Ople vs. Torres, G.R. No.
127685 July 23, 1998 – delineation of President had both Executive and Parliamentary
Legislative and Executive powers (read also the opinions of JJ. Vitug,
Panganiban and Kapunan)
 AO as quasi-legislative power of the President – may
only be valid if it is “to implement a prior legislative act
made by Congress”
 [GR] a Legislative Act is required which would enshrine
the Policies which the A.O. may subsequently
implement
KMU v. Director General, NEDA, G.R. No. 167798, April 19, 2006
 Sec. 17, Art VII 1987 Constitution – the President has
control of all Executive Department Bureaus and Offices
*Any Presidential Legislation which holistically or
merely involves Executive Department Bureaus and
Offices, generally, does not need a prior legislative
act.
 Legislative Power is generally the power to determine
policies not covered by prior laws enacted by Congress.
 President’s Quasi-Legislative Power is generally
promulgation of law for implementing prior policies
determined and enacted by Congress
David v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006
 PP 1017 – State of National Emergency is deemed
unconstitutional
*President cannot validly enact such decrees
(except during Marcos’ Martial Law where the
Authority)
 Promulgation of Decrees is generally an absolute power
granted to the Legislative
 Requisites for Emergency Powers:
o There must be war or emergency;
o The delegation must be for a limited period;
o The delegation must be subject to such
restrictions as the Congress may prescribe (as
Congress is required to first promulgate a law
which determines such emergency that has/will
arise)
o The emergency power must be exercised to
carry out a national policy declared by the
Congress.
Veteran’s Federation v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 13678, October 26,
2010
 House of Representatives:
o Party-list Cap 20%
o 2% Threshold
o 3 seats limitation (additional 2% each seat)
o Additional seats determined by proportional
representation rule
 Overruled by Banat v Comelec
o No longer needs additional 2% for each
additional seats
Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
190529, April 29, 2010
  Rule for Purging of Partylist’s who:
o Fail to participate in the last two elections; OR
o Failure to obtain at least 2% votes in the last
two elections
 PGBI’s removal from the list is unconstitutional, as per
SC:
o The requisites abovementioned are to be
treated separately.
o PGBI’s non-involvement in subsequent election
due to lack of funds do not constitute a
secondary failure to obtain at least 2% votes, it
is to be treated as if they did not participate on
such election.
Montejo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 118702, March 16, 1995
rationale – to prevent/discourage gerrymandering
 Legislative Districts may be Reapportioned validly
through a Legislative Promulgation, and NOT through
COMELEC’s derivatives.
Vilando v. HRET, G.R. Nos. 192147 & 192149, August 23, 2011
 Quo warranto proceeding cannot and must not be used
to collateraly attack the issue of Citizenship of a
Candidate
David v. Senate Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 221538, September 20,
2016
 FOUNDLINGS:
o According to International Law:
 Given the Citizenship of the place where
they are found
o According to Philippines Law:
 Are Filipino Citizens - Natural Born
Filipino Citizen by Legal Fiction
Co v. Electoral Tribunal, G.R. Nos. 92191-92, July 30, 1991
 Residence = Domicile
 Domicile of Origin:
o Cannot be abandoned outright
o The law does not require that you have a house
in your domicile of origin:
 As it may be destroyed/demolished for
some reason, and you may have moved
to a different place for some other
reason to temporarily reside in
Marcos v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 119976, September 18, 1995 (Read
also the other opinions)
 Imelda is inherently a citizen of Tacloban, Leyte:
o Minor follows the Domicile of Parent – although
she was born in Manila, they moved to Tacloban
thereafter
o Domicile of Origin is not easily lost:
 Wife merely follows the residence of
husband
 Upon death of husband the wife may:
A. Return Automatically regain/return
to her domicile of origin upon husband’s
death
 B. Expressly choose to regain/return to o Pronouncement of Congress Officials are not
her domicile of origin (freedom of protected if made outside the walls or four-
choice) corners of Congress.

Arnault v. Nazareno, G.R. No. L-3820, July 18, 1950 In Trillanes v Castillo-Marigomen:

 Any person may be detained for an indefinite period o Speech done outside the halls of Congress is not
due to being cited for contempt. subject to Privilege of Speech

SECTION 14 – Prohibitions
Balag v. Senate, G.R. No. 234608, July 3, 2018
 Prohibition from appearing in court
 Period of detention only lasts until the expiration of the o [GR]Limited only to personal appearances of a
legislative inquiry OR at the end of one regular Congress Legislative Official in Court
Term (expiration of the 3year term) o To prohibit possible undue influence on the
proceeding

In Puyat v De Guzman:
SECTION 11 – Parliamentary Priviledges
o [Ex]Legislators may be allowed to appear in a
 Privilege of Arrest, requires:
case:
o Congress be in session
 AS A PARTY TO THE CASE
o No Final and Executory Decision
 NOT AS A LAWYER
o Crime be punishable by imprisonment by not
 NOT AS A REPRESENTATIVE
more than 6-years (see People v. Jalosjos)
 Prohibition from any financial interest in Government
 Privilege of Speech and Debate, requires:
Contracts or Projects
o Pronouncements made in Congress only
In Belgica v. Exect Sec:
In Osmena v Pendatun:
 PDAF/PORKBARREL SYSTEM is
unconstitutional