Chapter 8: The Legislative Department
- Section 2: “The Senate shall be composed of 24 Senators
- The New Constitution has revived the Congress of the
Philippines, which was replaced during the Marcos regime with
the Batasang Pambansa.
- The new Congress represents a return to bicameralism after
our recent experiment with unicameralism, which was
established by the 1973 Constitution and, in fact, also initially
provided for in the 1935 Constitution before it was amended in
1940.
- The Malolos Congress and Taft Commission are unicameral.
- The Philippine Bill of 1902, provided for a legislature consisting
of Philippine Assembly and the Philippine Commission, which
under the Jones Law were replaced by the House of
Representatives and the Senate, respectively.
- The Philippine Legislature, as it was called, was the patter of
the Congress of the Philippines.
- The Congress of the Philippines also consists of a Senate and
a House of Representatives.
- Section I of Article IV: The legislative power is now not
exclusively vested in the Congress.
- The congress discharges powers of a non-legislative nature,
among them:
- the canvass of the presidential election
- the declaration of the existence of a state of war
- the confirmation of amnesties
- through the commission of appointments, presidential
appointments
- the amendment or revision of the constitution
- impeachment
The Senate
(1) Composition
who shall be elected at large by the qualified voters of the
Philippines, as may be provided by law.”
- this rule intends to make the Senate a training ground for
national leaders and possibly a springboard to the Presidency.
- senator will have a broader outlook of the problems of the
country.
(2) Qualifications
- Section 3
- Espinosa vs Aquino: upheld the late Senator Ninoy Aquino,
who was less than the required age on the day of the election
but celebrated his 35th before his proclamation as one of the
winners.
- Literacy requirement: specifically prescribed
- Residence: place where one habitually resides and to which,
when he is absent, he has the intention of returning.
- cannot have 2 residences
- Domicile: fixed permanent residence to which, whenever
absent for business, pleasure, or some other reasons, one
intends to return.
1. that a man must have a residence or domicile
somewhere
2. when once established it remains until a new one is
acquired
3. a man can have but one residence or domicile at a time
- one must demonstrate an actual removal or an actual change
of domicile.
- Perez vs Comelec: a person’s registration as voter in one
district is not proof that he is not domiciled in another district.
- Limbona vs Comelec: a candidate is presumed to have
changed he domicile upon her marriage, or by operation of
 law, consistent with the provisions of Art. 68 and 69 of the
Family Code to the effect that spouses shall have a single
family domicile, unless one of them maintains a separate
residence.
- Party-list representative member of the HOR: any part of the
Phil.
- District representative member of the HOR: must reside in the
district.
- Mitra vs COMELEC: residency rule - to prevent strangers or
newcomers unacquainted with the conditions and needs of a
community from seeking elective offices in that community.
- Senators and members of the HOR must be natural-born
citizens not only at the time of their election but during their
entire tenure.
- Maquiling vs COMELEC: dual citizenship not allowed to run.
- Social Justice Society vs Dangerous Drugs Board: mandatory
drug test, unconstitutional
- Legislative power remains limited in the sense that it is subject
to substantive and constitutional limitations which circumscribe
both the exercise of the power itself and the allowable subjects
of legislation.
(3) Term
- Articles VI and XVIII
- Beginning 1995, twelve senators were elected every 3 yrs, to
serve the full terms of 6 yrs, so that unlike the HOR, the
senate shall not at any time be completely dissolved.
- One half of the membership is retained as the other half is
replaced or reelected every 3 yrs.
- “Continuing” institution: as it is not dissolved as an entity with
each national election or change in the composition of its
members.
- Pending matters and proceedings are considered terminated
upon the expiration of that Congress and it is merely optional
on the Senate of the succeeding Congress to take up such
unfinished matters.
- “Not a continuing body”: passage of bills
- League of Cities of the Philippines vs COMELEC: unapproved
city hood bills filed during the 11th Congress became mere
scraps of paper upon the adjournment of the 11th Congress.
- Arnault vs Nazareno: power subsits as long as the senate,
which is a continuing body, persists in performing the
particular legislative function involved.
- Garcillano vs HOR: the present Senate under the 1987
Constitution is no longer a continuing legislative body. The
present senate has 24 members, 12 of whom are elected
every three years for a term of six years each.
- Art VI, Sec 4: No senator shall serve for more than 2
consecutive terms.
The House of Representatives
(1) Composition
- District Representative: elected directly and personally, from
the territorial unit he is seeking to represent.
- Party-list Representative: chosen indirectly, through the party
he represents, which is the one voted for by the electorate.
- Party-list system is an innovation of the 1987 Constitution.
- Section 5
a. The District Representatives
- 200 members to be directly elected from the various legislative
districts.
- The territory was divided into 13 regions with 200 districts
apportioned among the provinces, cities and Metro Manila.
- Initial apportionment shall adjust within 3 years.
- each city with a population of at least 250 thousand shall have
1 representative.
- Gerrymandering: “an apportionment of representative districts
so contrived as to give an unfair advantage to the party in
power.”
- Aldaba vs COMELEC: the SC nullified a law which created a
legislative for Malolos City. It contravenes the requirement that
each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable,
contiguous, compact, and adjacent territory.”
- Navarro vs Ermita: upheld the constitutionality of an exception.
Ruled that a proposed province composed of one or more
islands need not comply with the 2000 square meter
contiguous territory requirement under the Local Government
Code.
- Marcias vs COMELEC: validity of a legislative appointment
measure is a justiciable question. The SC annulled the law
when it was shown that the apportionment was not based on
the population.
- Herrera vs COMELEC: the basis for “districting is the number
of inhabitants” of a province or a city, and not the number of its
registered voters.
- Mariano vs COMELEC: it is not necessary for either a city or a
province to have an additional population of 250,000 to
establish an additional legislative district.
- Tobias vs Abalos: Mandaluyong, highly urbanised city
automatically resulted its establishment as a legislative district.
- Muslim Mindanao Autonomy Act: unconstitutional, because the
power to create them inherently involves the power to create
legislative districts, which ONLY Congress possesses.
b. The Party-list Representatives
- shall constitute 20% of the total membership of the body.
- RA 7941: rules of selection
- Among Paglaum vs COMELEC: SC set the parameters for
participation in party-list elections, Section 5(1). The party-list
system provides 3 groups:
1. National parties or organisation
2. Regional parties or organisations
3. Sectoral parties or organisations
1&2: do not need to organise along sectoral lines and do
not need to represent any marginalised and underrepresented
sector.
3: independent and linked to political parties. may either
be marginalised and underrepresented or lacking in well-defined
political constituencies.
- party-list system: democratise political power by giving political
parties that cannot win in legislative district elections a chance
to win seats in the HOR.
- Disqualified:
1. religious sects
2. advocate violence or unlawful means
3. foreign parties
4. parties which receive support from any foreign
government of foreign political party
5. those which violate or fail to comply with election laws
6. those which declare untruthful statements in their
petitions
7. those which have ceased to exist for atlas 1 yr
8. those who failed to participate in the laws 2 preceding
elections.
- Sectors:
1. labor*
2. peasant*
3. fisher-folk*
4. urban poor*
5. indigenous cultural communities*
 6. elderly**
7. handicapped*
8. women**
9. youth**
10. veterans*
11. OFW*
12. professionals**
*marginalized and underrepresented
**well-defined political constituencies
- Alauya vs Limbona: SC declared ineligible a judge candidate
without first resigning.
- Seneres vs COMELEC: any person may submit a nomination
list.
- no change of names or alteration of the order of nominees
shall be allowed after submitting. Except when nominees dies
or withdraws or incapacitated.
- incumbent sectoral representatives in the HOR who are
nominated shall not be considered resigned.
- Lokin v COMELEC: SC annulled an additional ground allowed
by the COMELEC for the substitution by a registered party
- Voter entitled with 2 votes: 1 member, 1 party-list
- BANAT vs COMELEC: for every four district rep., there shall
be one party-lis rep.
- Abayon vs HRET: 2 kinds of Congressmen. Those elected
from legislative districts and those elected through the party-
list system.
(2) Qualifications
- Section 6
- The party-list representative must be a bona fide member of
the party he seeks to represent at least ninety days before
election day.
- To be a bonafide: “belong to the sector represented, or have
a track record of advocacy for such sector.”
- The youth representative must not be more than 30.
- The age qualification is lower.
- Residence must be from the district he represents at least 1
year before election. (district representatives)
- Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003: “deemed
not to have lost their Philippine Citizenship under the
conditions of this Act.”
- Those who retain pr re-acquire Philippine Citizenship under
this Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be subject
to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities.
- Members of the HOR must be natural born citizens not only at
the time of their election but during their entire tenure.
- Suffrage:
1. 18 years of the
2. Residence for at least 1 year
3. Residence in the place wherein they propose to vote for
at least 6 mos. before election.
- Disqualifications:
1. any person who has been sentenced by final judgment
to suffer imprisonment for not less than one year.
2. Disability not having been removed by plenary pardon
or amnesty.
- Disqualified persons shall automatically reacquire the right to
vote after 5 yrs.
(3) Term
- Three years, shall begin at noon June 30.
- May not be re-elected any number of times.
Election
- Every three years, all the members of the HOR and one-half of
the senate were up for election, or re-election if still allowed.
- Special election, vacancy in the party list representatives shall
be filled by the next nominee.
Salaries
- Shall be determined by law. No increase until the term has
expired.
- Records and books of accounts shall be open to the public
and audited by Comm. on Audit.
Parliamentary Immunities
- In all offenses punishable by not more than 6 years
imprisonment.
- Two kinds of immunities:
1. Immunity from arrest: intended to ensure representation of
the constituents of the member of the Congress by
preventing attempts to keep him from attending sessions.
2. Privilege of speech and debate: enables the legislator to
express views bearing upon the public interest without fear of
accountability outside the halls of the legislature for his
inability to support his statements with the usual evidence
required in the COJ.
(1) Privilege from Arrest
- Expected all criminal offences regardless of degree.
- Immunity may not be invoked if the crib is murder but is
available in slight physical injuries.
- Applies only while the Congress is in session.
- Session: entire period from its initial convening until its final
adjournment.
(2) Privilege of speech and Debate
- Requirements:
1. Remarks must be made while the legislature or the legislative
committee is functioning, that is, in session.
2. They must be made in connection with the discharge of
official duties.
- Jimenez vs Cabangbang: He had a letter when the Congress
was i recess and in his private capacity only.
- This privilege is not absolute.
- legislator may be called to account for his remarks by his own
colleagues in the Congress itself.
- Osmena vs Pendatun: President who had been vilified by the
petitioner could not file any civil or criminal action against him
because of this immunity.
Conflict of Interest
- Upon assumption of office, make a full disclosure of their
financial and business interests.
- They will be prevented from using their official positions for
ulterior purposes.
Incompatible and Forbidden Offices
- No senator of member of the HOR can hold any other office
without forfeiting his seat.
- Incompatible offices: to prevent him from owing loyalty to
another branch of government, to the detriment of the
independence of the legislature and the doctrine of separation
of powers.
- Not absolute, what is not allowed is the simultaneous holding
of that office and the seat in the Congress.
- No resolution was necessary to declare his legislative post
vacant.
- Term: the time during which the officer may claim to hold the
office as of right and fixes the internal after which the
incumbents shall succeed one another.
- Tenure: the period during which the incumbent actually hold
the office.
- Adaza vs Pacana: the court unanimously rejected this
argument and held that Adaza automatically forfeited the
governorship the moment he took his oath as a member of the
BP.
- If the second office is an extension of the legislative position or
is in aid of the legislative duties, the holding will not cease.
(electoral tribunal)
- Legislators who serve as treaty negotiators under the
President continue to sit in the Congress.
- Forbidden office: Even if the member is willing to forfeit his
seat, he may not be appointed to any office that has been
created or the emoluments thereof have been increased
during his term.
- to prevent trafficking.
- This provision does not apply to elective offices which are
filled by the voters themselves.
- The appointment of the member of the Congress to the
forbidden office is not allowed only during the term for which
he was elected, when such office was created or its
emoluments were increased.
- After the term, if re-elected, the disqualification no longer
applies and he may therefore be appointed to the office.
Inhibitions and Disqualifications
- No member of senator shall appear as counsel. He shall not
intervene in any matter before any office of the Gov.
- General Court Martial: a court within the strictest sense of the
word acts as a criminal court.
- A court martial case is a criminal case and the General court
martial is a court akin to any other courts.
- The purpose of disqualification: prevent the legislator from
exerting undue influence, deliberately or not, upon the body
where he is appearing.
- Legislators are prohibited from being financially interested in
any contract with the government because of the influence
they can easily exercise in obtaining these concession.
- To prevent abuses from being committed by the members of
the Congress to the prejudice of the public welfare and
particularly of legitimate contractors with the government who
otherwise might be placed at a disadvantageous position.
Session
- The Congress shall convene once a year on the 4th Monday
of July. The Pres. may call a special session at any time.
Officers
- The Senate Pres. and the Speaker of the HOR do not have
fixed term and may be replaced at any time by majority.
Quorum
- Defined as any number sufficient to transact business which
may be less than majority.
- But in our Constitution, majority is required.
Discipline of Members
- The courts may annul any expulsion or suspension of a
member that is not concurred in by atlas 2/3 of the entire body
or any suspension meted out by the legislature, even with the
required two-thirds vote, as to any period in excess of the 60
days maximum duration.
Journals
- Journals are a record of what is done and past in a legislative
assembly.
- Must be published except parts as may affect national
security.
- Enrolled bill: “which has been duly introduced, finally passed
by both houses signed by the proper officers of each,
approved by the governor or president and filed by the
secretary of state.”
- Astorga vs Villegas: There was actually no enrolled bill to
speak of in view of the withdrawal of the signatures of the
Pres. and Senate Pres.
- Journal is only a resume or the minutes of what transpired
during a legislative session.
Adjournment
- It is necessary that there babe prior agreement before either of
them decides to adjourn for more than three days.
- One house should not adjourn to a place other thann where
both chambers are sitting, without the consent of the other.
- Place: refers not to the building but to the political unit where
the two houses may be sitting.
- The Chairman of the Commission shall not vote except in
cases of a tie.
- The Commission shall act on appointments on 30 days.
- The Commission shall rule by majority of all members.
- to limit the President’s appointing power.
Organization
- The ET and CA shall be constituted within 30 days after the
Senate and the HOR shall have been organised with the
election of the Pres and Speaker.
- Only in session.
- This provision is based on the need to enable the Pres. to
exercise his appointing power with dispatch in coordination
with the CA.
- Ad interim: appointments during recess.

The Electoral Tribunals

- Seats are apportioned among all the parties represented in
each chamber, including the party-list members.
- To be considered a Member of HOR:
1. a valid proclamation
2. proper oath
3. assumption of office

The Commission on Appointments

- Consisting of the Senate President, ex officio Chairman, 12
Senators, 12 HOR.
Jimenez vs Cabangbang
17 SCRA 876 – Political Law – Freedom of Speech and Debate  Congress, while the same is in session as well as bills
Bartolome Cabangbang was   a member of the House of
Representatives and Chairman of its Committee on National
Defense. In November  1958, Cabangbang caused the
publication of an open letter addressed to the Philippines. Said
letter alleged that there have been allegedly three operational
plans under serious study by some ambitious AFP officers, with
the aid of some civilian political strategists. That such strategists
have had collusions with communists and that the Secretary of
Defense, Jesus Vargas, was planning a coup d’état to place him
as the president. The “planners” allegedly have Nicanor Jimenez,
among others, under their guise and that Jimenez et al may or
may not be aware that they are being used as a tool to meet
such an end. The letter was said to have been published in
newspapers of general circulation. Jimenez then filed a case
against Cabangbang to collect a sum of damages against
Cabangbang alleging that Cabangbang’s statement is libelous.
Cabangbang petitioned for the case to be dismissed because he
said that as a member of the  lower house,  he is immune from
suit and that he is covered by the privileged communication rule
and that the said letter is not even libelous.
ISSUE: Whether or not the open letter is covered by privilege
communication endowed to members of Congress.
HELD: No.  Article VI, Section 15 of the Constitution provides
“The Senators and Members of the House of Representatives
shall in all cases except treason, felony, and breach of the
peace. Be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the
sessions of the Congress, and in going to and returning from the
same; and for any speech or debate therein, they shall not be
questioned in any other place.”
The publication of the said letter is not covered by said
expression which refers to utterances made by Congressmen in
the performance of their official functions, such as speeches
delivered, statements made, or votes cast in the halls of
introduced in Congress, whether the same is in session or not,
and other acts performed by Congressmen, either in Congress
or outside the premises housing its offices, in the official
discharge of their duties as members of Congress and of
Congressional Committees duly authorized to perform its
functions as such at the time of the performance of the acts in
question. Congress was not in session when the letter was
published and at the same time he, himself, caused the
publication of the said letter. It is obvious that, in thus causing the
communication to be so published, he was not performing his
official duty, either as a member of Congress or as officer of any
Committee thereof. Hence, contrary to the finding made by the
lower court the said communication is not absolutely privileged.
Adaza v. Pacana
135 SCRA 431
FACTS:
Adaza is the governor of Misamis Oriental and Pacana is the
vice-governor. Their respective term of office expires on March 3,
1986. Both parties ran in the Batasang Pambansa (BP) elections
in 1984 and respondent lost to petitioner. On July 23, 1984,
Pacana took his oath of office as the governor. Petitioner has
brought this petition to exclude respondent therefrom, claiming to
be the lawful occupant of the position.
ISSUE:
1) Whether or not a provincial governor who was elected as
Mababatas Pambansa (MP) can exercise the functions of both
simultaneously; and 2) whether or not a vice-governor who ran
for the position of MP but lost, can continue serving as vice
governor and subsequently succeed to the office of governor if
said office is vacated.
HELD:
Section 10, Article VIII of the Constitution is clear and
unambiguous. A member of the BP may not hold any other office
in the government. A public office is a public trust. A holder
thereof is subject to regulations and conditions as the law may
impose and he cannot complain of any restrictions on his holding
of more than one office. The contention that Pacana, as a mere
private citizen, runs afoul of BP Blg. 697 which provides that
governors, or members of sangguniang or barangay officials,
upon filing a certificate of candidacy be considered on forced
leave of absence from office. When respondent reassumed the
position of vice-governor after the BP elections, he was acting
within the law. Thus, the instant petition is denied.  Alejandrino vs Quezon
Osmena vs Pendatun
109 Phil. 863 – Political Law – The Legislative Department –
Parliamentary Immunity
In June 1960, Congressman Sergio Osmeña, Jr. delivered a speech
entitled “A Message to Garcia”. In the said speech, he disparaged
then President Carlos Garcia and his administration. Subsequently,
House Resolution No. 59 was passed by the lower house in order to
investigate the charges made by Osmeña during his speech and
that if his allegations were found to be baseless and malicious, he
may be subjected to disciplinary actions by the lower house.
Osmeña then questioned the validity of the said resolution before
the Supreme Court. Osmeña avers that the resolution violates his
parliamentary immunity for speeches delivered in
Congress. Congressman Salipada Pendatun filed an answer where
he averred that the Supreme Court has not jurisdiction over the
matter and Congress has the power to discipline its members.
ISSUE: Whether or not Osmeña’s immunity has been violated?
HELD: No. Section 15, Article VI of the 1935 Constitution enshrines
parliamentary immunity upon members of the legislature which is
a fundamental privilege cherished in every parliament in a
democratic world. It guarantees the legislator complete freedom of
expression without fear of being made responsible in criminal or
civil actions before the courts or any other forum outside the Hall
of Congress. However, it does not protect him from responsibility
before the legislative body whenever his words and conduct are
considered disorderly or unbecoming of a member therein.
Therefore, Osmeña’s petition is dismissed.
case no. 45 Congress Power to discipline its members
Alejandrino v. Quezon, 46 Phil. 83 (1924)
F:The petitioner in this original petition for mandamus and
injunction is Jose Alejandrino, a Senator appointed by the
Governor General. to represent the 12th Senatorial District. The
casus belli is a resolution adopted by the Philippine Senate
composed of the respondent Senators, On February 5,1924,
depriving Alejandrino of all the prerogatives, privileges, and
emoluments of his office for the period of 1 yr from 1/24 having
been declared guilty of disorderly conduct and flagrant violation
of the privileges of the Senate for having treacherously
assaulted Sen. de Vera on the occasion of certain phrases being
uttered by the latter in the course of the debate regarding the
credentials of Mr. Alejandrino. The burden of petitioner's
complaint is that the resolution is unconstitutional and entirely
of no effect.
Issue: WON the Supreme Court by mandamus and injunction
may annul the suspension of Senator Alejandrino and compel
the Philippine Senate to reinstate him in his official position?
Held.
 The general rule is that the writ will not lie from one branch of  Manila) because the said law was considered to have never been
the gov't to a coordinate branch, for the very obvious reason
that neither is inferior to the other. Mandamus will not lie
against the legislative body, its members, or its officers, to
compel the performance of duties purely legislative in their
character w/c therefore pertains to their legislative functions
and over w/c they have exclusive control.The courts cannot
dictate action in this respect without a gross usurpation of 
power.
Precedents have held that where a member has been expelled
by the legislative body, the courts have no power, irrespective
of whether the expulsion was right or wrong, to issue a
mandate to compel his reinstatement
Astorga vs Villegas
56 SCRA 714 – Political Law – The Legislative Department –
 Journal;When to be Consulted  the Senate president and the President of the Philippines withdrew
In 1964, Antonio Villegas (then Mayor of Manila) issued circulars to
the department heads and chiefs of offices of the city government
as well as to the owners, operators and/or managers of business
establishments in Manila to disregard the provisions of Republic
Act No. 4065. He likewise issued an order to the Chief of Police to
recall five members of the city police force who had been assigned
to then Vice-Mayor Herminio Astorga (assigned under authority of
RA 4065).
Astorga reacted against the steps carried out by Villegas. He then
filed a petition for “Mandamus, Injunction and/or Prohibition with
Preliminary Mandatory and Prohibitory Injunction” to compel
Villegas et al and the members of the municipal board to comply
with the provisions of RA 4065 (filed with the SC). In his
defense, Villegas denied recognition of RA 4065 (An Act Defining
the Powers, Rights and Duties of the Vice-Mayor of the City of
enacted. When the this said “law” passed the 3rd reading in the
lower house as House Bill No. 9266, it was sent to the Senate
which referred it to the Committee on Provinces and Municipal
Governments and Cities headed by then Senator Roxas. Some minor
amendments were made before the bill was referred back to the
Senate floor for deliberations. During such deliberations, Sen.
Tolentino made significant amendments which were subsequently
approved by the Senate. The bill was then sent back to the lower
house and was thereafter approved by the latter. The bill was sent
to the President for approval and it became RA 4065. It was later
found out however that the copy signed by the Senate President,
sent to the lower house for approval and sent to the President for
signing was the wrong version. It was in fact the version that had
no amendments thereto. It was not the version as amended by
Tolentino and as validly approved by the Senate. Due to this fact,
and invalidated their signatures that they affixed on the said law.
Astorga maintains that the RA is still valid and binding and that the
withdrawal of the concerned signatures does not invalidate the
statute. Astorga further maintains that the attestation of the
presiding officers of Congress is conclusive proof of a bill’s due
enactment.
ISSUE: Whether or not RA 4065 was validly enacted.
HELD: No.  The journal of the proceedings of each House of
Congress is no ordinary record. The Constitution requires it. While it
is true that the journal is not authenticated and is subject to the
risks of misprinting and other errors, the journal can be looked
upon in this case. The SC is merely asked to inquire whether the
text of House Bill No. 9266 signed by the President was the same
text passed by both Houses of Congress. Under the specific facts
and circumstances of this case, the SC can do this and resort to the
Senate journal for the purpose. The journal discloses that
substantial and lengthy amendments were introduced on the floor
and approved by the Senate but were not incorporated in the
printed text sent to the President and signed by him. Note however
that the SC is not asked to incorporate such amendments into the
alleged law but only to declare that the bill was not duly enacted
and therefore did not become law. As done by both the President of
the Senate and the Chief Executive, when they withdrew their
signatures therein, the SC also declares that the bill intended to be
as it is supposed to be was never made into law.   To perpetuate
that error by disregarding such rectification and holding that the
erroneous bill has become law would be to sacrifice truth to fiction
and bring about mischievous consequences not intended by the
law-making body.
Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance
Facts:
The value-added tax (VAT) is levied on the sale, barter or
exchange of goods and properties as well as on the sale or
exchange of services. RA 7716 seeks to widen the tax base of
the existing VAT system and enhance its administration by
amending the National Internal Revenue Code. There are
various suits challenging the constitutionality of RA 7716 on
various grounds.
One contention is that RA 7716 did not originate exclusively in
the House of Representatives as required by Art. VI, Sec. 24 of
the Constitution, because it is in fact the result of the
consolidation of 2 distinct bills, H. No. 11197 and S. No. 1630.
There is also a contention that S. No. 1630 did not pass 3
readings as required by the Constitution.
Issue:
Whether or not RA 7716 violates Art. VI, Secs. 24 and 26(2)
ofthe Constitution
Held:
The argument that RA 7716 did not originate exclusively in the
House of Representatives as required by Art. VI, Sec. 24 of the
Constitution will not bear analysis. To begin with, it is not the law
but the revenue bill which is required by the Constitution to
originate exclusively in the House of Representatives. To insist
that a revenue statute and not only the bill which initiated the
legislative process culminating in the enactment of the law must
substantially be the same as the House bill would be to deny the
Senate’s power not only to concur with amendments but also to
propose amendments. Indeed, what the Constitution simply
means is that the initiative for filing revenue, tariff or tax bills, bills
authorizing an increase of the public debt, private bills and bills
of local application must come from the House of
Representatives on the theory that, elected as they are from the
districts, the members of the House can be expected to be more
sensitive to the local needs and problems. Nor does the
Constitutionprohibit the filing in the Senate of a substitute bill in
anticipation of its receipt of the bill from the House, so long as
action by the Senate as a body is withheld pending receipt of the
House bill.
The next argument of the petitioners was that S. No. 1630 did
not pass 3 readings on separate days as required by the
Constitution because the second and third readings were done
on the same day. But this was because the President had
certified S. No. 1630 as urgent. The presidential certification
dispensed with the requirement not only of printing but also that
of reading the bill on separate days. That upon the certification of
a billby the President the requirement of 3 readings on separate
days and of printing and distribution can be dispensed with is
than those with bigger population is invalid because it violates
the principle of proportional representation prescribed by the
Constitution. Inequality of apportionment law is “arbitrary and
capricious and against the vital principle of equality.” as held in
Houghton County v. Blacker.

supported by the weightof legislative practice.

Rulings:

Facts:
No. The Court concluded that the statute be declared invalid.
Petitioners are members of the House of Representatives from Republic Act 3040 clearly violates the said constitutional
Negros Oriental, Misamis Oriental and Bulacan and the provision in several ways namely:

provincial Governor of Negros Oriental. They are requesting that • It gave Cebu seven members, while Rizal with a bigger
the respondent officials be prevented to implement RA 3040, an number of inhabitants got four only.

act that apportions representative districts in the country. They • It gave Manila four members, while Cotabato with a
alleged that their respective provinces were discriminated bigger population got three only

because they were given less representation. Furthermore, they • Pangasinan with less inhabitants than both Manila and
allege that RA 3040 is unconstitutional and void because:
Cotabato got more than both, five members having been
1 It was passed without printed final copies which must be assigned to it.

furnished to the members of the HOR at least 3 calendar • Samar (with 871,857) was allotted four members while
days prior to passage.
Davao with 903,224 got three only.

2 It was approved more than 3 years after the return of the • Bulacan with 557,691 got two only, while Albay with less
last census of the population.
inhabitants (515,691) got three.

3 It apportioned districts without regard to the number of • Misamis Oriental with 387,839 was given one member
inhabitants of the several provinces.
only, while Cavite with less inhabitants (379,904) got two.
 
These were not the only instances of unequal
Issues:
apportionment.

Whether or not the apportionment of representative districts • Mountain Province has 3 whereas Isabela, Laguna and
under Republic Act 3040 is in accordance with the constitution.
Cagayan with more inhabitants have 2 each. And then,
 
Capiz, La Union and Ilocos Norte got 2 each, whereas
Discussions:
Sulu that has more inhabitants got 1 only. And Leyte with
The Constitution directs that the one hundred twenty Members 967,323 inhabitants got 4 only, whereas Iloilo with less
of the House of Representatives “shall be apportioned among inhabitants (966,145) was given 5.
the several provinces as nearly as may be according to the
member of their respective inhabitants.” A law giving provinces
with less number of inhabitants more representative districts