level is composed of all mayors, vice-mayors and sanggunian members
ordinance. of the municipalities and component cities. The alternative mode of initiating recall
proceedings thru a preparatory recall assembly is an innovative attempt by Congress
(b) "Indirect initiative" is exercise of initiative by the people through a proposition to remove impediments to the effective exercise by the people of their sovereign
sent to Congress or the local legislative body for action. power to check the performance of their elected officials. The power to determine this
(c) "Referendum" is the power of the electorate to approve or reject a legislation mode was specifically given to Congress and is not proscribed by the Constitution
through an election called for the purpose. It may be of two classes, namely: c.1. (Garcia vs. COMELEC, GR 111511, Oct. 5, 1993).
Referendum on statutes which refers to a petition to approve or reject an act or law,
25

iii) Loss of confidence, a political question

CASES

 Whether or not the electorate of the Municipality of Sulat has lost confidence in the
incumbent mayor is a political question. It belongs to the realm of politics where only
the people are the judge. 9 "Loss of confidence is the formal withdrawal by an
electorate of their trust in a person's ability to discharge his office previously
bestowed on him by the same electorate. 10 The constituents have made a judgment
and their will to recall the incumbent mayor (Evardone) has already been ascertained
and must be afforded the highest respect. Thus, the signing process held last 14 July
1990 in Sulat, Eastern Samar, for the recall of Mayor Felipe P. Evardone of said
municipality is valid and has legal effect (Evardone vs. COMELEC, 204 SCRA 464, 472).