LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

RANDOM NOTE: The goal is not to make it fast, the goal is to make it stick.

SEC. 1- Legislative Power vested in the 2 Houses. Except to the extent reserved to
the people through Initiative or Referendum

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.

(SYLLABUS) LEGISLATIVE POWER: SCOPE AND LIMITATION

Q: Discuss the scope of legislative power.

ANS:
Legislative power is the power to propose, enact, amend, and repeal statutes
(BERNAS, The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A Commentary, (2009), p. 676)
[hereinafter BERNAS, Commentary on 1987 Philippine Constitution].
It is 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
provisions on initiative and referendum (CONST., Art. VI, Sec.1)

Q: What are the limitations of legislative power?

ANS: Legislative power is subject to:
1. Substantive limitations - which involve the exercise of the power itself and the
allowable subjects of legislation; and
2. Procedural limitations - which specify the manner of passing laws
3. Implied limitations:
Congress cannot pass irrepealable laws-- Because Republicanism
Congress cannot delegate legislative powers--Because legislative power is
ORIGINALLY with the people, but they have delegated it to Congress and other
legislative bodies. What has been delegated cannot be delegated

SUBSTANTIVE LIMITATIONS:
Story: Activist priest with megaphone who is hated by Congress.
A general who wants funds to be transferred to his office.
The general knows the priest because the priest is assigned to his unit
in the armed forces and is being paid for by the government
The general jealous of the priest because his church is tax free. The
general will not be granted tax exemption by Congress. Nor can Congress grant him
royalty or nobility he so desires.

4 from the BILL OF RIGHTS:

Sec. 4- Freedom of speech, expression, and of the press. Freedom to peacably
assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances
Sec. 5- Non-establishment clause, Free Exercise clause, No religious examination
Sec. 10- Non-impairment clause
Sec. 22-Ex post facto and Bill of attainder

8 from the LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT Article VI

Sec. 25 (2)- Provision should relate to a particular appropriation in a GENERAL
APPROPRIATIONS BILL-
Sec. 25 (5)- No law authorizing 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.

Sec. 28 (3)- ADE rule-- all lands, buildings, and improvements, actually, directly,
and exclusively used for religious, charitable, or educational purposes shall be
exempt from taxation.
Sec. 28 (4)- No Tax exemption except if concurred to by majority of All Members of
Congress

Sec. 29 (2)- Non-establishment clause in terms of property or appropriation given

PLUS except when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the
armed forces, or to any penal institution, or government orphanage or
leprosarium.
Sec. 29 (3)- Limitation on tax levied for special purposes-->special funds

Sec. 30- No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court as provided in this Constitution without its advice and concurrence.
Sec. 31- No law granting a title of royalty or nobility shall be enacted.

1 from EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, ARTS, CULTURE, AND SPORTS Article XIV
Sec. 4 (3)- Tax exemption for non-stock and non-profit educational institution (no
ADE)

PROCEDURAL LIMITATIONS
(Yay only 3)
Story: A motorcycle rider nicknamed ATR hurriedly leaves the House of
Representatives because he has to read 3 books on public calamity or emergency
ATR, Riders, and 4 readings

3 from LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT Article VI

Sec. 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 Lower House, but the Senate may propose or
concur with amendments
Sec. 26 (1)- One subject, one title
Sec. 26 (2)- 3 readings on separate days except when the President certifies to the
necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency

SEGUE: Constitutional Provisions that can be changed by ordinary law:

Story: death, dates, and commissions

From Art. III: Bill of Rights

Sec. 19: xx...Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling
reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death
penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.

From Art. VI: Legislative Department

Sec. 4: The term of office of the Senators shall be six years and [shall
commence], unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on the thirteenth day of June
next following their election
Sec. 7: Same as above but replace Senators with Members of the House of
Representatives
Sec. 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
May
Sec. 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...xx
Note: The commencement of terms for President and Vice-President cannot be changed
by law

From Art VII: Executive Department

Sec. 4: Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election for President and
Vice-President shall be held on the second Monday of May.

From Article IX: Constitutional Commissions

A. Sec. 7: xx...Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any
decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court
on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days from
receipt of a copy thereof.
B. Sec. 7: xx.. Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his
position, no appointive official shall 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.
B. Sec. 8: No elective or appointive public officer or employee shall receive
additional, double, or indirect compensation, unless specifically authorized by
law,..xx

From Article XIV: EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, ARTS, CULTURE, AND SPORTS
Sec. 4 (2): The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to schools
established for foreign diplomatic personnel and their dependents and, unless
otherwise provided by law, for other foreign temporary residents.

From Article XVIII: Transitory Provisions

Sec. 10: All courts existing at the time of the ratification of this
Constitution shall continue to exercise their jurisdiction, until otherwise
provided by law.
The provisions of the existing Rules of Court, judiciary acts, and procedural
laws not inconsistent with this Constitution shall remain operative unless amended
or repealed by the Supreme
Court or the Congress.

(SYLLABUS) PRINCIPLE OF NON-DELEGABILITY

GENERAL RULE: What has been delegated cannot be delegated.

Because legislative power is ORIGINALLY with the people, but they have delegated it
to Congress and other legislative bodies. Thus, Congress etc cannot delegate such
powers.

EXCEPTIONS:
1. People- More like reservation because legislative powers lie originally
wiith the people
2. President- Emergency Powers
3. President- Tariff
4. Administrative bodies- Power of Subordinate Legislation An administrative rule
in the nature of subordinate legislation is designed to implement a law by
providing its details, and before it is
adopted there must be a hearing under the Administrative Code of 1987. When an
administrative rule substantially adds to or increases the burden of those
concerned, an administrative agency must accord those directly affected a chance to
be heard before its issuance.
5. Local Government Units

PEOPLE (DELEGATION)
Sources for the following: RA 6735

BAR QUESTION:Is “people power” recognized by the 1987 Constitution? Explain fully.
(2003 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
“People power” is recognized in the Constitution.
Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution guarantees the right of the people
peaceable to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

Article VI, Section 1 provides that legislative power in relation to initiative and
referendum is reserved for the people

Article VI, Section 32 of the 1987 Constitution requires Congress to pass a law
allowing the people to directly propose and enact laws through initiative and to
approve or reject any act or law or part of it passed by Congress or a local
legislative body.

Article XIII, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution provides that the right of the
people and their organizations to participate at all levels of social, political,
and economic decision-making shall not be abridged and that the State shall, by
law, facilitate the establishment of adequate consultation mechanisms.

INITIATIVE
is the power of the people to propose amendments to the Constitution or to propose
and enact legislations through an election called for the purpose.

Story:
HUNGER
People are hungry.
So registered voters want to take action.
They want to propose amend the constitution. To add a provision about the right to
feed
They want to propose to enact a legislation that makes it a crime to allow people
to get hungry
They want to propose to enact a regional, provincial, city, municipal, or barangay
law, resolution, and ordinance at the same time to combat hunger.

They don't want an indirect initiative. They don't trust the Congress and local
legislative bodies to act. They much rather do the proposal than to propose any
legislative body.

They need 10% of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative
district is represented by at least 3% of the registered voters thereof.

But for the Constitutional amendment, they need 12% of the total number of
registered voters. It's the year 1993, so they can do it as its after 5 years from
the ratification of the 1987 Constitution.

They 10% 3% rule applies like this:

National: 10% national 3% legislative district
Provincial or City: 10% province 3% legislative district
Provincial or City with 1 legislative district: 10% province 3% all municipalities
(for province) and barangays (for city)
Municipality: 10% municipality 3% barangays
Barangay: 10% and 3% household loljk on household

They were readying the signatures when a young law student tells them that there is
yet to be any implementing law relating to an initiative to amend the Constitution.
He cited Santiago vs COMELEC wherein the court stated:
"R.A. No. 6735 is incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and
conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned.
Its lacunae on this substantive matter are fatal and cannot be cured by
"empowering" the COMELEC "to promulgate such rules and regulations as may be
necessary to carry out the purposes of [the] Act."

Because RA 6735 is lacking in terms and condition regarding initiative to amend the
Constitution, a delegation to the COMELEC regarding initiatives to propose
amendments to the Constitution is void.

But a lawyer seemingly corrects the law student and cites Lambino vs COMELEC
wherein Ten justices reiterated that RA 6735 is sufficient and adequate as an
enabling to amend the Constitution through a people’s initiative. Chief Justice
Artemio V. Panganiban and Justices Consuelo Ynares-Santiago and Adolfo S. Azcuna
joined their dissenting colleagues — Senior Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno, and
Justices Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Renato C. Corona, Dante O. Tinga, Minita V. Chico-
Nazario, Cancio C. Garcia, and Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. — in ruling that RA 6735
suffices as an enabling law to implement the constitutional provision on people’s
initiative.

The law student however counters this again by saying that the Lambino case refused
to revisit or reverse the Santiago ruling:
According to Section 4(3), Article VIII of the Constitution, a doctrine of law laid
down in a decision rendered by the Supreme Court en banc may not be reversed except
if it is acting en banc. The majority opinion in Lambino v.Commission on Elections
(505 SCRA 160 [2006], refused to re-examine the ruling in Santiago v. Commission on
Elections (270 SCRA 106 [1997], because it was not
necessary for deciding the case. The Justices who voted to reverse the ruling
constituted the minority.

He also advised them that Constitutional revisions cannot happen through people's
initiatives, only Constitutional amendments which has yet to have an implementing
law.
The Lambino initiative constituted a revision because it proposed to change the
form of government from presidential to parliamentary and the bicameral to a
unicameral legislature. Thus, the people’s initiative as a mode to effect these
proposed amendments was invalid

So the people now agreed that there is little chance that their initiative to
propose a Constitutional amendment will be successful. However, they will still try
as the current Supreme Court may rule that RA 6735 is indeed enough s it is not
clear whether it is unconstitutional or not.

Nevertheless, they shall continue. They already informed the COMELEC who shall set
a special registration at least three weeks before a scheduled initiative or
referendum according to Sec. 6 of RA 6735.

For the enactment of their national statutes, the people are aware of the
prohibitions:
(a) No petition embracing more than one (1) subject shall be submitted to the
electorate;(this prohibition is not shared with a local initiative) and
(b) Statutes involving emergency measures, the enactment of which are specifically
vested in Congress by the Constitution, cannot be subject to referendum until
ninety (90) days after its effectivity.

They are also aware of the elements of a valid petition for a people’s initiative
are the following:
1. At least twelve per cent (12%) of the registered voters, of which every
legislative
district must be represented by at least three per cent (3%) of the registered
voters in it,
should directly sign the entire proposal; and
2. The draft of the proposed amendment must be embodied in the petition
(Lambino v. Commission on Elections, 505 SCRA 160 [2006]).

They are also aware that this battle in the local level may be won without a DIRECT
initiative but with an INDIRECT one:
Not less than two thousand (2,000) registered voters in case of autonomous regions,

one thousand (1,000) in case of provinces and cities,

one hundred (100) in case of municipalities, and
fifty (50) in case of barangays,
may file a petition with the Regional Assembly or local legislative body,
respectively, proposing the adoption, enactment, repeal, or amendment, of any law,
ordinance or resolution.

If no favorable action thereon is made by local legislative body within thirty (30)
days from its presentation, the proponents through their duly authorized and
registered representative may invoke their power of initiative, giving notice
thereof to the local legislative body concerned.

However, because no favorable action was taken, they had no choice but to gather
the votes for an initiative.

The good thing for local initiatives is that two or more propositions may be
submitted in an initiative, unlike in national legislations.

There are limitations however:

(a) The power of local initiative shall not be exercised more than once a year.
(b) Initiative shall extend only to subjects or matters which are within the legal
powers of the local legislative bodies to enact.
(c) If at any time before the initiative is held, the local legislative body shall
adopt in toto the proposition presented, the initiative shall be cancelled.
However, those against such action may, if they so
desire, apply for initiative in the manner herein provided.

As well as limitations on the local legislative bodies if they ever feel like being
evil:
Any proposition or ordinance or resolution approved through the system of
initiative and referendum as herein provided shall not be repealed, modified or
amended, by the local legislative body concerned within six (6) months from the
date therefrom, and may be amended, modified or repealed by the local legislative
body within three (3) years thereafter by a vote of three-fourths (3/4) of all its
members: Provided, however, That in case of barangays, the period shall be one (1)
year after the expiration of the first six (6) months
In short, the time to modify the local law is within 6months-3years and for
barangays it shall be 6months-1year

ALAS, the time has come that the people have been waiting for, the results of the
voting:
1. The initiative on the Constitutional amendment garnered 53% of all registered
voters but was declared void nevertheless because the Supreme Court declared that
there is yet to be an adequate and complete implementing law on the matter. It
could have been effective as to the day of the plebiscite.
2. The initiative on a national statute garnered the majority of votes and was thus
effective fifteen (15) days after certification and proclamation by the Commission.
 The President does not like this but he has no choice, repeal of a national law
or passage of a law through initiative and referendum cannot be vetoed by the
President.
3. The initiative on the local ordinances on all levels were also successful and
was also effective fifteen (15) days after certification and proclamation by the
Commission.

The people are enjoying their victory against hunger. Now their next step is to
conduct an initiative that will enact an implementing law for initiatives on
Constitutional amendments.

REFERENDUM
is the power of the electorate to approve or reject a legislation through an
election called for the purpose. It may be of two classes, namely:

1 Referendum on statutes which refers to a petition to approve or reject an act or

law, or part thereof, passed by Congress; and

2 Referendum on local law which refers to a petition to approve or reject a law,

resolution or ordinance enacted by regional assemblies and local legislative
bodies.

This is initiated by legislative bodies and is barely used because it needs money
and it is unpredictable as legislators have their own agenda which they can control
through voting within their ranks and not through the people. (opinion)

PRESIDENT (DELEGATION)
TARIFF POWERS

Source: Article VI Sec. 28 (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.

The Tariff and Customs Code grants such stand-by powers to the President

In Philippine Interisland Shipping Association v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.

100481, January 22, 1997, it was held that the fixing of rates is essentially a
legislative power. When the same
is delegated to the President, he may exercise it directly, e.g., issuance of the
questioned Executive Order 1088, without thereby withdrawing an earlier delegation
made to the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA). But when the President directly
exercises the delegated authority, the PPA may not revise the rates fixed by the
former.

EMERGENCY POWERS
Story:
In times of World War III
Congress authorized by law
the President
for 30 days
with restrictions such as: not contrary to the Bill of Rights or the Geneva
Convention
to make exercise powers of law-making necessary and proper to carry out a declared
national policy: to defend the nation
Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease upon
the next adjournment thereof.

Source: Article VI Sec. 23 (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.

Relate this to: Article XII Sec. 17- National Economy and Patrimony
In times of national emergency, when the public interest so requires, the State
may,
during the emergency and under reasonable terms prescribed by it, temporarily take
over or direct the operation of any privately owned public utility or business
affected
with public interest.

Article XII Sec. 17 is an extension of the Emergency Powers provision (Sec. 23(2)
Article VI) and must comply with the procedure prescribed therein.
The "State" referred to in Artcile XII Sec. 17 is Congress who shall delegate such
powers to the President.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS (DELEGATION)

Such legislation (by local governments) is not regarded as a transfer of general

legislative power, but rather as the grant of the authority to prescribe local
regulations, according to immemorial practice, subject, of course, to the
interposition of the superior in cases of necessity” [Peopje v. Vera, supra.]. This
recognizes the fact that local legislatures are more knowledgeable than the
national lawmaking body on matters of purely local concern, and are in a better
position to enact appropriate legislative measures thereon.

ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES (DELEGATION)

The power of subordinate legislation

Congress may constitutionally delegate authority to promulgate rules and

regulations to implement a given legislation and effectuate its policies, for the
reason that the legislature often finds it
impracticable (if not impossible) to anticipate and provide for the multifarious
and complex situations that may be met in carrying the law into effect.
All that is required is that:
(1) The regulation should be germane to the objects and purposes of the law; and
(2) That the regulation be not in contradiction with it, but conforms to the
standards that the law prescribes
Source: People of the Philippines v. Exconde, G.R. No. L-9820, August 30, 1957

TESTS FOR VALID DELEGATION:

COMPLETENESS TEST
-The law must be complete in all its essential terms and conditions when it leaves
the legislature so that there will be nothing left for the delegate to do when it
reaches him except enforce it.

SUFFICIENT STANDARD TEST

-Even if the law does not spell out in detail the limits of the delegate‟s
authority, it may still be sustained if the delegation of legislative power is made
subject to a sufficient standard.
-Vague standards such as “for the public welfare” or “national security” or "in the
public interest" or "justice and equity" or "the sense and experience of men" have
been held to be sufficient.
Keyword: Determined or determinable

SUGGESTED ANSWER IF ASKED TO EXPLAIN:

The Completeness Test means that the law must set forth the policy to be carried
out by
the delegate. The Sufficient Standard Test means that the limits to which the
delegate
must conform in the performance of his functions are determinate or determinable.
[Rodrigo v. Sandiganbayan, 309 SCRA 661 (1999)]

SYLLABUS: CHAMBERS OF CONGRESS; COMPOSITION; QUALIFICATIONS

SENATE:

SEC. 2- SENATE COMPOSITION

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.

SEC. 3- SENATOR QUALIFICATIONS

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.

SEC. 4-TERM
The term of office of the Senators shall be six years and shall commence, unless
otherwise provided by law, at noon on the thirteenth 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 for which he was elected.

Story for Sections: 2-3-4

SERVICE
Year 2013, month of January, A young man from Iloilo just finished his master's
degree in law. He arrived at his home to be greeted with warm embraces from his
friends and family.
There was an unknown face that greeted him and he wondered who that was.
It was actually former Senator Saguisag, who wanted the young man to run for
Senate. He was confident that the young man can become one of the 24 legislators in
the Senate.
The young man declines, saying that he is only 34 years of age.
But Saguisag corrects him, he will be 35 on the day immediately preceding the
election held in the 2nd Monday of May.
Saguisag also tell him that he is a resident of Iloilo for at least 2 years before
the elections and that he can read and write obviously.
The young man tells Saguisag that there is a problem: he is not a registered voter.
Saguisag says "do not worry, you can still register before election time."
But the young man says he is not ready for 6 years of service!
Saguisag replies: "No you are not. You are ready for 12!"

FIRST BATCH- ENDS ON JUNE #), 1992-- 5 YEARS

It must be remembered that the 24 Senators first elected under the 1987
Constitution on May 2, 1987 served only for five years ending on June 30, 1992. Of
the senators elected in 1992, the first 12 obtaining the highest number of votes
served for the full term of six years expiring in 1998, and the last 12 served only
three years and ended in 1995. After which, the 12 Senators elected in 1995 shall
serve the full term of six years or until year 2001. Those 12 to be elected in 1998
shall also serve the full term of six years. In fine, beginning 1992, 12 Senators
shall be elected every three years, so that unlike in the House of Representatives,
the Senate shall not at anytime be completely dissolved. One-half of the membership
is retained as the other half is replaced or reelected every three years.

The purpose of the continuity of the life of the Senate is intended to encourage
the maintenance of Senate policies as well as guarantee that there will be
experienced members who can help and train newcomers in the discharge of their
duties. In addition, in case of resignation, death, permanent disability, removal
from office, or resignation of the President and Vice-President, the Senate
President shall act as President.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEC. 5- HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STRUCTURE, SIZE, SELECTION

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 of 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.

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.

Discussion:
So the Senate has 304 seats
243 from congressional districts
61 from party-list representatives

The increase from 250 to 304 has been the result of apportionment laws, the
validity of which is a justiciable question because it has to abide with Section
5(3): contiguous, compact, and adjacent territory AND 250 thousand population for
each city (initial).
Each city with at least 250k shall be entitled to at least one seat. Each province
regardless of inhabitants is entitled to at least one seat.

For the first 3 terms after the 1987 Consitution's ratification, 1/2 of seats for
party-list representatives should be sectoral representatives.

DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVES AND QUESTIONS OF APPORTIONMENT

APPORTIONMENT: Memorize: determination of the number, allocation of seats, drawing

of voting district lines
Apportionment is the determination of the number of representatives which a State,
country, or other subdivision may send to.
It is the allocation of seats in a legislative body in proportion to the
population; the drawing of voting district lines so as to equalize population and
voting power.

ESSENCE:
The underlying principle behind the rule for apportionment is the concept of
equality of representation, which is a basic principle of republicanism. One man’s
vote should carry as much weight as the vote of every other man

The question of the validity of an apportionment law is a justiciable question!!!

-Macias vs Comelec

RULES: RATIO, INITIAL 250k, TERRITORY, DETERMINANTS

1. It shall be made in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants,
and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio
Uniform: More or less 250k for each Congressman. Exception of provinces.
Progressive: It must respond to the change in times. The number of House
representatives must not be so big as to be unwieldy. They may change the ratio
from 250k per Congressman to 300k per

2. Each city with a population of at least 250,000 shall have at least one
representative.
Each province, irrespective of the number of inhabitants, shall have at least
one representative.

3. Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practical, a contiguous,

compact, and adjacent territory

4. Population is only one of among many determinants such as income. There are also
other factors:
The factors mentioned during the deliberations on House Bill No. 4264, were:
(a) the dialects spoken in the grouped municipalities;
(b) the size of the original groupings compared to that of the regrouped
municipalities;
(c) the natural division separating the municipality subject of the discussion from
the reconfigured District One; and
(d) the balancing of the areas of the three districts resulting from the
redistricting of Districts One and Two
Fun fact: The Constitutional Commission in creating 200 initial districts, had to
consider "all protests and complaints formally received".

"Taking into account the mandate that each city with at least 250, 000 inhabitants
and each province shall have at least one representative, we first allotted one
seat for each of the 73 provinces, and each one for all cities with a population of
at least 250, 000, which are the Cities of Manila, Quezon, Pasay, Caloocan, Cebu,
Iloilo, Bacolod, Cagayan de Oro, Davao and Zamboanga. Thereafter, we then
proceed[ed] to increase whenever appropriate the number of seats for the provinces
and cities in accordance with the number of their inhabitants on the basis of a
uniform and progressive ratio. "
-Commissioner Davide

ORDINANCE APENDED TO THE 1987 CONSTITUTION: IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING ELECTION!!! NO

PROJECTION ALLOWED. 250k FIRST!
Section 3. Any province that may hereafter be created, or any city whose population
may hereafter increase to more than two hundred fifty thousand shall be entitiled
in the immediately following election to at least one Member or such number of
Members as it may be entitled to on the basis of the number of its inhabitants and
according to the standards setforth in paragraph (3), Section 5 of Article VI of
the Constitution.

Notable Case:
Mariano vs COMELEC-- 250k minimum is only for the initial legislative districts,
not additional.
The Mariano case limited the application of the 250,000 minimum population
requirement for cities only to its initial legislative district. In other words,
while Section 5(3), Article VI of the Constitution requires a city to have a
minimum population of 250,000 to be entitled to a representative, it does not have
to increase its population by another 250,000 to be entitled to an additional
district.

Senator Aquino III vs COMELEC-- Mariano doctrine applicable to provinces

There is no reason why the Mariano case, which involves the creation of an
additional district within a city, should not be applied to additional districts in
provinces. Indeed, if an additional legislative district created within a city is
not required to represent a population of at least 250,000 in order to be valid,
neither should such be needed for an additional district in a province, considering
moreover that a province is entitled to an initial seat by the mere fact of its
creation and regardless of its population.

From its journal, we can see that the Constitutional Commission originally divided
the entire country into two hundred (200) districts, which corresponded to the
original number of district representatives. The 200 seats were distributed by the
Constitutional Commission in this manner: first, one (1) seat each was given to the
seventy-three (73) provinces and the ten (10) cities with a population of at least
250,000; second, the remaining seats were then redistributed among the provinces,
cities and the Metropolitan Area "in accordance with the number of their
inhabitants on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio.

Bagabuyo vs COMELEC--Plebiscite only for the creation of new local government

units, not reapportionment. (creation, division, merger, or abolition)
Support that population is not an indispensable determinant of
reapportionment
"Undeniably, these figures show a disparity in the population sizes of the
districts. The Constitution, however, does not require mathematical exactitude or
rigid equality as a standard in gauging equality of representation. x x x. To
ensure quality representation through commonality of interests and ease of access
by the representative to the constituents, all that the Constitution requires is
that every legislative district should comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous,
compact and adjacent territory.

Marino Jr vs COMELEC--Repportionment can be made through a special law and not

necessarily through the general reapportionment law every 3 years
To hold that reapportionment can only be made through a general apportionment law,
with a review of all the legislative districts allotted to each local government
unit nationwide, would create an inequitable situation where a new city or province
cated by Congress will be denied legislative representation for an indeterminate
period of time. Thus, a law converting a municipality into a highly-urbanized city
automatically creates a new legislative district and, consequently, increases the
membership of the House of Representatives.

PARTY-LIST- 20%
Qualifications:
No person shall be nominated as party-list representative unless he is a natural-
born citizen of the Philippines,
a registered voter,
a resident of the Philippines for a period of not less than one (1) year
immediately preceding the day of the election,
able to read and write,
bona fide member of the party or organization which he seeks to represent for at
least ninety (90) days preceding the day of the election,
and is at least twenty-five (25) years of age on the day of the election.
In case of a nominee of the youth sector, he must at least be twenty-five (25) but
not more than thirty (30) years of age on the day of the election. Any youth
sectoral representative who attains the age of thirty during his term shall be
allowed to continue until the expiration of his term.

LIMITATIONS: 1 only, Consent, No change, Except

1. A person may be nominated in one (1) list only.
2. Only persons who have given their consent in writing may be names in the list
3. The list shall not include:
a. any candidate for any elective office; or
b. a person who has lost his bid for elective office in the immediately preceding
election;
4. No change shall be allowed after the list shall have been submitted to the
COMELEC.
EXCEPTION: Change may be allowed in cases where:
a. nominees dies;
b. withdraws in writing his nomination; or
c. becomes incapacitated

NOTE: Incumbent sectoral representatives in the HoR who are nominated in the party-
list system shall not be considered resigned.

NOMINATION of party-list representatives: 45 days, 5 nominees

Each registered party, organization or coalition shall submit to the COMELEC not
later than 45 days before the election a list of names, not less than five (5),
from which party-list representative
shall be chosen in case it obtains the required number of votes.

REGISTRATION: 90 days
Under Section 5 of RA No. 7941, an applicant for registration has to file with the
COMELEC, not later than ninety (90) days before the election, a verified petition
stating its desire to participate in the party-list system as a national, regional
or sectoral party or organization or a coalition of such parties or organizations.

NO NEED TO REGISTER AGAIN:

Under Section 4 of RA No. 7941, a party-list group already registered "need not
register anew" for purposes of every subsequent election, but only needs to file a
manifestation of intent to participate with the COMELEC.

SUBMIT LIST OF 5 NOMINEES!!! 45 days: NO VESTED RIGHT TO MAINTIAIN REGISTRATION. IF

THERE IS A VIOLATION OF RULES, TEPOK
Failure to submit the list of five (5) nominees before the election warrants the
cancellation of the party’s registration.

A party-list group’s previous registration with the COMELEC confers no vested right
to the maintenance of its registration. In order to maintain a party in a
continuing compliance status, the party must prove not only its continued
possession of the requisite qualifications but, equally, must show its compliance
with the basic requirements of the law
-Cocofed-Philippines Coconut Producers Federation, Inc. v. COMELEC

Right to Information!!!
The COMELEC has a constitutional duty to disclose and release the names of the
nominees of the party-list groups, in accordance with Sec. 7, Art. III of the 1987
Constitution on the right of the people to information on matters of public concern
as complemented by the policy of full disclosure and transparency in Government
-Bantay RA 7941 vs. COMELEC

REASONING:
Sec.7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be
recognized. Access to official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to
official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well to government research data used
as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such
limitations as may be provided by law.

Complementing and going hand in hand with the right to information is another
constitutional provision enunciating the policy of full disclosure and transparency
in Government. We refer to Section 28, Article II of the Constitution reading:
Sec. 28. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and
implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving
public interest

DON'T SWITCH PARTIES WITHIN 6 MONTHS BEFORE ELECTIONS

Effect of the change in affiliation of any party-list representative:
Any elected party-list representative who changes party-list group or sectoral
affiliation during his term of office shall forfeit his seat.
If he changes his political party or sectoral affiliation within 6 months before an
election, he shall not be eligible for nomination as party-list representative
under his new party or organization.
-Section 15. Change of Affiliation; Effect.
Any elected party-list representative who changes his political party or sectoral
affiliation during his term of office shall forfeit his seat: Provided, That if he
changes his political party or sectoral affiliation within six (6) months before an
election, he shall not be eligible for nomination as party-list representative
under his new party or organization.

From Atong Paglaum:

The 1987 Constitution provides the basis for the party-list system of
representation. Simply put,
the party-list system is intended to democratize political power by giving
political parties that cannot
win in legislative district elections a chance to win seats in the House of
Representatives.
-Constitutional Commission records

We feel that this approach gets around the mechanics of sectoral representation
while
at the same time making sure that those who really have a national constituency or
sectoral constituency will get a chance to have a seat in the National Assembly.
These sectors or these groups may not have the constituency to win a seat on a
legislative district basis. They may not be able to win a seat on a district basis
but
surely, they will have votes on a nationwide basis
-Cayetano Monsod, framer

Indisputably, the framers of the 1987 Constitution intended the party-list system
to include not
only sectoral parties but also non-sectoral parties. The framers intended the
sectoral parties to
constitute a part, but not the entirety, of the party-list system. As explained by
Commissioner
Wilfredo Villacorta, political parties can participate in the party-list system
“[F]or as long
as they field candidates who come from the different marginalized sectors that we
shall
designate in this Constitution.”

Mr. Monsod expressed the difficulty in delimiting the sectors that needed
representation. He was of the view that reserving seats for the marginalized and
underrepresented sectors would stunt their development into full-pledged parties
equipped with electoral machinery potent enough to further the sectoral interests
to be represented. The Villacorta group, on the other hand, was apprehensive that
pitting the unorganized and less-moneyed sectoral groups in an electoral contest
would be like placing babes in the lion's den, so to speak, with the bigger and
more established political parties ultimately gobbling them up. R.A. 7941
recognized this concern when it banned the first five major political parties on
the basis of party representation in the House of Representatives from
participating in the party-list system for the first party-list elections held in
1998 (and to be automatically lifted starting with the 2001 elections). The
advocates for permanent seats for sectoral representatives made an effort towards a
compromise — that the party-list system be open only to underrepresented and
marginalized sectors. This proposal was further whittled down by allocating only
half of the seats under the party-list system to candidates from the sectors which
would garner the required number of votes. The majority was unyielding. Voting 19-
22, the proposal for
permanent seats, and in the alternative the reservation of the party-list system to
the sectoral groups, was voted down.

Section 5(1), Article VI of the Constitution is crystal-clear that there shall be

“a party-list
system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.”
The commas
after the words “national[,]” and “regional[,]” separate national and regional
parties from
sectoral parties. Had the framers of the 1987 Constitution intended national and
regional parties
to be at the same time sectoral, they would have stated “national and regional
sectoral parties.”
They did not, precisely because it was never their intention to make the party-list
system
exclusively sectoral.

To require all national and regional parties

under the party-list system to represent the “marginalized and underrepresented” is
to deprive
and exclude, by judicial fiat, ideology-based and cause-oriented parties from the
party-list
system. How will these ideology-based and cause-oriented parties, who cannot win in
legislative district elections, participate in the electoral process if they are
excluded from the
party-list system? To exclude them from the party-list system is to prevent them
from joining
the parliamentary struggle, leaving as their only option the armed struggle. To
exclude them
from the party-list system is, apart from being obviously senseless, patently
contrary to the clear
intent and express wording of the 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 7941.
-Carpio

It is sufficient that the political party consists of citizens who advocate the
same ideology or
platform, or the same governance principles and policies, regardless of their
economic status
as citizens.

The major political parties are those that field candidates in the legislative
district elections.
Major political parties cannot participate in the party-list elections since they
neither lack “well-
defined political constituencies” nor represent “marginalized and underrepresented”
sectors.
Thus, the national or regional parties under the party-list system are necessarily
those that
do not belong to major political parties. This automatically reserves the national
and regional
parties under the party-list system to those who “lack well-defined political
constituencies,”
giving them the opportunity to have members in the House of Representatives.

However, major political parties should

participate in party-list elections only through their sectoral wings. The
participation of major
political parties through their sectoral wings, a majority of whose members are
“marginalized
and underrepresented” or lacking in “well-defined political constituencies,” will
facilitate the
entry of the “marginalized and underrepresented” and those who “lack well-defined
political
constituencies” as members of the House of Representatives.

Such sectoral wing of a major political party must have its own constitution, by-
laws, platform
or program of government, officers and members, a majority of whom must belong to
the sector
represented. The sectoral wing is in itself an independent sectoral party, and is
linked to a major
political party through a coalition.
This linkage is allowed by Section 3 of R.A. No. 7941,
which provides that “component parties or organizations of a coalition may
participate
independently (in party-list elections) provided the coalition of which they form
part does not
participate in the party-list system.”

PARAMETERS:
1. Three different groups may participate in the party-list system: (1) national
parties or
organizations, (2) regional parties or organizations, and (3) sectoral parties or
organizations.
2. National parties or organizations and regional parties or organizations do not
need to
organize along sectoral lines and do not need to represent any “marginalized and
underrepresented” sector.
3. Political parties can participate in party-list elections provided they register
under the
party-list system and do not field candidates in legislative district elections. A
political
party, whether major or not, that fields candidates in legislative district
elections can
participate in party-list elections only through its sectoral wing that can
separately register
under the party-list system. The sectoral wing is by itself an independent sectoral
party,
and is linked to a political party through a coalition.
4. Sectoral parties or organizations may either be “marginalized and
underrepresented” or
lacking in “well-defined political constituencies.” (ideology-based) It is enough
that their principal
advocacy pertains to the special interest and concerns of their sector. The sectors
that are
“marginalized and underrepresented” include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor,
indigenous cultural communities, handicapped, veterans, and overseas workers. The
sectors that lack “well-defined political constituencies” include professionals,
the elderly,
women, and the youth.
5. A majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that represent
the
“marginalized and underrepresented” must belong to the “marginalized and
underrepresented” sector they represent. Similarly, a majority of the members of
sectoral
parties or organizations that lack “well-defined political constituencies” must
belong to the
sector they represent. The nominees of sectoral parties or organizations that
represent the
“marginalized and underrepresented,” or that represent those who lack “well-defined
political constituencies,” either must belong to their respective sectors, or must
have a
track record of advocacy for their respective sectors. The nominees of national and
regional parties or organizations must be bona-fide members of such parties or
organizations.
6. National, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations shall not be
disqualified if some of
their nominees are disqualified, provided that they have at least one nominee who
remains
qualified.

Story:
No needs. Ang baisay nlng ni Carpio vs Panganiban ang story.

FORMULA FOR PARTY-LIST:

House of Representatives seats/5
or
Legislative District seats/4

Guidelines in the allocation of seats for party-list representatives under Sec. 11

of RA 7941
(2014 Bar)
1. The parties, organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked from the highest to
the lowest based on the number of votes they garnered during the elections.
2. The parties, organizations, and coalitions receiving at least 2% of the total
votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled to one guaranteed seat each.
3. Those garnering sufficient number of votes, according to the ranking in
paragraph 1, shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total
number of votes until all the additional seats are allocated.
4. Each party, organization, or coalition shall be entitled to not more than 3
seats.

NOTE: In computing the additional seats, the guaranteed seats shall no longer be
included because they had already been allocated at on seat each to every two-
percenter. Thus, the remaining available seats for allocation a “additional seats”
are the maximum seats reserved under the party-list system less th guaranteed
seats. Fractional seats are disregarded in the absence of a provision in RA 7941
allowing for a rounding off of fractional seats.

FORMULA: Banat vs Comelec

1st Round Formula: 2% guaranteed seats

2nd Round:
Proportion of votes received by the first party
ADDITIONAL SEATS
Equal to or at least 6% Two (2) additional seats
Equal to or greater than 4% but less than 6% One (1) additional seat
Less than 4% No additional seat

GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL/CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION

Note: Needs notice and hearing

Priest
Anarchist
Foreigner
Foreign financer
Violates rules
Untruthful statements
1 year non-existence
2 preceding election- Participation and 2% votes

1. It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or association organized

for religious purposes;
2. It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goals;
3. It is a foreign party or organization;
4. It is receiving support from any foreign government, foreign political party,
foundation, organization, whether directly through any of its officers or members,
or indirectly through third parties, for partisan election purposes;
5. It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations relating to
elections
6. It declares untruthful statements in its petition;
7. It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year;
8. It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections;
9. It fails to obtain at least 2% of the votes cast under the party-list system in
the two (2) preceding elections for the constituency in which it has registered
NOTE!!! ^This failure to obtain 2% of the votes is not the same as failing to
participate nd vice versa!!!
If it did not participate in the first election and then in the next election
it participated but obtained less than 2% votes, that party can still participate
in the 3rd election.

SEC. 6- HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES QUALIFICATIONS

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

Story:

SERVICE
But change the age to 25 and specify the registered voter in the district (except
party-list). Also change the residency to not less than one(1) year

SEC. 7- TERM
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.

SEC. 8- ELECTION TIME

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.

SEC. 9- REPLACEMENT IN CASE OF VACANCY

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.
SEC. 10- SALARIES/ BARRIER TO INCREASE OF SALARY
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.

NOTE: It must be noted that in accordance with the above provisions, there is no
prohibition against the receipt of allowances by the members of Congress.

LEGISLATIVE PRIVILEGES, INHIBITIONS AND DISQUALIFICATIONS

(SYLLABUS)

SEC. 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.

IMMUNITY FROM ARREST AND LEGISLATIVE PRIVILEGE

Requisite for Legislative Privilege of Speech and Debate:

1. Remarks or comments are made while in session; and
2. Must be made in connection with the discharge of official duties

NOTE!
Judge is allowed to issue a warrant
What is prohibited by the immunity is the enforcement of the warrant
-Sir Guillen

EMPHASIS: SESSION + IN CONNECTION WITH THE DISCHARGE OF OFFICIAL DUTIES

The publication involved in this case does not belong to this category. According
to the complaint herein, it was an open letter to the President of the Philippines,
dated November 14, 1958, when Congress presumably was not in session, and defendant
caused said letter to be published in several newspapers of general circulation in
the Philippines, on or about said date. It is obvious that, in thus causing the
communication to be so published, he was not performing his official duty, either
as a member of Congress or as officer or any Committee thereof. Hence, contrary to
the finding made by His Honor, the trial Judge, said communication is not
absolutely privileged
-Jimenez vs Cabangbang

NOTE: All defamatory imputation is libel except:

1. Privileged communication in the performance of a legal, moral, or social duty
2. True and honest report made in good faith. It is in not in good faith if done
with the knowledge that it is false or with reckless disregard for whether it is
true or not.

NOTE: EFFECTIVE DISHARGE

The purpose of the privilege is to ensure the effective discharge of functions of
Congress.
The privilege may be abused but it is said that such is not so damaging or
detrimental as compared to the denial or withdrawal of such privilege.

RE-ELECTION DOES NOT PROVIDE THAT CONVICTED LAWMAKERS CAN GET OUT OF JAIL AND
ATTEND LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS AND MEETINGS PENDING APPEAL
It can be seen from the foregoing that incarceration, by its nature, changes an
individuals status in society. Prison officials have the difficult and often
thankless job of preserving the security in a potentially explosive setting, as
well as of attempting to provide rehabilitation that prepares inmates for re-entry
into the social mainstream. Necessarily, both these demands require the curtailment
and elimination of certain rights.
Premises considered, we are constrained to rule against the accused-appellants
claim that re-election to public office gives priority to any other right or
interest, including the police power of the State.
-People vs Jalosjos

EVEN IF YOU ARE NOT CONVICTED, THE JALOSJOS RULING STILL APPLIES IF THE CRIME IS
NONBAILABLE
In this case, petitioner Antonio Trillanes sought from the Makati RTC leave to
attend Senate sessions and to convene his staff, resource persons and guests and to
attend to his official functions as Senator. He anchored his motion on his right to
be presumed innocent, and claims that the Jalosjos ruling should not be applied to
him, because he is a mere detention prisoner and is not charged with a crime
involving moral turpitude. The Makati RTC denied the motion. Elevating the matter,
the Supreme Court denied Trillanes’ petition on the ground that Sec. 13, Art. Ill
of the Constitution, explicitly provides that crimes punishable by reclusion
perpetua are nonbailable. The Court further said that the presumption of innocence
does not necessarily carry with it the full enjoyment of civil and political
rights.
-Trillanes IV vs Pimentel

LEGISLATIVE RESULTS CAN STILL BE ACCOMPLISHED IF THERE ARE CONFINEMENT RESTRAINTS

These inherent limitations, however, must be taken into account only to the extent
that confinement restrains the power of locomotion or actual physical movement. It
bears noting that in Jalosjos, which was decided en banc one month after Maceda,
the Court recognized that the accused could somehow accomplish legislative results.

PRIVILEGED SPEECH IS ABSOLUTE-- EVEN FALSE OR INSULTING OR MALICIOUS STATEMENTS ARE

ALLOWED
NOT ACTIONABLE CRIMINALLY OR IN A DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING (DISBARMENT for example)
This Court is aware of the need and has in fact been in the forefront in upholding
the institution of parliamentary immunity and promotion of free speech. Neither has
the Court lost sight of the importance of the legislative and oversight functions
of the Congress that enable this representative body to look diligently into every
affair of government, investigate and denounce anomalies, and talk about how the
country and its citizens are being served. Courts do not interfere with the
legislature or its members in the manner they perform their functions in the
legislative floor or in committee rooms. Any claim of an unworthy purpose or of the
falsity and mala fides of the statement uttered by the member of the Congress does
not destroy the privilege. The disciplinary authority of the assembly and the
voters, not the courts, can properly discourage or correct such abuses committed in
the name of parliamentary immunity.
-Pobre vs Defensor-Santiago

LAWMAKERS CAN ONLY BE PUNISHED BY THEIR PEERS IF THEIR ACTIONS ARE PRIVILEGED
The Rules of the Senate itself contains a provision on Unparliamentary Acts and
Language that enjoins a Senator from using, under any circumstance, "offensive or
improper language against another Senator or against any public institution." But
as to Senator Santiago's unparliamentary remarks, the Senate President had not
apparently called her to order, let alone referred the matter to the Senate Ethics
Committee for appropriate disciplinary action, as the Rules dictates under such
circumstance. The lady senator clearly violated the rules of her own chamber. It is
unfortunate that her peers bent backwards and avoided imposing their own rules on
her
TIME OF SESSION
From 4th Monday of July until 30 days before the opening of its next regular
session (4th Monday of July next year) exclusive of weekends and legal holidays.
-Art. VI Sec. 15

RECESS IN RELATION TO SESSION

If the recess was called for in between a regular or special session, the Congress
is still considered in session.
But if the recess was the 30-day compulsory recess, Congress is not in session.
-Art. VI, Sec. 15

ADJOURNMENT SINE DIE

An interval between the session of one Congressand that of another.

SEC 12- FULL DISCLOSURE OF FINANCIAL AND BUSINESS INTERESTS

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.

IMPORTANT: NOTIFY THE HOUSE OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST

SEC 13- INCOMPATIBLE AND FORBIDDEN OFFICE

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.

First part is incompatible: ANY OTHER OFFICE IN GOVERNMENT

If he chooses to hold any other office in the Government, the lawmaker may do so
but he will to forfeit his seat.
EXCEPTION: Ex officio capacity
However, no forfeiture shall take place if the member of Congress holds the other
government office in an ex officio capacity,
e.g., membership in the Board of Regents of the University of the Philippines of
the Chairman, Committee on Education, in the Senate

Second part is forbidden: OFFICE CREATED OR EMOLUMENTS INCREASED DURING THE TERM HE
WAS ELECTED
He can never hold this type of office. Thus, forbidden.
NOTES:
-After such term, and even if he is re- elected, the disqualification no longer
applies and he may therefore be appointed to the office
-Prohibition does not apply if the increase in salary applies to all offices. i.e.
salary standardization law.

MEMORY: UNLUCKY NUMBER 13

OTHER INHIBITIONS:
SEC 12 found above

SEC 14- BAR FROM APPEARING PERSONALLY AS COUNSEL, BAR FROM FINANCIAL INTEREST, BAR
FROM INTERVENING IN GOVERNMENT MATTERS FOR HIS BENEFIT
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.

EMPHASIS ON PERSONALLY
Since the practice of law covers a widerange of legislative activities (Cayetano v.
Monsod, G.R. No. 100113, Sept. 3, 1991)
Senator or member of House of the Representatives is allowed to engage in other
aspects of the law practice such as the giving of legal advice to clients,
negotiating
contracts in behalf of clients which necessitates legal knowledge, preparation of
documents and similar others.
-Pineda book

DISQUALIFICATIONS:
SEC 13- FORBIDDEN AND INCOMPATIBLE OFFICE
SEC 14- BAR FROM APPEARING PERSONALLY AS COUNSEL, BAR FROM FINANCIAL INTEREST, BAR
FROM INTERVENING IN GOVERNMENT MATTERS FOR HIS BENEFIT

Punishment for violating Sec. 14- Suspension and not disbarment. Jurisprudence
holds that suspension is approporiate for unlawful practice of law

QUORUM AND VOTING MAJORITIES (SYLLABUS)

QUORUM DEFINITION:
Such number which enables a body to transact its business and gives such body the
power to pass a
law or ordinance or any valid act that is binding. In our constitution, it is
required that the quorum be
a majority of each house.

COERCIVE JURISDICTION
In computing quorum, members who are outside the country and, thus, outsidof each
House’s jurisdiction are not included. The basis for
determining the existence of a quorum in the Senate shall be the total number of
Senators who are within the coercive jurisdiction of the Senate.
-Avelino vs Cuenco

The members of the Congress cannot compel absent members to attend sessions if the
reason of absence is a legitimate one. The
confinement of a Congressman charged with a non-bailable offense is certainly
authorized by law
and has constitutional foundations.
-People vs Jalosjos

YEAS and NAYS mandatory

Instances when the Constitution requires that the yeas and nays of the Members be
taken every time a House has to vote:
1. Upon the last and third readings of a bill
-Art. VI, Sec. 26, par. 2
2. At the request of 1/5 of the members present
-Art. VI, Sec. 16, par. 4
3. In repassing a bill over the veto of the President
-Art. VI, Sec. 27, par. 1

CONGRESS AS A WHOLE VOTES SEPARATELY:

Choosing the President in case of a tie
-Art. VII, Sec. 4
 Determining President’s inability to discharge the powers and duties of his
office
-Art. VII, Sec. 11
 Confirming nomination of Vice- President (like duties of the Commission on
Appointments; President nominates)
-Art. VII, Sec. 9
 Declaring the existence of a state of war in joint session (2/3 vote!)
-Art. VI, Sec. 23, Par. 1
 Proposing Constitutional amendments (3/4 vote!)
-Art. XVII, Sec. 1
Passing a law granting any tax exemption
-Art. VI , Sec. 28, Par. 4

CONGRESS VOTES JOINTLY:

 When revoking or extending the proclamation suspending the privilege of writ of
habeas corpus
-Art. VII, Sec. 18
 When revoking or extending the declaration of martial law
-Art. VII, Sec. 18

VOTING SEPARATELY IS THE NORM IN CONGRESS

In all but one of the provisions where the manner of voting is specified, Congress
is made to vote separately. This may lend credence to the argument that the two
houses of Congress should vote separately when it comes to other matters as well,
such as when they propose Constitutional amendments or revisions.
The general rule is that the Houses of Congress should vote separately, in line
with the bicameral nature of our Legislature.

EACH HOUSE WHERE VOTING IS MAJORITY

Elect the Senate President or House of Representatives Speaker
-Art. VI , Sec. 16, Par. 1
Commission on Appointments ruling
-Art. VI, Sec. 18

DISCIPLINE OF MEMBERS (SYLLABUS)

Each house may punish its members for disorderly behavior and, with concurrencof
2/3 of all its
members, suspend, for not more than 60 days, or expel a member.
-Art VI Sec. 16

NOTE: Members of Congress may also be suspended by the Sandiganbayan or by the

Office of the Ombudsman. The suspension in the
Constitution is different from the suspension prescribed in RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act).
The latter is not a penalty but a preliminary preventive measure and is not imposed
upon the petitioner for misbehavior as a member of Congress.

PROCESS OF LAW-MAKING (SYLLABUS)

1. No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed 3
readings on separate days.
2. Printed copies of the bill in its final form should be distributed to the
Members 3 days before its passage
3. Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall be allowed.
4. The vote on the bill shall be taken immediately after the last reading of a
bill.
5. The yeas and nays shall be entered in the Journal

^ANY VIOLATION HERE WILL RESULT TO THE BILL's PASSING BEING VOIDED

NOTE: Any rule not above will not invalidate a law.

The Supreme Court ruled that it is well settled that a legislative act will not be
declared invalid for non-compliance
with the internal rules of the House.
-Arroyo vs De Venecia

BILL BECOME LAWS WHEN:

1. Approved and signed by the President
2. Presidential veto overridden by 2/3 vote of all members of both Houses
3. Failure of the President to veto the bill and to return it with his objections
to the House where it originated, within 30 days after thedate of receipt
4. A bill calling a special election for President and Vice-President under Sec.
10. Art. VII becomes a law upon its approval on the third and final reading

ONE BILL ONE SUBJECT RULE:

Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace
only one subject. The subject shall be expressed in
the title of the bill. This rule is mandatory.

NOTE: The purposes of such rule are:

1. To prevent hodgepodge or log-rolling legislation;
2. To prevent surprise or fraud upon the legislature; and
3. To fairly apprise the people of the subjects of legislation.
-Central Capiz vs Ramirez

TEST OF SUFFICIENT TITLE:

Whether or not it is misleading; either in
referring to or indicating one subject wher another or different one is really
embraced in the
act, or in omitting any expression or indication of
the real subject or scope of the act.

SUPERMAJORITY VOTE TO REPEAL A LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

In contrast, Sec. 1, Art. XVII of RA 9054 requires a vote of no less than 2/3 of
the Members of the
House of Representatives and of the Senate, voting separately, in order to
effectively amend RA 9054.
Clearly, this requirement is higher than what the Constitution requires for the
passage of bills and
served to restrain the plenary powers of Congress to amend, revise or repeal the
laws it had passed.
While a supermajority is not a total ban against repeal, it is a limitation in
excess of what the
Constitution requires on the passage of bills and is institutionally obnoxious
because it significantly
constricts the future legislators’ room for action and flexibility.
-Abas Kida v. Senate

BICAMERAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE:

Extent of the power of the Committee:
The conferees are not limited to reconciling the differences in the bill but may
introduce new
provisions germane to the subject matter or may report out an entirely new bill on
the subject.
-Tolentino v. Sec. of FinanceScope of the powers of the Committee
1. Adopt the bill entirely
2. Amend or Revise
3. Reconcile the House and Senate Bills
4. Propose entirely new provisions

PRESIDENTIAL PARTIAL VETO IS NOT ALLOWED

EXCEPT!!!:
Item-veto is allowed in case of Appropriation, Revenue, and Tariff bills
-Art. VI, Sec. 27(2)

EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION!!!

1. Doctrine of inappropriate provisions – A provision that is constitutionally
inappropriate for an appropriation bill may be singled out for veto if it is not
an appropriation or revenue item
-Gonzales v. Macaraig

"SEC. 55. Prohibition Against the Restoration or Increase of

Recommended Appropriations Disapproved and/or Reduced by
Congress: No item of appropriation recommended by the
President in the Budget submitted to Congress pursuant to
Article VII, Section 22 of the Constitution which has been
disapproved or reduced in this Act shall be restored or
increased by the use of appropriations authorized for other
purposes by augmentation. An item of appropriation for any
purpose recommended by the President in the Budget shall be
deemed to have been disapproved by Congress if no
corresponding appropriation for the specific purpose is
provided in this Act."

The restrictive interpretation urged by petitioners that the President may not veto
a provision without vetoing the entire
bill not only disregards the basic principle that a distinct and severable part of
a bill may be the subject of a separate veto
but also overlooks the Constitutional mandate that any provision in the general
appropriations bill shall relate
specifically to some particular appropriation therein and that any such provision
shall be limited in its operation to the
appropriation to which it relates (1987 Constitution, Article VI, Section 25 [2]).
In other words, in the true sense of the term,
a provision in an Appropriations Bill is limited in its operation to some
particular appropriation to which it relates, and does not
relate to the entire bill.

2. Executive impoundment –
Refusal of the President to spend funds already
allocated by Congress for specific
purpose. It is the failure to spend or
obligate budget authority of any type
-Philconsa vs Enriquez

POCKET VETO vs ITEM VETO (Asked in bar)

A pocket veto is when the President is considered to have rejected a bill submitted
to him for his approval when Congress adjourns during the period given to the
President to approve or reject a bill.
1. The President fails to act on a bill; and
2. When the reason he does not turn the bill to Congress is because it has
adjourned

On the other hand, an item veto, or partial veto, is the power of a President to
nullify or cancel specific provisions of a bill, usually a budget appropriations
bill, without vetoing the entire legislative package.

RIDER---- KEYWORD: DOES NOT RELATE TO PARTICULAR APPROPRIATION

A provision in a bill which does not relate to a particular appropriation stated in
the bill. Since it is an invalid provision under Art. 25[2], the President may veto
the item

ELECTORAL TRIBUNALS AND THE COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS (SYLLABUS)

SEC 17- SET and HRET

69-- 6/9 members must come from the same house. 3 from the SC
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION

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.

MEMORY: SEC 17 looks like SET

NATURE
- INDEPENDENT, IMPARTIAL, NON_PARTISAN BODY---SINGULAR PURPOSE
The SET/HRET is an "independent, impartial and non-partisan body attached to the
legislature and specially created for that singular purpose."

Through Article VI, Section 17, the Constitution segregates from all other judicial
and quasi-judicial bodies (particularly, courts and the Commission on Elections)
the power to rule on contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications
of members of the Senate (as well as of the House of Representatives). These powers
are granted to a separate and distinct constitutional organ. There are two (2)
aspects to the exclusivity of the Senate Electoral Tribunal's power. (1) The power
to resolve such contests is exclusive to any other body. (2) The resolution of such
contests is its only task; it performs no other function.
-David vs SET

POWERS
-ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OVER CONTESTS RELATING TO THE ELECTION, RETURNS, AND
QUALIFICATION OF ELECTIVE OFFICIALS
-RULE-MAKING POWERS

Exclusive, original jurisdiction over contests relating to the election, returns,

and qualifications of the elective officials falling within the scope of their
powers is, thus, vested in these electoral tribunals. It is only before them that
post-election challenges against the election, returns, and qualifications of
Senators and Representatives (as well as of the President and the Vice-President,
in the case of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal) may be initiated.
-David vs SET.

The judgments of these tribunals are not beyond the scope of any review. Article
VI, Section 17's stipulation of electoral tribunals' being the "sole" judge must be
read in harmony with Article VIII, Section 1's express statement that "[j]udicial
power includes the duty of the courts of justice . . . to determine whether or not
there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government."
Judicial review is, therefore, still possible (Not through the SC's appelate
jurisdiction. Review is limited to determination of grave abuse of discretion).
-David vs SET

MUST SHOW GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION

By employing the word "sole", the Constitutionis emphatic that the jurisdiction of
the HRET in the adjudication of election contests
involving its members is intended to be its own full, complete and unimpaired.
There can be no challenge, therefore, to such exclusive control
absent any clear showing, as in this case, arbitrary and improvident use by the
Tribunal of its power that constitutes a denial of due process
of law, or upon a demonstration of a very clear unmitigated error, manifestly
constituting such
grave abuse of discretion that there has to be a remedy therefore.
-Vinzons-Chato vs HRET

NOTE: ELECTORAL TRIBUNALS HAVE RULE-MAKING POWERS

The creation of the Electoral Commission carried with it ex necesitate rei the
power regulative in character to limit the time within which protests intrusted to
its cognizance should be filed. It is a settled rule of construction that where a
general power is conferred or duly enjoined, every particular power necessary for
the exercise of the one or the performance of the other is also conferred (Cooley,
Constitutional Limitations, eighth ed., vol. I, pp. 138, 139).
In the absence of any further constitutional provision relating to the procedure to
be followed in filing protests before the Electoral Commission, therefore, the
incidental power to promulgate such rules necessary for the proper exercise of its
exclusive power to judge all contests relating to the election, returns and
qualifications of members of the National Assembly, must be deemed by necessary
implication to have been lodged also in the Electoral Commission. [At p. 177;
emphasis supplied.]
-Justice Laurel in Angara vs Electoral Commission

DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION
Determination of jurisdiction of tribunal in election contest:
a. Validly proclaimed
b. Taken oath
c. Assumed office
-Reyes vs. COMELEC

As long as the three requisites are present, the tribunal has jurisdiction even
over party-list representative (Jovito Palparan Case). It does not matter how a
member is elected – in the legislative district or party – list election.
SO, the COMELEC should rule/decide before Proclamation, Oath, and Assumption for
their efforts have actual worth.

NOTE: THE OATH MUST BE MADE:

a. Before the Senate President or Speaker of the House, as the case may be; and
b. In open session.
-Reyes vs COMELEC
SOURCE:
Section 6, Rule II (Membership) of the Rules of the House of Representatives
provides:
Section 6. Oath or Affirmation of Members. – Members shall take their oath or
affirmation either collectively or individually before the Speaker in open session.

NOTE: THE SENATE OR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MAY CHOOSE TO BE ASSHOLES

The power of each House to expel its members o even to defer their oath-taking
until their
qualifications are determined may be exercised even without an election contest.

NOTE: HRET HAS JURISDICTION IN QUESTIONS THAT AFFECT THE QUALIFICATION OF A PARTY-
LIST CONGRESSMAN (LIKE IF HE IS EXPELLED FROM THE PARTY-LIST)
The petition for Lico's expulsion from the House of Representatives is anchored on
his expulsion from
Ating Koop, which necessarily affects his title as member of Congress. A party-list
nominee must
have been, among others, a bona fide member of the party or organization for at
least ninety (90)
days preceding the day of the election. Needless to say, bona fide membership in
the party-list group
is a continuing qualification x xx. Under Section 17, Article VI of the
Constitution, the HRET is the
sole judge of all contests when it comes to qualifications of the members of the
House of
Representatives. Consequently, the COMELEC failed to recognize that the issue on
the validity of
petitioner Lico's expulsion from Ating Koop is integal to the issue of his
qualifications to sit in Congress

USUAL CONTROVERSIES INVOLVING JURISDICTION

Whether it is COMELEC or the SET/HRET that has the jurisdiction.
This question usually comes up when the COMELEC decides a case and the losing
candidate argues that the COMELEC does not have jurisdiction anymore and it belongs
now to HRET/SET.

COMPOSITION: POLITICAL QUESTION

Who to sit in the tribunal under the parameters of proportional representation
is solely determined by the Speaker of the HR or Senate President. This can
be within the scope of political question.
-Guillen

NOTE: DISLOYALTY TO A PARTY IS NOT A GROUND FOR EXPULSION FROM THE TRIBUNAL
HRET and SET members enjoy security of tenure; their membership may not be
terminated except for a just cause such as the expiration of congressional term,
death, resignation from the political party, formal affiliation with another
political
party, or removal for other valid causes
-Bondoc v. Pineda and Tanada vs Cuenco

NOTE: CERTIORARI CANNOT COMPEL A SENATOR TRIBUNAL MEMBER TO BE DISQUALIFIED FOR

BEING RESPONDENTS TO THE CASE
REASON:
To our mind, this is the overriding consideration—that the Tribunal be not
prevented from discharging a duty which it alone has the power to perform, the
performance of which is in the highest public interest as evidenced by its being
expressly imposed by no less than the fundamental law.

It is aptly noted in the first of the questioned Resolutions that the framers of
the Constitution could not have been unaware of the possibility of an election
contest that would involve all 24 Senators-elect, six of whom would inevitably have
to sit in judgment thereon. Indeed, such possibility might surface again in the
wake of the 1992 elections when once more, but for the last time, all 24 seats in
the Senate will be at stake. Yet the Constitution provides no scheme or mode for
settling such unusual situations or for the substitution of Senators designated to
the Tribunal whose disqualification may be sought. Litigants in such situations
must simply place their trust and hopes of vindication in the fairness and sense of
justice of the Members of the Tribunal. Justices and Senators, singly and
collectively.
-Abbas vs SET

WAIT FOR THE HOUSE OR SENATE SUBMIT THE HRET OR SET LIST BEFORE COMPLAINING OF NO
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION
Thus, even assuming that party-list representatives comprise a sufficient number
and have agreed to designate common nominees to the HRET and the CA, their primary
recourse clearly rests with the House of Representatives and not with this Court.
Under Sections 17 and 18, Article VI of the Constitution, party-list
representatives must first show to the House that they possess the required
numerical strength to be entitled to seats in the HRET and the CA. Only if the
House fails to comply with the directive of the Constitution on proportional
representation of political parties in the HRET and the CA can the party-list
representatives seek recourse to this Court under its power of judicial review.
Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, prior recourse to the House is
necessary before petitioners may bring the instant case to the court. Consequently,
petitioners’ direct recourse to this Court is premature.
The instant petitions are bereft of any allegation that respondents prevented the
party-list groups in the House from participating in the election of members of the
HRET and the CA. Neither does it appear that after the May 11, 1998 elections, the
House barred the party-list representatives from seeking membership in the HRET or
the CA. Rather, it appears from the available facts that the party-list groups in
the House at that time simply refrained from participating in the election process.
The party-list representatives did not designate their nominees even up to the time
they filed the instant petitions, with the predictable result that the House did
not consider any party-list representative for election to the HRET or the CA. As
the primary recourse of the party-list representatives lies with the House of
Representatives, ‘the Court cannot resolve the issues presented by petitioners at
this time.
-Pimentel vs HRET

NOTE: SESSION NOT A REQUIREMENT FOR SET/HRET

Unlike the Commission on Appointment the ET shall meet in accordance with their
rules,
regardless of whether Congress is in session or not.

NOTE: APPEAL TO THE HOUSE FIRST BEFORE THE SC-- THIS IS WHEN THE PROPORTIONAL
REPRESENTATION REQUIREMENT IS NOT MET
Under the doctne of primary administrative jurisdiction, prior recourse to the
House is necessary before the petitioners may bring the case to the Supreme Court.
-Pimentel vs HRET

COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS

SEC 18- COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS

30 session days must act

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.

MEMORY: 18 years old. Can be appointed or something like that lol

NOTE: PARTY MUST HAVE AT LEAST 2 SENATORS

Section 18, also assures representation in the Commission on Appointments of any
political party who succeeds in electing members to the Senate, provided that the
number of senators so elected enables it to put a representative in the Commission
on Appointments. Drawing from the ruling in the case of Coseteng vs. Mitra, Jr., a
political party must have at least two senators in the Senate to be able to have a
representatives in the Commission on Appointments, so that any number less than 2
will not entitle such a party a membership in the Commission on Appointments. This
applies to the respondent Senator Tañada.

We lay down the following guidelines accordingly:

1) In the Senate, political party or coalition must have at least two duly elected
senators for every seat in the Commission on Appointments.

2) Where there are more than two political parties represented in the Senate, a
political party/coalition with a single senator in the Senate cannot
constitutionally claims seat in the Commission.
(If there are 23 majority senators and only 1 minority, that 1 minority is entitled
to a seat in the CA by force of circumstance for being the lone minority
-Tanada vs Cuenco)

A writ of prohibition is warranted if these guidelines are not followed.

-Guingona vs Gonzales

ALSO, election of 12 senators, 12 congressman not mandatory to conduct business.

It is not mandatory to elect 12 senators to the Commission; what the Constitution
requires is that there must be at least a majority of the entire membership.
-Guingona vs Gonzales

Presidential appointments subject to confirmation by the Commission

1. Heads of the Executive departments
XPN: Vice-President who is appointed to the post
2. Ambassadors, other public ministers, or consuls
3. Officers of the AFP from the rank of colonel or naval captain
4. Other officers whose appointments are vested in him by the Constitution (i.e.
COMELEC members, etc.)

NOTE: The enumeration is exclusive.

VOTING RULES:
30 session days
majority
Chairman only votes when tie

CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT RULES/LIMITATIONS

1. Congress cannot by law prescribe that the appointment of a person to an office
created by such law be subject to confirmation by the Commission.
2. Appointments extended by the President to the above-mentioned positions while
Congress is not in session shall only be effective until disapproval by the
Commission or until the next adjournment of Congress.
-Sarmiento III vs Mison

SEC 19- SET HRET and CA Constitution- 30 days after election of Senate President
and House Speaker
Chairman's or majority's call-- kha khaaa!

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.
MEMORY: Start doing big boy duties after turning 18

POWERS OF CONGRESS (SYLLABUS)

Powers of Congress
1. Legislative inquiries and oversight functions
2. Non-legislative
a. Informing function
b. Power of impeachment

SEC 21- INVESTIGATION IN AID OF LEGISLATION

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.

MEMORY: YOu got dis

SEC 22- QUESTION HOUR

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.

MEMORY: YOu got dis

How do you know if the investigation is under Sec. 21 or Sec. 22?

It depends on the questions!
If it is in aid of legislation, which is very broad, and it even covers future
legislation not just pending.
If it is in relation to questions about oversight in the implementation of the law
and the subjects are the department heads, it is question hour.

LIMITATIONS ON LEGISLATIVE INVESTIGATION

1. Rights of persons appearing
Note: A person appearing has no right to counsel (such right only in custodial
investigation)
2. Rules of Procedure must be strictly followed
3. In aid of legislation
4. President cannot be summoned (separation of powers)
5. Punishment for contempt can only last until the final adjournment of Congress as
its proceedings are terminated. (After 3 sessions when 1 Congress expires)
It also ends when the committee report is approved or disapproved by the
plenary as there is no reason for the imprisonment anymore.

Why? Because the Senate is not a continuing body. The present Senate under the
1987 Constitution is no longer a continuing legislative body. It has 24 members, 12
of whom are elected every 3 years for a term of 6 years each. Thus, the term of
12 Senators expires every 3 years, leaving less than a majority of Senators to
continue into the next Congress since the Rules of Procedure must be
republished by the Senate after every expiry of the term of the 12 Senators.

BUT as an institution, there is no debate that it is continuing.However, in the

conduct of its day-to-day business the Senate of
each Congress acts separately and ind
6. Congress cannot inquire into the same controversy already before a court
-Bengzon vs Senate Blue Ribbon Committee

NOTE: PUBLISH THE RULES OF PROCEDURE! NOT JUST IN THE INTERNET!

It is incumbent upon the Senate, HOR, or any of its respective committee to publish
the rules for its legislative inquiries in each
Congress or otherwise make the published rules clearly state that the same shall be
effective in subsequent Congresses or until they are amended or repealed to
sufficiently
put the public on notice. Publication of said rules in the internet cannot be
considered as
compliance with this constitutional requirement

NOT IN AID OF PROSECUTION!

If the stated purpose of the investigation is to determine the existence of
violations of the law,e
the investigation is no longer “in aid of legislation” but “in aid of prosecution.”
This violates the
principle of separation of powers.

NOTE! A MERE FILING OF CHARGES DOES NOT BAR INVESTIGATION IN AID OF LEGISLATION.
The mere filing of a criminal or administrative complaint before a court or a
quasi-judicial body
should not automatically bar the conduct of legislative investigation. Otherwise,
it would be
extremely easy to subvert any intended inquiry by Congress through the convenient
ploy of
instituting a criminal or an administrative mplaint. Thus, the Vice Chairman of SCB
is not
correct in refusing to attend the vestigation proceeding on the ground that
criminal and civil
cases involving the same issues are pending in courts.
-Standard Chartered Bank vs Senate

DIFFERENCE OF Standard Chartered Bank case vs Bengzon

In Bengzon, the reason for the inquiry was not in aid of legislation. The speech of
Enrile which sought the investigation made no mention of any contemplated
legislation but merely to look into possible violations of law.
In Standard Chartered, the speech by Enrile (also him yes lol) which sought the
investigation mentioned "to immediately conduct an inquiry, in aid of legislation,
to prevent the occurence of similar fraudulent activity in the future."
SEPARATION OF POWERS ISSUES IN RELATION TO LEGISLATIVE INQUIRIES:
1. Congress cannot subpoena SC justices or hold them in contempt.
Congressional powers cannot be used to deprive the Supreme Court of its
Constitutional duty to supervise judges of lower courts in the performance of their
official duties
2. President cannot pardon anyone under legislative contempt
Legislative contempt is a limitation on President’s power to pardon by virtue
of the doctrine of separation of powers.

QUESTION HOUR

Embraces all activities undertaken by Congress to enhance its understanding of and

influence over
the implementation of legislation it has enacted. It concerns post-enactment
measures undertaken
by Congress.
-Justice Puno

BASIS OF OVERSIGHT FUNCTION:

- Inherent in legislative power
-Checks and balances
-Democracy

DIFFERENCE WITH LEGISLATIVE INQUIRY

1. Only persons investigated are department heads
2. Investigation conducted by entire body (as opposed to just a committee)
3. Only subject matters are those related to the department

KINDS OF OVERSIGHT:
1. SCRUTINY-to determine economy and efficiency of the operation of government
activities.
2. INVESTIGATION- Sec. 21
3. SUPERVISION- which connotes a continuing and informed awareness on the part of a
congressional committee regarding executive operations in a given administrative
area

VERY RELEVANT: EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE

2 kinds of executive privilege:

Presiential Communications privilege-- more protected-- denial requires greater
scrutiny
Deliberative Process privilege-- decision-making of executive officials

Elements of Presidential Communications privilege

1. Involves a non-delegable power--> (Appointing, Diplomatic, Pardoning, Commander-
in-Chief)
2. Communication must be with a person within the Operational Proximity of the
president
3. In order to be denied, it must be overcome by adequate showing of a compelling
need to disclose thereof and the unavailability of information elsewhere
REASON FOR EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE:
The Presient and those who assist him require privacy for them to willing express
their thoughts when exploring alternatives in the policy decision-making process.

LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT
A statutory provision requiring the President or an administrative agency to
present the proposed implementing rules and regulations of a law to Congress
which by itself or through a committee formed by it, retains a "right" or "power"
to approve or disapprove such regulations before they may take effect, is a: (2012
BAR EXAMS)
a. legislative encroachment;
b. legislative veto;
c. legislative oversight;
d. legislative scrutiny.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(B) And (C) Abakada Guro Party List Vs Purisima, 562 Scra 251
It Is Suggested That Either (B) Or (C) May Be Accepted As A Correct Answer

NON-LEGISLATIVE POWERS
Informing function
Impeachment

CITE 5 NON-LEGISLATIVE POWERS

a. To act as national board of canvassers for President and Vice President. (Art.
VII, sec. 4).

b. To decide whether the President is temporarily disabled in the event he

reassumes
his office after the Cabinet, by a majority of vote of its members, declared that
he is
unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office and now within five days
insists
that the President is really unable to discharge the powers and duties of the
presidency.
(Art. VII, sec. 11).

c. To concur in the grant of amnesty by the President. (Art. VII, sec. 19).

d. To initiate through the House of Representatives and, through the Senate, to try
all
cases of impeachment against the President, Vice President, the Members of the
Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions and the Ombudsman,
for culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption,
other
high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. (Art. XI, secs. 2-3).

e. To act as a constituent assembly for the revision or amendment of the

Constitution.
(Art. XVII).

INFORMING FUNCTION

Congress is instilled with an informing function, which is “the means by which

Congress has collected, processed and acted on information vital to its role as
national legislature over the past two centuries.”
Wilson said the informing function is “…implicit in the committee system itself.
Congress investigates in order to inform themselves…and the public, of conditions
and events that are of public concern. The public must have the facts if
legislation is to command public understanding and support.”
More existential than mere oversight, the informing function is introspection on
the national level.
In today’s context, it is the formal public floor and committee deliberation where
open acknowledgement of past and ongoing wrongs are thoroughly aired.
-Random US Source

The informing function of the legislature includes its function to conduct

legislative inquiries and
investigation and its oversight power. The power of Congress does not end with the
finished task of legislation. Associated with its principal power to legislate is
the auxiliary power
to ensure that the laws it enacts are faithfully executed.
-Justice Puno

IMPEACHMENT POWER

Vested only by the Constitution.

It is a non-legislative power and therefore not inherent

STEPS IN THE IMPEACHMENT POWER

1. Initiating impeachment case

a. Verified complaint filed by any member of the House of Representatives or any

citizen upon resolution of endorsement by any member thereof;
NOTE: If the verified complaint is filed by at least 1/3 of all its members of the
House of Representatives, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment,
and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.
[1987 Constitution, Art. XI, Sec. 3 (4)]

b. Inclusion in the order of business within 10 session days;

c. Referred to the proper committee within 3 session days from its inclusion;

d. The committee, after hearing, and by majority vote of all its members, shall
submit its report to the House of Representatives together with the corresponding
resolution;

e. Placing on calendar the Committee resolution within 10 days from submission;

f. Discussion on the floor of the report; and

g. A vote of at least 1/3 of all the members of the House of Representatives shall
be necessary either to affirm a favorable resolution with the Articles of
Impeachment of the committee or
override its contrary resolution.
[(1987 Constitution, Art. XI, Sec. 3 (2-3)]

2. Trial and Decision in impeachment proceedings

a. The Senators take an oath or affirmation;

and
NOTE: When the President of the Philippines shall be impeached, the Chief Justice
of the Supreme Court shall preside,
otherwise the Senate President shall presidin all other cases of impeachment

b. A decision of conviction must b concurred in by at least 2/3 of all the members

of Senate.

The Senate has the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment
[1987 Constitution, Art. XI, Sec. 3(6)].
Hence, judgment in an impeachment proceeding is normally not subject to judicial
review.

EXCEPTION: Courts may annul the proceedings if there is a showing of a grave abuse
of discretion or non-compliance with the procedural requirements of the
Constitution

LIMITATIONS ON IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS:

1. MUST BE INITIATED BY HR

2. ONE-YEAR BAR RULE-- INITIATED WHEN A VERIFIED COMPLAINT IS FILED AND REFERRED TO
THE COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE
An impeachment case is the legal controversy that must be decided by the Senate
while an impeachment proceeding is
one that is initiated in the House of Representatives.
For purposes of applying the one-year bar rule, the proceeding is initiated or
begins when a verified complaint is filed and referred to the Committee on Justice
for action.
-Francisco v. House of Representatives

Purpose of the one-year bar rule

1. To prevent undue or too frequent harassment;
2. To allow the legislature to do its principal task of legislation