Sie sind auf Seite 1von 15

ARTICLE VI.

THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Section 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 provision on initiative and referendum.

I. General Rule: Non-delegability of legislative power and its Exceptions:

A. Exception: Delegation to local governments and administrative bodies; Grant of


Quasi-legislative Power; In General; LGU and Administrative Bodies
*Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro – 39 Phil. 660 [1918-19] (LGU)
Antipolo Realty Corp. v. NHA – 153 SCRA 399 (administrative)
PITC v. Angeles - GR 108461, October 21, 1996 (administrative)
Atitiw v. Zamora - 471 SCRA 329 [2005] (repealing power)
*SEC v. Interport – 567 SCRA 354 [2008] (absence of IRR)

B. Exception: In instances allowed by the Constitution, e.g., Article VI, Sections 23(2)
and 28(2)

II. Issues on Delegation of Legislative Power

A. Requisites of a valid delegation


*Agustin v. Edu – 88 SCRA 1 [1979] (test of delegability)
Free Telephone Workers v. Min. of Labor – 108 SCRA 757 [1981] (assumption of
jurisdiction in labor dispute; reiterating Edu v. Ericta and other related cases)
Guingona v. Carague – 196 SCRA 221 [1991] (automatic debt service)
Trade and Investment Devt Corp v. CSC, GR 182249, March 5, 2013 (rule making is
not law making)

1. Complete in itself
*Araneta v. Gatmaitan – 101 Phil. 328 [1957] (details for implementation only)
Marcos v. CA - 278 SCRA 843 [1997] (Monetary Board authority)
Gerochi v. DOE – 527 SCRA 696 [2007] (imposition of universal charge)
*Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board – 570 SCRA 410 [2008] (drug
testing)
Pacific Steam v. LLDA – 608 SCRA 442 [2009](LLDA’s power)
*Disini v. Secretary of Justice, GR 203335, December 18, 2014 and April 22,
2014
*Quezon City PTCA v. Department of Education, GR 188720, February 23,
2016 (revised guidelines governint PTA)

2. Fixes a standard
*People v. Rosenthal – 68 Phil. 628 [1939] (standard of “public interest”)
*Eastern Shipping Lines v. POEA – 166 SCRA 533 [1988] (discretion as to
substantive contents)
*Tablarin v. Gutierrez – 152 SCRA 730 [1987] (establishment of medical
educational requirements)
Conference v. POEA - 243 SCRA 666 [1995] (promulgation of rules and
regulations; reiterating Eastern Shipping Lines v. POEA)
Osmena v. Orbos – 220 SCRA 703 [1993] (power of ERB to add amounts)
*Viola v. Alunan – 277 SCRA 409 [1997] (power to create positions)
*Abakada v. Ermita – 469 SCRA 1 [2005] (ascertainment of facts)
*Beltran v. Sec. of Health – 476 SCRA 168 [2005] (promotion of public health
sufficient guideline)
Bayan v. Ermita – 488 SCRA 226 [2006] (issuance of permits for rally)
*Abakada v. Purisima – 562 SCRA 251 [2008] (system of rewards)

3. Filling in the details


*Fernandez v. Sto. Tomas - 242 SCRA 192 [1995] (authority to reorganize; read
with Chiongbian, Tondo, Malaria and Anak)
*Chiongbian v. Orbos – 245 253 [1995] (authority to reorganize)
Rodrigo v. Sandiganbayan – 309 SCRA 661 [1999] (power to classify)
Tondo Medical v. CA – 527 SCRA 746 [2007] (authority to reorganize)
Malaria Employees v. Romulo – 528 SCRA 673 [2007] (authority to reorganize)
Anak v. Executive Secretary – 531 SCRA 583 [2007] (authority to reorganize;
PCUP/NCIP)
*Pichay v. Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary – 677 SCRA 408 [2012]
(authority to reorganize and appropriate funds for this purpose)
*Arroyo v. DOJ – 681 SCRA 181 [2012] (collaboration of two committees)
*La Suerte v. CA – 739 SCRA 489 [2014] (Taxability of stemmed leaf tobacco)

B. Undue Delegation
*People v. Vera – 65 PHIL. 56 [1937-1938] (discretion in implementation)
*United States v. Barrias – 11 PHIL. 327 [1908] (delegated power to fix penalties)
*United States v. Panlilio – 28 PHIL. 608 [1914] (delegated power to criminalize)
*People v. Maceren – 79 SCRA 450 [1977] (delegation of power to declare what acts
constitute a crime; moved from ‘valid delegation’)
*People v. Dacuycuy – 173 SCRA 90 [1989] (power to fix term of imprisonment)
Cebu Oxygen v. Drilon – 176 SCRA 24 [1989] (implementing rule void)
*Ynot v. Intermediate Apellate Court – 148 SCRA 659 [1987] (disposition of
confiscated property)
*Pharmaceutical v. DOH - GR 1734, October 9, 2007 (WHO guidelines)
*Abacada v. Purisima [supra] (encroachment of judicial power)
*Phil. Coconut vs. Republic, G.R. 178193 (January 24, 2012) (distribution of UCPB
shares by the PCA)
*Deutsche Bank v. CIR, GR 188550, August 19, 2013 (Contrary to treaty)
*Belgica v. Ochoa, GR 208566 – November 19, 2013 (PDAF)

C. Executive Misapplication
Tatad v. Sec.(DOE) – 281 SCRA 330 [1997] and MR – 282 SCRA 337 [1997]

D. Mere Directive
Dagan v. PRC – 578 SCRA 585 [2009] (requisite of a valid administrative issuance)

COMPOSITION OF SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Section 2. The Senate shall be composed of twenty-four Senators who shall be elected at
large by the qualified voters of the Philippines, as may be provided by law.
Section 5.
1. The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty
members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts
apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance
with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and
progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party-list
system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.
2. The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total number of
representatives including those under the party list. For three consecutive terms after the
ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives
shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban
poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be
provided by law, except the religious sector.
x x x

I. Party-list representation (Pars.1 and 2)

A. Registration and Accreditation (Section 5 of RA 7941)

Ang Bagong Bayani v. COMELEC - GR 147589, June 26, 2001 (par. 2; characteristics of
“political party” to qualify under party-list, old doctrine)
AKLAT v. COMELEC – 427 SCRA 712 [2004](disqualified party-list)
Bantay v. COMELEC – 523 SCRA 1 [2007]
BANAT v. COMELEC – 586 SCRA 210 [2009] (mere ceiling, old doctrine)
*Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC - GR 190582, April 8, 2010 (disapproval of Ladlad due to
moral issues)
*Magdalo v. COMELEC – 673 SCRA 651 [2012] (in re: to Art. IX-C, Section 2(5) and
qualification as regional political party)
*Atong Paglaum et. al., GR 203766, April 2, 2013 (new guidelines for party-list;
controlling rule)

B. Nomination (Section 8 and 9 of RA 7941)

Ang Bagong Bayani v. COMELEC - GR 147589, June 26, 2001 (par. 2; characteristics of
“political party” to qualify under party-list, old doctrine)
BANAT v. COMELEC – 586 SCRA 210 [2009] (mere ceiling, old doctrine)
*Dayao v. COMELEC, GR 193643, Jan 29, 2013 (members not belonging to
marginalized and underrepresented sector, old doctrine)
Atong Paglaum et. al., GR 203766, April 2, 2013 (new guidelines for party-list;
controlling rule)
*Abang Lingkod v. COMELEC, GR 206952, October 22, 2013 (meaning of national,
regional, and sectoral)

C. Election and Allocation of Seats (Section 11 of RA 7941)

*Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC - GR 136781, October 6, 2001 (par. 2;


standards for apportioning seats for party-list representatives; not mandatory to fill-in sits
Partido ng. Mangagawa v. COMELEC – 484 SCRA 671 [2006] (reiterates Veterans)
Citizens v. COMELEC – 521 SCRA 524 [2007]) (computation for partylist)
*Phil. Guardians v. COMELEC - GR 190529, April 29, 2009 (participation in previous
election)
*BANAT v. COMELEC – 586 SCRA 210 [2009] (mere ceiling); and BANAT v.
COMELEC, GR 179271, July 8, 2009 (mere ceiling)

D. COMELEC and HRET Jurisdiction

Abayon v. COMELEC - GR 189466, Feb. 11, 2010 (party-list and HRET)


Layug v. COMELEC – 666 SCRA 321 [2012] (jurisdiction of COMELEC over
determination of party-list qualification)
*Lico v. COMELEC, G.R. 205505, September 29, 2015 (expulsion)

Section 5.
1. The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty
members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts
apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance
with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and
progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party-list
system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.
x x x
3. Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and
adjacent territory. Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or
each province, shall have at least one representative.
4.Within three years following the return of every census, the Congress shall make a
reapportionment of legislative districts based on the standards provided in this section.

II. Rules on Apportionment (Pars 1, 3, and 4)

A. Reapportionment through special law (Par. 3)


*Tobias v. Abalos – 239 SCRA 106 [1994] (reapportionment thru special law;
Mandaluyong City)
*Mariano v. COMELEC – 242 SCRA 211 [1995] (reapportionment thru special law;
Makati City)
*Sema v. COMELEC – 558 SCRA 700 [2008] (ARMM RLA power)

B. Rules on Apportionment

1. In accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants and on the basis
of a uniform and progressive ratio (Pars. 1)
*Montejo v. COMELEC – 242 SCRA 415 [1995] (redistricting Leyte; mere
minor adjustments)
*Herrera v. COMELEC – GR 131499, November 17, 1999 (redistricting
Province of Guimaras; also in (3) population size)

2. Contiguous, compact, and adjacent territory (Par. 3)

3. Population size (Par. 4)


*Samson v. Aguirre – 315 SCRA 53 [1999] (par. 3; absence of certification
as to income, population and area not fatal; presumed valid)
Herrera v. COMELEC – GR 131499, November 17, 1999 (pars. 3 and 4;
redistricting Province of Guimaras; also in (1) uniform and progressive ratio)
*Aldaba v. COMELEC - GR 188078, January 25, 2010 (par. 3 and 4)
*Aquino v. COMELEC - GR 189793, April 7, 2010 (par. 3 and 4)
*Navarro v. Ermita - GR 180050, April 12, 2011(Carpio dissent; par 3,
population composition)

4. Following the return of every census, Congress shall make a reapportionment


*Bagabuyo v. COMELEC, GR 176970, December 8, 2008 (par. 4; no need
for plebiscite in apportionment or reapportionment)

QUALIFICATIONS OF SENATORS AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines


and, on the day of the election, is at least thirty-five years of age, able to read and write, a
registered voter, and a resident of the Philippines for not less than two years immediately
preceding the day of the election.

Section 4. The term of office of the Senators shall be six years and shall commence, unless
otherwise provided by law, at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following their election.
No Senator shall serve for more than two consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the
office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of
his service for the full term of which he was elected.

Section 6. No person shall be a Member of the House of Representatives unless he is a


natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at least twenty-five
years of age, able to read and write, and, except the party-list representatives, a registered
voter in the district in which he shall be elected, and a resident thereof for a period of not
less than one year immediately preceding the day of the election.

I. Citizenship
*Bengzon v. Cruz, GR 142840, May 7, 2001 (recovery of NBC status)

II. Domicile and Residence


*Aquino v. COMELEC – 243 SCRA 400 [1995] (domicile of origin; read in relation to
Sec. 17 on Jurisdiction of Electoral Tribunal)
*Marcos v. COMELEC – 248 SCRA 300 [1995] (abandonment of domicile)
*Domino v. COMELEC – GR 134015, July 19, 1999 (mere lease of house)
*Perez v. COMELEC – GR 133944, October 28, 1999 (registration in another district)
*Fernandez v. HRET – 608 SCRA 733 [2009]
*Tagolino v.HRET, GR 195540, March 19, 2013 (one- year residency requirement)
*Reyes v. COMELEC, GR 207264, June 25, 2013 (one- year residency requirement)

III. Additional Qualification


Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board (supra.; drug testing; not valid)

Section 7. The Members of the House of Representatives shall be elected for a term of three
years which shall begin, unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on the thirtieth day of
June next following their election. No Member of the House of Representatives shall serve
for more than three consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length
of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full
term for which he was elected.

Dimaporo v. Mitra – 202 SCRA 779 [1991] (forfeiture of elective position) Repealed read
instead: Farinas vs. Exec. Sec. GR 147387 Dec. 10, 2003 and Fair Election Law

Section 8. Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election of the Senators and the
Members of the House of Representatives shall be held on the second Monday of May.

Section 9. In case of vacancy in the Senate or in the House of Representatives, a special


election may be called to fill such vacancy in the manner prescribed by law, but the Senator
or Member of the House of Representatives thus elected shall serve only for the unexpired
term.

*Lucero v. COMELEC – 234 SCRA 280 [1994] (requisites of special elections)


Tolentino v. COMELEC- 420 SCRA 438 [2004](special and regular elections; RA 6645)
Ocampo v. HRET – 432 SCRA 144 [2004] (rule on second placers)

Section 10. The salaries of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives shall be
determined by law. No increase in said compensation shall take effect until after the
expiration of the full term of all the Members of the Senate and the House of
Representatives approving such increase.

Section 11. A Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall, in all offenses
punishable by not more than six 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 the Congress or in any committee thereof.

I. Privilege from Arrest


*People v. Jalosjos – 324 SCRA 689 [2000] (convicted legislator)
*Trillanes v. Pimentel – 556 SCRA 471 [2008] (re-election to office and criminal charge)

II. Parliamentary freedom of speech and debate


*Jimenez v. Cabangbang – 17 SCRA 876 [1966] (coverage)
*Pobre v. Defensor-Santiago -597 SCRA 1 [2009] (violation of oath of lawyers)

Section 12. All Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives shall, upon
assumption of office, make a full disclosure of their financial and business interests. They
shall notify the House concerned of a potential conflict of interest that may arise from the
filing of a proposed legislation of which they are authors.

Section 13. No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may hold any other
office or employment in the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality
thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries,
during his term without forfeiting his seat. Neither shall he be appointed to any office which
may have been created or the emoluments thereof increased during the term for which he
was elected.

*Dante V. Liban v. Richard J. Gordon, GR 175352, 15 July 2009, 18 July 2011 (Office of
PNRC Chairman is not a government office nor an office in a GOCC for the purposes of
the prohibition in Sec 13)

Section 14. No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may personally appear
as counsel before any court of justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial
and other administrative bodies. Neither shall he, directly or indirectly, be interested
financially in any contract with, or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the
Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including any
government-owned or controlled corporation, or its subsidiary, during his term of office. He
shall not intervene in any matter before any office of the Government for his pecuniary
benefit or where he may be called upon to act on account of his office.

*Puyat v. De Guzman – 113 SCRA 31 [1982] (appearing “in intervention” on one’s behalf)

Section 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. The President may call
a special session at any time.

Section 16.
1. The Senate shall elect its President and the House of Representatives, its Speaker, by a
majority vote of all its respective Members. Each House shall choose such other officers as it
may deem necessary.
2. A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number
may adjourn from day to day and may compel the attendance of absent Members in such
manner, and under such penalties, as such House may provide.
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.
4. 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; and the yeas
and nays on any question shall, at the request of one-fifth of the Members present, be
entered in the Journal. Each House shall also keep a Record of its proceedings.
5. Neither House during the sessions of the Congress shall, without the consent of the other,
adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses
shall be sitting.

I. Officers of Congress
Defensor-Santiago v. Guingona – GR 134577, November 18, 1998 (determination of
“majority”, “minority”)
*Baguilat, Jr. v. Speaker Alvarez – GR 227757, July 25, 2017

II. Meaning of “a quorum to do business” and “compulsion to attend”


*Avelino v. Cuenco – 83 PHIL. 17 [1949] (par.2, quorum)
People v. Jalosjos – 324 SCRA 689 (supra. Sec. 11; detention as valid reason not to
attend)
*Datu Michael Abas Kida v. Senate of the Philippines - GR 196271, October 18, 2011

III. Internal Rules and Discipline


*Arroyo v. De Venecia – 277 SCRA 268 [1997] (par. 3, determination of rules)*
*Osmeña v. Pendatun – 109 PHIL. 863 [1960] (par. 3, disorderly behavior)
*Santiago v. Sandiganbayan – 356 SCRA 636

IV. Duty to keep Journals and Records


*US. v. Pons – 34 PHIL. 729 [1916] (journal and records)
*Casco Phil. Commercial Co. v. Gimenez – 7 SCRA 347 [1963] (journal and records)
Morales v. Subido – 27 SCRA 131 [1969] (journal and records)
*Astorga v. Villegas – 56 SCRA 714 [1974] (journal and records)
Phil. Judges Assn. V. Prado – 227 SCRA 703
*Abakada v. Ermita – 469 SCRA 1 (supra.)

Section 17. 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.

I. Jurisdiction of Electoral Tribunal

A. Nature and Power


*Angara v. Electoral Commission – 63 PHIL. 134 [1936] (nature and power)
Locsin v HRET, GR 204123, March 19, 2013 (sole judge)
Tagolino v.HRET, GR 195540, March 19, 2013 (sole judge) (supra Art VI, Sec 60
*Reyes v. COMELEC, GR 207264, June 25, 2013 (sole judge) (supra Art VI, Sec 6)

B. Pre-proclamation controversies v. election contests; Scope of inquiry; When proper

1. Election contest
*Vera v. Avelino – 77 PHIL. 192 [1946] (definition of election contest)
Roces v. HRET – 469 SCRA 681[2005] (standing to contest)
Seneres v. COMELEC – 585 SCRA 557 [2009] (when HRET jurisdiction
begins)
Limkaichong v. COMELEC – 594 SCRA 434 [2009] (when HRET jurisdiction
begins)
Aquino v. COMELEC – 243 SCRA 400 [1995] (supra. Sec. 6; when HRET
jurisdiction begins; effect of candidate disqualification)
Perez v. COMELEC – GR 133944, October 28, 1999 (supra. Sec. 6; effect of
candidate disqualification)
Aggabao v. COMELEC – 449 SCRA 400[2005] (election contest)
Barbers v. COMELEC – 460 SCRA 569[2005] (election contest)
Rasul v. COMELEC – GR 134142, August 24, 1999 (protest before SET)
*Guerrero v. COMELEC - GR 137004, July 26, 2000 (substitution)
Villarosa v. HRET - GR 143351, September 14, 2000 (disallowing initials of
husband not GADLEJ)
*Abayon v. HRET, GR 189466, February 11, 2010 [jurisdiction over party-list]
Garcia v. HRET – GR 134792, August 12, 1999
Lico v. COMELEC, G.R. 205505, September 29, 2015 (Jurisdiction over party-
list)

2. Pre-proclamation controversy
Chavez v. COMELEC – 211 SCRA 315 [1992] (pre-proclamation)

II. Composition
*Abbas v. SET – 166 SCRA 651 [1988] (judicial and legislative participation)
Pimentel v. HRET – GR 141489, November 29, 2002 (reconstitution of HRET and
CA to include party-list)

III. Independence
*Bondoc v. Pineda – 201 SCRA 792 [1991] (non-partisan)

IV. Action/Decision
Robles v. HRET – 181 SCRA 780 [1990] (withdrawal of protest)
Arroyo v. HRET – 246 SCRA 384 [1995] (precinct-level documents)
*Lerias v. HRET – 202 SCRA 808 [1991] (election returns; best evidence)
Sandoval v. HRET – GR 149380, July 3, 2002 (service of summons)
Lokin v. COMELEC – GR 179431-32 (substitution of party-list)
Sema v. HRET – GR 190734, March 26, 2010 (election returns v. ballots)
Duenas v. HRET – 593 SCRA 316 [2010] (revision of ballots)

Section 18. 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 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.

*Daza v. Singson – 180 SCRA 496 [1989] (political alignment)


*Coseteng v. Mitra – 187 SCRA 377 [1990] (proportional representation)
*Guingona v. Gonzales – 214 SCRA 789 [1992] and MR – 219 SCRA 326 [1993] (undue
reduction of representation of another party)

Section 19. The Electoral Tribunals and the Commission on Appointments shall be
constituted within thirty days after the Senate and the House of Representatives shall have
been organized with the election of the President and the Speaker. The Commission on
Appointments shall meet only while the Congress is in session, at the call of its Chairman or
a majority of all its Members, to discharge such powers and functions as are herein
conferred upon it.

Section 20. The records and books of accounts of the Congress shall be preserved and be
open to the public in accordance with law, and such books shall be audited by the
Commission on Audit which shall publish annually an itemized list of amounts paid to and
expenses for each Member.
Section 21. 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.

I. Power of Inquiry
*Senate v. Ermita – 488 SCRA 1 [2006] (E.O. 464)
*Gudani v. Senga – 498 SCRA 671 [2006] (in relation to Senate v. Ermita)

II. Nature and essence


*Neg. O. II Elec. Coop. v. Sangguniang Panlungsod – 155 SCRA 421 [1991] (nature and
essence)

III. Requisites
Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee – 203 SCRA 767 (requisites)

A. In aid of legislation
*Standard v. Senate – 541 SCRA 456 [2007] (to prevent future fraudulent activities)
*De la Paz v. Senate – 579 SCRA 521 [2009] (Euro generals)
*Romero v. Estrada – 583 SCRA 396 [2009] (sub judice rule)

B. In accordance with duly published rules of procedure


*Garcillano v. House – GR 170338, December 23, 2008 (publication of rules on
inquiry)

C. Respect for the rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries


*Neri v. Senate – 564 SCRA 152 [2008] (executive privilege)

IV. Power to Punish a Person Under Investigation


*Arnault v. Nazareno – 87 PHIL. 25 [1950] (subject of inquiry)
*Sabio v. Gordon – 504 SCRA 704 [2006] (contempt and detention)
*Balag v. Senate, GR 234608, July 3, 2018 (limitation on detention)

Section 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.
Written questions shall be submitted to the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the
House of Representatives at least three days before their scheduled appearance.
Interpellations shall not be limited to written questions, but may cover matters related
thereto. When the security of the State or the public interest so requires and the President
so states in writing, the appearance shall be conducted in executive session.

*Senate v. Ermita – 488 SCRA 1 [2006] (supra. Sec. 21)

Section 23.
1. The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses in joint session assembled, voting
separately, shall have the sole power to declare the existence of a state of war.
2. In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may, by law, authorize the
President, for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to
exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. Unless sooner
withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next
adjournment thereof.

Delegation of Emergency Powers


*Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary - 421 SCRA 656
*David v. Arroyo, G.R. 171396, May 3, 2006 (in relation to sec. 18, Art. 7)
*Ampatuan v. Hon. DILG Sec. Puno - GR 190259, June 7, 2011
*Lagman v. Midialdea – GR 231658, July 4, 2017

Section 24. All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of the public
debt, bills of local application, and private bills, shall originate exclusively in the House of
Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments.

I. Bills of Local Application – Origin


Guingona v. Carague – 196 SCRA 221 [1991] (supra. Sec. 1; automatic debt service)
*Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance – 235 SCRA 630 [1994] (revenue bill;
consolidation)*
Alvarez v. Guingona – 292 SCRA 695 [1998] (conversion of a municipality into a city)
Southern Cross Cement v. Phil. Cement, GR 158540, July 8, 2004

II. Appropriation of Public Revenue for Public Purpose


*Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works – 110 PHIL. 331 [1960-1961] (incidental
advantage)

Section 25.
1. The Congress may not increase the appropriations recommended by the President for
the operation of the Government as specified in the budget. The form, content, and manner
of preparation of the budget shall be prescribed by law.
2. 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.
3. The procedure in approving appropriations for the Congress shall strictly follow the
procedure for approving appropriations for other departments and agencies.
4. A special appropriations bill shall specify the purpose for which it is intended, and shall
be supported by funds actually available as certified by the National Treasurer, or to be
raised by a corresponding revenue proposal therein.
5. No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, the
President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may, by
law, be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their
respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.
6. Discretionary funds appropriated for particular officials shall be disbursed only for
public purposes to be supported by appropriate vouchers and subject to such guidelines as
may be prescribed by law.
7. If, by the end of any fiscal year, the Congress shall have failed to pass the general
appropriations bill for the ensuing fiscal year, the general appropriations law for the
preceding fiscal year shall be deemed re-enacted and shall remain in force and effect until
the general appropriations bill is passed by the Congress.

I. Limits on Power to Appropriate


Brillantes v. Comelec - GR 163193, June 15, 2004

II. Prohibition of increase (par. 1)

III. Prohibition on “riders” in appropriation bills (par. 2)


*Garcia v. Mata – 65 SCRA 517 [1975] (par. 2) (rider)
Atitiw v. Zamora - GR 143374, Sept. 30, 2005
*Farinas v. Executive Secretary - GR 147387, Dec. 10, 2003 (Rider)

IV. Special Purpose Fund


*Belgica v. Ochoa – November 19, 2013 (PDAF)

V. Transfer of Funds
*Demetria v. Alba – 148 SCRA 208 [1987] (par. 5; direct violation)
*Liga v. COMELEC – 232 SCRA 219 [1994] (par. 5; unused funds)
Philconsa v. Enriquez – 235 SCRA 506 (par. 5; augmentation of pension fund using
savings)
*Sanchez v. COA – 552 SCRA 471 (par. 5; DILG; augmentation)

VI. Discretionary Fund


*Belgica v. Ochoa – November 19, 2013 (PDAF)
*Araullo v. Benigno Simeon Aquino III, GR 209287, July 1, 2014 and MR February 3,
2014 (DAP)

Section 26.
1. Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be
expressed in the title thereof.
2. No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed three readings on
separate days, and printed copies 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.

*Cordero v. Cabatuando – 6 SCRA 418 [1962] (par. 1)


*Philconsa v. Gimenez – 15 SCRA 479 [1965] (par. 1)
*Alalayan v. NPC – 24 SCRA 172 [1968] (par. 1)
*Insular Lumber Company v. CTA – 104 SCRA 710 [1981] (par. 1)
*Tio v. Videogram Regulatory Board – 151 SCRA 208 [1987] (par. 1)
*Phil. Judges Assn. v. Prado – 227 SCRA 703 [1993] (par. 1)
Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance – 235 SCRA 630 [1994] (par. 1) (supra. Sec. 24)
Tobias v. Abalos – 239 SCRA 106 [1994] (par. 1) (supra, Sec. 5)
Tatad v. Sec. of DOE – 281 SCRA 330 [1997] (supra, Art. 6, Sec. 2)
De Guzman v. Comelec, GR 129118, July 19, 2000 (par. 1)
Cawaling v. COMELEC – GR 146319, October 26, 2001 (par. 1)
Abakada v. Ermita - 469 SCRA 1 and MR [Sept.1, 2005 & Oct.18, 2005]
BANAT v. COMELEC – 595 SCRA 477 [2009]
Datu Michael Abas Kida v. Senate of the Philippines - GR 196271, October 18, 2011 (supra.
Sec. 16; reiterates Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance)
Giron v. COMELEC, GR 188179, Jan 22, 2013
Imbong v. Ochoa, GR 204819, April 8, 2014 (RH law) (supra Art II, Sec 12)
Remman Enterprises v. PRBRES and PRC, GR 197676, February 4, 2014

Section 27.
1. Every bill passed by the 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 and return the
same with his objections to the House where it originated, which shall enter the objections
at large in its Journal and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds
of all the Members of such House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with
the objections, to the other House by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if
approved by two-thirds of all the Members of that House, it shall become a law. In all such
cases, the votes of each House shall be determined by yeas or nays, and the names of the
Members voting for or against shall be entered in its Journal. The President shall
communicate his veto of any bill to the House where it originated within thirty days after
the date of receipt thereof, otherwise, it shall become a law as if he had signed it.
2. The President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items in an
appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect the item or items to which
he does not object.

I. Passage of bills
Arroyo v. De Venecia - 277 SCRA 268 [1997] (supra.; BCC)
*Abakada v. Ermita – 469 SCRA 1 (supra.; BCC)

II. Presidential Veto


*CIR v. CTA – 185 SCRA 329 [1990] (item in a revenue bill)
*Gonzales v. Macaraig – 191 SCRA 452 [1990] (general provision)
Bengzon v. Drilon – 208 SCRA 133 [1992] (effects of vetoing G.A.B)
*Philconsa v. Enriquez – 235 SCRA 506 [1994] (supra. Sec. 25; “inappropriate
provision”)
*Belgica v. Ochoa – November 19, 2013 (PDAF)

Section 28.
1. The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The Congress shall evolve a
progressive system of taxation.
2. The Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix within specified limits, and
subject to such limitations and restrictions as it may impose, tariff rates, import and
export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts within the
framework of the national development program of the Government.
3. Charitable institutions, churches and personages or convents appurtenant thereto,
mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and improvements,
actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable, or educational
purposes shall be exempt from taxation.
4. No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a majority
of all the Members of the Congress.

I. Scope and purpose


Planters v. Fertiphil – 548 SCRA 485 (purpose)

II. Limitations on the power: Uniform and equitable


*CIR v. Lingayen Gulf – 164 SCRA 27
Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance – 235 SCRA 506 (supra. s.24 – 26; also read in relation to
Progressive system)
Tan v. Del Rosario – 237 SCRA 324 [1994] (rule of taxation)
CIR v. CA – 261 SCRA 236 [1996] (uniformity of taxation)

III. Progressive system

IV. Delegated tax legislation


Southern Cross Cement v. Phil. Cement - GR 158540, July 8, 2004
Abakada v. Ermita – 469 SCRA 1[2005] (supra.)
Spouses Constantino v. Cuisia - GR 106064, Oct. 13, 2005

V. Exemptions
*Abra Valley College v. Aquino – 162 SCRA 106 [1988] (tax exemption)
Bayan v. Zamora - GR 138570, October 10, 2000 (supra. Art. 2, Sec. 2; tax exemption)
Republic v. City of Kidapawan – 477 SCRA 324[2005] (tax exemption)
*John Hay People’s Alternative Coalition v. Lim - GR 119775, Oct. 24, 2003.
*Lung Center v. QC - GR 144104, June 29, 2004
*CIR vs. DLSU (GR 196596, Nov. 9, 2016)

Section 29.
1. No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation
made by law.
2. No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed, directly
or indirectly, 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 as such, except when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is
assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal institution, or government orphanage or
leprosarium.
3. All money collected on any tax levied for a special purpose shall be treated as a special
fund and paid out for such purpose only. If the purpose for which a special fund was
created has been fulfilled or abandoned, the balance, if any, shall be transferred to the
general funds of the Government.

I. Fiscal Powers of Congress (Par. 1)


Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works – 110 PHIL. 331 [1960-1961] (supra. Sec. 24)
MIAA v. Mabunay – GR 126151, January 20, 2000 (appropriation defined)
*Guingona v. Carague – 196 SCRA 221 [1991] (supra. Secs. 1 and 24; automatic debt
service appropriation)
COMELEC v. Hon. Quijano – GR 151992, Sept. 18, 2002 (inadequate fund for contract
with Photokina)
*Belgica v. Ochoa – November 19, 2013 (PDAF)

II. Special Funds (Par. 3)


Gaston v. Republic Planters Bank – 158 SCRA 626 [1988] (tax levied for special
purpose)
Osmeña v. Orbos – 220 SCRA 703 [1993] (supra. Sec. 1; OPSF as taxes)
*Philippine Coconut v. Republic – 663 SCRA 514 [2012] (coco levy as public fund; in
re: Art. IX-D, Section 2(1)
Section 30. No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court as provided in this Constitution without its advice and concurrence.

*First Lepanto Ceramics v. CA – 237 SCRA 519 [1994] (invalid increase in appellate
jurisdiction)
Diaz v. CA – 238 SCRA 785 [1994] (ERB to CA)
Fabian v. Desierto - GR 129742, September 16, 1998 (OMB to CA)
Villavert v. Desierto - 326 SCRA 355 [2000] (OMB to CA)
Tirol v. COA - GR 133954, August 3, 2000 (OMB to CA)
Cabrera v. Lapid – 510 SCRA 55 [2006] (OMB to CA)

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

Section 32. The Congress shall, as early as possible, provide for a system of initiative and
referendum, and the exceptions therefrom, whereby the people can directly propose and
enact laws or approve or reject any act or law or part thereof passed by the Congress or
local legislative body after the registration of a petition therefor signed by at least ten per
centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be
represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters thereof.

*SBMA v. COMELEC – 262 SCRA 492 [1996] (requisites)


*Defensor-Santiago v. COMELEC – 270 SCRA 106 [1997], and MR [1997] (implementing
legislation) (see PIRMA unpublished case)
*Lambino v. COMELEC, GR 174153, GR 174299, October 25, 2006