CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1- SENATE CASES DIGEST Dimaporo v.

Mitra
FACTS: Dimaporo was elected as a representative for the second legislative district of Lanao del Sur during the 1987 congressional elections. Dimaporo filed a certificate of candidacy for the position of governor of ARMM. Secretary and Speaker of the House excluded the name of Dimaporo from the Roll of Members of HR Under Art IX of Sec 67 of the Omnibus Election Code. Dimaporo lost the election wrote a letter intending to resume performing his duties and functions as an elected member of the Congress. Unfortunately, he was not able to regain his seat in the Congress. Dimaporo contended that he did not lose his seat as a Congressman because Art. IX Sec. 67 of BP 881 is not operative in the present constitution, and therefore not applicable to the members of Congress. Grounds may be termed to be shortened: 1. Holding any officer or employment in the government or ant subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof. 2. Expulsion as a disciplinary action for a disorderly behavior 3. Disqualification as determined by a resolution of the electoral tribunal in an election contest 4. Voluntary renunciation of office ISSUE: W/N Dimaporo can still be considered as a member of Congress even after he has filed for another government position HELD:N o. In the constitution there is a new chapter on the accountability of public officers. In the 1935 Constitution, it was provided that public office is a public trust. Public officers should serve with the highest degree of responsibility and integrity. If you allow a Batasan or a governor or a mayor who has mandated to serve for 6 years to file for an office other than the one he was elected to, then that clearly shows that he did not intend to serve the mandate of the people which was placed upon him and therefore he should be considered ipso facto resigned. The filling of a certificate shall be considered as an overt act or abandoning or relinquishing his mandate to the people and he should therefore resign if he want to seek another position which he feels he could be of better service. VIOLATION OF PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY

Chairman of its Committee on National Defense. He wrote an open letter to the President and caused its publication in several newspapers of general circulation exposing the allegedly operational plans by some ambitious AFP officers regarding a massive political build-up of then Secretary of National Defense, Jesus Vargas, to prepare him to become a candidate for President in 1961. Issue: Whether or not the publication in question is a privileged communication Held: The determination of the issue depends on whether or not the publication falls within the purview of the phrase speech or debate in Congress as used in Art. VI, Sec. 15 (now Sec. 11). Said expression refers to utterances made by Congressmen in the performance of their official functions, such as speeches delivered, statements made, or votes cast in the halls of Congress, while the same is in session, as well as bills introduced in Congress, whether the same is in session or not, and other acts performed by Congressmen, either in Congress or outside the premises housing its offices, in the official discharge of their duties as members of Congress and of Congressional Committees duly authorized to perform its functions as such, at the time of the performance of the acts in question. The publication involved in this case does not belong to this category. It was an open letter to the President, when Congress presumably was not in session, and defendant caused said letter to be published in several newspapers of general circulation. In causing the communication to be so published, he was not performing his official duty, either as a member of the Congress or as officer of any committee thereof. Hence, said communication is not absolutely privileged.

US v Pons G.R. No. 11530. August 12, 1916.

Facts: "The undersigned charges Gabino Beliso, Juan Pons, and Jacinto Lasarte with the crime of illegal importation of opium, committed as follows: "That on or about the 10th day of April, 1915, the said accused, conspiring together and plotting among themselves, did, knowingly, willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and fraudulently, bring from a foreign country, to wit, that of Spain, on board the steamer Lopez y Lopez, and import and introduce into the city of Manila, Philippine Islands, and within the jurisdiction of the court, 520 tins containing 125 kilograms of opium of the value of P62,400, Philippine currency. On motion of counsel, Juan Pons and Gabino Beliso were tried separately. (Jacinto Lasarte had not yet been arrested.) Each were found guilty of the crime charged and sentenced accordingly, the former to be confined in Bilibid Prison for the period of two years, to pay a fine of P1,000 to suffer the corresponding subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to the payment of one-half of the costs. The same penalties were imposed upon the latter, except that he was sentenced to pay a fine of P3,000. Both appealed. Beliso later withdrew his appeal and the judgment as to him has become final. In his motion above mentioned, counsel alleged and offered to prove that the last day of the special session of the Philippine Legislature for 1914 was the 28th day of February; that Act No. 2381, under which Pons must be punished if found guilty was not passed or approved on the 28th of February but on March 1 of that year; and that, therefore, the same is null and void. The validity of the Act is not otherwise questioned. Issue: Whether Act 2381 was passed on 28th of February or March 1 of that year. Held: For the foregoing reasons, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

Martinez vs. Morfe

Martinez and Bautista were members of the Constitutional Convention. They were arrested for falsification of docs-birthday and distribution of free food, drinks and cigs at 2 public meetings Sec 15, Art VI of the Constitution makes it clear that parliamentary immunity from arrest does not cover any prosecution for treason, felony, and breach of the peace. American law: Bu common parliamentary law, the members of the legislature are privileged from arrest on civil process during the session of that body, and for a reasonable time before and after, to enable them to go to and return from the same. A prosecution for a criminal offense is thus excluded from this grant of community.

Jimenez vs. Cabangbang G.R. No. L-15905, August 3, 1966

Facts: Defendant Cabangbang was a member of the House of Representatives and

Ratio: Imperative reasons of public policy require that the authentic of laws should rest upon public memorials of the most permanent character. They should be public, because all are required to conform to them; they should be permanent, that rights acquired to-day upon the faith of what has been declared to be law shall not be destroyed to-morrow, or at some remote period of time, by facts resting only in the memory of individuals." In the case from which this last quotation is taken the court cited numerous decisions of the various states in the American Union in support of the rule therein laid down, and we have been unable to find a single case of a later date where the rule has been in the least changed or modified when the legislative journals cover the point. As the Constitution of the Philippine Government is modeled after those of the Federal Government and the various states we do not hesitate to follow the courts in that country in the matter now before us. The journals say that the Legislature adjourned at 12 midnight on February 28, 1914. This settles the question, and the court did not err in declining to go behind these journals. In view of when the Legislature adjourned On the one hand, it is maintained that the Legislature did not, as we have indicated, adjourn at midnight on February 28, 1914, but on March 1st, and that this allegation or alleged fact may be established by extraneous evidence; while, on the other hand, it is urged that the contents of the legislative journals are conclusive evidence as to the date of adjournment. In order to understand these opposing positions, it is necessary to consider the nature and character of the evidence thus involved. But counsel in his argument says that the public knows that the Assembly's clock was stopped on February 28, 1914, at midnight and left so until the determination of the discussion of all pending matters. Or, in other words, the hands of the clock were stayed in order to enable the Assembly to effect an adjournment apparently within the time fixed by the Governor's proclamation for the expiration of the special session, in direct violation of the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902. In view of the probative value of the Journal If the clock was, in fact, stopped, as here suggested, "the resultant evil might be slight as compared with that of altering the probative force and character of legislative records, and making the proof of legislative action depend upon entertain oral evidence, liable to loss by death or absence, and so imperfect on account of the treachery of memory.

Respondent Secretary of the Commission on Appointments thus was led to notify the then Secretary of Justice accordingly, following what he considered to be the prevailing practice of such body that the mere presentation of such letter "automatically vacated the confirmation of the appointment in question . . ." Respondent Secretary of Justice through the Judicial Superintendent then advised petitioner that he should vacate his position as municipal judge, as he had not been duly confirmed. The Disbursing Officer of the Department of Justice was likewise named respondent as he had, as a consequence, withheld petitioner's salaries. Issue: Whether the confirmation of his appointment had become final and executory upon the adjournment of the fourth regular session of the Fifth Congress at midnight of May 21, 1965; Whether the petitioner's appointment was not duly confirmed; and Whether the Court has jurisdiction over the case. Held: WHEREFORE, petitioner is entitled to the writ of mandamus and the Secretary of the Commission on Appointments is commanded to issue the certificate of confirmation prayed for by petitioner. The right of petitioner to perform his functions as municipal judge of Pigcawayan, Cotabato is in accordance with law, his confirmation having been duly confirmed. No pronouncement as to costs. Ratio: For respondents to argue that the mere filing of a motion for reconsideration did suffice to set it aside, even in the absence of any further action, is, as stressed by petitioner, to lose sight of what is provided in the Constitution. That would be moreover tantamount to imparting to a move of a single member of a collective body a decisive weight. It is bad enough if the minority were to prevail. A one-man rule, which is the effect of what respondent Secretary of the Commission on Appointments contends, is infinitely worse. It is indefensible in principle and pernicious in operation. It can find no shelter in the constitutional prescription. In view of confirmation In petitioner's memorandum submitted on August 1, 1966, it was contended that his confirmation became final and irrevocable upon the adjournment of the fourth regular session of the Fifth Congress on May 21, 1965. In view of construction As was noted, the controlling principle is supplied by Altarejos v. Molo, which interpreted Rule 21 of the Revised Rules of the Commission on Appointments, which reads: "Resolution of the Commission on any appointment may be reconsidered on motion by a member presented not more than one (1) day after their approval. If a majority of the members present concur to grant a reconsideration, the appointment shall be reopened and submitted anew to the Commission. Any motion to reconsider the vote on any appointment may be laid on the table, this shall be a final disposition of such a motion." 1. In Altarejos v. Molo this Court gave full attention to the argument that the motion for reconsideration of Congressman Aldeguer on May 19, 1965 had the effect of recalling the confirmation of petitioner's appointment and that, accordingly, it should be considered nonexistent. His opinion continued: "Pursuant to this provision, the vote of a majority of the members present in favor of the motion for reconsideration is necessary to 'reopen' the appointment and, hence, to 'recall' its confirmation and to require a resubmission of the appointment for confirmation." 2. The other provision is worded thus: "The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of the Congress, but such appointments shall be effective only until disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the Congress."

Pacete v Commission on Appointments G.R. No. L25895. July 23, 1971

Facts: Petitioner Felizardo S. Pacete alleged that he was appointed by the then President of the Philippines on August 31, 1964 as Municipal Judge of Pigcawayan, Cotabato. He assumed office on September 11, 1964 and discharged his duties as such. As his appointment, was made during the recess of Congress, it was submitted to the Commission on Appointments at its next session in 1965. On February 7, 1966, the then Secretary of Justice, whom he likewise included in his petition, through the Judicial Superintendent, advised petitioner to vacate his position as municipal judge, the ground being that his appointment had been by-passed. Senator Rodolfo Ganzon, wrote to its Chairman stating that he was filing a motion for the reconsideration of the confirmation of the appointment of petitioner as municipal judge of Pigcawayan, Cotabato, in view of derogatory information which he had received.

That would be moreover tantamount to imparting to a move of a single member of a collective body a decisive weight. It is bad enough if the minority were to prevail. A one-man rule, which is the effect of what respondent Secretary of the Commission on Appointments contends, is infinitely worse. 3. The courts are called upon to see to it that private rights are not invaded. Thus even legislative acts and executive orders are not beyond the pale of judicial scrutiny. Certainly, there is nothing sacrosanct about a rule of the Commission on Appointments, especially so, when as in this case, a construction sought to be fastened on it would defeat the right of an individual to a public office. The task becomes unavoidable when claims arising from the express language of the Constitution are pressed upon the judiciary. So it is in this case. It is a truism that under the circumstances, what cannot be ignored is the primacy of what the fundamental law ordains. As due process is impressed with both substantive and procedural significance, the scope of judicial inquiry is thus not unduly limited.

disorderly conduct for which Osmea may be disciplined, many arguments pro and con have been advanced. We believe, however, that the House is the judge of what constitutes disorderly behaviour, not only because the Constitution has conferred jurisdiction upon it, but also because the matter depends mainly on factual circumstances of which the House knows best but which can not be depicted in black and white for presentation to, and adjudication by the Courts. Our refusal to intervene might impress some readers as subconscious hesitation due to discovery of impermissible course of action in the legislative chamber. Nothing of that sort: we merely refuse to disregard the allocation of constitutional functions which it is our special duty to maintain.

Osmena v Pendatun G.R. No. L-17144. October 28, 1960.

Facts: On July 14, 1960, Congressman Sergio Osmea, Jr., submitted to this Court a verified petition for "declaratory relief, certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction" against Congressman Salipada K. Pendatun and fourteen other congressmen in their capacity as members of the Special Committee created by House Resolution No. 59. He asked for annulment of such Resolution on the ground of infringement of his parliamentary immunity; he also asked, principally, that said members of the special committee be enjoined from proceeding in accordance with it, particularly the portion authorizing them to require him to substantiate his charges against the President, with the admonition that if he failed to do so, he must show cause why the House should not punish him. "The people, Mr. President, have been hearing of ugly reports that under your unpopular administration the free things they used to get from the government are now for sale at premium prices. They say that even pardons are for sale, and that regardless of the gravity or seriousness of a criminal case, the culprit can always be bailed out forever from jail as long as he can come across with a handsome dole. I am afraid, such an anomalous situation would reflect badly on the kind of justice that your administration is dispensing. . . ." Resolved by the House of Representatives, that a special committee of fifteen Members to be appointed by the Speaker be, and the same hereby is, created to investigate the truth of the charges against the President of the Philippines made by Honorable Sergio Osmea, Jr., in his privilege speech of June 23. Issue: Whether the Resolution violated petitioners constitutional absolute parliamentary immunity for speeches delivered in the House; Whether petitioners words constituted actionable conduct; Whether petitioner is protected by Rule XVII Sec. 7 of the Rules of the House provides that if other business has intervened after the Member had uttered obnoxious words in debate he shall not be held to answer therefore nor be subject to censure by the House. Held: Accordingly, the petition has to be, and is hereby dismissed. So ordered. Ratio: On the question whether delivery of speeches attacking the Chief Executive constitutes