Structure of Government

3 Parts of a Written Constitution:

(1) Constitution of sovereignty – This refers to thee provisions pointing out the modes or

procedure in accordance with which Formal changes in the constitution may be made.

Ex: Article XVIII – “Amendments or Revisions”

(2) Constitution of Liberty – the series of prescriptions setting forth the fundamental civil

and political rights of the citizens and imposing limitations on the power of the

government as a means of securing the enjoyment of those rights.

Ex: Article III – Bill or Rights

(3) Constitution of Government – provides for a structure and system of government;

refers to the provisions outlining the organization of the Government, enumerating its

powers, laying down certain rules relative to its administration and defining the electorate.

Ex: Article VI – Legislative Department

Article VII – Executive Department

Article VIII – Judicial Department

Article IX – Constitutional Commissions

Doctrine of Separation of Powers in a presidential type of government

The 3 great powers are distributed among the 3 great branches of government:

(1) Legislative power – Legislative branch / Congress

� Article VI, Sec 1 – “The legislative power shall be vested in the congress of

the Philippines…”

� This is also called the POWER OF THE PURSE.

(2) Executive power – Executive branch / President

� Article VII, Sec 1 – “The executive power shall be vested in the President of

the Philippines…”

� This also called the POWER OF THE SWORD

(3) Judicial power – Judiciary / Supreme Court

� Article VIII, Sec 1 – “The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme

Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.”

� This is also called the POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

� The legislative and the executive branches are called the POLITICAL BRANCHES.

� Corollary to the principle of separation of powers:

(1) Principles of checks and balances

- Each branch of the government is a check of the others so that power will not

be concentrated which might lead to abuse and irreparable damage.

- This allows 1 department to resist encroachments upon its prerogatives or to

rectify mistakes or excesses committed by the other departments.

- Ex: veto power of the President.

(2) Principle of non-delegation of Powers

GR – “Potesta delegata non potest delegari” – Power delegated may no longer be

delegated.

XPNs: Instances of permissible delegation – PETAL

a. Delegation to the People under the systems of initiative and referendum

(plebiscite, Art. VI, Sec 1)

b. Delegation to the President of Emergency powers (Art VI, Sec 23)

c. Delegation to the President of Tariff powers (Art VI, Sec 28[2])

d. Delegation to Administrative Bodies

e. Delegation to Local governments (Art. X)

� There must always be an EXPRESS delegation! (by Law/Constitution)

Q. What are the requisites before emergency powers may be delegated to the President?

A. Under Article VI. Section 23. there are four:

a. There must be a war or other national emergency.

b. The delegation shall be for a limited period only

c. The delegation must be pursuant to a declared national policy

d. The delegation is subject to such restrictions and limitations as Congress may

prescribe.

� The power is delegated from the Congress to the President (David vs Arroyo)

Q. What is meant by delegation to administrative bodies?

A. It is the delegation of quasi-legislative powers to administrative agencies.

- refers to the rule making power or power of subordinate

legislation or power to promulgate rules and regulations to

implement a given law/legislative policy.

• Operative word, “or” meant equivalent terms

• The power to ENACT laws still belongs to Congress.

� Tests of valid delegation vs. abdication of power

Undue delegation to the delegate

(1) Completeness Test

- The law delegating the power must be complete in itself in the sense that

the body on whom the power is delegated must have no discretion to

exercise the power but to enforce it.

- The law must be complete in all its terms and conditions, such that there is

nothing more to be done by the body but to enforce it.

- The law must set forth the policy to be executed, carried out or

implemented by the delegate.

- The delegate must not be authorized to fill in the gaps.

(2) Sufficiency of Standards Test

- The law must provide for standards that are determinate or at least

determinate, which will define the limits of a delegate’s authority.

- The standard will guide the delegate in the exercise of the delegated power

which standards must be determinate/determinable.

Q. What is a sufficient standard?

A. It is one that defines legislative policy, marks its limits, maps out its

boundaries and specifies the public agency to apply it.

Ex: (1) Power to organize agencies was delegated to the President

Standard: to streamline the bureaucracy for economy and

sufficiency.

(2) Power to issue franchises delegated to LTFRB

Standard: For public convenience and security

� The standards need not be found in the law delegating the power. Instead,

standards may be found in other laws – what is important is that the

standards are determinate or at least determinable (Chong Bian vs Ci-Bos)

� If the delegation meets the tests, it is valid.

� What is prohibited is undue delegation or a delegation running riot.

� If there is undue delegation, it is no longer delegation of power but

abdication of power in favor of the delegate, which violates the doctrine of

separation of powers.

Ratio: You cannot expect the Congress to anticipate all.

Article VI – LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT Legislative Power

Article VI, Sec 1: “The legislative power shall be vested in the congress of the

Philippines, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives, except to

the extent reserved to the people by the provisions on initiative and referendum.”

Q. What power is vested in Congress?

A. Legislative Power under Article VI, Sec. 1 (The Power of the Purse).

Q. Is legislative power exclusively vested in Congress?

A. NO. Unlike in the 1935 constitution where the legislative power is exclusively vested

in Congress, under the 1987 constitution, there is a reservation made to the people

(initiative and referendum). (Art VI, Sec1).

� The legislative power is not exclusively vested in Congress! It is vested in:

1. Congress – made up of 2 houses:

a) Senate

b) House of Representatives

� We have a Bicameral Congress

� The houses are co-equal bodies; hence the terms “upper house” and “lower

house” are inaccurate!

� Bicameral Conference Committee

• See Phil. Judges Association vs. Hon. Prado, and

• Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance.

2. “…to the extent reserved to the People by initiative and referendum”

� Article VI, Sec. 32 – The Congress shall, as early as possible, provide for a

system of initiative and referendum, and the exceptions there from.

� This is no self-executing.

Q. Has the Congress enacted a Law?

A. YES. R.A. 6735 (Initiative and Referendum Law) is the implementing

provision of Sec 1 Art VI, 1987 Constitution.

3 kinds of Initiative under RA 6735:

� Initiative on the Constitution

- declared unconstitutional (Santiago vs. COMELEC)

� Initiative on Statutes

- Implemented Article VI. Sec 1

- Refers to petitions proposing to enact a national legislation

- Valid

� Initiative on Local Legislation

- refers to petitions proposing to enact, amend, or repeal local

ordinances.

- Valid.

Bar Q: What is initiative? What is Referendum?

A: Initiative is the power of the people to propose amendments to the

Constitution on to propose and enact legislations through an election for the

purpose (Sec 3(a), RA6735).

Referendum is the power of the electorate to approve or reject a legislation

through an election called for the purpose (Sec. 3©, RA6735).

Q: May the President enact laws?

A: NO. Legislative power is vested in Congress. Legislative power includes the

power to ENACT, AMEND, or REPEAL. The power vested on the President

is the EXECTIVE POWER or the power to IMPLEMENT laws.

PRESIDENT’S PARTICIPATION IN THE LAW-MAKING PROCESS Q: Does the President have any participation in the Law-making process?

A. Yes, in the following instances: [SBUVS]

1. When he exercises his veto power

- Article VI, Sec 27. – “Every bill passed by Congress shall before it

becomes a law, be presented to the president. If he approves the

same, he shall sign it; otherwise, he shall veto it…”

- When the president vetoes a bill, that bill doesn’t become a law.

2. When he calls for a special session

- Art VI. Sec 15 – “The president may call a special session at any

time”

- In effect, he will initiate the process

3. When the president certifies as the urgency of the bill to meet a public

calamity or emergency.

- Art VI, sec 26 (2) “No bill passed by either house shall become a

law unless it has passed three (3) readings on separate days x x x

except when the president certifies as to the necessity of its

immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency.”

- The president hastens the process by dispensing with 3 separate

readings on 3 separate days rule.

4. When the president signs a bill that becomes a law

- Art VI, sec 27 – “Every bill passed by Congress shall before it

becomes a law, be presented to the president. If he approves the

same, he shall sign it…”

- The president performs the last operative act for a bill to become a

law.

5. When the president prepares a budget which is the basis of the

GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT.

- Art VII, Sec 22 – “The president shall submit to the congress x x x

as basis of the general appropriations bill a budget for

expenditures and sources of financing, including receipts from

existing and proposed revenue measures.” �

NON-LEGISLATIVE POWERS OF CONGRESS (9): [IBAWI CAPE]

(1) Investigative power / power to conduct investigation (inquiries in aid of legislation)

Art VI, Sec 21 – “The senate or the house of representatives or any of its respective

committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation or in accordance with its duly

published rules of procedure…”

(2) Power to declare the existence of a state of War

Art VI, Sec 23 – “The congress by a vote of 2/3 of both houses in joint session

assembled, voting separately, shall have the sole power to declare the existence of a

state of war.” [*then based on such declaration, delegate emergency powers to the

President]

(3) Power to confirm a presidential appointments [through commission on Appointments]

Art VII, Sec 16 – “The president shall nominate and with the consent of the

Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads of the executive departments,

ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls or officers of the armed forces from

the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments are

vested in him in this constitution.”

(4) Power to punish for contempt

- Incidental to the power to conduct inquiries in aid of legislations.

(5) Power to impeach and to try cases of impeachment

As a prosecutorial body: Art XI, Sec 3(1) – “The House of Representatives shall

have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment.

As an impeachment Court: Art XI, Sec 3(6) – “The senate shall have the sole power

to try and decide all cases of impeachment x x x “

(6) Power to judge election contests involving their members through the Electoral

tribunal

Art VI, Sec 17 – “The senate and House of Representatives shall each have electoral

tribunals which is the sole judge of all contests relating to the election returns and

qualifications of their respective members x x x”

(7) Power to concur in Amnesty Proclamation

Art VII, Sec 19(2) – “He shall have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence

of a majority of all the members of the Congress”

(8) Power to propose amendments to, or revisions of the constitution, when acting as

constituent assembly

Art XVII, Sec 1(2) – “Any amendment to, or revision of, this constitution may be

done by: (1) The congress, upon a vote of ¾ of all its members; x x x”

(9) Power to act as board of canvassers in presidential and vice-presidential elections.

Art VII, Sec 4(4) – “Upon receipt of the certificates of canvass, the president of the

Senate shall, not later than 30 days after the day of the election, open al certificates

in the presence of the Senate of the House of Representatives in joint and public

session, and the Congress, upon determination of the authenticity and due execution

thereof in the manner provided by law, canvass the votes.”

Composition of CONGRESS

(1) Senate – 24 senators elected at large;

� Term: 6 years

� Term limit: 2 Consecutive terms

(2) House of Representatives

� Term: 3 years

� Term limit: 3 consecutive terms

� Art VI, Sec 5(1) – “The HOR shall be composed of not more than 250

members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from

legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the

metropolitan manila area x x x”

� This provision is already Functus Officio!

� Congress has the power to reapportion district every census, under

Art VI, Sec 5(4) –

� Within 3 years following the term of every census, the congress shall

make a re-apportionment of legislative districts based on the standards

provided in this section.”

Qualifications:

Senator Representative

(1) Citizenship Natural born

(2) LIteracy Able to read and write

(3) Voter Registered voter

(4) Age 35 years of age on the day of election 25 years of age on the day of election

(5) Residence 2 years residence 1 year in the district he is representing.

(6) Term 6 years, 2 consecutive term-limit 3 years; 3 consecutive term-limit.

Marcos vs. COMELEC (248 SCRA 300 [1995])

In her application for candidacy, Imelda wrote “7 months requirement”, then

amended it and wrote, “Since birth”. The SC decided in favor of Imelda.

� Supreme court held that in political law, “residence” is considered as “domicile”.

Kinds of Congressmen:

Art VI, Sec 5(1) – “The HOR shall be composed of not more than 250 members,

unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts x x

x and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party-list

system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.”

(1) District representatives

(2) Party-list representatives

- this absorbed the sectoral representatives

- Art VI, Sec 5(2) – “x x x for 3 consecutive terms after the

ratifications of this constitution, ½ of the seats allocated to the

party-list representatives shall be filled as provided by law, by

selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban poor,

indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other

sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector.”

[other sectors: fisher folks, elderly, handicapped (Sec 5, RA7941)].

PUF – LICE – HWY – O

Xpn: Religious sector

Party list system

� Implemented by RA7941 (Party-list law)

� Adopted the German model of the party list system

� 1998 elections: first time we had party list election

� Borrowed concept from parliamentary system

See: Ang bagong-bayani-OFW labor party vs. COMELEC (June 26, ‘01 En Banc)

Q: What is the nature of the party-list system?

A: The party-list system is a social justice tool designed not only to

(1) give more in life to the great masses of our people who have less in life, but also

(2) to enable them to become veritable (genuine/real) law makers themselves. It

(3) intends to make the marginalized and underrepresented active participants in the

mainstream of representative democracy.

� The party list system is one such tool intended to benefit those who hae less in life. It

gives the great masses of our people the genuine hope and genuine power. It is a

message to the destitute and the prejudiced, and even to those in the underground (e.g.

rebels), that change is possible. It is an invitation for them to come our of their limbo

and seize the opportunity.

Q: Is it open to all?

A: No. It is not open to all but only to the marginalized and the underrepresented.

� Allowing all individuals and groups, including those which now dominate district

elections, to have the same opportunity to participate in the party-list elections would

desecrate this lofty. Objective and mongrelize the social justice mechanism into an

atrocious veneer for traditional politics (nose bleed!)

� To make it open to all, without qualifications would not only weaken the electoral

chances of the marginalized and the underrepresented – it also prejudices them. To

allow the non-marginalized and the overrepresented to vie under the party list system

would not only dilute, but also prejudice the chance of the marginalized and

underrepresented – contrary to the law’s intention to enhance it. It would gut the

substance of the party-list system. Instead of generating hope, it would create a

mirage. Instead of enabling the marginalized, it would further weaken them and

aggravate their marginalization.

� Uphold Social Justice principle – to give those who have less life, more in law.

� Underground group – Rebels (p.27 3A notes)

Guidelines for screening party list participants (8)

(1) The political party, sector, organization, or coalition must represent the

marginalized and underrepresented sectors identified in Sec 5, RA7941.

� Sec 5, RA7941 – “x x x the sectors shall include labor, peasant, fisherfolk,

urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly, handicapped,

women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, and professionals.”

� This enumeration is NOT exlusive

� However, it demonstrates the clear intent of the law that NOT all sectors

can be represented under the party-list system.

(2) While political parties may participate in the party-list system, then must comply

with the declared statutory policy of enabling “Filipino citizens belonging to the

marginalized and underrepresented sectors x x x to be enelcted to the HOR.

� They must show that they represent the interests of the marginalized and

the underrepresented.

� Sec 5, RA 7941 – “Any organized group of persons may regilster as a

party, organization, or coalition for purposes of the party-list system x x x”

� Sec 7, Art IX-C, 1987 Const. – “No votes cast in favor of a political party,

organization, or coalition shall be valid, except for those registered under

the party-list system as provided in this constitution.

� Sec 8, Art IX-C, 1987 Const. – “Political parties or organizations or

coalitions registered under the party list system shall not be represented in

the voter’s registration boards x x x”

� Sec 5(1), Art VI, 1987 Const. – “The HOR shall be composed of x x x and

those who x x x shall be elected through a party list system of registered

national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.

(3) The religious sector may not be represented in the party-list system or registered

as a political party.

� Art IX-C Sec 2(5) – “The COMELEC shall exercise the following powers

and functions x x x (5) Register x x x political parties, organizations x x x

religious denomination shall not be registered.

� Art VI, Sec 5(2) – “x x x from the labor, peasant urban poor x x x and

such other sectors as may be provided by law, except religious sector”

� Sec 6(1), RA7941 – “The COMELEC may x x x refuse or cancel x x x the

registration of any national regional or sectoral party, organization or

coalition on any of the following grounds: (1) If it is a religious sect or

denomination, organization or association organized for religious purposes.

Ex: El Shaddai cannot register and participate in the party-list system

� The prohibition is on any religious organization registering as a political

party. No prohibition against a priest running as a candidate. What is

prohibited is the registration of a religious sect as a political party.

(4) The party or organization must not be an adjunct of, or a project organized by, or

an entity funded or assisted by the government.

� It must be independent of the government

� By the very nature of the party-list system, the party or organization must

be a group of citizens, organized and operated by citizens.

� The participation of the government or its officials in the affairs of a party-

list candidate is not only illegal and unfair to others, but also deleterious to

the objective of the law.

Ex: MAD – Mamamayan Ayaw sa Droga

(5) The party or organization must not be disqualified under sec 6, RA 7941:

� Sec 6, RA 7941 – Ground for refusal and/or cancellation of registration:

i. It is a religious sector denomination, organization or association,

organized for religious purposes;

ii. It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal;

iii. It is a foreign party or organization;

iv. It is receiving support from any foreign gov’t, foreigh political

party, foundation, organization, whether directly or through any of

its officers or members or indirectly through 3rd parties for partisan

election purposes.

v. It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations relating

to elections;

vi. It declares untruthful statements in its petition;

vii. It has ceased to exist for at least 1 year;

viii. It fails to participate in the last 2 preceding elections, or fails to

obtain at least 2% of the votes cast under the party list system in

the 2 preceding elections for the constituency in which it has

registered.

(6) The party must not only comply with the requirements of the law; its nominees

must likewise do so x x x

� The nominee must also be qualified.

� Sec 9, RA 7941 – Qualifications for party list nominees

i. Natural-born citizen of the Philippines

ii. Registered voter

iii. Resident of the Philippines for a perioud of not less than 1 year

immediately preceding the day of the electon.

iv. Able to read and write

v. Bona fide member of the party or organization which he seeks to

represent for at least 90 days preceding the day of the election.

(7) Not only the candidate party or organization must represent marginalized and

underrepresented sectors; so also must its nominees.

� The nominee must also represent the marginalized and underrepresented

� Surely, the interests of the youth cannot be fully represented by a retiree;

neither can those of the urban poor or the working class by an individualist.

(8) While lacking a well-defined political constituency, the nominee must likewise be

able to contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that

will benefit the nature of the whole.

4 inviolable parameters to determine the winners in a Party-list election (As mandated by the Constitution and RA7941) � Bar Question! �

See VETERANS FEDERATION PARTY vs. COMELEC (October 6, 2000 En Banc)

1. The twenty (20%) percent allocation

� The combined member of all party list congressmen shall not exceed 20%

of the total membership of the HOR, including those elected under the

party-list.

� Art VI, Sec 5(2) – “The party-list representatives shall constitute 20% of

the total number of representatives including those under the party-list.

2. The two (2%) percent threshold

� Only those garnering a minimum of 2% of the total valid votes cast for the

party list system are qualified to have a seat in the HOR.

� The base is the total votes cast for the party-list and not the total number

of registered voters.

� See RA 7941.

3. The three (3) seat limit

� Each qualified part, regardless of the number of votes actually obtained, is

entitled to a maximum of 3 seats – 1 qualifying and 2 additional seats.

Rationale: To avoid domination/monopoly – will go against the purpose of

the party-list system.

4. Proportional Representation

� The additional seats to which a qualified party is entitled to shall be

computed in proportion to their total number of votes.

Application and Computation: (p.28 3A Notes)

#1

Q: To determine the total votes cast for the party-list system, should the votes tallied to

the disqualified candidates be deducted/excluded in computing the 2% threshold?

A: Yes. The votes for the disqualified parties should be excluded.

(Ang Bagong Bayani OFW vs. COMELEC [June 25, 2003 En Banc])

� In the case of Labo vs. COMELEC, reaffirmed in the case of Grego vs.

COMELEC, the court declred that the votes case for an ineligible or disqualified

candidate cannot be considered stray, because this would disenfranchise the

voters/majority; valid votes.

� However, votes cast for a notoriously disqualified candidate may be considered stray

and excluded from the canvass.

� This does not apply to the party-list elections!

� Because of the express rule in Sec 10, RA 7941 – “x x x that a vote cast for a

party, sectoral organization or coalition not entitled to be voted for shall not be

counted x x x”

� The LABO doctrine applies only to SINGLE ELECTIVE POST/ELECTIONS

(e.g. Mayor); In the party-list system, even the 2nd, 3rd, etc... candidate may

get seats.

Concept and Bases of Congressional Oversight Functions See MAKALINTAL vs. COMELEC

Q: What is the power of oversight?

A: Broadly defined, the power of oversight embraces all activities undertaken by

Congress to enhance its understanding of and influence over the implementation of

legislation it has enacted. Clearly, oversight concerns post-enactment measures

undertaken by Congress:

1. to monitor bureaucratic compliance with program objectives;

2. to determine whether agencies are properly administered;

3. to eliminate executive waste and dishonesty;

4. to prevent executive usurpation of legislative authority; and

5. to assess executive conformity with the congressional perception of public interest

Q: What is/are the basis of oversight power of Congress?

A: The power of oversight has been held to be (1) intrinsic in the grant of legislative

power itself and (2) integral to the checks and balances (3) inherent in a democratic

system of government.

Q: what are the categories of congressional oversight functions? [SIS]

A: Three categories:

1. Scrutiny – primary purpose is to determine economy and efficiency of the operation of

government activities.

— Based primarily on the power of appropriation of congress as under the

constitution, the “power of the purse” belongs to the congress

Ex: Budget hearings – usual means of renewing policy and auditing the use of

previous appropriation to ascertain whether they have been disbursed for

purposes authorized in an appropriation act.

Power of confirmation – [through COA,] provides congress an opportunity to

find out whether the nominee possesses the necessary qualifications, integrity

and probity required for all public servants.

— Congress may request information and report from the other branches of

government. It can give recommendations / pass resolutions for consideration of

the agency involved.

2. Congressional Investigation – a more intense digging of facts.

— This is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative functions, even in

the absence of an express provision in the Constitution.

— Sec 21 Art VI (in aid of legislation)

— Sec 22 Art VI (Question hour)

3. Legislative Supervision – third and most encompassing form of oversight power.

— “Supervision” connotes a continuing and informed awareness on the part of

congressional committee regarding executive operations in a given administrative

area.

— Allows congress to the exercise of delegated law-making authority and permits

congress to retain that part of delegated authority.

Ex: veto power of Congress.

— Power to create public office / administrative agency – congress has an additional

power to supervise - properly implemented congress has review powers over

these public offices / administrative agencies.

Ex: GSIS.

Q: What is legislative veto?

A: It is the power of the congress to disapprove a subordinate law, rules and regulations

promulgated/enacted by the executive branch pursuant to a delegation of authority by

Congress.

Immunities and privileges of members of Congress Sec 11, Article VI – “A senator of member of the HOR shall, in all offenses

punishable by not more than 6 years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest

while the congress is in session. No member shall be questioned nor be held

liable in any other place for any speech or debate in Congress or in any

committee thereof.”

3 Privileges:

(1) Privilege from Arrest

(2) Freedom of speech and debate

(3) Freedom from search (see Article 145, RPC)

Privilege from Arrest

� Not absolute!

� Limitations: (1) Congress must be in session

(2) The offense must be one punishable by imprisonment not exceeding

6 years.

“In session”

- does not refer to the day to day session

- refers to the session from the opening to the final/formal adjournment of Congress

- Art VI, Sec 15 – “the Congress shall convene once every year on the Fourth

Monday of July for its regular session, unless a different date is fixed by Law, and

shall continue to be in session for such number of days as it may determine until

thirty days before the opening of its next regular session, exclusive of Saturdays,

Sundays, and legal holidays x x x “

Q: After 15 days of continuous session, congress adjourned. Can this be done?

A: YES. Congress has the discretion under Art VI, Sec 15. It is allowed to remain in

session provided only that 30 days before the opening of the next session, it shall

adjourn (compulsory adjournment).

- the opening of the session is also the time the President delivers his STATE OF

THE NATION ADDRESS (SONA) – part of the informing power of the

President (Art VII, Sec 23)

- Art VII, Sec 23 – “The president shall address the Congress at the opening of its

regular session x x x”

- This is a deviation from the 1935 constitution, under which the opening of the

regular session is every 4th

Monday of January and the duration of the session is

for a fixed period of 100 days. It was patterned after the American Constitution.

Freedom of Speech and Debate

Requisites:

1. The speech or debate must be made in Congress or in any committee thereof.

2. The congress must be in session.

Q: In a TV interview, a congressman maligns someone. Can he invoke his freedom of

speech?

A. NO. It was not made in congress or any of its committee.

Q: In his privileged speech, a congressman made remarks against A. Can A sue him for

defamation?

A: NO. It is covered by the immunity.

Q: What is A’s remedy?

A: Ask the house to punish the congressman.

“In any other place”

- This includes the courts!

� Statement made in Congress is a form of privileged communication.

� This is a valid defense of Slander or Libel!

� Borjal vs. CA: There are 2 kinds of Privileged communication:

1. Absolutely privileged

� absolutely not actionable even if the author is in bad faith

� Ex: Freedom of speech and debate of members of Congress.

2. Qualifiedly privileged

� Not actionable unless the author acted in bad faith.

- This does NOT include Congress Itself!

� Osmeňa vs. Pendatun: The Senate expelled Senator Osmeňa from the

Senate when he maligned the President in his speech.

SC: The Senate’s act is valid. Congress can punish their members [Art VI,

Secc 16(3)]. The freedom of speech and debate cannot be invoked in

Congress itself. The constitution says, “in any other place”.

� People vs. Jalosjos: To allow Jalosjos to attend congressional session will

virtually make him a free man; this would be a mockery of the correctional

system.

Immunity of Members of the Congress

- arises from a constitutional provision

- granted in a restrictive sense

- cannot be extended by Intendment

Implication

Equitable considerations

Q: During pendency of his appeal from conviction of RTC, should he be

allowed to post bail?

A. NO. Evidence of guild is strong; should wait for decision on appeal inside

the penitentiary.

1987 Constitution says…

Art III, Sec 13 “All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by

reclusion perpetua, when the evidence of guilt is strong, shall,

before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released

on recognizance as may be provided by law. x x x”

Rules of Court say…

Rule 114 Sec 4 – Bail, a matter of right; exception:

All persons in custody shall be admitted to bail as a matter of

right, with sufficient sureties, or released on recognizance as

prescribed by law or this rule.

(a) before / after conviction by the MTC; and

(b) before conviction by RTC of an offense not

punishable by death, R.P, or life imprisonment.

Rule 114 Sec 5 – Bail, when discretionary

Upon conviction by the RTC of an offense NOT punishable

by death, RP, or LI, admission to bail is discretionary. x x x

Therefore:

Matter of Right – before conviction, punishable by penalty lower than

reclusion perpetua

Exception: charged with offense punishable by RP or death.

Matter of Discretion – before conviction punishable by penalty of

reclusion perpetua or higher when the evidence of guilt is strong, there

will be a hearing to determine whether evidence of guilt is strong.

� After conviction, go to Rule 114 sections 4 and 5.

Power to Conduct Investigations and Inquiries Sec 21, Art VI – “The senate or the House of Representatives or any of its

respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in

accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons

appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.”

Nature of the power to conduct investigations and inquiries

- non-legislative but integral in the grant of Legislative power

- It is investigative.

Arnault vs. Nazareno: In the 1935 Constitution, there is no express provision regarding

inquiries in aid of legislation. However, it is intrinsic – to conduct inquiries in aid of

legislation. Therefore, even without such provision, this power is present.

Q: Is the power absolute?

A: NO! Section 21 provides for the following limitations:

(1) It must be in aid of legislation.

(2) It must be made in accordance with duly published rules of procedures

(3) The rights of persons appearing in, or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.

� The right against self incrimination (Art III sec 17) may be invoked.

“In aid of legislation”

Bengzon Jr vs. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee

� Senator Enrile made a privileged speech on the alleged takeover of the SOLOIL Inc.

by Ricardo Lopa, a relative of President Auino, and asked the Senate to “look into the

possible violation of the law, particularly with regard to RA3019, the “Anti-Graft and

Corrupt Practices Act”. The matter was referred to the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee.

� Not an inquiry for inquiry’s sake.

SC: This cannot be allowed. Enrile’s speech had no suggestion of contemplated

legislation. The purpose of inquiry was to find out whether Ricardo Copa violated the law.

Thus, there is not intended legislation involved.

Q: Is this subject to Judicial Review?

A: General Rule: NO! It is a political question.

Exception: When it is tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or

excess or jurisdiction. In view of the expanded power of the Courts, the SC can

inquire whether the inquiry is in accordance with the limitations under the

constitution.

Q: What is the executive privilege?

A: It is the power of the government (the President or Executive Secretary acting in

behalf of the president) to withhold information from the public, the couts and the

Congress.

- unless the question is asked, you cannot invoke this privilege

- It must be invoked (not implied) expressly; must not be a blanket invocation.

- It is attached to information, and not the person asked.

Q: What are the varieties of Executive privilege?

A: (1) State Secrets Privilege – Information is of such nature that its disclosure would

subvert crucial military or diplomatic objective.

(2) Informer’s Privilege – the privilege of the Government not to disclose the identity

of persons who furnish information of violations of law to officers charged with

the enforcement of that law.

(3) Generic privilege for internal deliberations – attached to intra-governmental

documents reflecting advisory opinions, recommendations, and deliberations

comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions and policies are

formulated.

Power to Conduct a Question Hour Art VI, Sec 22 – “The heads of departments may upon their own initiative,

with the consent of the President, or upon the request of either house, as the

rules of each house shall provide, appear before and be heard by such

house on any matter pertaining to their departments x x x”

2 ways to initiate a question hour:

— Own initiative, with the consent of the President

— Upon request of either house.

Q: What is Question Hour?

A: It is a period of confrontation initiated by the parliament to hold the prime minister

and other ministers accountable for their acts and the operation of the government.

(definition borrowed from a parliamentary government).

Senate of the Philippines vs Ermita

Sections 21 and 22, therefore, while closely related and complementary to each

other, should not be considered as pertaining to the same power of Congress.

Section 21 Section 22

- relates to the power to conduct inquiries

in aid of legislation; the aim of which is to

elicit information that may be used for

legislation.

- pertains to the power to conduct a

questions hour; the aim of which is to

obtain information in the pursuit of the

congress’ oversight function

- co-extensive with the power to legislate - in pursuit of Congress’ oversight function

- attendance is meant to be compulsory* - attendance is meant to be discretionary

- grounded on the necessity of information

in the legislative process (the power of

inquiry being co-extensive with the power

to legislate)

- congress merely seeks to be informed on

how department heads are implementing

the statutes which it has issued.

*non-appearance will impair the work of Congress and violate Section 7 of the Bill of

Rights (right to information in matters of public concern – through their duly elected

representatives in Congress)

Q: May members of Cabinet and other top executive officials validly refuse to appear

before congressional inquiries without the consent of the President by invoking EO 464

(prohibiting members of the cabinet and other Executive officials from appearing in

Congressional Inquiries) promulgated by the President?

A: If the requirement then to secure presidential consent under EO 464 is limited only to

appearances in the Question hour, then it is VALID. For under Section 22, Article VI of

the Constitution, the appearance of department heads in question hour is discretionary on

their part. However, this cannot be applied to department heads in inquiries in aid of

legislation. Congress is not bound in such instances to respect the refusal of the

department heads to appear in such inquiry, unless a valid claim of privilege is

subsequently made, either by the President himself, or by the Executive secretary (Senate

of the Philippines vs. Ermita).

� A claim of privilege, being a claim of exemption from an obligation to disclose

information must be clearly asserted. Absent a statement of the specific basis of a claim

of executive privilege, there is no way of determining whether it falls under one of the

traditional privileges, whether given the circumstances in which it is made. It should be

respected.

Legislative Contempt – The power to punish for Contempt

Nature of the power to punish for contempt

General Rule: The power is Judicial in nature. It is an inherent power of the court.

Exeption: When exercised by the Congress or any of its committees when

conducting inquiries in aid of legislation (legislative contempt), one

can be held in detention/sent to prision.

Q: How long can one be held in detention for legislative contempt?

A: For as long as he refuses to cooperate, it is not limited to the duration of the session of

Congress. Thus, a person holds the key to his own freedom. (Arnault vs. Nazareno)

Q: Does the pardoning power of the president apply to cases of Legislative Contempt?

A: NO. It is a limitation on the president’s power to pardon by virtue of the doctrine of

separation of powers.

Bodies Attached To Congress: (1) Commission on Appointments (Art. VI, Sec 18)

(2) Electoral Tribunals (Art VI, Sec 17)

Commission on Appointments

Section 18, Art VI – “There shall be a commission on Appointments consisting

of the President of the Senate as ex officio chairman, twelve senators and twelve

members of the House of Representatives, elected by each House on the basis of

proportional representation from the political parties and parties and parties or

organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein. The

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

days of the Congress from their submission. The commission shall rule by a

majority vote of all the members.”

Organization

Q: How many members?

A: 25 � Senate President – ex officio chairman

� 12 Senators

� 12 Representatives (from the House of Representatives)

Q: How are the 24 members chosen?

A: based on proportional representation from political parties (including party list) having

membership in the senate or House of representatives.

Example:

Senate composition:

K4 = 10

KNP = 8

LOP = 4

LAKAS = 2

x 12

Formula to determine seats per party in the Commission on Appointments:

# of senators of party

Total # of senators

� 12 is the # of CoA seats

� Simply put, it is the # of senators of a Party DIVIDED by 2

� Follow the same formula for HOR component – just use the # of congressmen.

� Therefore:

K4 = 5

KNP = 4

LOP = 2

LAKAS = 1

Q: What if there are decimal places?

A: Disregard (drop) the fraction. Otherwise, rounding off would violate the rule

on proportional representation! Although some seats would not be filled, it is not

mandatory that all seats be filled up. What is necessary is that there be a quorum

(Guingona vs. Gonzales)

Q: What is main function of the Commission on Appointments?

A: To act on Presidential Appointments (checks-and-balances)

Q: When can CoA meet?

A: Only when the congress is in Session. (Art VI, Sec 19. 2nd

sentence) – “The

commission on Appointments shall meet only while the Congress is in session

at the call of its chairman and a majority of all its members, to discharge such

powers and functions as are herein conferred upon it”

- Thus, ad interim appointments are allowed (see Section 16, 2nd

par. Art VII)

Electoral Tribunals

Section 17, Art VI – “The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each

have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating

to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective members. Each

Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of nine members. Three of whom shall be

Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the

remaining six shall be members of the Senate or the House of Representatives,

as the case may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional

representation from the political parties and the parties or organizations

registered under the party-list system represented therein. The senior Justice in

the Electoral Tribunal shall be its chairman.”

Two Electoral Tribunals

(1) Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET)

(2) House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET)

Membership – 9 members

� Judicial Component – 3 Supreme Court Justices; the most senior is the chairman

(designated by the CJ)

� Legislative Component – 6 senators / congressmen chosen on the basis of

proportional representation

Bondoc vs. Pineda

FACTS: Congressman Camasura was a member of the HRET. There was an

electoral contest involving his party-mate and Bondoc. The party instructed

Camasura to vote for his party-mate. However, Camasura cast a conscience vote

in Bondoc’s favor. Thus, the party expelled Camasura from HRET on the grounds

of “disloyalty to the party” and “breach of party discipline”.

HELD: The expulsion is VOID. SET/HRET members are entitled to security of

tenure to ensure their impartiality and independence. As judge-members of the

tribunal, they must be non-partisan; they must discharge their functions with

complete detachment; Independence and impartiality, even from the party to

which they belong. Thus, “disloyalty to party” and “breach of party discipline”

are not valid grounds for expelling a tribunal’s member. The members are not

supposed to vote along party lines – once appointed, the house/senate leadership

should not interfere with the tribunal. Although they are attached to congress, yet

they are independent of Congress.

Q: Can they meet when Congress is not in session?

A: YES. Unlike the Commission on Appointments, they shall meet in accordance

with their rules, regardless of whether congress is in session!

Q: From the decision of SET or HRET, is there an appeal?

A: NO. Sec 17 of Article VI provides that the SET/HRET is the “sole judge of all

contests x x x”. Hence, from its decision, there is no appeal. Appeal is not a

constitutional but merely a statutory right.

Q: Is there any remedy from its decision?

A: YES. A special civil action (an original action – not a mode of appeal) for

certiorari under Rule 65 may be filed. This is based on grave abuse of discretion

amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. This will be filed before the SC.

[The other form of Certiorari is Rule 45, which is a mode of appeal on pure questions of law.

This is a mode of appeal unlike the Special Civil action for Certiorari under Rule 65]

� SET/HRET’s jurisdiction is limited to “contests relating to the election x x x of

their respective members”

Romualdez-Marcos vs. COMELEC

FACTS: In the 1995 elections, Imelda ran for HOR. A disqualification case was

filed against her on account of her residence. The case was not resolved before the

…but senate may propose &

concur with amendments.

� Amendment by substitution

is allowed.

election. Imelda won the election. However, she was not proclaimed. Imelda now

questions the COMELEC’s jurisdiction over the case.

HELD: The COMELEC still has jurisdiction. HRET’s jurisdiction as the sole

judge of all contests relating to the elections, etc..of members of congress begins

only after a candidate has become a member of the HOR. Since Imelda has not

yet been proclaimed, she is not yet a member of the HOR. Thus, COMELEC

retains jurisdiction. (see RA6646, Sec 6, Electoral Reform Law of 1987)

Guerrero vs. COMELEC

FACTS: Rudy Fariñas of Ilocos Norte ran for Congressman. A disqualification

case was filed against him, which was not resolved before the elections. He won

and was proclaimed. COMELEC dismissed the pending disqualification case

against Fariñas. This was questioned by Guerrero on the ground that HRET has

jurisdiction only if there is a valid proclamation of the winning candidate. Thus, if

a candidate does not ratify the statutory requirements, his subsequent

proclamation is void and thus, COMELEC still has jurisdiction.

HELD: The dismissal (of the case) is incorrect. This is a recognition of the

jurisdictional boundaries between COMELEC and HRET. In an electoral contest

where the validity of the proclamation of a winning candidate who has taken his

oath of office and assumed his post as congressman is raised, the issue is best

addressed to the HRET. This avoids duplicity of proceedings and a dash of

jurisdiction between constitutional bodies.

[Thus, once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath of office and assumed

office as a member of the HOR, the COMELEC’s jurisdiction over election contests relating

to his election returns and qualifications ends, and the HRET’s own jurisdiction begins.]

The Legislative Process Filing of the Bill General Rule: A bill may be introduced and may originate either from the Senate or the

HOR.

Exceptions: Bills that must originate exclusively with the HOR [APRIL]

(1) Appropriations bill

(2) Private bills

(3) Revenue or Tariff bills

(4) Bills Increasing the Public Debt

(5) Bills of Local Application

Source:

Article VI, section 24 – “All appropriate, revenue or tariff bills, bills

authorizing increase of 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.”

Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance EVAT is a revenue bill. It intends to rais income for the gov’t. FACTS: There were 2 versions of the EVAT – the HOR and the Senate version. The

HOR bill was first filed and the Senate suspended its own deliberations until the HOR

version was sent to the Senate. Then, the senate passed its own version. Both versions

were sent to the Bicameral Conference Committee. What eventually became the

EVAL law was the senate’s version.

HELD: It is not the law, but the revenue bill that is required to originate exclusively

in the HOR. What the constitution simply means is that the INITIATIVE for filing

revenue, tariff bills, etc…must come from the HOR on the theory that since the HOR

members are elected from the districts, they can be expected to be more sensitive to

the local needs and problems. A bill originating in the HOR may undergo such

extensive changes in the Senate. The result may be a rewriting of the whole. To insist

that the revenue statute must be substantially the same as the house bill would deny

the senate’s power to concur and propose amendments. This would violate the co-

equality of the legislative power between the HOR and the Senate. Thus, the power of

the senate to propose amendments includes the power to propose its own version.

Amendments may be amendments by substitution.

2 rules:

1) One-subject-one-title rule

� Sec 26(1), Art VI – “Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only 1

subject, which shall be expressed in the title thereof.”

� Objectives (De Guzman Jr. vs. COMELEC)

(1) To prevent hodge-podge or log-rolling legislation;

(2) To prevent surprise or fraud upon the legislature by means of

provisions in bills of which the title gives no information and which

might thus be overlooked and carelessly and unintentionally adopted;

and

(3) To fairly appraise the people, through such publication of legislative

proceedings as usually made, of the subjects of legislation that are

being considered, in order that they may have the opportunity of being

heard thereon by petition or otherwise, if they shall so desire.

� In general, the rule seeks to prevent riders – provision which is totally

unrelated to the subject matter of the legislation being considered and may be

the subject of a separate legislation.

� This rule is interpreted liberally!

Philippine Judges Association vs. Prado FACTS: RA7354 is entitled, “law creating the Philippine Postal Corporation”. In

section 35 (Repealing clause), the Judiciary’s franking privilege was withdrawn.

Philippine Judges Association argues that Section 35 is not expressed in the title of

the law, and also the title does not reflect the purpose of withdrawing said franking

privilege.

HELD: The bill’s title is not required to be an index to the body of the act, or to be

comprehensive as to cover every single detail in the act. If the title fairly indicates the

general subject and reasonable covers all the provisions of the act, and is not

calculated to mislead the legislature or the people, there is sufficient compliance with

the constitutional requirement.

[Here, when a statute repeals a former law, such repeal is the effect – not the subject of the

law and it is the subject and not the effect that is required to be briefly expressed in the title.]

Tobias vs. Abalos FACTS: San Juan and Mandaluyong used to be municipalities belonging to one (1)

legislative district, with one congressman. RA7675 was enacted entitled, “converting

Mandaluyong into a highly urbanized city”. Section 49 of said law creates a separate

legislative district for Mandaluyong. The people approved the law in a plebiscite.

Tobias now questions the legality of the law on the ground that it has 2 unrelated

subjects: (1) conversion of Mandaluyong into a highly urbanized city, and (2)

creation of a separate legislative district for Mandaluyong.

HELD: The creation of a separate legislative district for Mandaluyong is NOT a

subject separate from its conversion into a highly urbanized city. Instead, it is a

natural and logical consequence of such conversion. This is because of Article VI,

Section 5(3), which provides that “each city with a population of at least 250,000 or

each province shall have at least one (1) representative.”

�This, for as long as various provisions are germane to the subject matter – which is

expressed in the title – the rule is complied with.

2) Three readings on three separate days rule

Sec 26(2), Art VI – “No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it

has passed three readings on separate days, and printed copied thereof in its

final form have been distributed to its members three days before its passage,

except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment

to meet a public calamity or emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no

amendment thereto shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be taken

immediately thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered in the Journal.”

General Rule: Each bill must undergo 3 separate readings on 3 separate days.

(one in Senate, one in HOR = 6 days/readings all-in-all)

First Reading

- the bill’s title is read; it is assigned a number, and then referred to

the appropriate committee

- no deliberations yet

- In the committee to which the bill was referred to, it may die a

natural death if said committee sits on it.

- If the members of the committee endorse the bill to the plenary, it

will be calendared for 2nd

reading.

Second Reading

- The bill is sent back to the plenary.

- In the plenary, it will be discussed in its entirety; there will be

sponsorship speech, interpellations, deliberations; amendments

may also be introduced.

Third Reading

- Requirement: 3 days before the scheduled 3rd

reading. Printed

copies of the bill will have to be distributed to each member of the

house.

- Here, there are no more deliberations, discussions, or amendments.

- There is only voting; the yeas and nays must be entered in the

journal.

Exception: When the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to

meet a public calamity or emergency.

Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance When the president certifies as to the necessity of the Bill’s immediate enactment,

it need not undergo 3 readings on 3 separate days and printed copies of the Bill

need not be distributed to the members 3 days before the 3rd reading.

� What constitutes a public calamity or emergency is a political question into

which the courts cannot interfere.

While the sufficiency of the factual basis of the suspension of the writ of Habeas

Corpus or declaration of ??? is subject to Judicial review because basic rights of

individuals may be at hazard, the factual basis of presidential certification of bills,

which involves doing away with procedural requirements designed to insure that

bill are duly considered by member of congress, certainly should elicit a different

standard of review.

� After 3 readings, the bill will be sent to the other house where it will undergo the

same cumbersome process.

� If both houses have different versions of the Bill, said versions will be sent to the

Bicameral Conference Committee for reconciliation.

BICAMERAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE (Sec 1, Art VI – Bicameral Congress)

Q: Is this mentioned in the Constitution?

A: NO! But it can be inferred from:

(a) Power of each house of Congress to have rules of proceedings under Art VI,

Section 16(3) – “Each house may determine the rules of its proceedings x x x”;

and

(b) The fact that we have a bicameral Congress – Art VI, Sec 1 – “The legislative

power shall be vested in the Congress x x x which shall consist of a senate and a

HoR.”

Nature and Functions of the Bicameral Conference Committee

Source: Philippine Wages Association vs. Prado

� Primarily, it is a mechanism for compromising differences between the senate

and the HoR; this is because we have a bicameral Congress.

� It is capable of producing unexpected results which can even go beyond its

mandate.

� Referred to as the “3rd

house” of Congress – not correct under our constitution,

because there are only two houses.

� See Arroyo vs. De Venecia

� Referral back to the Senate and the HoR – from the bicameral conference

committee, the consolidated bill will be sent back to each House.

� There, the consolidated bill will be subject to voting; no more readings

- If the yeas prevail over the nays – the bill is passed and will be sent to the

Senate Predient and the HoR speaker for signing.

- If the nays prevail over the yeas – another bicameral conference committee

will be created until an acceptable version of the bill is created; the court did

not say that the bill is killed.

Enrolled Bill Doctrine Q: What is the enrolled bill doctrine?

A: Once a bill has become an enrolled bill, it becomes conclusive upon the courts as

to its enactment*, so that the courts will not inquire into whether that Bill was

regularly enacted or not.

* It is the enactment only and NOT its constitutionality or validity, which is

subject to judicial review.

Q: What is an enrolled bill?

A: It is a bill that contains the signatures of the respective secretaries of both Houses

of Congress, of the House Speaker and of the Senate President; and is to be sent

to the President for his signature.

In other words, the following are the signatories to the enrolled bill:

� Secretary of the senate and of the �

� � speaker

� Senate president

Q: What is the reason for the doctrine?

A: Separation of Powers. The courts should give due respect because the enrolled bill

contains the signatures of the officers of the co-equal branches of Government.

Journal Keeping Requirement

Sec 16(4), Art VI – “Each house shall keep a Journal of its proceedings

and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may, in its

judgment, affect national security x x x”

Q: Between the enrolled bill and the Journal, which prevails?

A: General Rule: Enrolled bill prevails

Exception: Journal prevails as to the matters required by law to be entered into the

Journal. They are regarded as conclusive:

(1) The yeas and nays on the 3rd and final reading

Art VI. Sec 26(2) – “Upon the last reading of a bill x x x the vote thereon shall be

taken immediately thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered in the Journal.”

(2) The yeas and nays on any question at the request of 1/5 of the members present

Art VI, Sec 16(4) – “Each house shall keep a journal of its proceedings x x x and

the yeas and nays on any question shall, at the request of 1/5 of the members

present, be entered in the journal.”

(3) The yeas and nays upon re-passing a bill over the President’s veto.

Art VI Sec 27(1) – “In such cases, the votes of each house shall be determined by

yeas or nays, and the names of the members voting for or against shall be entered

in its journal.”

(4) The president’s objection to a bill he had vetoed.

Art VI Sec 27(1) – “every bill passed by Congress shall, before it becomes a law,

be presented to the President x x x 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 x x x”

Astorga vs. Villegas FACTS: A bill of local application was filed in the � and was there passed on 3

rd

reading without amendments. Forthwith, the bill was sent to the Senate for its

concurrence. It was approved with minor amendments suggested by Senator Roxas,

that instead of the City Engineer, it be the President Protempore of the Municipal

Board who should succeed the Vice Mayor in case of the latter’s incapacity to act as

Mayor. However, on second reading, substantial amendments to this were introduced

by Senator Tolentino. These were approved in toto by Senate. The amendment

recommended by Senator Roxas does not appear in the Journal of the Senate

proceedings as having been acted upon. When the Secretary of the Senate sent a letter

to the � that the House Bill No. 9266 had been passed by the Senate with

amendments, he attached a certification of the amendment, which were the ones

actually approved by the senate. The � thereafter signified its approval of the bill

and caused copies thereof to be printed. The printed copies were then certified and

attested by the secretaries of the � and the senate and the speaker of the � and the

Senate president. When the printed copies were sent to the President, he affixed his

signature thereto by was of approval. The bill became R.A. 4065. However, Senator

Tolentino issued a press statement that the bill signed into law by the President was

the wrong version. Consequently, the Senate President withdrew his signature.

HELD: The court went beyond the enrolled bill and looked into the Journal to

determine whether there’s legal insertion or not.

Enrolled bill to the President

- Last stage

- From Congress, the bill will be sent to the President.

Q: How many options does the president have?

A: 3 options:

(1) President approves the bill � bill becomes a law

(2) President vetoes the bill � bill does not become a law

(3) President does not do anything (inaction) � automatically becomes a law

thirty (30) days after receipt of the bill.

First option: President approves the Bill

Sec 27 (1), Art VI – “Every bill passed by Congress shall, before it becomes a

law, be presented to the President. If he approves the same, he shall sign it xxx”

Second option: President vetoes the bill

Sec 27 (1), Art VI – “Every bill passed by Congress shall, before it becomes a

law, be presented to the President x x x otherwise, he shall veto it and return the

same with his objections to the House where it originated.”

Requirements:

(1) Sent the bill back to Congress,

(2) Together with his objections (veto message)

Q: Can Congress overthrow the veto (“repass the law”)?

A: YES! With a 2/3 vote as provided under Sec 27(1) Art VI – “If after such

reconsideration, 2/3 of all members of such House agree to pass the bill, it shall be

sent, together with the objections to the other house by which it shall likewise be

considered, and if approved by 2/3 of all members of that house, it shall become a

law.”

Kinds of Veto

(1) General Veto – Art VI, Sec 27, par 1

(2) Item Veto or Line Veto – Art VI, Sec 27, par 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 items to which he does not

object.”

General Rule: President may not veto a provision without vetoing the entire bill.

� The rule is all or nothing; selective veto is not allowed.

� The president may not veto a bill without vetoing the entire bill. The

executive must veto a bill in its entirety or not at all. He cannot be an

editor crossing our provisions which she dislikes. (Bengzon vs. Drilon)

Exceptions: Selective veto is allowed in 3 kinds o bill (ART)

(1) Appropriation bills

(2) Revenue Bills

(3) Tariff Bills

Grounds for Vetoing Ordinance by the Chief Executive

Sec. 55 of LGC par. A [UP]

1. Ultra-vires/

2. prejudicial to public welfare

Sec 55 of LGC par. B: on Item/line veto: [PAL]

1. Appropriation Ordinance

2. Adopting a local development plan

3. Ordinance Authorizing Payment of money/creating Liability

Q: Under the LGC, can Punong-Baranggay veto an ordinance?

A: NO. He is part of the ordinance-making (or legislative process) body as the

presiding officer of the sessions of Sangguniang Baranggay.

Q: Do Local Chief Executives have veto power?

A: NO.

Q: How about a Governor?

A: Yes. There is a vice-governor.

Q: How about a Mayor?

A. Yes. There is vice-mayor.

Chief Executive of Baranggay

1. Chief Executive

2. Sangguniang Baranggay, presiding officer

3. Lupong Tagapamayapa

4. Can carry firearms

Q: Is the Chief executive of Baranggay an agent, or a person-in-authority?

A: Person-in-authority (recall Crim Book II – can be subject to direct assault)

N.B.: Policeman – agent of person-in-authority

� Sec. 388 LGC

- Punong Baranggay

- Sangguniang Baranggay members Persons-in-authority

- Lupong taga-pamayapa

Doctrine of Inappropriate Provisions

���� Provisions in an appropriation bill must relate to some particular provision therein

(see Art VI, Sec 25(2)). If it does not, it becomes an inappropriate provision and will

be treated as an item. Thus, it can be subject to the item veto (Gonzales vs. Macaraig)

(it means Kat, pag hinde A-R-T, kahit inappropriate provision yan, hindi pwede item veto, dib a? – Kat. Hehe)

Gonzales vs. Macaraig

FACTS: the General Appropriations Bill contained a provision prohibiting the

President from augmenting the funds of one department from the other. President

Aquino vetoed that provision. Congress argued that what she vetoed was a

provision, not an item. Thus, she effectively vetoed the entire bill since the item

veto refers to items and not to provisions.

HELD: The Court sustained the validity of the exercise by the President of her

veto power, invoking the doctrine of inappropriate provision.

Section 25, par 2, Art VI – “No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the

general appropriations 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.”

Q: May the President veto a LAW?

A: NO. What the president may validly veto is ONLY a BILL and neither the

provisions of LAW 35 years before his term nor a final and executory judgment

of the Supreme Court. (Bengzon vs. Drilon)

Item vs. Provision in an appropriation bill

� An item is a specific appropriation of money, not some general provision of law

that happens to be in an appropriation bill.

Third option: President does not do anything (inaction)

Sec 27 (1), Art VI [last sentence] – “x x x The president shall communicate his

veto of any bill to the House where it originated within thirty days after the ate

of receipt thereof; otherwise, it shall become a law as if he had signed it.”

Q: Is ‘pocket veto’ valid or practiced in our jurisdiction?

A: NO. There is not such thing as ‘pocket veto’ in the Philippines. Unlike in the US –

if within 10 days, the president fails to act on the Bill and Congress adjourns, the

bill does not become a law. In our jurisdiction, the bill automatically becomes a

law if the President does not act within 30 days after receipt of the Bill.

Example of Bills which lapsed into law by the President’s inaction:

— Bar Flunker’s Act – President Quirino

— Changing the name of Manila Int’l Airport to Ninoy Aquino Int’l Airport –

President Aquino

Q: What if the President does not veto the inappropriate item?

A: It becomes a law/ rider which may be a separate subject of legislation.

Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency (Alter Ego Doctrine)

- Members of the Cabinet are considered acts/decisions of the President

UNLESS reprobated by the latter.

- Members of the Cabinet are considered alter ego of he President.