VILLAFUERTE, Abygail June R.

LAW 121 D / 2011-78090

September 22, 2011
Outline of Art. VI, Philippine Constitution

authority by an administrative agency are

necessarily broad and abstract.

Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. POEA (1988)

Legislative discretion as to the substantive
contents of the law cannot be delegated. What
can be delegated is the discretion to determine
how the law may be enforced, not what the
law should be.
Two tests to determine WON there is
a valid delegation of legislative power:
completeness test and sufficient standard test.

Cebu Oxygen and Acetylene Co v. Drilon

(1989)
It is a fundamental rule that implementing
rules cannot add or detract from the provisions
of law it is designed to implement.
Administrative regulations adopted
under legislative authority by a particular
department must be in harmony with the
provisions of the law, and should be for the
sole purpose of carrying into effect its general
provisions.

People v. Dacuycuy (1989)

What valid delegation presupposes and
sanctions is an exercise of discretion to fix the
length of service of a term of imprisonment
which must be encompassed within specific or
designated limits provided by law, the absence
of which designated limits will constitute such
exercise as an undue delegation, if not an
outright intrusion into or assumption, of
legislative power.

Employees Confederation v. National Wages

Commission (1991)
It is true that wage-firing, like rate-fixing,
constitutes an act of Congress; it is also true,
however, that Congress may delegate the
power to fix rates provided that Congress
leaves sufficient standards.

Solicitor General v. Metropolitan Manila

Authority (1991)
Local political subdivisions are able to
legislate only by virtue of a valid delegation of
legislative power from the national legislature.
They are mere agents vested with what is
called the power of subordinate legislation. As
delegates of the Congress, the local
government unit cannot contravene but must
obey at all times the will of the principal.

ARTICLE VI LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Section 1. Legislative power shall be vested in:
1. Congress
a. Senate
b. House of Representatives
Non-delegability of legislative power

Vera v. Avelino (1946)

Any power deemed to be legislative by usage
and tradition is necessarily possessed by
Congress, unless the organic act has lodged it
elsewhere.

Pelaez v. Auditor (1965)

The delegating law must be complete in itself
and must fix a standard. Without a statutory
declaration of policy, the delegate would make
or formulate such policy. Without the
standard, there would be no means to
determine whether the delegate has acted
within or beyond the scope of his authority. He
could thereby arrogate upon himself the power
to make law or worse, to unmake it, by
adopting measures inconsistent with the end
sought to be attained by the act of Congress.

Free Telephone Workers Union v. Minister

of Labor (1981)
The doctrine of non-delegation has been made
to adopt itself to the complexities of modern
governments, giving rise to the adoption of the
principle of 'subordinate legislation.' While
courts have undertaken to lay down general
principles, the safest is to decide each case
according to its peculiar environment, having
in mind the wholesome legislative purpose
intended to be achieved.
Tablarin v. Gutierrez (1987)
The general principle of non-delegation of
legislative power must be applied with
circumspection in respect of statutes which
deal with subjects as obviously complex and
technical as medical education and the practice
of medicine in our present day world.
The standards set for subordinate
legislation in the exercise of rule-making

Chiongbian v. Orbos (1995)

A legislative standard need not be expressed. It
may simply be gathered or implied. Nor need
it be found in the law challenged because it
may be embodied in other statutes on the same
subjects as that of the challenged legislation.

Section 1. Legislative power shall be vested in:

2. Extent reserved to the people [initiative and
referendum]

Section 5. (3) At least one representative

1. Per city with at least 250k people
2. Per province
Section 5. (4) Reapportionment of legislative districts
within 3 years after the return of every census
Reapportionment

Tobias v. Abalos (1994)

Reapportionment of legislative districts may
be made through a special law. The
Constitution did not preclude Congress from
increasing its membership by passing a law,
other than a general apportionment law.

Mariano Jr v. COMELEC (1995)

To hold that reapportionment can only be
made through a general apportionment law
would create an inequitable situation where a
new city or province created by Congress will
be denied legislative representation for an
indeterminate period of time.

Garcia v. COMELEC (1996)

The scope of initiative includes ordinances and
resolutions.

Section 2. Senate 24 senators

Section 3. Qualifications of senators:
1. Natural-born Filipino citizen
2. At least 35 y/o on election day
3. Able to read and write
4. Registered voter
5. Resident of the Philippines for not less than 2
years immediately before election day
Section 4. Term of office of senators:
- 6 years beginning at 12:00nn on June 30
following their election
- No senator shall serve for more than 2
consecutive terms
- Voluntary renunciation of office not be
considered as an interruption in the continuity
of service for the full term

Section 6. Qualifications of HoR members

1. Natural-born Filipino citizen
2. At least 25 y/o on election day
3. Able to read and write
4. Registered voter in the district in which he
shall be elected (except party-list reps)
5. Resident of the Philippines for not less than 1
year immediately before election day
Residence qualification

Section 5. (1) House of Representatives [HoR] not

more than 250 members who shall be elected:
1. From legislative districts
2. Through a party-list system
Section 5. (2) Party-list representatives
- 20% of all HoR members
- Sectors: labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous
cultural communities, women, youth, etc.,
except religious sector
Party-list

Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino v.

COMELEC and Aquino (2004)
The COMELEC shall have jurisdiction on the
question of party identity or leadership to
ascertain whether the candidates are legitimate
party standard-bearers or not.

Gallego v. Verra (1941)

The term "residence" as used in the election
law is synonymous with "domicile." In order
to acquire a domicile by choice, there must
concur (1) residence or bodily presence in the
new locality, (2) an intention to remain there,
and (3) an intention to abandon the old
domicile.

Aquino v. COMELEC (1995)

Domicile of origin is not easily lost. To
successfully effect a change of domicile,
petitioner must prove an actual removal 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 that correspond with the purpose.

Romualdez-Marcos v. COMELEC (1995)

Pure intention to reside in that place is not
sufficient, there must likewise be conduct
indicative of such intention.
A person can only have a single
domicile unless he successfully abandons his
domicile in favor of another domicile of
choice.

Section 9. Special election in case of vacancy; elected

senator or HoR member shall serve only for the
unexpired term
Special election

Citizenship qualification

Bengzon III v. HRET and Cruz (2001)

Filipinos who have lost their citizenship can
reacquire it through naturalization, repatriation
or by direct act of Congress.
Repatriation may be had under
various statutes by those who have lost their
citizenship including people who have served
in the armed forces of another country. It is
done by taking an oath of allegiance to the
Republic and registering it with the Local
Civil Registry where one resides or last
resided.
Repatriation allows him to recover or
return to his original status before he loses his
Philippine citizenship.

Section 7. Term of office of HoR members:

- 3 years beginning at 12:00nn on June 30
following their election
- No HoR member shall serve for more than 3
consecutive terms
- Voluntary renunciation of office not be
considered as an interruption in the continuity
of service for the full term

Section 10. Salaries determined by law; Salary increase

will only take effect after the expiration of the full term
of all Congress members approving such increase
Salaries, emoluments, allowances

Dimaporo v. Mitra Jr. (1991)

A provision in the Omnibus Election Code
seeks to ensure that elective officials serve out
their entire term of office by discouraging
them for running for another public office and
thereby cutting short their tenure by making it
clear that should they fail in their candidacy,
they cannot go back to their former position.
This is consonant with the constitutional edict
that all public officials must serve the people
with loyalty and not trifle with the mandate
that they received from their constituents.

Section 8. Regular election of senators, HoR members

on the 2nd Monday of May

Philippine Constitution Association et al v.

Enriquez (1994)
The purpose for the delayed effect of the
increased salary is to place a legal bar to the
legislators' yielding to the natural temptation to
increase their salaries.

Section 11. Immunities:

Immunity from arrest [if offense is punishable
by not more than 6 years imprisonment] while
Congress is in session
Immunity from arrest

Term and tenure

Lozada v. COMELEC (1983)

A special election, which necessarily costs a
lot of money, may only be called by the
legislature.

Martinez v. Morfe (1972)

In no way did the 1935 Constitution protect a
legislator from arrest for a criminal offense.
The privilege did not include
immunity from arrest arising from an act or
omission punishable by law, as it covered only
immunity from civil arrests.

Section 11. Immunities:

Privilege of speech
Scope of the privilege of speech

Jimenez v. Cabanbang (1966)

In causing the communication (open letter to
the President dated when Congress
presumably was not in session) to be
published, Cabangbang was not performing his
official duty, either as a member of Congress
or as officer or any Committee thereof. Hence,
said communication is not absolutely
privileged.

Antonino v. Valencia (1974)

As defendant's imputations against plaintiff
were not made privately, nor officially as to be
qualifiedly privileged, by virtue of their
defamatory and libelous nature against the
honor, integrity and reputation of the plaintiff,
malice in law was presumed. Defendant had
not overcome such presumption, not having
shown the truth thereof, or that they were
published with good intentions and with
justifiable motive or even from the most
liberal standpoint that they were made in the
exercise of the right of fair comment on the
character, good faith, ability and sincerity of
public officials.

Section 12. Disclosures:

1. Financial and business interests
2. Notify the House concerned of a potential
conflict of interest that may arise from the
filing of a proposed legislation of which they
are authors
Disclosures

Morfe v. Mutuc (1972)

Requiring public officers to disclose financial
matters does not infringe liberty and privacy
and is a valid exercise of police power.

Section 13. Disqualifications:

1. Holding any other office or employment in the
Government during term without forfeiting
seat
2. Appointment to any office which may have
been created or the emoluments thereof
increased during his term

legislative act, which is intended

accomplish the objects specifically
impliedly prohibited.

to
or

Section 15. Regular session:

Once every year on the 4th Monday of July and shall
continue to be in session for such number of days as it
may determine until 30 days before the next regular
session opens [exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and
legal holidays]
President may call a special session any time
Section 16. (1). Officers elected by majority vote of all
respective members:
- Senate President
- HoR Speaker of the House
Houses shall choose other officers as they may deem
necessary
(2) Majority of each House quorum to do business
Less than majority may adjourn from day to day,
compel the attendance of others in such manner, and
under such penalties
Officers

Avelino v. Cuenco (1949)

The constitutional grant to the Senate of the
power to elect its own president should not be
taken over by the judiciary.

Santiago and Tatad v. Guingona and Fernan

(1998)
No statute or provision prescribing which of
the many minority parties has the right to
select the minority leader. It is silent on the
matter of selecting the other officers aside
from the Senate President and the House
Speaker. Thus, the method of choosing who
will be such other officers is prescribed by the
Senate, not by the Court.

Section 14. Prohibitions:

1. Personal appearance as counsel before any
court or quasi-judicial and other administrative
bodies
2. Having financial interests in any contract with,
or in any franchise or special privilege granted
by the Government
3. Intervening in any matter before any
government office for his benefit or where he
may be called upon to act on account of his
office

Section 16. (3) Each House may determine the rules of

its proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly
behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds of all
its Members, suspend or expel a Member. A penalty of
suspension, when imposed, shall not exceed sixty days.

Prohibitions

Internal discipline

Puyat v De Guzman (1982)

That which the Constitution directly prohibits
may not be done by indirection or by a general

Osmena v. Pendatun (1960)

The House is the judge of what constitutes
disorderly behavior, because not only has the

Constitution has conferred jurisdiction upon it,

but also because the matter depends mainly on
factual circumstances of which the House
knows best but which cannot be depicted in
black and white for presentation to and
adjudication by the Courts.

Paredes v. Sandiganbayan (1986)

An invocation of Art. 6, Sec. 16(3) [punishing
of members for disorderly behavior /
suspension or expulsion] is unavailing, as it
appears to be distinct from the suspension
spoken of in Sec. 13 of RA 3019, which is not
a penalty but a preliminary, preventive
measure.

respective members.
Composition [9 members]:
- 3 SC Justices designated by CJ [Senior Justice
is the Chairman of the Tribunal]
- 6 HoR members / senators, chosen on the
basis of proportional representation from the
political parties and the parties or
organizations registered under the party-list
system represented therein
Electoral tribunals

Angara v. Electoral Commission (1936)

The Electoral Commission, being the sole
judge of all contests relating to the election,
returns, and qualifications of the members of
the National Assembly, also has the power to
prescribe rules as to the time and manner of
filing protests.

Vera v. Avelino (1946)

If not all the powers regarding the election,
returns and qualifications of members was
withdrawn by the Constitution from the
Congress, and if the power to defer the oathtaking does not belong to the Electoral
Tribunal, the House or Senate still retains such
authority, for it has not been transferred to, nor
assumed by, the Electoral Tribunal.

Sanchez v. COMELEC (1987)

The policy of the election law is that preproclamation
controversies
should
be
summarily decided, consistent with the law's
desire that the canvass and proclamation be
delayed as little as possible.

Abbas et al., v. Senate Electoral Tribunal

(1988)
The overriding consideration is that the
Tribunal be not prevented from discharging a
duty, which it alone has the power to perform,
the performance of which is in the highest
public interest as evidenced by its being
expressly imposed by the Constitution.

Lazatin v. House of Representatives Electoral

Tribunal (1988)
When there has been a proclamation and a
defeated candidate claims to be the winner, the
Electoral Tribunal has jurisdiction to the
exclusion of the COMELEC.

Section 16. (4) Journal per house; may be published

[parts which may affect national security may be
excepted]; yeas and nays on any question shall be
entered in the Journal [if requested by 1/5 of members
present.
+ Record of proceedings per house
Journals

US v. Pons (1916)
The Journal is conclusive upon the courts.

Casco Philippine Chemical Co. v. Gimenez

(1963)
The respect due to co-equal department
requires the courts to accept the certification of
the presiding officer as conclusive assurance
that the bill so certified is authentic.
If there has been any mistake in the
printing of the bill before it was certified by
the officers of Congress and approved by the
Executive, the remedy is by amendment or
curative legislation, not by judicial decree.

Astorga v. Villegas (1974)

The enrolled bill theory is based on the respect
due to a co-equal department. When such coequal department itself repudiates the enrolled
bill, then the journal must be accepted as
conclusive.

Section 16. (5) No adjourning for more than 3 days

without consent of other house; nor to any other place
than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting
Section 17. Electoral Tribunal [per house]
- sole judge of all contests relating to the
election, returns, and qualifications of the

Robles v. House of Representatives Electoral

Tribunal (1990)
The right to hold an elective office is rooted on
electoral mandate, not perceived entitlement to
the office. This is the reason why an electoral
tribunal has been set up in order that any doubt
as to right / mandate to a public office may be
resolved vis-a-vis the public will.

Bondoc v. Pineda (1991)

Expulsion from a party (and from HRET) shall
be void if there is a clear showing of
impairment of the Tribunal's prerogative to be
the sole judge of election contests.

Lerias v. House of Representatives Electoral

Tribunal (1991)
In an election contest, the best and most
conclusive evidence are the ballots themselves.
But where the ballots cannot be produced or
are not available, the election returns would be
the best evidence. Election returns cannot be
disregarded and excluded with the resulting
disenfranchisement of the voters, but must be
accorded prima facie status as bona fide
reports of the result of the voting.

Arroyo v. House of Representatives Electoral

Tribunal, et al. (1995)
Decisions of the HRET shall be given weight
and not interfered upon, unless there is a clear
indication of a grave abuse of discretion.
Chavez v. COMELEC (2004)
No pre-proclamation controversies were
allowed for the election of President, VicePresident, Senators and Members of the HoR
except in the case of "manifest error in the
certificate of canvass or election returns."
Errors which cannot be verified except by the
opening of the ballot boxes are not "manifest
errors." The proper remedy is a recourse to the
Electoral Tribunal.

3.

30 session days from submission

Commission rules by a majority vote of all the
members

Pacete v. Secretary of Commission (1971)

Resolution of the Commission on any
appointment may be reconsidered on motion
by a member presented not more than one (1)
day after their approval. If a majority of the
members present concurs to grant a
reconsideration, the appointment shall be
reopened and submitted anew to the
Commission. Any motion to reconsider the
vote on any appointment may be laid on the
table, this shall be a final disposition of such a
motion.

Coseteng v. Mitra (1990)

The apportionment of the House membership
in the CoA was done on the basis of
proportional representation of the political
parties therein.

Civil Service Commission v. Dacoycoy (1999)

One is guilty of nepotism if an appointment is
extended or issued in favor of a relative within
the 3rd civil degree of consanguinity or
affinity of chief or person exercising
immediate supervision.

Daza v. Singson (1989)

Since the composition of the Commission on
Appointments is proportional to the size of the
political parties and organizations in Congress,
periodic reorganization may be necessary in
order to reflect changes in the proportion
within Congress.

Guingona v. Gonzales (1993)

The Constitution does not contemplate that the
CoA must necessarily include 12 senators and
12 HoR members. What it requires is that
there be at least a majority of the entire
membership.

Matibag v. Benipayo (2002)

The President may renew the ad interim
appointment of a by-passed appointee.

Sarmiento v. Mison (1987)

Misons appointment as Commissioner of the
Bureau of Customs without the confirmation
by the Commission on Appointments is
constitutional.

Section 18. Commission on Appointments

Composition:
1. Senate President [ex officio Chairman]
2. 12 Senators
3. 12 HoR members
Procedure:
1. Commission chairman votes only in case of a
tie
2. Commission acts on all appointments within

Only those belonging to the first

group of officers (heads of executive
departments, ambassadors, etc.) need to have
their appointment confirmed by the
Commission on Appointments.

Concepcion Bautista v. Salonga (1989)

The President shall not need the confirmation
of COA to appoint officers whose offices are
created by law.

Pimentel v. Ermita (2005)

The President shall not need CoA's could
always appoint an Acting Secretary whose
term is limited to 1 year under the
Administrative Code.

Section 19. Formation of commissions [Electoral

Tribunal, CoA]
1. Within 30 days after election of the President
and Speaker of the house
2. CoA meets only while the Congress is in
session, at the call of its Chairman or a
majority of all its Members, to discharge
powers and functions conferred upon it
Section 20. Records and books of accounts shall be
preserved; open to the public; audited by the
Commission on Audit which publishes an itemized list
of amounts paid to and expenses incurred for each
member yearly
Section 21. Legislative investigations in accordance
with rules of procedure
Rights of persons appearing in, or affected by, such
inquiries shall be respected
Legislative investigations

Arnault v. Nazareno (1950)

The power of inquiry is an essential and
appropriate auxiliary to the legislative
function. Experience has shown that mere
requests for information are often unavailing,
and also that information which is volunteered
is not always accurate or complete; so some
means of compulsion is essential to obtain
what is needed.
Negros Oriental II Electric Company v.
Sangguniang Panlungsod (1987)
The Legislature, by necessary implication,
possesses contempt power. While it may
delegate legislative power to local legislative

bodies, they are not granted the contempt

power.

Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee

(1991)
The inquiry on the subject of Enrile's privilege
speech is not "in aid of legislation" because it
is not related to a purpose within the
jurisdiction of Congress, since the aim of the
investigation is a matter that appears more
within the province of the courts rather than
that of the legislature. If the inquiry would be
pursued, it would be violative of the principle
of separation of powers between the legislature
and the judiciary.

Drilon et al., v. Ermita et al. (2006)

The power of inquiry is co-extensive with the
power to legislate. The matters which may be
a proper subject of legislation and those which
may be a proper subject of investigation are
one. Thus, the operation of government, being
a legitimate subject for legislation, is a proper
subject for investigation.

In Re Sabio, Miguel v. Gordon (2006)

The conferral of the legislative power of
inquiry upon any committee of Congress shall
carry with it all powers necessary and proper
for its effective discharge.

Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability

of Public Officers and Investigations (2008)
For the claim to be properly invoked, there
must be a formal claim of privilege, lodged by
the head of the department which has control
over the matter. A formal and proper claim of
executive privilege requires a "precise and
certain reason"
for preserving their
confidentiality.

Section 22. Executive privilege

- Heads of departments may appear before and
be heard by such House on any matter
pertaining to their departments
- Written questions shall be submitted to the
President of the Senate or the Speaker of the
House of Representatives at least 3 days
before their appearance
- Interpellations not be limited to written
questions; may cover related matters
- Appearance shall be conducted in executive
session when the security of the State or the
public interest so requires and the President so
states in writing

Section 23. (1) Sole power to declare the existence of a

state of war [By 2/3 vote of both Houses in joint session
assembled, voting separately]

Riders

Garcia v. Mata (1975)

A provision on the reversion of reserved
officers into active duty which was inserted in
the Appropriation Act of 1956-1957 was found
to be unrelated to any provision in the
appropriation act and therefor unconstitutional.

Atitiw v. Zamora (2005)

When a provision is particular, unambiguous
and appropriate to the appropriations bill, it is
not considered as a rider.

(2) Emergency powers

Congress may authorize the President to exercise
powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared
national policy [such powers shall cease upon the next
adjournment unless sooner withdrawn by Congress
resolution]
Section 24. Bills that shall originate exclusively from
the HoR
1. Appropriation bills
2. Revenue bills
3. Tariff bills
4. Bills authorizing increase of the public debt
5. Bills of local application
6. Private bills

Transfer of funds
1.

Section 25. (1) Congress may not increase the

appropriations recommended by the President for the
operation of the Government as specified in the budget
(2) No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the
general appropriations bill unless it relates specifically
to some particular appropriation therein

Appropriations

(3) Procedure in approving appropriations shall follow

procedure for approving appropriations for other
departments and agencies
(4) A special appropriations bill shall specify the
purpose, shall be supported by funds available as
certified by the National Treasurer, or to be raised by a
corresponding revenue proposal
(5) No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of
appropriations
These officials may be authorized to augment any item
in the general appropriations law for their respective
offices from savings in other items of their respective
appropriations:
1. President
2. Senate President
3. Speaker of the House
4. SC Chief Justice
5. Heads of Constitutional Commissions
(6) Discretionary funds appropriated for particular
officials shall be disbursed only for public purposes

Demetria v. Alba (1987)

PD 1177, which empowered the President to
transfer funds without regard as to whether or
not the funds to be transferred are actually
savings in the item from which the same are to
be taken, was declared unconstitutional.

Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works (1960)

The Court invalidated the appropriation in this
case since it sought a private purpose. The fact
that after the approval of the appropriation the
property was donated to the government was
found irrelevant to the validity of the
appropriation. The validity of a statute
depends upon the powers of Congress at the
time of its passage or approval, not upon
events or acts performed subsequently thereto.

Section 26. (1) Every bill shall embrace only one

subject expressed in its title
(2) Procedure:
1. Bill passes three readings on separate days
2. Printed copies in its final form are distributed
to its Members 3 days before passage [except
if there is a necessity of its immediate
enactment to meet a public calamity or
emergency]
3. On the last reading, no amendment is allowed
4. Vote shall be taken; yeas and nays entered in
the Journal
Subject and title of bills

(7) General appropriations law for the preceding fiscal

year shall be deemed re-enacted if Congress shall have
failed to pass the general appropriations bill for the
ensuing fiscal year until appropriations bill is passed

Lidasan v. COMELEC (1967)

The Constitution does not require Congress to
employ in the title of an enactment language of
8

such precision as to fully index all the contents

therein. It suffices if the title should serve the
purpose of the constitutional demand that it
inform the legislatures, the persons interested
in the subject of the bill and the public, of the
nature, scope and consequences of the
proposed law and its operation, so as to lead
them to inquire into the body of the bill, take
appropriate action, and prevent surprise or
fraud among legislators.
The title "An Act Creating the
Municipality of Dianaton in the Province of
Lanao del Norte" was not found sufficient to
cover a provision which created the
municipality of Dianaton out of barrios which
were outside the province of Lanao del Norte.

Tio v. Videogram Regulatory Board (1987)

The title "An Act Creating the Videogram
Regulatory Board" was sufficiently broad to
cover a regulatory tax provision included in
the act.

Philippine Judges Association v. Prado

(1993)
The title "An Act Creating the Philippine
Postal Corporation, Defining Its Powers,
Functions and Responsibilities, Providing for
the Regulation of the Industry and for Other
Purposes Connected Therewith" was found to
be sufficiently broad to cover the removal of
the franking privileges of the judiciary.

Chiongbian v. Orbos (1995)

The title is not required to be an index of the
content of the bill. It is sufficient compliance
with the constitutional requirement if the title
expresses the general subject and all
provisions are germane to that subject.
Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance (1995)
By stating that R.A. No. 7716 seeks to
restructure the VAT system, Congress thereby
expresses its intention to amend any provision
of the NIRC that stands in the way of
accomplishing the purpose of the law.
It is already stated in the title that the
law seeks to amend the pertinent provisions of
the NIRC.
It is the bill which becomes a law that
is required to express in its title the subject of
legislation.

Three readings, final printing, distribution

Executive Ordinance No. 200 (1987)

For laws to be effective, they must be
published either in the Official Gazette or in a
newspaper of general circulation.

Section 27. (1) Procedure:

1. Every bill passed by Congress shall be
presented to the President before it becomes
law
a. If he approves, he shall sign it
b. Otherwise, he shall veto it, return the
same with his objections to the House
for
where
it
originated
reconsideration
i. If, after reconsideration, 2/3
of all the Members of such
House shall agree to pass the
bill, it shall be sent to the
other
House
for
reconsideration
ii. If approved by 2/3 of all the
Members of that House, it
shall become a law
c. The President shall communicate his
veto of any bill to the House where it
originated within 30 of receipt;
otherwise, it shall become a law as if
he had signed it
(2) President has power to veto any particular item or
items in an appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill; veto
does not affect other items to which he does not object
Passage of bills

Miller v. Mardo (1961)

The legislative action required of Congress is a
positive act; there is no enactment of law by
legislative inaction.

Tanada v. Tuvera (1985)

Laws become effective only after adequate
publication. The phrase "unless otherwise
provided" in NCC 2 refers to the date of
effectivity and not to the requirement of
publication itself, which cannot in any event
be omitted.

Item veto

Gonzales v. Macaraig, Jr. (1990)

The doctrine of inappropriate provisions says
that a provision which is constitutionally
inappropriate for an appropriation bill may be
9

singled out for veto even if it is not an

appropriation or revenue ""item."
An 'item' of an appropriation bill
means an item which in itself is a specific
appropriation of money, not some general
provision of law, which happens to be put into
an appropriation bill.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court

of Tax Appeals (1990)
An 'item' in a revenue bill does not refer to an
entire section imposing a particular kind of
tax, but rather to the subject of the tax and the
tax rate.

Bengzon et. al. v. Drilon (1992)

The Court declared the President's vetoing the
use of the fund for the adjustment of the
pension of justices as invalid. It was not the
veto of an item since what the President has
vetoed was the method of meeting unavoidable
obligations or the manner of using the 500M
pesos.

Philippine Constitution Association et al., v.

Enriquez (1994)
The President possesses the power to veto a
provision in an appropriation bill even if it is
not an item but is "inappropriate," that is, a
rider.
The Court invalidated the veto of a
restriction on the use of funds for road
maintenance and a restriction on the use of
funds for the purchase of medicines since the
veto did not include a veto of the appropriated
funds themselves.

charitable, or educational purposes

(4) No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed
without the concurrence of a majority of all Congress
members
Taxation

Garcia v. Executive Secretary (1962)

The rule that revenue bills must originate from
the HoR does not prevent Congress from
exercising this delegating authority, nor does it
invalidate the delegated authority even if it
involves authority to create revenue measures.

PLDT v. Public Service Commission (1968)

Sec. 40 of the Public Service Act is not a tax
measure since merely authorizes the collection
of fees as reimbursement of expenses in the
authorization, supervision, and/or regulation of
public services.

Central Mindanao University v. DAR (1992

Land in question is exempt from coverage
under Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
because lands are actually, directly and
exclusively used and found to be necessary for
school site and campus.

Tan v. Del Rosario (1994)

Where a tax measure becomes so
unconscionable and unjust as to amount to
confiscation of property, courts will not
hesitate to strike it down, for the power to tax
cannot override constitutional prescriptions.
Uniformity of taxation means that the
standards used are substantial and not
arbitrary, the categorization is germane to
achieve the legislative purpose, the law applies
to both present and future conditions, and the
classification applies to all those belonging to
the same class.

John Hay Peoples Alternative Coalition et al

v. Lim et al. (2003)
It is the legislature that has full power to
exempt any person or corporation or class of
property from taxation, its power to exempt
being as broad as its power to tax. Other than
Congress, the Constitution may itself provide
for specific tax exemptions, or local
governments may pass ordinances on
exemption only from local taxes.
Tax exemption cannot be implied as
it must be categorically and unmistakably
expressed.

Section 28. (1) Rule of taxation

uniform
equitable
Progressive system of taxation.
(2) Congress may authorize the President to fix within
specified limits
1. Tariff rates
2. Iimport and export quotas
3. Tonnage and wharfage dues, etc.
(3) Exempt from taxation
1. Charitable institutions
2. Churches and personages or convents,
mosques
3. Non-profit cemeteries
4. Lands, buildings, and improvements, actually,
directly, and exclusively used for religious,

10

Abakada v. Ermita (2005)

Congress did not delegate the power to tax but
the mere implementation of the law. The
intent and will to increase the VAT rate to
12% came from Congress and the task of the
President is to simply execute the legislative
policy.

Section 29. (1) Expenditure of public funds:

No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in
pursuance of an appropriation law
(2) Public purpose:
No public money or property shall be appropriated for
the use, benefit, or support of:
Any sect, church, denomination, sectarian
institution, or system of religion, or of any
priest, preacher, minister, other religious
teacher, or dignitary
a. Except when such person is assigned
to the armed forces, or to any penal
institution, or government orphanage
or leprosarium

to enable the delegate to act with expediency

in carrying out the objectives of the law which
are embraced by the police power of the State.
Section 30. SCs appellate jurisdiction
No law shall be passed increasing SCs appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court without its advice and
concurrence
SCs appellate jurisdiction

Association
of
Philippine
Coconut
Desiccators v. Philippine Coconut Authority
(1998)
Only judicial review of decisions of
administrative agencies made in the exercise
of their quasi-judicial function shall be subject
to the exhaustion doctrine.
It shall be beyond the power of an
administrative agency to dismantle a
regulatory system set up by law.

Smart Communications Inc. et. al. v.

National Telecommunications Commission
(2003)
When the question is on the validity and
constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued
by an administrative agency, a party need not
exhaust administrative remedies.
A party only needs to exhaust said
remedies when the act questioned is pursuant
to the quasi-judicial function of the agency.

(3) Special fund:

Money collected on any tax levied for a special purpose
shall be treated as a special fund, paid out for such
purpose only. If the purpose has been fulfilled or
abandoned, the balance, shall be transferred to the
Government general funds
Expenditure of public funds

Guingona v. Carague (1991)

Although the subject PDs do not state specific
amounts to be paid, the amounts are made
certain by the legislative parameters provided
in the decrees. The Executive is not of
unlimited discretion as to the amounts to be
disbursed for debt servicing.

Section 32. Congress shall provide for a system of

initiative and referendum (and the exceptions)
Others initiation of impeachment cases

Romulo v. Yniguez (1986)

The dismissal by the majority of the members
of the Batasan of the impeachment
proceedings shall not be the subject to review
by the Court.

In Re Gonzalez (1988)
A public officer who is constitutionally
required to be a member of the Bar and who
may be removed only by impeachment shall
not be charged with disbarment during his/her
incumbency.

Brillantes et al., v. COMELEC (2004)

Without the proper appropriation made by law,
no money shall be paid out of the treasury for
any undertaking of any instrumentality of the
government.

Special fund

Section 31. No law granting a title of royalty or nobility

shall be enacted

Osmena v. Orbos (1993)

Although the provision authorizing the ERB to
impose additional amounts could be construed
to refer to the power of taxation, it cannot be
overlooked that the overriding consideration is

11