Article VI, Section 16 (1)

(1) The Senate shall elect its President and the House of Representatives, its Speaker, by a
majority vote of all its Members
Each House shall choose such other officers as it may deem necessary.
Santiago v. Comelec
Issue: Who is the rightful minority leader?
Held: The court cannot take cognizance of the issue as no provision of the Constitution or the
laws or even the rules of the Senate is clearly shown to have been violated. While the
Constitution provides that the Senate President must be elected by a majority vote, it does not
provide that the members who did not vote for him shall constitute the minority, who could
thereby elect the minority leader. The law is silent on the manner of selection of other officers.
The selection of the latter is a prerogative of the legislative department.

Article VI, Section 16 (2)

(2) A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number
may adjourn from day to day and may compel the attendance of absent Members in such
manner, and under such penalties, as such House may provide.

Avelino v. Cuenca
Facts: Senator Tanada was scheduled to deliver his privilege speech about allegations against
Senate President Jose Avelino. As Tanada was about to deliver his speech, Avelino adjourned the
session and walked out with 10 senators. (Senator Sotto was confined in a hospital and Senator
Confessor was in the United States) leaving 12. The remaining Senators held a rump session and
elected acting officers where Senator Cuenco was elected acting Senate President.
Issue: Whether or not the 12 Senators constitute a quorum?
Held: Yes. 12 out of 23 Senators were present. Senator Confessor cannot be counted because he
is out of the country outside of the coercive jurisdiction of the smaller number of members
present who could compel the latters attendance.

Article XVI, Section 16 (3)

(3) Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for
disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its Members, suspend
or expel a Member. A penalty of suspension, when imposed shall not exceed sixty days.

Pacete v. Comission on Appointments

Facts: Pacete was appointed by the President as Municipal Judge of Pigcauwayan Cotabato.
Subsequently, his appointment was unanimously confirmed by the Commission on
Appointments. 9 months after such confirmation, he was asked to vacate his seat. He was told
that a motion for reconsideration was filed a day after his confirmation and the presence of such
MR, as pre prevailing practice, automatically vacated the confirmation of the appointment in
question
Issue: WON the appointment can be revoked by the mere presence of a motion for
reconsideration.
Held: No. It took them 9 months to notify Pacete. He was deprived of his right to due process,
specifically of notice or hearing. Courts can step in and nullify an act if it impinges on
constitutionally guaranteed rights of individuals.

Arroyo v. De Venecia
Issue: WON RA 8420, imposing sin taxes, is null and void because it was passed in violation of
the Rules of the House.
Held: The Court has no jurisdiction. First, it was clear that what was alleged to have been
violated were merely internal rules of procedure of the House rather than constitutional
requirements for the enactment of a law. Petitioners do no claim that there is no quorum but
effectively some maneuver allegedly in violation of the Rule of the House prevented Sen. Arroyo
from questioning the presence of the quorum.
Discipline of Members
Alejandrino v. Quezon
Facts: Senator Alejandrino was suspended for 1 year after assaulting Senator Vicente Vera.
Issue: May the SC, by mandamus and injunction annul the suspension of Senator Alejandrino
and compel the Senate to reinstate him?
Held: No. Where a member has been expelled by the legislative body, the courts have no power,
irrespective of whether the expulsion was right or wrong, to issue a mandate to compel his
reinstatement. Doing so would be a violation of the doctrine of the separation of powers.
Obiter Dictum: Suspension should not exceed 6 months as it would be tantamount to taxation
without representation.
Osmena v. Pendatun
Facts: Senator Osmena was found suspended for 15 months after he made serious imputations of
bribery against the President.
Issues:

1. Whether or not the Resolution finding him guilty violated his constitutional absolute
immunity for speeches delivered in the House.
2. WON his acts constituted disorderly / unruly conduct.
Held:
1. No. Immunity only guarantees absolute freedom of expression without fear of being
made responsible in civil and criminal actions. It does not protect him from responsibility
from the legislative body itself.
2. It is up to the Houses to determine what constitutes disorderly / unruly conduct.

Santiago v. Sandiganbayan
Facts: Santiago (Commission of Immigration and Deportation) was charged three criminal cases
(approved application for legalization of stay of disqualified aliens). For the aforementioned
cases, the Sandiganbayan decreed a 90 day preventive suspension against Santiago. Santiago
argues that only the senate has the power to suspend her pursuant to Art. VI Sec 16 (3) of the
constitution. She invokes a 60 days suspension instead.
Issue: WON the Sandiganbayan has the authority to preventively suspend Santiago.
Held: Yes. RA. 3019 does not exclude from its coverage the members of the Congress. The
preventive suspension is not a punitive measure and is distinct from the power of the Congress to
discipline its members. The provision in Art. VI Sec 6 (3) is a house imposed penalty for
disorderly behavior.

De Venecia v. Sandiganbayan
Issue: WON the Sandiganbayan may cite in contempt of Court, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives for refusing to implement a preventive suspension order.
Held: Yes. The preventive suspension order is not imposed by the court as a penalty. Suspension
in Section 3 of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practice Act) is mandatory. Its purpose is to not
frustrate proceedings by influencing the witnesses, tampering documentary evidence and to
prevent the commission of other malfeasances.
Journal and Record
Article VI, Section 16 (4)
(4) Each House shall keep a Journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the
same, excepting such parts as may, in its judgement, affect national security; and the
yeas and nays on any question shall, at the request of one-fifth of the Members present,
be entered in the Journal. Each House shall also keep a record of its own proceedings.
The Enrolled Bill Theory

Casco Chemical Co. v. Gimenez

Facts: Casco applied for a refund from the Central Bank of margin fees it has paid as a result of
its importation of urea and formaldehyde. RA 2609 exempts sale of foreign exchange in
relation to the importation of urea formaldehyde from the payment of margin fee.
Issue: WON Casco is entitled to refunds
Held: NO. Although there were statements on that contemplated the intent of exempting the
separate articles of chemicals rather than the finished product, what governs and considered final
in the judiciary is the enrolled bill which states that the exemption is for urea formaldehyde, the
finished product. If there has been a mistake in the printing of the bill before it was certified, the
Court cannot speculate without jeopardizing the principle of separation of powers.

Probative Value of the Journal entries in the legislative journal are given more weight when
ranged against other forms of evidence.
US v. Pons
Facts: The Counsel of the accused in a case of illegal importation of opium argues that the Act
which punishes the latter was not passed or approved on the 28th of February which was the final
day of the Special Session. Hence, the same is null and void. On the other hand, it was stated in
the Journal that the act was passed before midnight of the 28th of February.
Issue: WON the act was approved before the session was adjourned.
Held: Yes. The Court is bound to respect the Congress. It cannot check the entries beyond what
has been talked about. It recognized that the contents of the legislative journal indicated that the
session was adjourned on the 28th of February and the act was enacted in March 1, 1914.
Journal Entry Rule v. Enrolled Bill Theory
Astorga v. Villegas
Facts: RA 4065 defines the power rights and duties of the Vice Mayor of Manila. The version of
the law to be signed by the President did not contain the amendments agreed upon by the senate
in the second reading of the bill.
Issue: WON the courts can go beyond the enrolled bill.
Held: Yes. There is no enrolled bill in the first place. The Senate President declared his signature
invalid. He addressed a letter to the President explaining that the enrolled copy of the House Bill
No. 9266 was not the bill duly approved by the congress so they went to the journal.

Morales v. Subido

Facts: Morales argues that the phrase who has served the police department of a city was
accidentally omitted. He argues that it was the intent of the law to include such phrase as one of
the qualifications of a chief of a city police agency by presenting drafts of the House Bill which
included the phrase.
Issue: WON the Court can go behind the enrolled bill and look at the records to ascertain intent.
Held: NO. The Court cannot go behind the enrolled act to discover what really happened. The
respect due to the other branches of the government demand that the Courts should act with faith
and credit of what the officers of the said branch attest to as the official acts of their respective
departments.

Article VI. Section 10

The salaries of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives shall be determined by
law. No increase in the said compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of the full
term of all Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives approving such increase.
Philconsa v. Mathay
Issue: WON the Constitution requires that not only the terms members of the House but also the
Senator who approved the increase must have fully expired before the increase becomes
effective.
Held: YES. The salary increase cannot kick in until after the expiration of the terms of all those
who participated and approved such. The purpose of the provision is to place a legal bar to the
legislators yielding to the natural temptation to increase their salaries.
Ligot v. Mathay
Held: A retirement gratuity or benefit is a form of compensation and other emoluments to the
salaries of Congressment. Since the salary increase could be operative only from December 30
1969, to grant that the retirement benefits of those who retired on that date be computed on the
basis of increased salary would be to pay them prohibited emoluments by the Constitution.
Article VI, Section 11
A Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable by not
more than six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session. No
Member shall be questions nor be held liable in any other place for speech or debate in the
Congress on in any committee thereof.

People v. Jalosjos
Facts: Congressman Jalosjos is confined at the national penitentiary after being convicted for
statutory rape on two counts and of acts of lasciviousness of six counts. He asks that he be

allowed to attend at legislative sessions and committee meetings despite being convicted in the
first instance of a non-bailable offense:
HELD: Membership in the Congress does not exempt an accused from statues and rules which
validly apply to incarcerated persons in general. Congress cannot compel members to attend if
the reason for their absence is legitimate. Freedom from arrest would amount to the creation of a
privileged class without justification in reason, if notwithstanding their criminal offense, they
would be considered immune during their attendance in congress and in going and returning
from the same.

Speech and Debate Clause

No Member shall be questions nor be held liable in any other place for speech or debate in the
Congress on in any committee thereof.
Jimenez v. Cabangbang