Part I Introduction
This includes discerning the
A. The Constitution as a Social Contract
• Government exists because of the
Constitution which is the contract of
the people. It can never bind itself for
alienation of any part of the contract
and later promise to cure it through
amendments.
B. How to read the Constitution
1) Verba Legis- plain ordinary, dictionary
meaning. It is assumed that the words in
the constitutional provisions are couched
to express the objective sought to be
attained. The Constitution is not
primarily a lawyer's document but
essentially that of the people, in whose
consciousness it should ever be present
as an important condition for the rule of
law to prevail.
2) Ratio legis est anima- intent of the law is
the spirit that moves it. Constitution is to
be interpreted in accordance with the
intent of the framers usually by looking at
the deliberations of the Constitutional
Commission.
3) Ut res magis valeat quam pereat- the law
should be given effect instead of voiding
it. No provision of the Constitution
should be interpreted separately but in
conjunction with all other provisions of
the instrument. Sections bearing on a
particular subject should be considered
and interpreted together as to effectuate
the whole purpose of the Constitution
and one section should not be allowed to
defeat another, if by any reasonable
construction, the two can be made to
stand together.
4) Contemporaneous construction- holistic
rather that parochial approach to
consider context and interplay of
historical, contemporary and even the
envisioned. When permissible, one may
consider analogous jurisprudence (that is,
judicial decisions on similar, but not the
very same, matters or concerns), as well
as thematically similar statutes and
international norms that form part of our
1
legal system.
purpose and aims of the text in light of
the specific facts under consideration. (J.
Leonen, David vs SET).
C. Framework for Constitutional Litigation
1) Actual Case or controversy
2) Locus standi
3) Ripeness
4) Lis Mota
D. Preamble and Declaration of State Policies
*Memorize the preamble
-Preamble can serve as guide for the Supreme
Court in constructing the meaning of the
provisions of the Constitution.
Vinuya vs Romulo
Two ways an international law becomes a
domestic law
a) Transformation- the international law
becomes a domestic law though
legislative adoption, i.e. enactment of a
local law (e.g. treaty adoption by the
Senate).
b) Section 2, Art. 2- the Incorporation clause.
When an international law becomes a
generally accepted principle of
international law. Two requisites:
1. established, widespread, and consistent
practice on the part of States;
2. And a psychological element known as
the opinion juris sive necessitates
(opinion as to law or necessity), the belief
that an action was carried out as a legal
obligation.
Held: Rape and enslavement as a crime
against humanity is not a generally
accepted principle of international law
during World War II.
PHAP v Duque
Held: Mandatory breastfeeding for
infants 0-6 months is not a generally
accepted principle of international law
because it is not a) widespread and
consistent practice and b) it is not viewed
as obligatory by the community of
nations. Domestic law should be enacted
to enforce such international
guideline/agreement (transformation).
 Oposa vs Factoran
Section 16, Art 2- Right to a healthful
ecology.
Held:
a) Right to a balance and healthy
ecology is an issue with
transcendental importance with
intergenerational implications. For
enforcement of environmental
rights, minors can represent their
own and future generations.
b) A right to a balanced and healthful
ecology is solemnly incorporated in
the fundamental law.
c) Oposa vs Factoran, effectively opens
up litigation of cases to the Supreme
Court of cases involving Article 2 of
the Constitution.
MMDA vs Concern citizens
- Used primarily the doctrine
established in Oposa case.
Imbong vs Ochoa
-RP RH Law
Held: Provisions of the law allowing
minor parents access to artificial
family planning methods without the
consent of their parents and
provisions allowing a spouse to
undergo surgical family planning
procedures without the consent of
the other spouse is deemed
unconstitutional as they violate Sec.
12, Art. 2 of the 1987 Constitution.
E. National Territory
*Memorize
F. State Immunity
The Holy See v Del Rosario
Classical concept- the State can’t be sued
without its consent
Restrictive concept- representatives of the
State can be sued for acts that are personal in
nature and not in the performance of their
core mandate (i.e. jure gestionis, as opposed
to jure imperii)
Foreign States- foreign states are likewise
generally immune from suits because of the
principle of equality of States.
2
Held: Land was bought to establish official
residence of Papal nuncio, hence jure imperii.
Most Rev Arigo vs Commander Swift
-Warships are extension of the flag state,
hence, are generally immune from liability of
any acts made in the performance of duty.
-Exception- UNCLOS, when such neglect
causes damage to the territorial state.
HELD: Case was moot because reparation
was already made.
Part II Amendment of the Constitution
-Art XVII of 1987 Constitution
A. Amendment vs Revision
Amendment- isolated change or
alteration of a certain provision or
provisions (e.g. lowering the voting age,
removing the citizenship provisions);
while
Revision- involves a structural change on
the Constitution’s framework. It is a
change that affects the source (e.g.
changing from Republican state to a
Monarchical one) and distribution of
power within the Constitution (e.g.
change from Presidential to
Parliamentary; Bicameral to Unicameral
Legislative).
B. Proposal
1. Constituent Assembly- Congress,
with ¾ votes of all of its members,
can convene themselves as ConAss
2. Constitutional Convention
a) Congress with 2/3 votes of all
its members can call for a
ConCon or if lacking enough
votes, by a majority vote submit
the question of calling a
ConCon to the people through
plebiscite (please note members
of the Congress are not
automatic members of ConCon,
members of ConCon are voted
independently by the people
through an election)
 Gonzales vs Comelec
Held:
a) Congress can both submit
an amendment through a
Constituent Assembly at
the same time call for a
Constitutional Convention,
as they have done here in
RA 4913.
b) Elections for the members
of ConCon can be at the
same time as the general
elections.
3. Initiative- direct petition of the
people which shall comprise at least
12% of the total number of
registered voters, of which each
legislative district shall be
represented by at least 3% of its
registered voters. Note, this mode
shall be further provided by law.
Note further, this mode is only
applicable for amendments and not
revisions. (Ratio- revisions have to
be filtered and tested through
structured debates and does require
rigid consultation systems.)
Santiago v Comelec-
Held: 1) RA 6735 is inadequate to
cover the system of initiative on
amendments on the Constitution
and had failed to provide sufficient
standard for subordinate legislation.
2) Comelec Resolution No. 2300
providing procedures for the
initiative is void for being ultra vires
as the Commission effectively
usurped a power exclusively granted
by the Constitution to the legislative
branch.
Lambino vs Comelec
Held: 1) Emphasizes that people’s
initiative is only for amendments and
not revisions
2) Change from Presidential to
Parliamentary is clearly a revision
and not an amendment. The sheer
number of provisions that needs
change (105) is a clear indication of
3
the substantial alterations the
Lambino group proposes.
3. Submission- to the people through a
plebiscite
Tolentino vs Comelec
Held: The revisions or amendments
should be submitted once and all the
amended provisions or, the entire
instrument in cases of revision, be
presented in all its entirety.
4. Ratification- majority vote of the
people though plebiscite
Part III- Judical Review
A. Separation of Powers
1. Legislative- generally enacts laws
2. Executive- implements the laws
3. Judiciary- judicial power as defined in
Section 1, Art VIII, to wit:
.. settle actual cases involving rights
that are legally enforceable and
demandable and to determine
whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion resulting from lack
or excess of jurisdiction from any
government agency or
instrumentality.
B. Theory and justification of judicial review
Judicial review- the power of the courts,
ultimately the SC, to interpret the
Constitution and to test the validity of
executive and legislative acts in light of
their conformity with the fundamental law.
Angara vs Electoral Commission
Essential Fact: 1935 Constitution does not
have any express provision granting
judicial review power to the SC.
Held: In times of social disquietude, or
political excitement the great landmarks of
the Constitution are apt to be forgotten or
marred, if not totally obliterated. In cases
of conflict, the Judicial department is the
only constitutional organ that can be called
upon to determine the proper allocation of
powers between the several departments
 and among the integral or constituent
units thereof. (J. JP Laurel).
The very nature of the separation of
powers gives the Court credence in
resolving any dispute. As a Republican
government with tripartite distribution of
power and a system of checks and balance,
the three branches are intended to
function as a harmonious whole, with clear
boundaries as to the powers of each of the
three co-equal branches. It would be
inconceivable should the Constitution
devise no remedy should any of the
branches transcended any of these
restrictions and limitations.
In exercising judicial review, the Court
does not exercise authority over the other
branches of the government but merely
determines, when called upon by a proper
party in an actual case, whether or not an
act of the executive or legislative violated
the Constitution. Judicial supremacy, then,
merely refers to the Court invoking the
Constitution and not usurping the other
branches’ powers.
C. Justiciable and Political Questions
D. Requisites of Judicial Review
Justiciable- again go back to Section 1, Art
VIII.
Political Questions
a) it is a matter of policy as determined
by the people through the ballot and
executed by the elected officials of the
political branches. (e.g. trade
liberalization, universal health care,
free tuition fee); or
b) Exclusively and expressly reserved by
the Constitution to the other co-equal
branches (e.g. Foreign policy,
determining the sufficiency in
substance and form of impeachment
cases); or
c) Concerns mostly of the wisdom of an
enacted law and not its compliance
with the Constitution.
d) Lack of judicially discoverable and
manageable standards for resolving
the question
4
Francisco v House of Rep
Held:
a) Political Question- determining the
sufficiency of the substance and form
of impeachment cases
b) Justiciable- whether or not the house
rules governing filing of impeachment
cases violates the 1-year rule of the
Constitution.
Vinuya v Romulo
Held: In the absence of incorporation
or transformation of an international
law, foreign affairs is purely a political
question and solely in the realm of
executive branch.
Ocampo vs Enriquez
Held: Burial of Marcos is a political
question. Burial in the LNMB is on
the exercise of the President of his
powers as Commander-in-chief of the
Armed Forces as LNMB is merely a
military cemetery and not a National
Pantheon. In the absence of any laws
limiting his power, he has full
discretion on whom he shall allow
internment in the LNMB.
1. Actual Case or Controversy
Imbong vs Ochoa, J. Leonen dissent
Held: There is no actual case on the
petition as no rights were violated and
no government medical practioners
has yet referred a patient against his
religious beliefs, no minor availed of
artificial family planning methods
without the parents’ consent, and no
spouse has yet availed of surgical
procedures without the other spouse’s
consent.
Prematurity:
PACU vs Sec of Education
Held: The power of the Court to
declare a law unconstitutional can
only be sought when there is an actual
interference on the person’s rights.
Hypothetical threat does not suffice.
 Mariano vs Comelec
Held: No actual case because the perceived violation
of Mayor Binay (running for his fourth consecutive
term) is merely based on contingents and not on
actual case.
Montescarlos v Comelec
Held: No actual case. Montescarlos is challenging a bill
postponing the SK election. The court cannot be called
upon to declare a mere bill as unconstitutional.
Philconsa vs Phil Government
Held: No actual case. In contrast to MOA-AD of
Arroyo administration, the new government panel
merely promises that they will enact a law to act as the
framework for the agreed terms esp. the issue of
ancestral domain (i.e. Bangsamoro Basic Law). Again,
the petitioners in a sense is challenging a bill. As a
consequent event, the BBL failed to pass the both
chambers of Congress.
Mootness- a subsequent event or change in
circumstances render any judgement of the Court as
useless.
Atlas Fertilizer v Sec of DAR
Held: Becomes Moot because Congress later passed a
law correcting an error of CARP which included the
aquaculture lands as agricultural lands
Lacson vs Perez
Held: The case becomes moot as Pres. Arroyo
subsequently lifted the State of Rebellion issued before
the Court can decide on its constitutionality.
Exception to Mootness- basically the Doctrine of
Capable of Repetition yet Evading Review
Sanlakas vs Exec Sec.
Held: The stated above doctrine was used. Actually, it
is more than capable of repetition, it has actually been
repeated and to finally settle the issue the Court
decided to take cognizance of the case even if it is
already moot.
Pimentel vs Ermita
Key Facts: President appoints individuals as Acting
Secretaries while the Congress was in session and Ad
Interim Appointments while it is not so as to avoid
scrutiny by the Commission on Appointments.
Held: Again, the doctrine of capable of repetition yet
evading review. The Court ruled the appointments as
constitutional and within the powers of the President.
5
Joya vs PCGG
Held: The old masters’ paintings were not considered
as national cultural treasures under Sec 2 of RA 4846 as
certified by the Director of National Museum. Hence,
Joya, et. al. can’t be considered as proper party to the
case as citizens, taxpayers and artists as the case does
not involve a public right. If there can be a party to the
case, it is the private donors who had given the
collection to the former first lady Imelda Marcos.
Agan vs PIATCO
Held: Agan, et. al., as taxpayers and private citizens are
proper party to the case because:
1. The agreement of PIATCO with Manila Airport
Authority and DOTr involves possible dissolution of
any existing concession agreements of MIAA with its
service providers. Agan, et. al are representatives of
these service providers, hence have a substantial
interest on the resolution of the case.
2. The case involves illegal disbursement of public
funds as guarantees without the need of legislative
appropriation (taxpayer standing)
3.The case involves an issue of transcendental
importance.
CHR Employees Assoc vs CHR
Held: An employee association, even if not the
officially recognized labor union in the Company or
Department, is a proper party because individual
members have a personal and substantial interest on
the resolution of the case; as the case involves
upgrading and reclassification of personnel positions in
CHR without approval of DBM.
Automotive Industries Workers’ Alliance vs Romulo
Held: The worker’s alliance is not a proper party to the
case because they are not the party who is at risk to the
transfer of administrative supervision of NLRC. All
decisions of the NLRC are still not subject to the
review of the DOLE. If there is a proper party to the
case it is the NLRC Labor Union as they are the ones
who will be affected of the said restructure.
Citizen Standing- you can file as citizen if the right you
are enforcing or demanding a relief of is a public right; a
right which belongs to every Filipino (e.g. healthful
ecology, right to be informed of matters of public
concern)
Tañada vs Tavera
Held: Tañada, et. al have standing as a citizen because
the Court ruled that the right to be informed of matters
of public concern and of all transactions involving
public interest, as prescribed by Sec 28, Art II, is an
enforceable public right which can be assailed by every
citizen.
Chavez vs PEA
Held: Chevez, et. al has standing as citizens because the
issue involves:
1. Right of information in matters of public
concern.
2. Right to an equitable distribution of alienable
lands of public domain among Filipino
citizens.
Associational Standing- valid if the members have a
valid legal right to the case and its individual members
would otherwise have standing should they file the case
in their own right
KMU vs Garcia
Held: KMU has legal standing because its members are
laborers and wage earners who are definitely part of the
commuting public thus are to suffer an injury should
the regulative powers of LTFRB be transferred to Bus
operators.
IBP vs Zamora
Held: IBP has no legal standing since no member of
the IBP has been reported a victim of illegal search or
has suffered violation of their rights in the order of the
President mandating the Phil Marines to guard and
roam public places such as malls.
Executive Sec vs CA
Key Fact: Dole instituted a policy to send abroad only
skilled workers.
Held: Asian Recruitment Council (ACRO-PHIL) has
legal standing even if it is an organization of
Recruitment agencies because it is filing the case on
behalf of its workers. An organization can sue on behalf of
their constituents. If it is filing the case on behalf of its
member agencies then it would have no legal standing.
Issue of Transcendental Importance- the Court may
decide to relax its procedures and take a liberal stance
on the issue of locus standi if they find the question in
the case as an issue of transcendental importance.
Three requisites:
a) Seriousness
b) Weight
6
c) Novelty- the question has not been settled
before. It is a case that would become a
precedent.
Kilosbayan vs Guingona
Held: Kilosbayan has standing following the
doctrine of transcendental importance as the
case involves:
a) Public interest that would affect the
social, economic and moral well-being of
Filipinos
b) Huge amounts of revenues expected to
be generated from the proceeds of Lotto
c) A question that has not been decided
before.
Taxpayer standing- when the act assailed
involves illegal or unconstitutional disbursement
of public funds, whether or not the petitioner is
an income taxpayer or not (no one can escape
taxation- VAT), and regardless of the amount of
taxes he pays.
ITF vs Comelec
Held: Information Technology Foundation has
legal standing because the case involves billions
of pesos to be used in purchasing Vote
Counting Machines. The procedure of
procurement didn’t go through the normal
process and was further proven to not go
through the bidding process. Additionally, and
to make it worse, Mega Pacific Consortium, the
contractor, didn’t have the sufficient technical
capability to institute the project.
Voter’s standing- a voter whose right to suffrage
was allegedly impaired is entitled to judicial
redress
Tolentino v Comelec
Held: The piecemeal submission of amendments
clearly violates the right of a voter for full
information and appreciation of the alterations
on the fundamental law he is being called upon
to vote.
Legislative standing- when the official action
complained of infringes on their prerogatives as
legislators (i.e. it involves usurpation of authority
duly accorded to them by the Constitution).
Ople v Torres
Held: The Administrative Order 308, adopting a
national computerized identification reference
system, is a usurpation of the authority of the
Congress to legislate hence Sen Ople has
standing to sue.
Governmental standing- duly representatives of
the government (i.e. City Fiscal and Solicitor
General) can assail constitutionality of a law
enacted by the legislative because it is the
outmost duty of the Government to uphold the
Constitution.
People vs Vera
Held: Sol Gen and Fiscal, representing the State,
can successfully pursue a case declaring the
unconstitutionality of the Probation law being
effective only once a Probation officer was
appointed by the province making it
discretionary thus violating the equal protection
clause of the Constitution.
Facial Challenge
Freedom of speech cases can be challenge
facially because of chilling effect- fear of
punishment makes you unable to exercise a duly
protected right.
A statute is void for vagueness when through
the language of the statute, men of common
intelligence can’t ascertain specific acts that
needs to avoid, thus violative of due process. It
also gives arresting officers discretion whom to
arrest and which acts to punish.
Estrada vs Sandiganbayan
Held: Estrada cannot assail void for vagueness
doctrine through facial challenge because facial
challenge can’t be accomplished for penal
statutes. Penal statues by their very nature are in
terorem, they are by nature design to inflict fear
on the public.
Imbong vs Ochoa
Held: Facial challenge can be successfully made
if the question involves a violation of the
freedom of religion because it is among the
preferred rights. Ratio: US Jurisprudence- freedom
of religion is among the first amendment rights
together with freedom of speech and the press.
Note: Conscientious objector, and how this is
violative of the freedom of religion.
7
3. Earliest Opportunity- deals with ripeness of
the case. It is ripe if it is neither premature nor
moot and academic.
4. Necessity of Deciding Constitutional
Questions- the constitutional question is the
lis mota of the case. If there is a way to settle
the case without dealing with the
constitutional question, the Court will do so.
Part IV- Three Branches of the Government
A. Congress
Allocation of districts
Sema vs Comelec
Held: Power to create a new province is not a
power Congress can delegate because it
effectively creates a new district- a power
exclusively reserved by the Constitution to
Congress
Macias vs Comelec
Held: Apportionment of districts among the
provinces is void and unconstitutional
because of gross disproportion.
Tan vs Comelec
Held: On a plebiscite declaring a new local
government unit, not only the municipality or
the barangays under the proposed new local
government unit be included on the ballot,
the constituents of the mother local unit
should also be allowed to vote as the decision
would also greatly affect them.
Partylist
Banat vs Comelec
- current jurisprudence in force in computing
for the total and individual seats for each
partylist.
-please see formula on a separate excel sheet
Atong Panglaum vs Comelec
Held: The following may qualify as partylist
a. National party
b. Regional party
c. Sectoral party
National party can run as partylist provided it
has not participated on the elections for
district congressmen. Political parties who
participated in district elections can likewise
 run as partylist provided it is the sectoral arm
of the national party (e.g. LP Youth).
Regional parties- e.g. Ako Bikol, AMIN
Sectoral- marginalized and underrepresented
whether politically or economically. They are
not necessary for poor sectors but they are
underrepresented in relation to the 80%
members who are from districts.
Residency requirement- for political law
purposes, this is the same as domicile.
Domicile depends on the intention provided
you had established a substantive link to the
place. You have a substantial link if-
a) Your family is residing on the place
b) It is your place of business
c) You are actually staying there
d) Your roots are there
Aquino vs Comelec
Held: Not a resident because he merely rented
a condominium for the sake of having a
Makati address.
Marcos vs Comelec
Held: Imelda has fulfilled the residence
requirement because he has a family home in
Tacloban and has actually stayed there and her
ultimate intention is to return to her home
province.
Torayno vs Comelec
Held: Torayno has successfully sastisy the
residence requirement because his place of
work as Provincial Governor of Misamis
Oriental is at Cagayan de Oro. Hence, he can
successfully run as mayor of Cagayan de Oro
even if when he ran as governor he is listed as
a resident of Tagaloan.
2. Election
a. Regular
b. Special- is not compulsory but can be
accomplished only if there is at least one
year remaining on the term of the
Senator/Congressmen who either was
forced out or personally vacated the seat.
Senate hardly do this and HoR most of
the time just assigned a caretaker
congressman.
8
Two-step procedure
a) Resolution from the Chamber
declaring a need for special election
b) A call for special election from the
Comelec**
Tolentino vs Comelec
**Held: A call from Comelec is no longer
necessary in order for a special election to
prosper because a Resolution from the
Chamber is a constructive notice to the
public of a special election.
3. Organizations and Sessions
a. Elections of Officers- only two
mandated officer based on the 1987
Constitution- House Speaker and
Senate President. All the rest of
officers are merely based on house
rules.
Santiago vs Comelec
Held: Election of minority leader is a
political question because there are no
manageable standards for resolving
the question as the Constitution is
silent on the election of other officers
of legislative aside from the Senate
President and House Speaker. Such
manner and procedures is left for the
individual chambers to decide
Baguilat vs Alvarez
Held: The argument that a rule should
be followed because it has been “a
long-standing tradition” does not
hold water because House Rules are
subject for revisions anytime by the
Chamber. Again, election of minority
leader is determined to be a political
question.
b. Quorum
Sec 16 (2), Article VI- majority of
each house
Avelino vs Cuenco – determination
of quorum needed to elect a new
Senate President is a political
question.
c. Rules of Proceedings
Sec 16(3), Article VI- determined by
each House
Pacete vs Comm on Appointments –
judge confirmed but confirmation
later revoked. Based on rules of
procedures, motion for
reconsideration does not
automatically revoke such
confirmation; justiciable- based on
existing procedures
Arroyo vs De Venecia – Conference
committee report can be approved
even if while Joker is still speaking;
political question
d. Discipline each member
Sec 16(3), Article VI – disorderly
behavior, 2/3 vote can suspend or
expel a member. Suspension must not
exceed 60 days.
Alejandrino vs Quezon – Alejandrino
suspended for one year for punching
a colleague on the Senate floor. Can
the SC review and set aside such
decision? No. This is a political
question.
Osmena vs Pendatun- immunity from
libel suits does not cover immunity
from disciplinary action by the House.
Santiago vs Sandiganbayan – while
the Constitution confers upon each
Chamber the exclusive power to
suspend a member, such power is
limited to disciplinary actions. Hence,
pre-emptive suspension can be
enforced by the Sandiganbayan to any
legislators even without the approval
of the chamber or the leadership.
9
De Venecia vs Sandiganbayan- same
as Santiago vs Sandiganbayan
e. Journal and Record
Journal – action taken on each bill
on that day; significant events on
that day
Record – transcript of the
deliberations
Enrolled bill theory- a doctrine in
judicial construction that when a bill
was enacted into a law, all rules of
procedures in enactment is presumed
to be properly followed and the
signed version represents the true
intention of the legislative
Casco Chemical vs Gimenez- urea
and formaldehyde vs urea
formaldehyde. Can’t be judicially
declared as an error. Remedy is an
amendment or repeal.
Probative value of the journal – the
journal is a corroborating, supporting
and substantiating evidence. Courts
are bound by what is written in the
journal
US vs Pons – House journal is
conclusive evidence that support a
fact. House can validly order that the
time freeze during session.
Journal Entry Rule vs Enrolled Bill
Theory
Astorga vs Villegas – enrolled bill
takes precedence over the journal
entries.
Hierarchy Rule
a) Enrolled Bill
b) Journal
c) Records
Morales vs Subido – enrolled bill
should be followed but the bill was
later revoked by the withdrawal of
signatures of the President as well as
the leaders of the Chambers.
 f. Sessions (Section 15, Article VI)
1. Regular Session- starts at 4th
Monday of July every year unless
provided by law, and shall
continue based on the number of
days it shall determine and until
30 days prior to opening of the
next regular session exclusive of
Sat, Sun and holidays
2. Special- anytime by the President
3. Joint Session- instances
i. To declare a state of war
(Section 23, Art VI)
ii. Canvassing of votes for
President and Vice President
(Section 4, par 4, Art VII)
iii. Revoke a declaration of
martial law and/or
suspension of writ of habeas
corpus (Section 18, par 1,
Article VII)
4. Salaries, Privileges and Disqualifications
a. Salaries
Philconsa vs Mathay- the salary of legislators
cannot be increase until all the terms of the
Senators and Congressmen who approve such
increase is over. This is to avoid conflict of
interest.
Ligot vs Mathay – neither is the retirement
pay of legislators be adjusted based on the
new salary because it would be a conflict of
interest. What can’t be done directly should
not be allowed indirectly.
5.
b. Freedom from Arrest
Section 11, Article VI – freedom from arrest
from cases punishable by not more than 6
years while the Congress is in session.
People vs Jalosjos- convicted of statutory
rape. Not allowed to leave the prison but
instead hold office in the premises.
c. Speech and Debate Clause -Section 11, Article
VII – no Member shall be held liable nor be
questioned in any other place for any speech
or debate in the Congress or in any committee
thereof
Jimenez vs Cabangbang- rule above does not
apply because – a) the Congress is not in
10
session; and b) not in the performance of his
duty as a legislator
d. Disqualifications
Section 13 and 14, Article VI
i. Hold any other office or employment in
the government including GOCC and its
subsidiaries
ii. To any other office created or the
emoluments increased during his term in
office
iii. Appear as legal counsel in any court,
electoral tribunal, quasi-judicial body and
administrative body
iv. Neither shall he directly or indirectly be
interested financially to any contract with,
including franchise or special privilege
granted by the Government or GOCC or
its subsidiaries
v. Exercise his profession
Adaza vs Pacana -can’t serve both as
governor and member of the parliament
Puyat vs De Guzman
Liban vs Gordon – Phil Red Cross not a
government instrumentality. The Control
test was applied on Phil Red Cross.
e. Duty to Disclose- Section 12, Article VI
Disclose in full all financial and business
interest and notify the House of any possible
conflict of interest that may arise
Electoral Tribunals- Section 17, Article VI
a. 9 members- 3 Justices to be appointed by CJ,
6 from Congress (depending whether it was a
SET or HRET) chosen based on proportional
representation of political parties and partylist
representatives. Most senior Justice serves as
Chairman.
b. Sole judge of all contests relating to election,
returns, and qualifications of its members
Abbas vs SET – at all times, the SET shall be
composed of Senators and Justices. Abbas cannot
ask the sitting Senators to inhibit even if they are
included as respondent on the case. His remedy is
to appeal the decision to the SC shall he be not
satisfied with the result.
 Bondoc vs Pineda- political parties cannot just
simply change its representations shall they not be
satisfied with the vote of their member sitting in
the tribunal.
Codilla vs De Venecia- even if a member has
already taken his oath of office, he shall still be
subject to the jurisdiction of the Comelec ( or SC
if appealed) if the issue involves a dispute on the
resolutions issued by the Comelec. Electoral
Tribunal only assumes jurisdiction if the case was
first filed after she has taken the oath of office or
if it pertains to questions on his qualifications as a
result of any events arising after he has taken his
oath.
Pimentel vs HRET –
a. Electoral tribunals and Commission on
Appointments are bereft of powers to
reconstitute themselves. Each chamber has
the exclusive power to reconstitute the
members of the tribunal.
b. Partylist groups are only entitled to one seat in
the HRET, hence they should decide among
themselves whom they shall nominate. If they
are undecided or contention arises, there will
be no representative among them.
6. Commission on Appointments
a. President of the Senate- ex officio Chairman;
12 Senators and 12 Congressmen on the basis
of political representations of political parties
and partylist group.
b. Duty- to determine fitness of appointments of
the President submitted to them
c. Act on all appointments submitted to them
within thirty sessions days
d. Rule by majority
Daza vs Singson- Daza cannot cling to his seat in
the Commission because there was a departure of
members of LP to LDP. In order to have a seat in
the Commission you have to show that the group
you are representing is really entitled to the seat.
Coseteng vs Mitra – Coseteng cannot compel the
House to appoint her the last seat on the CA
based on the theory that the minority (parties
outside of majority coalition) is entitled to one seat
as what is done last Congress. The computation is
still based on the political parties in which her
partylist group is not entitled to any seat.
Furthermore, she cannot used as persuasive device
11
the endorsement of 9 congressmen from minority
because 1) they are not her party mates; 2) all of
the nine also endorsed another Congressman from
minority bloc.
Guingona vs Gonzales -the number 12 on the
Constitution is the MAXIMUM number of seats,
you cannot round up decimal numbers. Even if
the numbers were less than 12, it is still okay so
long as they don’t violate the requirement for
proportional representation. It is also
constitutional even if the number of
representatives from each chamber is not equal.
Drilon vs De Venecia- doctrine of primary
jurisdiction. You should file a complaint first to
the Speaker/Senate president/leadership and if not
satisfied with the result that is the time to raise it
to the SC.
7. Powers of Congress
a. General Plenary Powers- they can legislate
anything under the sun so long as they follow
the constitutional limitations
b. Limitations
i. Substantive limitations- limitations on the
content of the law
ii. Procedural limitations- limitations on the
manner of passing the law
8. Legislative Process
a. Requirements as to bills
1. As to titles of the bills- Section 26 (1),
Article VI. One title, one subject rule.
Tio vs Videogram Regulatory Board-
germane because of the word
“Regulatory” which presupposes the
power to regulate and consequently the
power to collect the cost of regulation.
The Court has always adopted a very
permissible or liberal approach in
constitutional cases involving the title of
the law.
Lidasan vs Comelec- “An Act Creating
the Municipality of Dinaton in the
Province of Lanao del Sur”.
Unconstitutional because it also included
barangays from Cotobato.
 Dela Cruz vs Paras- closing down of
night clubs by the Bocaue City Council.
The RA specifically provides in the title
that municipalities can only “regulate”
while in the body, it says it can also
“prohibit”. The SC ruled that in case of
conflict between the provision and the
title, the title prevails. This is in
consonance with the due process clause
of the Constitution and the people’s
Right to Notice.
Tobias vs Abalos – even if the new law
enacted creating the city of Mandaluyong
and declaring it highly urbanized city
does not expressly states on the title the
creation of the new legislative district of
San Juan, the statute is still valid because
the creation of a separate district is but of
a legal consequence of declaring
Mandaluyong as a city.
2. Requirements as to certain laws- Section
25, Article VI- read it very carefully.
a. Appropriation laws
Demetria vs Alba- transfer of one
fund from once branch to another is
unconstitutional. Augmentation is
allowed. Augmentation is the
process in which a branch had
completed a project
identified/specified in the GAA and
has savings and thus use that savings
for another project. Only the branch
heads and constitutional
commissions heads have the
authority to do so.
Guingona vs Carague – Automatic
Debt Servicing is valid because it is
authorized and guided by an already
existing law which is RA 4860, as
amended by PD 18, or the Foreign
Borrowing Act, a law passed by
Congress allowing the Secretary of
Finance to make schedule payments
to the huge foreign debts left behind
by Marcos regime. It is also
constitutional even if ADS is higher
than the budget for Education for
what the Constitution merely means
is that it must have the highest
12
budget among all departments or
agencies of government. It shall not
be made a hindrance to Congress to
address national emergency or
exigency.
Belgica vs Executive Secretary –
PDAF or Pork Barell is
Unconstitutional in two grounds:
a) It gives legislative both the
power to authorized (through
the GAA) the spending and the
power to participate in its
implementation and
enforcement
b) Lump sum appropriations by
the legislative in GAA deny the
President his per item veto
power as provided by the
Constitution
Likewise, Presidential Pork is void in
relation to funds released or projects
implemented in pursuance of the
following provisions:
i. Malampaya Fund- “as such as
other purposes may be hereafter
directed by the President”
ii. Presidential Social Fund- “to
finance the priority infrastructure
development projects”
Araullo vs Aquino
Disbursement Acceleration Program
(DAP)
a. Moved funds from slow
moving projects to priority
ones
b. Withdraw funds from line
item projects, then declare it
as savings, then reallocated to
priority ones
c. Sometimes funds are sourced
from unprogrammed funds-
funds not considered in the
preparation of budget
d. Funds are also used to fund
non-executive programs –
CPLA, MILF subsidies
Section 29 (1), Article VI- No
money shall be paid out of
treasury except in pursuance of an
appropriation made by law. DAP
does not violate this for DAP is
neither a fund nor an
appropriation, it is an
administrative program of
prioritizing spending.
DAP is Unconstitutional in three
grounds
a) The withdrawal of
unobligated allotments from
the implementing agencies
and the declaration of the
withdrawn obligated
allotments and unreleased
appropriations as savings
prior to the end of fiscal year
without complying to the
statutory definition of savings
in the GAA
Definition of Savings under
2011-2013 GAA
i. Funds still available after
the completion or final
discontinuance of the work,
activity or purpose for
which the appropriation is
authorized
ii. From appropriated
balances arising from
unpaid compensation and
related costs pertaining to
vacant positions
iii. From appropriations
balances realized after
implementing of measures
resulting to improved
systems and efficiencies
b) The cross-border transfers of
the savings of the Executive
to other offices outside of
executive branch
c) The funding of projects,
activities or programs that
were not covered or
appropriated by GAA
The Court also declared void
the use of unprogrammed funds
despite the absence of a
certification by the National
13
Treasurer that revenue
collections exceeded the
revenue targets.
Scenarios when unprogrammed
funds can be used by the
executive as provided by GAA
i. Revenue collections
exceeded revenue targets
ii. Additional foreign funds
are generated
Not included is if there are
new revenues from new
sources as contended by
respondents
b. Tax Laws- Section 28, Article 26-
uniform, equitable and progressive
Section 24 – appropriation, revenue
or tariff bill authorizing increase in
public debt, bills of local application
and private bills must originate in the
HoR
Tolentino vs Sec of Finance – It is
constitutional even if what is
approved by the BCC is the Senate
version of the tax bill and not the
House. Even the bill is required to
originate in House, Senate can
propose amendments and these
amendments were valid even if they
totally alter the House version.
Lastly, the BCC report still needs the
approval of both chambers thus an
opportunity from the House to
dispute or disapprove the same.
Lung Center vs QC-
Section 28 (2)
i. All lands, buildings and
improvements…
ii. Actually, directly and exclusively
used for…
iii. Religious, charitable or
educational purposes shall be
exempt from taxation
Q: What if the business/institution
uses land not exclusively for
charitable purposes?
A: SC has provided the following
guidelines
i. For an institution to be
considered charitable, 60% of
the business activity must be
reserve for charity
ii. Only portions leased to private
individuals are not exempted
from real property tax
iii. Also exempted are open spaces
Tan vs Del Rosario –
Uniformity of taxation, like the
kindred concept of equal protection,
merely requires that all subjects of
taxation, similarly situated are to be
treated alike both in privileges and
liabilities (Juan Luna Subdivision vs
Sarmiento)
Uniformity does not forfend
classification as long as:
i. The standards applied are
substantial and not arbitrary
ii. The categorization is germane
to achieve the legislative
purpose
iii. The law applies, all thing equal,
to both present and future
conditions; and
iv. The classification applies equally
well to all those belonging to
the same class
Garcia vs Exec Secretary – the
President issued two executive
orders imposing additional excise
taxes across the board to all crude oil
imported from foreign countries.
The Court ruled that these executive
orders are valid even if they create
new laws because they are just in
pursuance of the delegated powers
provided by Congress under the
Tariff and Customs Code.
John Hay PAC vs Lim – the
President issued an executive order
declaring John Hay PAC with the
14
same tax exemptions as Subic
Freeport Zone for the two are very
similar in character. The Court
declared the executive order
unconstitutional for the charter of
John Hay PAC does not provided
any exemptions as contrast to the
charter of Subic. This is usurpation
of power by the legislative.
c. Appellate jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court
Fabian vs Desierto- the legislative
cannot pass a law providing that
administrative decisions of
Ombudsman shall be appealable to
the SC without first consulting SC as
this is effectively in violation of
Section 30, Article VI.
b. Procedure for the passage of bills
Philconsa vs Enriquez
Special Provision on Debt Ceiling-
the Congress provided for a debt
ceiling on the GAA. The President
vetoed the debt ceiling without
vetoing the entire provisions for
debt service. The Court said this is
unconstitutional, the debt service
provisions and the debt service are
germane and have direct relation to
each other, hence are to be
considered one-line item. Either the
President veto the entire line item or
accept them altogether.
Special Provisions on Revolving
Funds for SCUs – the President
vetoed provision allowing Western
Visayas State U and Leyte State
Colleges to have a revolving fund
while allowing the same to other
SCUs. This is constitutional because
the revolving funds of other SCUs
are in pursuance of other existing
laws.
On Road Maintenance- Congress
provided 30% ratio of works for
maintenance of roads. The President
vetoed the provision for ratio
without vetoing the entire provisions
for road maintenance. This is
Unconstitutional, same logic as the
first item.
On Purchase of Equipment –
Congress made a provision requiring
their approval before the release of
AFP modernization fund. The veto
is valid, undue interference. Any
attempt blocking administrative
action requires a separate law.
On Use of Savings of AFP Pension
Fund- Congress authorizes the AFP
Chief-of-Staff to augment pension
fund using the savings. Veto is valid,
only the President can augment
funds in the executive branch.
On Conditions for de-activation of
CAFGUs- the Congress allowed the
used of special funds for
compensation of deactivated
CAFGU members. The veto is valid,
this is in effect an amendment of
another existing law requiring the
prior approval of the President. A
provision in GAA cannot be used to
repeal or amend another existing
law.
Gonzales vs Macaraig – President
veto of the prohibition in
augmentation is valid because
augmentation is clearly allowed
under the Constitution.
Bengzon vs Drilon – The President
has no power to set aside or override
the decisions of the Supreme Court
nor has the power to amend other
statues by just vetoing a provision of
GAA.
The per line veto power does not
extend to vetoing part of an item
and to approve the remaining
15
portion therein. Either veto the
entire item or none at all.
Miller vs Mardo – Congress
provided a provision on a bill stating
that if unacted upon by the Congress
the bill shall become a law. This is
unconstitutional for they treat it like
a GAA which if not passed on time
the last year’s GAA is deemed
reenacted. This is not applicable to
any other laws because the
Constitution has provided a detailed
and rigorous process on the passage
of statutes which must be followed
at all times.
c. Effectivity of Laws
Tanada vs Tuvera – civil code qualifies
the effectivity date but not the
requirement of publication
EO 200- laws can also be published in a
newspaper of general circulation.
d. Question hour- only applicable in a
parliamentary form of government- a
leftover provision
e. Legislative investigation – Section 21,
Article VI
Arnault vs Nazareno – power to
contempt is an inherent power of
Congress in its investigative power. There
is no requirement that a law or bill must
come up from the investigation. Court
cannot look upon the wisdom of the
decision to cite him in contempt.
Arnault vs Balagtas – the power to
determine when contempt should stop is
solely on the hands of legislative, the
Court cannot be asked to adjudicate on
the matter.
Bengzon vs Senate Blue Ribbon-
Congress can no longer investigate them
once a case was filed on the
Sandiganbayan. The issue is transferred
from legislative to judiciary at the time of
filing. Note: Ombudsman is not part of
judiciary but a quasi-judicial function.
Senate vs Ermita- EO 464 was issed by
the President requiring all executive
officials and emloyees to seek first her
approval before appearing in any Senate
or House committee investigations or
hearings. Senator claims this is
unconstitutional as this infringe on their
power to investigate. The Supreme Court
ruled the Senators are correct. Congress
undoubtedly has a right to information
from the executive branch whenever it is
sought in aid of legislation. If the
executive branch withholds such
information on the ground that it is
privileged, it must so assert it and state
the reason therefor and why it must be
respected. The infirm provisions of E.O.
464, however, allow the executive branch
to evade congressional requests for
information without need of clearly
asserting a right to do so and/or
proffering its reasons therefor. By the
mere expedient of invoking said
provisions, the power of Congress to
conduct inquiries in aid of legislation is
frustrated.
Sabio vs Gordon- EO 1 was issued by
President Cory Aquino creating the
PCGG and exempting it from appearing
in committee investigations and hearings
by the legislative. After the promulgation
of 1987 Consitution, the EO is deemed
impliedly repeal because such EO would
diminish the investigating power of the
Congress. Under the 1987 Consitution,
there is only one exemption to the
questioning/investigating power of the
legislative- claim of executive privilege.
Neri vs Senate – Neri refused to answer
questions pertaining to NBN-ZTE deal
claiming executive privilege. Senate
claimed this is unconstitutional and
infringes on their power.
The SC recognized the executive
privilege which is the Presidential
communications privilege. It pertains to
“communications, documents or other
materials that reflect presidential
decision-making and deliberations and
that the President believes should remain
confidential.” Presidential
16
communications privilege applies to
decision-making of the President. It is
rooted in the constitutional principle of
separation of power and the President’s
unique constitutional role.
The claim of executive privilege is highly
recognized in cases where the subject of
inquiry relates to a power textually
committed by the Constitution to the
President, such as the area of military and
foreign relations. The information
relating to these powers may enjoy
greater confidentiality than others.
Elements of presidential communications
privilege:
1) The protected communication
must relate to a “quintessential and non-
delegable presidential power.” - i.e. the
power to enter into an executive
agreement with other countries. This
authority of the President to enter into
executive agreements without the
concurrence of the Legislature has
traditionally been recognized in
Philippine jurisprudence.
2) The communication must be
authored or “solicited and received” by a
close advisor of the President or the
President himself. The judicial test is that
an advisor must be in “operational
proximity” with the President.
3) The presidential communications
privilege remains a qualified privilege that
may be overcome by a showing of
adequate need, such that the information
sought “likely contains important
evidence” and by the unavailability of the
information elsewhere by an appropriate
investigating authority. - there is no
adequate showing of a compelling need
that would justify the limitation of the
privilege and of the unavailability of the
information elsewhere by an appropriate
investigating authority.
Areas where the President can invoke
executive privilege:
a. Foreign relations
b. National Security
c. Communication between the
President and her cabinet
d. Trade secrets
 e. On-going negotiations d.
Garcillano vs HoR- The requirement that e.
each Congress published its rules is
indispensable. It is not satisfied by reason
that the rules did not change from 1995
to present for each Congress is different
from the previous one as the Congress is
not a continuing body like the SC but a
continuing institution. It is not also
satisfied by just publishing it online for
the RA8792 or Electronic Commerce
Law merely provides that online
published documents can be used as f.
evidence, no provision of the law
amended explicitly or impliedly the g.
requirement of publication imposed by h.
the Civil Code and EO 200.
i.
9. Other Powers
a. Oversight j.
Abakada vs Purisima- the Congress cannot k.
validly create a Joint Congressional Oversight l.
Committee to review the IRRs published by
the executive branch on the laws they enact.
This is undue interference and a breach of the
separation of powers provided for by the
Constitution. Rulemaking in the execution of
laws is exclusively vested in the executive
branch. The remedy if they believe the
executive go overboard or beyond what the
law provided is to file a petition for certiorari
in the SC invoking that the executive gravely
abused their discretion in creating such rules.
Decide on the disability of the President-
Section 11, Article VII
Legislative veto or extension of declaration of
martial law and/or suspension of writ of
habeas corpus
Padilla vs Congress – the Congress is only
required to convene on a joint session to
revoke declaration of martial law and/or
suspension of writ of habeas corpus, but can
validly just issued separate statements if they
plan to support such declaration or
suspension
Presidential amnesties – Section 19 (par 2),
Article VII
Concur in treaties – Section 21, Article VII
Declaration of state of war- Section 23(1),
Article VI
Declaration of emergency powers – Section
23(2), Article VI
Utilization of natural resources- review power
Amendment of Constitution
Power of Impeachment

b. Act as board of canvassers for presidential

election
Pimentel vs Joint Comm – The Congress
acting as board of canvassers determining the
authenticity and due execution of the
certificates of canvass and canvassing the
votes cast for Presidential and Vice-
Presidential candidates is clearly performing a
non-legislative function hence cannot be
ordered upon to cease in their work just
because the session of the Congress has
ended. They must comply with their
constitutionally mandated task even if their
session has ended.

c. Call a special election for President -Section

10, Article VII

17