ELECTION OF OFFICERS

Santiago vs. guingona

Fact: ioust daw si guigona cause he is not the right minority leader but instead tatad.

in the case that the term majority or minority is defined differently in different context, for example in
relation to quorum.

No law or regulation states that the defeated candidate shall automatically become the minority leader.

Law: Article 6 Section 16. – The senate shall elects its president and the house of representatives its
speaker, by a majority vote of all its respective members.

A majority of each house shall constitute a quorum to do business. But a smaller number may adjourn
from day to day and ma compel the attendance of absent members such manner, and under such
penalties, as such house may provide.

Ruling: for there to be a quorum there must have to be a majority of the members of the house. In cases
of elections of the senate president and speaker of the house, in ordinary election, majority must be
understood to be a plurality.

QUORUM FREEDOM FROM ARREST

Avelino vs. Cuenco

Fact: there were 22 senators present in the house of senate, 1 was in the hospital 1 was abroad. When
only 22 were present, 10 walked out 12 remained.

that is a majority there was quorum. The number should be reckoned at 23 because one is outside the
Philippines and beyond the jurisdiction of the House of Senate. More than half of 23 is 1.

Ruling: there was business. The term majority also for purposes of majority leader, majority speaker,
means the party which has the most number of members in that house. The minority leader is supposed
to be elected from among the minority party members.

RULES OF PROCEEDINGS

Arroyo vs. De Venecia

Ruling: Simple passage of the approved measure for lack of any objection or opposition is considered
the approval of the final draft. It does not also violate the rule on 3 passages because most houses have
already tackled their respective versions of the bill but which have been subjected to the discretionary
exercise of power by the bicameral conference committee.
Bicameral conference committee – referred to as the 3rd house of congress. This is not found in the
constitution but is based on legislative practice. It is composed of members of both houses who are
interested in the passage of certain legislations and who will have to meet:

1. When there is a conflict in the versions of the bills coming from both houses in order to
harmonize them
2. Even if there is no real conflict but there is a need to refine the language or phraseology of the
intended legislation, then the bicameral conference committee mayh have to convene to come
up with the third and the final version of the bill.

DISCIPLINE MEMBERS

Alejandrino vs. quezon

Osmena vs. pendatun

Santiago vs. Sandiganbayan

Fact: a case for the violation of RA 3019 or the graft and corruption practices act was filed against
Santiago when she was still commissioner. But when the order of suspension was handed down by the
sandiganbayan, she was already re-elected in the senate.

Issue: whether or not a member of the senate could be suspended by the court other than the senate.

Fact: Article 6 section16… under the rules of discipline, it seems to suggest that only the senate can
suspend or penalize its members by suspension for what is known as disorderly behavior.

The power of Congress to penalize its members for what is known as disorderly behavior as defined by
them is the power granted to Congress. But it does not prevent the imposition of preventive suspension
under RA 3019 because it is not a penalty which Section 16 is. This is a form of preventive suspension
pending or after filing a valid information and pending investigation leading to trial.

JOURNAL AND CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

Arroyo vs. de venecia

Fariñas vs. Executive

Abakada vs. Purisima

Fact: the creation of a congressional oversight committee on the ground that it violates the doctrine of
separation of powers, as it permits legislative participation in the implementation and enforcement of
the law, when the legislative function should have been deemed accomplished and completed upon the
enactment of the law.

SC Mentioned OF 3 congressional oversight functions.

1. Legislative scrutiny ( which may include question hour)

2. Legislative investigations.
3. Legislative Supervisions.

Of these 3, Congress can only exercise 2, which are 1. Legislative scrutiny, which includes the budget
hearings and questions hour and 2. Legislative investigations.

Generally, legislative supervision amounts to inward- turning legislation which is not allowed. But there
are two ways by which it can be done:

1. Congressional Oversight Committee- normally had when there is a need for congress to ensure
that the law it has passed is properly implements.
2. Budget hearings.

PROBATIVE VALUE OF JOURNAL

United States vs. Pons

Ruling: it is well settled in the United Sates that such journals may be noticed by the courts in
determining the question whether a particular bill became a law or not.

Result is tha tth elaw and the adjudicated cases make it our duty to take judicial notice of the legislative
journals of the special session of the Philippine Legislature of 1914. These journals are not ambiguous as
to the actual time fo the legislature adjourned 12 midnight.

JOURNAL ENTRY RULE VERSUS ENROLLED BILLT HEORY

Astorga vs. villegas

 SESSIONS

Guevarra vs. inocentes (this case highlights that there is only one congress)

Ruling: when one house is already in recess or as adjourned, automatically the other house would also
adjourn, and therefore, there

Will be no session of congress to be considered because congress will function if both houses are in
function.

ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL

Barbers vs. Comelec

Ruling: Biazon was proclaimed as a winning senator on that 12 th seat the case of qualification or lack of
qualification field by the protestant was supposed to have been lodged in the COMELEC because
jurisdiction now lies with the appropriate electoral tribunal.

Fernandez vs. HRET

Mendoza vs. COMELEC

Abayon vs. HRET

Layog vs. Comelec (important)

Fact: Questioning involving eligibility and qualifications of parties registering and joining in the party list
elections are under the jurisdiction of the COMELEC:

RULING: once the party has been declared a winner and the nominee or nominees proclaimed by the
COMELEC jurisdiction lies with the electoral tribunal.

Once the candidate has been proclaimed, despite the fact that he has not yet assumed office because
june 30 has not yet come to pass, jurisdiction lies with the electoral tribunal.

Jalosjos vs COMELEC

atong paglaum vs. comelec

Reyes vs. Comelec (when start jurisdiction ng hret important)

Fact: According to petitioner, the COMELEC was ousted of its jurisdiction when she was duly proclaimed
because pursuant to section 17 Article VI the HRET has the exclusive jurisdiction to be the sole judge of
all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the members of the House of
representatives.
Law: Article 6 Section 17 The senate and the house of representative 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.

Ruling: COMELEC retains jurisdiction

1. Their was no petition filed on the tribunal

2. Jursidiction of HRET begins only after the candidate is considered a member of the house of
representatives as stated article 6 section 17
3. Cannot be considered as member since term of office of members of house of representatives
begins at noon on the 30 of june thus comelec has still the jurisdiction.
4.

Tanada vs. Comelec

Fact: petition to declare the candidate as a nuisance by the comelec. Despite the decision of the
comelec to declare the candidate as nuiscance candidate, his name was not taken off from the ballot.
Eventually, Tanada lost he wanted the votes for a certain Alvin tanada be counted for him so he filed a
petition for protest before the hret to annul the proclamation of the winning candidate and to have the
votes cast in favor of the nuisance candidate be counted for him. Once there is a proclamation and the
issue is with respect to election returns and qualifications, it shall now be lodged with the Electoral
Tribunal.

Definition of ELECTION, RETURNS AND QUALIFICATIONS all matters affecting the validity fo the
contestee’s title. In particular,

“Election”- refers to the conduct of polls, including the listing of voters, the holding of the electoral
campaign and the casting and counting of votes.

“returns”= refer to the canvass of the returns and the proclamation of the winners including questions
concerning the composition of board of canvassers and the authenticity of the election returs.

“qualification”- refers to matters that could be raised in a quo warrant proceedings against the
proclaimed winner, such as his disloyalty or ineligibility or the inadequacy of the COC.

Lico vs. Comelec

Velasco vs. Belmonte

TY-Delgado vs. HRET

Tanada vs HRET

Rivera vs. Comelec

Abayon vs. Hret

COMPOSITION

Tanada vs. Cuenco

abba vs. set

Pimentel vs. HRET

NATURE OF FUNCTION

Angara vs Electoral Commission

INDEPENDENCE OF THE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL

Bondoc vs. Pineda

Fact: One of the members of congress was forced to resign from the electoral tribunal or forced to be
removed because the party which nominated him considered his membership terminated for acts of
disloyalty. The purpose of his expulsion is his party disloyalty after he revealed how he voted for bondoc

LAW: IT VIOLATED Article VI Section 17 which created the House of Electoral Tribunal to be the “sole
judge” of election contest.

SC clarified that the member of a party can be removed from a party, thereby, removing in the electoral
tribunal on accts of disloyalty for certain causes except voting against a partys interest. Expulsion
violates his right to security of tenure. Disloyalty to party is not a valid cause for termination of
membership in HRET.

POWERS

Libanan vs. HRET

Garcia vs. HRET

JUDICIAL REVIEW OF DEICISIONS OF ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL

Martinez vs. Hret

Sandoval vs. HRET

Vilando vs. HRET

Ruling: Decision of the HRET though they are supposed to be considered complete in itself and final, can
always be subjected to judicial review on proper cases. They are not immune from judicial interference
if the court, in the exercise of its so called extraordinary jurisdiction to determine whether the electoral
tribunal has acted with grave abuse of discretion they can actually review decision on the electoral
tribunal.

COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENS

Guingona vs. Gonzales

REQUIREMENTS AS TO BILLS

As to titles of bills

Philippine Judges Association vs. Prado

Bill must be one subject one title rule for the reason of:

1. To prevent log rolling legislation

2. To avoid misrepresentation or surprises on part of the congress who are to tackle the legislation
3. To apprise the public of what the object or subject of the legislation is in order for them to be
heard on account of due process

De Guzman vs. Comelec

Fact: the validity of ra 8189 or “ the voters registration actg of 1996 was challenged. It included the
reassigns election officers na more than 4 yrs na isa ka lugar ky masweto na daw. It is argued that this
provision is not germane to the title voters registration act.

Law: ARTICLE 6 SECTION 26

RULING: The court said that it is relevant to the subject matter of registration na naa sa title sa law
because it seeks to ensure the integrity of the registration process by providing a guideline for the
comelec to follow in the reassignment of election officers. To protect sanctity of registration of voters .

Cruz vs. Paras

Fact: there was an ordinance to pass which is anchored on RA 938 which is to “ regulate the
establishment, maintenance and operation of amusement. But then ung isang city ang ordinance ginawa
sa title is prohibit not regulate

Law: Article 6 section 16

Ruling: unconstitutional ordinance since the word regulate is not synonymous with prohibit and regulate
.

Fariñas vs. Executive

Fact: Omnibus election code of section 67 was repealed by RA 9006 that if you are an appointive offiialr
you are deemed resigned but if you are an elective official if you filed COC you are not deemed resigned.

Law: One title one subject Article 6

Ruling: The repeal of the law is germane to this new law because it is only by way of a new law that you
can amend a previous law. It does not violate since it only fosters the enhancement of free, orderly
honest and peaceful and credible election because there will be now a control insofar as appointive
officials are concerned.

As to title of bills

Imbong vs. Ochoa

Fact: the petitioners question the constitutionality of rh law, claiming that it violates article 6 section 26(
1). Prescribing the one subject-one title rule. According to them, being one for reproductive health with
responsible parenthood, the assailed legislation violates the constitutional standards of due process by
concealing its true intent to act as a population control measure.

Law Article 6 section 26(1)

Ruling:The rule is sufficiently complied with if the title is comprehensive enough as to include the
general object which the statute seeks to effect, and where, as here, the persons interested are
informed or the nature, scope and consequences of the proposed law and its operation. Moreover, this
court has invariably adopted a liberal rather than technical constructionf of the rule so as not to cripple
or impede legislation.

Requirements as to certain laws

Origin of Bills

Abakada vs. Purisima

Appropriation laws

Brillantes vs. Comelec

Atitiw v. Zamora

Belgica vs. Ochoa

Fact:

It may be concluded that an appropriation bill, to ensure that the president may be able to exercise his
power of item veto, must contain specific appropriations of money and not only general provisions
which provide for a parameters of appropriation.

An item characterized by singular correspondence- meaning an allocation of a specified singular amount

for a specified singular purpose, otherwise known as a line-item

Araullo vs. aQuino III.

As a general rule you cannot pass a law authorizing any transfer of apropriaition.

It can authorize the President, president of senate, speaker of the house, and chief justice and heads of
the constitutional commission to be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriation law,
with their respective savings, items or their respective appropriations.

If congress fails to pass the general appropriations law it shall deemed be re enacted until the general
appropriatiosn act here may be passed by the congress.

Another Substantive limitation is on taxation, rule of taxation should be uniform and equitable. Congress
shall from a progressive system of taxation. No law granting any tax emption shall be passed without the
reference of majority of the members of congress.

ARTICLE 6 SECTION29.. – No money shall be paid out of the treasury except in pursuance of an
appropriation made by law.

Tax Laws

YMCA vs. CA

Chavez vs. PCGG

Lung Center vs. Quezon City.

Executive vs. Southwing

Alvarez vs. Guingona

Arroyo vs De Venecia
Tolentino vs. Secretary

Abakada vs. executive

QUALIFIED VERSUS ABSOLUTE VETO

Gonzales vs. Macaraig

Bengzon Vs. Drilon

PCA V. Enriquez

Belgica Vs. Ochoa

Legislative Veto

Abakada Vs. Purisima

Tañada vs. Tuvera

Initiative vs. Referendum

Garcia vs. Comelec

SMBA V. Comelec

Santiago Vs. Comelec

Powers of Congress

General Plenary Powers

City of Davao vs. Rtc

It is a basic precept that among the implied substantive limitations on the legislative powers is the
prohibition against the passage of irrepealable laws. Irrepealable laws deprive succeeding legislatures of
the fundamental best senses carte blance in crafting laws appropriate to the operative milie.

Abos vs. Borromeo

Limitations on the Legislative power

Substantive limitations

Express substantive limitations

Nazareth vs. Villar

Fact. This was decided before the DAP and PDAF. This case also involves the transfer of funds because
Section 25(5) mentions allowable transfers of funds. Basically transfer of funds under the Constiution, as
a general rule is not allowed. It can only be allowed under 4 conditions.

1. There is a law authorizing the officers mentioned namely pres, vise pres, speaker of the House,
chief of justice and chairpersons of constitutional commission.
2. There must be a savings
SC said that it cannot be done. When congress authorizes program, plan or activity to be funded
and authorizes a specific sum, that is budget legislation or authorization. Conversely, if congress
did not include the proposed program, plan or activity to be funded in the GAA or through
provided therein but with a lesser amount, it means that congress has disallowed that:
Budget Expenditure and financing
There are two basic items there:
1. Programmed funds –used for approved projects
2. Unprogrammed funds- projects are approved to be funded provided there is an excess in
revenue collections

Belgica Vs. Ochoa

Law: Section 25 Article 6

1. There must have been a specific item to be funded. This will be a program, activity or plan which
is a national expenditure program.
2. Specific sum of money. How much should go in a specific activity

Ruling: SC sait that the PDAF in its present form is unconstitutional because it violates section 25 and
section 29 that no money shall be paid out of the treasury unless pursuant ot an appropriation made
by law.

PDAF in providing for roughly 25b for al members of congress is a form of INTERMEDIATE
APPROPRIATIONS when congress is authorized by the constitution to appropriate funds from public
treasury. IN appropriating funds from public treasury, it should be made by Congress as a
Congressional body and not as an individual legislator who ahs discretion on what program, activity
or plan to fund.

Araullo vs. Aguino III

Savings means that there is a savings either because

1. Project which was identified in the appropriations has been completed and there is an excess
2. They decided to forego with the actual implementation of the projects.
3. Excess in Revenue collection
LAW: Article 6 Seciton 29

Ruling: The OSG posits, that no law was necessary for the adoption and implementation of the DAP
because its being neither a fund nor an appropriation but a program or an administrative system of
prioritizing for religious charitable or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation.

Doctrine of Non Delegation of Powers applicable in all branches of Government

Flores V. Montemayor

There is a delegation of power here of the president, presidential anti graft commission to conduct
investigation against the corruption. The courts said that it is a valid delegation of executive power.

Prohibitions against delegation of legislative power

Gutierrez vs. DBM

Ruling: acknowledge here there is a prupose for the delegation of legislative power to the administrative
bodies. As general rule dili pwede but the court recognized that it has become a necessity in modern
governments because of the increasing variety of public functions.

The law provides as long as there is a clarification in the IRR or any issuances consistent with the
provisions of the law, but the power to promulgate the IRR is limited with what the law provides it
cannot extend the law or expand its privilege. It cannot amend the law.

Cocofed vs. Republic

Fact: PD 755 through this they were able to determine sino pwede bigyan stock certificate in exchange
of the benefit under this fund to alleviate daw lives of cocounut farmers. This PD they said constitute an
undue delegation of legislative power because it authorizes the PCA to promulgate rules an regulations
in the distributin of UCPB shares to coconut farmers.

As a general rule the congress cannot delegate its legislative power but it can do so under certain
circumstance such as:

If it is permitted by the constitution and administrative bodies issuing IRRs to impelement the law.

There is a test ( Sufficient standards test and completeness test)

Before delegation of legislative power, the law itself must be complete and it must lay down a specific
standard so that the entity to produce the IRR or whatever guideline will be guided, will be limited by
the law itself. So a law is complete when it sets forth a policy to be executed to be carried out to be
implemented and it lays down a sufficient standard when it provides adequate guidelines limitation in
the law, to map out the boundaries on how it delegates its authority and prevent the delegation from
running riot.

Belgica vs. Ochoa

Here the PDAF violates non delegation of legislative power because it confers post enactment
identification authority to legislators because these legislators were allowed to individually exercise the
power of appropriation this power of appropriation is lodged in the congress not in the individual
congressman.

Disini vs. Secretary of Justice

Fact: Petitioner mainly contend that congress invalidly delegated its power when it gave the cybercrime
investigation and coordinating center (CICC) the power to formulate a national cybersecurity plan
without any sufficient standards or parameters for it to follow.

In order to determine whether there is undue delegation of legislative power two test:

1. Completeness and sufficient standard test

Completeness- law must be complete in all its terms and conditions when it leaves the legislature
such that when it reaches the delegate, the only thing he will have to do is to enforce it.

Sufficient standard test- mandates adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to determine the
boundaries of the delegates authority and prevent the delegation from running riot.

EXCE3PTIONS TO THE NON DELEGATION DOCTRINE

1. There is the valid delegation to the president under

a.) article 6 section 23 – in times of war and other emergencies the congress may by law
authorize the president for a limited period subject to certain restrictions, to exercise power
necessary to carry out the declared national policy. It can be withdrawn by a resolution of
the congress such power shall cease upon the next adjournment of the congress.
2. Section 28 taxation –the congress may by law authorize the president fixed with specified limits
and subject to the limitations and restrictions as may be imposed (tariff and customs law)
3. Initiative and referendum- the po0wer of the people to directly propose and enact law.

Ruling: Further the formulation of the cybersecurity plan is consistent with the policy of the law to
prevent and combay offenses by facilitating their detection, investigation and prosecution at both the
domestic and international levels by providing arrangements for fast and reliable international
cooperation.
 Procedural limitations

Arroyo vs. De Venecia

Ruling: Simple passage of the approved measure for lack of any objection or opposition is considered
the approval of the final draft. It does not also violate the rule on 3 passages because most houses have
already tackled their respective versions of the bill but which have been subjected to the discretionary
exercise of power by the bicameral conference committee.

Abakada vs. Purisima

The factual setting was that congress allowed an administration body to enact the implementing rulres
and regulations with respect to the attrition law. However, congress said, before the IRR would be
implemented. It has to have prior congressional approval and that the supreme court said is inward
turning legislation. When the power to propose or promulgate IRR is delegated. It fully delegates it. It
cannot be subjected to prior approval of congress for its efficacy because supposedly must have to
provide for the standards and if the standards are met then it should be effective pursuant to the
delegated authority

Senate vs. Ermita( executive privilege)

Law: article 6 section 22

Fact: EO issued by president requires certain officials in the exec to secure consent of the president
before undergoing legislative investigation

Ruling: Executive privilege is only recognized in certain types of information of a sensitive character. The
privilege is attacheddd on the information not on the official. Legislative body cannot legislate wisely if it
does not have information for which the legislation is intended to effect or change. It can be done
through these hearings. And the power of inquiry extend to exec officials. Unconstitutional tong part sa
eo464 lng cause it violates the power of senate to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation because
privilege should be attach on the info not on the official.

Senate blue riboon vs. Majaducon (just same concept with standard chartered)

Fact: Atty Flaviano has a matter that was investigated by senate and that matte was also a case filed
before the RTC.

Law: Article 6 section 21

Ruling: The court emphasized that the mere filing of criminal or administrative complaints before the
court or quais judicial body should not automatically bar the conduct of legislative investigation
oetherwise it would be extremely easy to subvert any intended inquiry by congress to the convenient
ploy of instituting criminal or administrative complaint.

Gudani vs. Senga

Standard Chartered vs Senate Committee ( same ruling with senate blue ribbon vs. majaducon)

Neri vs. Senate Committee

Fact: This involves the ZTE scandal entered into by the Philippines and china. Neri, a cabinet member
was invited by the senate committee tasked with the investigation with the same to divulge or give
information on several matters. When he was asked if the president followed up the project he invoked
executive privilege

Issue: is he covered with executive privilege..

Ruling: The court discussed 2 types of privilege here:

1. Presidential communications
2. Deliberative process privilege

Elements to validly invoke executive privilege

1. The protected communication must relate to a quintessential and non delegable presidential
power
2. The communication must be authored or solicited and received by a close advisor of the
president or the president himself
3. This privilege is qualified because it can be overcome by showing an adequate need to divulge
the information.

Requisites to invoke executive privilege

1. There must be a formal claim of privilege lodged by a head of a department which has control
over the matter
2. There must be a precise and certain reason for preserving the confindentiality of the
information.

Neri was able to validly claim executive privilege.

Garcillano vs. HR Committees

Deals with the limitation set forth by the constitution. Under section 21 the proceedings may be done if
there are published rules of procedures. Here there are no published rules of procedure; weve discussed
this case before. And ginagamit nila na rules are those with the previous senates. So the court said that
without duly published rules of procedure, the proceedings in the committee were all null and void. So
there has to be proper publication.

Philcomsat vs. Senate

Fact: There ws an investigation of anomalies attending the operations of PHILCOMSAT are concerned.
Now the committee found an overwhelming mismanagement by the PCGG and they invited members of
the PCGG and the membes of the PHILCOMSAT to shed light on the same failing to appear before the
committee they were all issued contempt orders.

Issue Did the senate here commit a grave abuse of discretion when it issued these contempt orders

Ruling: The court said that no. in fact if you do not follow the orders of the senate and you do not fall
under the exception there is no valid invocation of executive privilege you can be cited in contempt.

WHO ARE SUBJECT OF IMPEACHMENT

Office vs. Mojico

Gonzales vs. Office of the President

Ruling: while the removal of the Ombudsman himself is also expressly provided for in the constitution
which is by impeachment under Section 244 of the same article, there is, however no constitutional
provision similarly dealing with the removal from office of a deputy ombudsman or a special prosecutor
for that matter. By enacting section 8 of r.a. 6770, congress simply filled a gap in the law without
running afoul of any provision in the constitution or existing statues. In fact, the constitution itself,
under section 2, authorizes congress to provide for the removal of all other public officers, including the
Deputy Ombudsman and Special Prosecutor, who are not subject to impeachment.

All other public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by
impeachment in the second sentence of section 2 article xi is to prevent congress from extending the
more stringent rule of “ removal only by impeachment” to favored public officers.

GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT

PROCEDURE FOR IMPEACHMENT

Francisco vs. Nmmp, inc

Gutierrez vs. Hr Committee on Justice

CONSEQUENCES OF IMPEACHMENT

Estrada vs. Desierto