Legislative Notes
Legislative Notes
Legislative Notes
1
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
Qualifications (Section 3) Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board, G.R. No.
157870 (and other consolidated petitions), November 3,
2008
SECTION 3. 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
DECISION
least thirty-five years of age, able to read and write, a registered (En Banc)
voter, and a resident of the Philippines for not less than two years
immediately preceding the day of the election. VELASCO, J.:
2
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
(c) Students of secondary and tertiary schools. Students of 1. Do Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 and COMELEC Resolution No.
secondary and tertiary schools shall, pursuant to the 6486 impose an additional qualification for candidates for
related rules and regulations as contained in the school's senator? Corollarily, can Congress enact a law prescribing
student handbook and with notice to the parents, undergo qualifications for candidates for senator in addition to those
a random drug testing x x x; laid down by the Constitution?
(d) Officers and employees of public and private offices. 2. Are paragraphs (c), (d), and (f) of Sec. 36, RA 9165
Officers and employees of public and private offices, unconstitutional?
whether domestic or overseas, shall be subjected to
undergo a random drug test as contained in the company's
work rules and regulations, x x x for purposes of reducing III. THE RULING
the risk in the workplace. Any officer or employee found
positive for use of dangerous drugs shall be dealt with [The Court GRANTED the petition in G.R. No. 161658 and
administratively which shall be a ground for suspension or declared Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 and COMELEC Resolution
termination, subject to the provisions of Article 282 of the No. 6486 as UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Labor Code and pertinent provisions of the Civil Service
Law; It alsoPARTIALLY GRANTED the petition in G.R. Nos.
157870 and 158633 by declaring Sec. 36(c) and (d) of RA
xxx xxx xxx 9165 CONSTITUTIONAL, but declaring its Sec.
36(f)UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The Court thus permanently
(f) All persons charged before the prosecutor's office with a enjoined all the concerned agencies from
criminal offense having an imposable penalty of implementing Sec. 36(f) and (g) of RA 9165.]
imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day
shall undergo a mandatory drug test; 1. YES, Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 and COMELEC
Resolution No. 6486 impose an additional
(g) All candidates for public office whether appointed or qualification for candidates for senator; NO,
elected both in the national or local government shall Congress CANNOT enact a law prescribing
undergo a mandatory drug test. qualifications for candidates for senator in addition
to those laid down by the Constitution.
Sec. 36(g) is implemented by COMELEC Resolution
No. 6486. In essence, Pimentel claims that Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 and
COMELEC Resolution No. 6486 illegally impose an
II. THE ISSUES additional qualification on candidates for senator. He points
out that, subject to the provisions on nuisance candidates,
a candidate for senator needs only to meet the
3
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
qualifications laid down in Sec. 3, Art. VI of the of little value if one cannot assume office for non-
Constitution, to wit: (1) citizenship, (2) voter registration, compliance with the drug-testing requirement.
(3) literacy, (4) age, and (5) residency. Beyond these
stated qualification requirements, candidates for senator 2. NO, paragraphs (c) and (d) of Sec. 36, RA 9165
need not possess any other qualification to run for senator are NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL; YES, paragraphs (f)
and be voted upon and elected as member of the Senate. thereof is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
The Congress cannot validly amend or otherwise modify
these qualification standards, as it cannot disregard, evade, As to paragraph (c), covering students of secondary
or weaken the force of a constitutional mandate, or alter or and tertiary schools
enlarge the Constitution.
Citing the U.S. cases of Vernonia School District 47J v.
Pimentels contention is well-taken. Accordingly, Sec. 36(g) Acton and Board of Education of Independent School
of RA 9165 should be, as it is hereby declared as, District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County, et al. v.
unconstitutional. Earls, et al., the Court deduced and applied the following
principles: (1) schools and their administrators stand in
Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165, as sought to be implemented by the loco parentis with respect to their students; (2) minor
assailed COMELEC resolution, effectively enlarges the students have contextually fewer rights than an adult, and
qualification requirements enumerated in the Sec. 3, Art. VI are subject to the custody and supervision of their parents,
of the Constitution. As couched, said Sec. 36(g) guardians, and schools; (3) schools, acting in loco parentis,
unmistakably requires a candidate for senator to be have a duty to safeguard the health and well-being of their
certified illegal-drug clean, obviously as a pre-condition to students and may adopt such measures as may reasonably
the validity of a certificate of candidacy for senator or, with be necessary to discharge such duty; and (4) schools have
like effect, a condition sine qua non to be voted upon and, the right to impose conditions on applicants for admission
if proper, be proclaimed as senator-elect. The COMELEC that are fair, just, and non-discriminatory.
resolution completes the chain with the proviso that [n]o
person elected to any public office shall enter upon the Guided by Vernonia, supra, and Board of
duties of his office until he has undergone mandatory drug Education, supra, the Court is of the view and so holds
test. Viewed, therefore, in its proper context, Sec. 36(g) of that the provisions of RA 9165 requiring mandatory,
RA 9165 and the implementing COMELEC Resolution add random, and suspicionless drug testing of students are
another qualification layer to what the 1987 Constitution, constitutional. Indeed, it is within the prerogative of
at the minimum, requires for membership in the Senate. educational institutions to require, as a condition for
Whether or not the drug-free bar set up under the admission, compliance with reasonable school rules and
challenged provision is to be hurdled before or after regulations and policies. To be sure, the right to enrol is
election is really of no moment, as getting elected would be not absolute; it is subject to fair, reasonable, and equitable
requirements.
4
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
5
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
consideration lies in the fact that the test shall be test for civil servants, who, by constitutional command, are
conducted by trained professionals in access-controlled required to be accountable at all times to the people and to
laboratories monitored by the Department of Health (DOH) serve them with utmost responsibility and efficiency.
to safeguard against results tampering and to ensure an
accurate chain of custody. In addition, the IRR issued by the As to paragraph (f), covering persons charged
DOH provides that access to the drug results shall be on before the prosecutors office with a crime with an
the need to know basis; that the drug test result and the imposable penalty of imprisonment of not less than
records shall be [kept] confidential subject to the usual 6 years and 1 day
accepted practices to protect the confidentiality of the test
results. Notably, RA 9165 does not oblige the employer Unlike the situation covered by Sec. 36(c) and (d) of RA
concerned to report to the prosecuting agencies any 9165, the Court finds no valid justification for mandatory
information or evidence relating to the violation of drug testing for persons accused of crimes. In the case of
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act received as a students, the constitutional viability of the mandatory,
result of the operation of the drug testing. All told, random, and suspicionless drug testing for
therefore, the intrusion into the employees privacy, under students emanates primarily from the waiver by the
RA 9165, is accompanied by proper safeguards, particularly students of their right to privacy when they seek entry to
against embarrassing leakages of test results, and is the school, and from their voluntarily submitting their
relatively minimal. persons to the parental authority of school authorities. In
the case of private and public employees, the
Taking into account the foregoing factors, i.e., the reduced constitutional soundness of the mandatory, random, and
expectation of privacy on the part of the employees, the suspicionless drug testing proceeds from the
compelling state concern likely to be met by the search, reasonableness of the drug test policy and requirement.
and the well-defined limits set forth in the law to properly
guide authorities in the conduct of the random testing, we We find the situation entirely different in the case of
hold that the challenged drug test requirement is, under persons charged before the public prosecutor's office with
the limited context of the case, reasonable and, ergo, criminal offenses punishable with 6 years and 1 day
constitutional. imprisonment. The operative concepts in the mandatory
drug testing are randomness and suspicionless. In the
Like their counterparts in the private sector, government case of persons charged with a crime before the
officials and employees also labor under reasonable prosecutor's office, a mandatory drug testing can never be
supervision and restrictions imposed by the Civil Service random or suspicionless. The ideas of randomness and
law and other laws on public officers, all enacted to being suspicionless are antithetical to their being made
promote a high standard of ethics in the public service. defendants in a criminal complaint. They are not randomly
And if RA 9165 passes the norm of reasonableness for picked; neither are they beyond suspicion. When persons
private employees, the more reason that it should pass the suspected of committing a crime are charged, they are
6
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
singled out and are impleaded against their will. The Term Limit: 2 Consecutive Terms
persons thus charged, by the bare fact of being haled
before the prosecutors office and peaceably submitting
themselves to drug testing, if that be the case, do not
necessarily consent to the procedure, let alone waive their
right to privacy. To impose mandatory drug testing on the
accused is a blatant attempt to harness a medical test as a
tool for criminal prosecution, contrary to the stated
objectives of RA 9165. Drug testing in this case would
violate a persons right to privacy guaranteed under Sec. 2, Is the Congress Continuing Body?
Art. III of the Constitution. Worse still, the accused persons o League of Cities of the Philippines v. Comelec
are veritably forced to incriminate themselves. G.R. No. 176951, November 2008
v.
7
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
(LCP), City of Iloilo, City of Calbayog, and Jerry P. Treas, First issue:
assailing the constitutionality of the sixteen (16) laws, each
converting the municipality covered thereby into a The enactment of the Cityhood Laws is an exercise by
component city (Cityhood Laws), and seeking to enjoin the Congress of its legislative power. Legislative power is the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) from conducting authority, under the Constitution, to make laws, and to
plebiscites pursuant to the subject laws. alter and repeal them. The Constitution, as the expression
of the will of the people in their original, sovereign, and
In the Decision dated November 18, 2008, the Court En unlimited capacity, has vested this power in the Congress
Banc, by a 6-5 vote, granted the petitions and struck down of the Philippines.
the Cityhood Laws as unconstitutional for violating Sections The LGC is a creation of Congress through its law-making
10 and 6, Article X, and the equal protection clause. powers. Congress has the power to alter or modify it as it
did when it enacted R.A. No. 9009. Such power of
In another Decision dated December 21, 2009, the amendment of laws was again exercised when Congress
Court En Banc, by a vote of 6-4, declared the Cityhood enacted the Cityhood Laws. When Congress enacted the
Laws as constitutional. LGC in 1991, it provided for quantifiable indicators of
economic viability for the creation of local government
On August 24, 2010, the Court En Banc, through a unitsincome, population, and land area.
Resolution, by a vote of 7-6, resolved the Ad
Cautelam Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Annul However, Congress deemed it wiser to exempt respondent
the Decision of December 21, 2009. municipalities from such a belatedly imposed modified
income requirement in order to uphold its higher calling of
ISSUE: putting flesh and blood to the very intent and thrust of the
LGC, which is countryside development and autonomy,
Whether or not the Cityhood Bills violate Article X, especially accounting for these municipalities as engines
Section 10 of the Constitution for economic growth in their respective provinces.
Whether or not the Cityhood Bills violate Article X, R.A. No. 9009 amended the LGC. But the Cityhood Laws
Section 6 and the equal protection clause of the amended R.A. No. 9009 through the exemption clauses
Constitution found therein. Since the Cityhood Laws explicitly exempted
the concerned municipalities from the amendatory R.A. No.
HELD: The petition is meritorious. 9009, such Cityhood Laws are, therefore, also amendments
to the LGC itself.
8
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
Substantial distinction lies in the capacity and viability of In 2005, respondent House Committees (see case title)
respondent municipalities to become component cities of conducted a congressional investigation with regard to the
their respective provinces. Congress, by enacting the wiretapped conversations that surfaced between petitioner,
Cityhood Laws, recognized this capacity and viability of
former COMELEC Commissioner Garcillano and former
respondent municipalities to become the States partners
in accelerating economic growth and development in the President Arroyo.
provincial regions, which is the very thrust of the LGC,
In 2007, the Senate conducted its own legislative inquiry
manifested by the pendency of their cityhood bills during
the 11th Congress and their relentless pursuit for cityhood where it summoned another petitioner to this case, Major
up to the present. Sagge, member of the Intelligence Service of the AFP
(ISAFP) without the following:
The Resolution dated August 24, 2010 is REVERSED and (1) PUBLICATION of the Senate Rules of Procedure
SET ASIDE. The Cityhood Laws are declared governing inquiries in aid of legislation
CONSTITUTIONAL. (2) The intended legislation referred to in the preceding
number (in aid of legislation)
o Garcillano v. House of Representatives, G.R. SECTION 21, Art. VI (1987 Constitution) provides that:
No. 170338, December 2008 [T]he Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its
respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of
Garcillano v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of
Committee on Public Information, Public Order and
procedure. The rights of persons appearing in or affected
Safety, National Defense and Security, Information
by such inquiries shall be respected.
and Communications Technology, and Suffrage and
Electoral Reforms Respondents claimed that their non-observance of the
constitutionally mandated publication was justified by the
G.R. Nos. 170338, 179275, December 23, 2008
fact that the rules have never been amended since 1995.
Nachura, J., En Banc Further, aside from the availability of free booklets
containing the 1995 rules, the Senates internet web page
FACTS: also provided the 1995 rules that serves as the functional
equivalent of a written document with reference to the
This case is a consolidation of two petitions.
Electronic Commerce Act of 2000.
9
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
ISSUE: WON Sec. 21, Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution was Congresses, the conduct of legislative inquiries in aid of
violated legislation contemplated in the constitution cannot not be
legally conducted.
HELD:
o Arnault v. Nazareno
Petition to issue writ of prohibition GRANTED prohibiting the
Senate and any of its committees from conducting any
inquiry in aid of legislation in connection with the Hello Inquiry in Aid of Legislation
Garci tapes. This case arose from the legislative inquiry into the
acquisition by the Philippine Government of the Buenavista
The constitutional provision is CLEAR and UNAMBIGUOUS. and Tambobong estates sometime in 1949. Among the
The definition of publication is stated in Art. 2 of the Civil witnesses called to be examined by the special committee
Code. The Electronic Commerce Act (R.A. 8792) merely created by a Senate resolution was Jean L. Arnault, a
recognizes the admissibility in evidence of electronic data lawyer who delivered a partial of the purchase price to a
messages or electronic documents insofar as they representative of the vendor. During the Senate
investigation, Arnault refused to reveal the identity of said
constitute the original copies. The internet is not the
representative, at the same time invoking his constitutional
medium for publishing laws, rules, and regulations. right against self-incrimination. The Senate adopted a
resolution committing Arnault to the custody of the
While the Senate as an institution is not completely
Sergeant-at-Arms and imprisoned until he shall have
dissolved with each national election (hence, a continuing purged the contempt by revealing to the Senate . . . the
body in the institutional sense), the Senate of each name of the person to whom he gave the P440,000, as well
Congress (e.g. 13th Congress, 14th Congress), however, as answer other pertinent questions in connection
acts separately and independently of the Senate of the therewith. Arnault petitioned for a writ of Habeas Corpus
previous Congress. The Senate is NOT a continuing body in ISSUE: Can the senate impose penalty against those who
connection to the conduct of its day-to-day business refuse to answer its questions in a congressional hearing in
because the members of the incumbent Congress are not aid of legislation.
responsible for the acts and deliberations of the previous HELD: It is the inherent right of the Senate to impose
Congress which they took no part in. penalty in carrying out their duty to conduct inquiry in aid
of legislation. But it must be herein established that a
Hence, until the Senate shall have published its own rules witness who refuses to answer a query by the Committee
of procedure informing the public on whether or not they may be detained during the term of the members imposing
would retain or modify the rules followed by the previous
10
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
said penalty but the detention should not be too long as to (4) Within three years following the return of every census, the
violate the witness right to due process of law. Congress shall make a reapportionment of legislative districts
based on the standards provided in this section.
11
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
WHAT ARE THE CONDITIONS OF THE census (Senator Aquino III v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
APPORTIONMENT? 189793, April 7, 2010.
12
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
law increase the composition of the HR. (Tobias v. Whether Section 2 of R.A. No. 7854 delineated the land
Abalos, G.R. No. L114783, December 8, 1994) areas of the proposed city of Makati violating sections 7
and 450 of the Local Government Code on specifying metes
As such, when one of the municipalities of a and bounds with technical descriptions
congressional district is converted to a city large
enough to entitle it to one legislative district, the Whether Section 51, Article X of R.A. No. 7854 collides with
incidental effect is the splitting of district into two. Section 8, Article X and Section 7, Article VI of the
The incidental arising of a new district in this manner Constitution stressing that they new citys acquisition of a
need not be preceded by a census. (Tobias v. new corporate existence will allow the incumbent mayor to
Abalos, G.R. No. L114783, December 8, 1994) extend his term to more than two executive terms as
allowed by the Constitution
Reapportionment can be made thru a special
law. (Mariano, Jr. vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. Whether the addition of another legislative district in
118577, March 7, 1995) Makati is unconstitutional as the reapportionment cannot
be made by a special law
Mariano Jr. v. Comelec, 242
SCRA 211, 1995 HELD/RULING:
G.R. No. 118627 07 March 1995 Section 2 of R.A. No. 7854 states that:
13
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
Emphasis has been provided in the provision under Sec. 8. The term of office of elective local officials, except
dispute. Said delineation did not change even by an inch barangay officials, which shall be determined by law, shall
the land area previously covered by Makati as a be three years and no such official shall serve for more
municipality. It must be noted that the requirement of than three consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the
metes and bounds was meant merely as a tool in the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an
establishment of LGUs. It is not an end in itself. interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term
for which he was elected.
Furthermore, at the time of consideration or R.A. No. 7854,
the territorial dispute between the municipalities of Makati xxx xxx xxx
and Taguig over Fort Bonifacio was under court litigation.
Out of becoming a sense of respect to co-equal department Sec. 7. The Members of the House of Representatives shall
of government, legislators felt that the dispute should be be elected for a term of three years which shall begin,
left to the courts to decide. unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on the thirtieth
day of June next following their election.
Section 51 of R.A. No. 7854 provides that:
No Member of the House of Representatives shall serve for
Sec. 51. Officials of the City of Makati. The represent more than three consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation
elective officials of the Municipality of Makati shall continue of the office for any length of time shall not be considered
as the officials of the City of Makati and shall exercise their as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full
powers and functions until such time that a new election is term for which he was elected.
held and the duly elected officials shall have already
qualified and assume their offices: Provided, The new city This challenge on the controversy cannot be entertained as
will acquire a new corporate existence. The appointive the premise on the issue is on the occurrence of many
officials and employees of the City shall likewise continues contingent events. Considering that these events may or
exercising their functions and duties and they shall be may not happen, petitioners merely pose a hypothetical
automatically absorbed by the city government of the City issue which has yet to ripen to an actual case or
of Makati. controversy. Moreover, only Mariano among the petitioners
is a resident of Taguig and are not the proper parties to
Section 8, Article X and section 7, Article VI of the raise this abstract issue.
Constitution provide the following:
Section 5(1), Article VI of the Constitution clearly provides
that the Congress may be comprised of not more than two
14
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
hundred fifty members, unless otherwise provided by law. province. The said law originated from House Bill No. 4264
As thus worded, the Constitution did not preclude Congress and was signed into law by President Gloria Macapagal
from increasing its membership by passing a law, other Arroyo on 12 October 2009.
than a general reapportionment of the law.
To that effect, the first and second districts of Camarines
Sur were reconfigured in order to create an additional
legislative district for the province. Hence, the first district
municipalities of Libmanan, Minalabac, Pamplona, Pasacao,
and San Fernando were combined with the second district
Municipalities of Milaor and Gainza to form a new second
legislative district.
Perez, J. HELD:
15
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
16
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
liberally adopted by the court as to not impede legislation The petition is thereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO
(Lidasan v. Comelec). ORDERED.
17
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
and who lack well-defined political constituencies but who principles and policies for the general conduct of
government and which, as the most immediate
could contribute to the formulation and enactment of means of securing their adoption, regularly
appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a nominates and supports certain of its leaders and
members as candidates for public office.
whole, to become members of the House of
Representatives. Towards this end, the State shall develop d. It is a national party when its constituency is spread
and guarantee a full, free and open party system in order over the geographical territory of at least a majority
of the regions. It is a regional party when its
to attain the broadest possible representation of party, constituency is spread over the geographical
sectoral or group interests in the House of Representatives territory of at least a majority of the cities and
provinces comprising the region.
by enhancing their chances to compete for and win seats in
the legislature, and shall provide the simplest scheme
possible.
c. A political party refers to an organized group of Section 4. Manifestation to Participate in the Party-
citizens advocating an ideology or platform, List System. - Any party, organization, or coalition already
18
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
registered with the Commission need not register anew. The COMELEC shall, after due notice and hearing, resolve
However, such party, organization or coalition shall file with the petition within fifteen (15) days from the date it was
the Commission, not later than ninety (90) days before the submitted for decision but in no case not later than sixty
election, a manifestation of its desire to participate in the (60) days before election.
party-list system.
Section 6. Removal and/or Cancellation of
Section 5. Registration. - Any organized group of Registration. - The COMELEC may motu proprio or upon
persons may register as a party, organization or coalition verified complaint of any interested party, remove or
for purposes of the party-list system by filing with the cancel, after due notice and hearing, the registration of any
COMELEC not later than ninety (90) days before the national, regional or sectoral party, organization or
election a petition verified by its president or secretary coalition on any of the following grounds:
stating its desire to participate in the party-list system as a
1. It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or
national, regional or sectoral party or organization or a association organized for religious purposes;
coalition of such parties or organizations, attaching thereto
its constitution, by-laws, platform or program of 2. It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its
goal;
government, list of officers, coalition agreement and other
relevant information as the COMELEC may require: 3. It is a foreign party or organization;
provided, that the sectors shall include labor, peasant,
4. It is receiving support from any foreign government,
fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities,
foreign political party, foundation, organization,
elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas whether directly or through any of its officers or
workers, and professionals. members or indirectly through third parties for
partisan election purposes;
The COMELEC shall publish the petition in at least two (2) 5. It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or
national newspapers of general circulation. regulations relating to elections;
19
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
6. It declares untruthful statements in its petition; A person may be nominated in one (1) list only. Only
7. It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year; or persons who have given their consent in writing may be
named in the list. The list shall not include any candidate
8. It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding for any elective office or person who has lost his bid for an
elections or fails to obtain at least two percentum
(2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system in elective office in the immediately preceding election. No
the two (2) preceding elections for the constituency change of names or alteration of the order of nominees
in which it has registered.
shall be allowed after the same shall have been submitted
to the COMELEC except in cases where the nominee dies,
Section 7. Certified List of Registered Parties. - The
or withdraws in writing, his nomination, becomes
COMELEC shall, not later than sixty (60) days before
incapacitated in which case the name of the substitutes
election, prepare a certified list of national, regional, or
nominee shall be placed last in the list. Incumbent sectoral
sectoral parties, organizations or coalitions which have
representatives in the House of Representatives who are
applied or who have manifested their desire to participate
nominated in the party-list system shall not be considered
under the party-list system and distribute copies thereof to
resigned.
all precincts for posting in the polling places on election
day. The names of the party-list nominees shall not be
Section 9. Qualification of Party-List Nominees. - No
shown on the certified list.
person shall be nominated as party-list representative
unless he is a natural born citizen of the Philippines, a
Section 8. Nominations of Party-List
registered voter, a resident of the Philippines for a period of
Representatives. - Each registered party, organization or
not less than one (1) year immediately preceding the day
coalition shall submit to the COMELEC not later than forty-
of the election, able to read and write, bona fide member of
five (45) days before the election a list of names, not less
the party or organization which he seeks to represent for at
than five (5) from which party-list representatives shall be
least ninety (90) days preceding the day of the election,
chosen in case it obtains the required number of votes.
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
20
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
must at least be twenty-five (25) but not more than thirty representation in the House of Representatives at the start
(30) years of age on the day of the election. Any youth of the Tenth Congress of the Philippines shall not be
sectoral representative who attains the age of thirty during entitled to participate in the party-list system. In
his term shall be allowed to continue until the expiration of determining the allocation of seats for the second vote, the
his term. following procedure shall be observed: The parties,
organizations, and coalitions shall be ranked from the
Section 10. Manner of Voting. - Every voter shall be highest to the lowest based on the number of votes
entitled to two (2) votes. The first is a vote for candidate for garnered during the elections. The parties, organizations,
member of the House of Representatives in his legislative and coalitions receiving at least two percent (2%) of the
district, and the second, a vote for the party, organization, total votes cast for the party-list system shall be entitled to
or coalition he wants represented in the House of one seat each: provided, that those garnering more than
Representatives: provided, that a vote cast for a party, two percent (2%) of the votes shall be entitled to additional
sectoral organization, or coalition not entitled to be voted seats in proportion to their total number of votes: provided,
for shall not be counted: provided, finally that the first finally, that each party, organization, or coalition shall be
election under the party-list system shall be held in May entitled to not more than three (3) seats.
1998. The COMELEC shall undertake the necessary
information campaign for purposes of educating the Section 12. Procedure in Allocating Seats for Party-
electorate on the matter of the party-list system. List Representatives. - The COMELEC shall tally all the
votes for the parties, organizations, or coalitions on a
Section 11. Number of Party-List Representatives. - nationwide basis, rank them according to the number of
The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty votes received and allocate party-list representatives
percentum (20%) of the total number of the members of proportionately according to the percentage of votes
the House of Representatives including those under the obtained by each party, organization, or coalition as
party-list. For purposes of the May 1998 elections, the first against the total nationwide votes cast for the party-list
five (5) major political parties on the basis of party system.
21
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
Section 13. How Party-List Representatives are Section 16. Vacancy. - In case of vacancy in seats
Chosen. - Party-list representatives shall be proclaimed by reserved for party-list representatives, the vacancy shall be
the COMELEC based on the list of names submitted by the automatically filled by the next representative from the list
respective parties, organizations, or coalitions to the of nominees in the order submitted to the COMELEC by the
COMELEC according to their ranking in the said list. same party, organization, or coalition, who shall serve for
the unexpired term. If the list is exhausted, the party,
Section 14. Term of Office. - Party-list representatives organization, or coalition concerned shall submit additional
shall be elected for a term of three (3) years which shall nominees.
begin, unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on the
thirtieth day of June next following their election. No party- Section 17. Rights of Party-List Representatives. -
list representatives shall serve for more than three (3) Party-list representatives shall be entitled to the same
consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for salaries and emoluments as regular members of the House
any length of time shall not be considered as an of Representatives.
interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term
for which he was elected. Section 18. Rules and Regulations. - The COMELEC
shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations as
Section 15. Change of Affiliation Effect. - Any elected may be necessary to carry out the purpose of this Act.
party-list representative who changes his political party or
sectoral affiliation during his term of office shall forfeit his Section 19. Appropriations. - The amount necessary for
seat: provided, that if he changes his political party or the implementation of this Act shall be provided in the
sectoral affiliation within six (6) months before an election, regular appropriations for the Commission on Elections
he shall not be eligible for nomination as party-list starting fiscal year 1996 under the General Appropriations
representative under his new party or organization. Act. Starting 1995, the COMELEC is hereby authorized to
utilize savings and other available funds for purposes of its
information campaign on the party-list system.
22
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
Section 20. Separability Clause. - If any part of this Act Petitioner challenged a resolution issued by the
Comelec.
is held invalid or unconstitutional, the other parts or
provisions thereof shall remain valid and effective.
Petitioner seeks the disqualification of certain major
political parties in the 2001 party-list elections
Section 21. Repealing Clause. - All laws, decrees, arguing that the party-list system was intended to
executive orders, rules and regulations, or parts thereof, benefit the marginalized and underrepresented and
not the mainstream political parties, the non-
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby
marginalized or overrepresented.
repealed.
Section 22. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen Petitioners challenged the Comelecs Omnibus Resolution
No. 3785, which approved the participation of 154
(15) days after its publication in a newspaper of general
organizations and parties, including those herein
circulation. impleaded, in the 2001 party-list elections. Petitioners
sought the disqualification of private respondents, arguing
Approved: March 3, 1995 mainly that the party-list system was intended to benefit
the marginalized and underrepresented; not the
mainstream political parties, the non-marginalized or
overrepresented. Unsatisfied with the pace by which
Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v.
Comelec acted on their petition, petitioners elevated the
Comelec, G.R. No. 147598, June 26,
issue to the Supreme Court.
2001
Issues:
ANG BAGONG BAYANI-OFW LABOR PARTY VS. Whether or not political parties may
COMELEC participate in the party-list elections
Whether or not the party-list system is exclusive to
[G.R. NO. 147589, JUNE 26, 2001] marginalized and underrepresented sectors and
organizations
Facts:
23
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
24
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
(2) regional parties or organizations, and (3) sectoral represent the marginalized and underrepresented, or that
parties or organizations. represent those who lack well-defined political
constituencies, either must belong to their respective
2. National parties or organizations and regional parties or
sectors, or must have a track record of advocacy for their
organizations do not need to organize along sectoral lines
respective sectors. The nominees of national and regional
and do not need to represent any marginalized and
parties or organizations must be bona-fide members of
underrepresented sector.
such parties or organizations.
3. Political parties can participate in party-list elections
6. National, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations
provided they register under the party-list system and do
shall not be disqualified if some of their nominees are
not field candidates in legislative district elections. A
disqualified, provided that they have at least one nominee
political party, whether major or not, that fields candidates
who remains qualified.
in legislative district elections can participate in party-list
elections only through its sectoral wing that can separately II. In the BANAT case, major political parties are disallowed,
register under the party-list system. The sectoral wing is by as has always been the practice, from participating in the
itself an independent sectoral party, and is linked to a party-list elections. But, since theres really no
political party through a coalition. constitutional prohibition nor a statutory prohibition, major
political parties can now participate in the party-list
4. Sectoral parties or organizations may either be
system provided that they do so through their bona
marginalized and underrepresented or lacking in well-
fide sectoral wing (see parameter 3 above).
defined political constituencies. It is enough that their
principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and Allowing major political parties to participate, albeit
concerns of their sector. The sectors that are marginalized indirectly, in the party-list elections will encourage them to
and underrepresented include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, work assiduously in extending their constituencies to the
urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, handicapped, marginalized and underrepresented and to those who
veterans, and overseas workers. The sectors that lack lack well-defined political constituencies.
well-defined political constituencies include professionals,
Ultimately, the Supreme Court gave weight to the
the elderly, women, and the youth.
deliberations of the Constitutional Commission when they
5. A majority of the members of sectoral parties or were drafting the party-list system provision of the
organizations that represent the marginalized and Constitution. The Commissioners deliberated that it was
underrepresented must belong to the marginalized and their intention to include all parties into the party-list
underrepresented sector they represent. Similarly, a elections in order to develop a political system which is
majority of the members of sectoral parties or pluralistic and multiparty. (In the BANAT case, Justice Puno
organizations that lack well-defined political emphasized that the will of the people should defeat the
constituencies must belong to the sector they represent. intent of the framers; and that the intent of the people, in
The nominees of sectoral parties or organizations that
25
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
ratifying the 1987 Constitution, is that the party-list system SECTION 6. No person shall be a Member of the House of
should be reserved for the marginalized sectors.) Representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen of the
III. The Supreme Court also emphasized that the party-list Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at least twenty-five
system is NOT RESERVED for the marginalized and years of age, able to read and write, and, except the party-list
underrepresented or for parties who lack well-defined representatives, a registered voter in the district in which he shall
political constituencies. It is also for national or regional be elected, and a resident thereof for a period of not less than one
parties. It is also for small ideology-based and cause- year immediately preceding the day of the election.
oriented parties who lack well-defined political
constituencies. The common denominator however is that 1. Natural Born Citizen
all of them cannot, they do not have the machinery unlike 2. At least 25 years old on the day of the election
major political parties, to field or sponsor candidates in the 3. Able to read and write
legislative districts but they can acquire the needed votes 4. A registered votes
in a national election system like the party-list system of 5. Resident of the Phil. For not less than 1 year
elections. immediately preceding the day of election
If the party-list system is only reserved for
marginalized representation, then the system itself unduly
excludes other cause-oriented groups from running for a
seat in the lower house.
As explained by the Supreme Court, party-list o Meaning of Residence
representation should not be understood to include
only labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous Romualdez-Marcos v. Comelec, 248
cultural communities, handicapped, veterans, overseas SCRA 300 (1995)
workers, and other sectors that by their nature
are economically at the margins of society. It should be Romualdez-Marcos vs COMELEC
noted that Section 5 of Republic Act 7941 includes, among
others, in its provision for sectoral representation groups of TITLE: Romualdez-Marcos vs. COMELEC
professionals, which are not per se economically
marginalized but are still qualified as marginalized, CITATION: 248 SCRA 300
underrepresented, and do not have well-defined political
constituencies as they are ideologically marginalized. FACTS:
26
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
studied and graduated high school in the Holy Infant always maintained Tacloban City as her domicile or
Academy from 1938 to 1949. She then pursued her college residence. She arrived at the seven months residency due
degree, education, in St. Pauls College now Divine Word to the fact that she became a resident of the Municipality
University also in Tacloban. Subsequently, she taught in of Tolosa in said months.
Leyte Chinese School still in Tacloban. She went to manila
during 1952 to work with her cousin, the late speaker ISSUE: Whether petitioner has satisfied the 1year
Daniel Romualdez in his office in the House of residency requirement to be eligible in running as
Representatives. In 1954, she married late President representative of the First District of Leyte.
Ferdinand Marcos when he was still a Congressman of HELD:
Ilocos Norte and was registered there as a voter. When
Pres. Marcos was elected as Senator in 1959, they lived Residence is used synonymously with domicile for election
together in San Juan, Rizal where she registered as a voter. purposes. The court are in favor of a conclusion supporting
In 1965, when Marcos won presidency, they lived in petitoners claim of legal residence or domicile in the First
Malacanang Palace and registered as a voter in San Miguel District of Leyte despite her own declaration of 7 months
Manila. She served as member of the Batasang Pambansa residency in the district for the following reasons:
and Governor of Metro Manila during 1978.
1. A minor follows domicile of her parents. Tacloban
became Imeldas domicile of origin by operation of law
when her father brought them to Leyte;
Imelda Romualdez-Marcos was running for the position of
Representative of the First District of Leyte for the 1995 2. Domicile of origin is only lost when there is actual
Elections. Cirilo Roy Montejo, the incumbent removal or change of domicile, a bona fide intention of
Representative of the First District of Leyte and also a abandoning the former residence and establishing a new
candidate for the same position, filed a Petition for one, and acts which correspond with the purpose. In the
Cancellation and Disqualification" with the Commission on absence and concurrence of all these, domicile of origin
Elections alleging that petitioner did not meet the should be deemed to continue.
constitutional requirement for residency. The petitioner, in
an honest misrepresentation, wrote seven months under
residency, which she sought to rectify by adding the words
3. A wife does not automatically gain the husbands
"since childhood" in her Amended/Corrected Certificate of
domicile because the term residence in Civil Law does
Candidacy filed on March 29, 1995 and that "she has
not mean the same thing in Political Law. When Imelda
27
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
28
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
The Court found that Noble failed to convince that Section 1. Short Title - This act shall be known as the
he successfully eff ected a change of domicile.
"Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003."
Toestablish a new domicile of choice, personal presence in the place
must be coupled with conduct indicative of that intention. It requires Section 2. Declaration of Policy - It is hereby declared
not only such bodily presence in that place but also a declared and the policy of the State that all Philippine citizens of another
probable intent to make it ones fixed and permanent place of
country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine
abode.
citizenship under the conditions of this Act.
In Japzon v. Commission on Elections, it was held that the
term residence is to be understood not in its common
Section 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship - Any
acceptation as referring to dwelling or habitation, but rather to
provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, natural-
domicile or legal residence, that is, the place where a party
actually or constructively has his permanent home, where he, no born citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens
matter where he may be found at any given time, eventually of a foreign country are hereby deemed to have re-
intends to return and remain (animus manendi). acquired Philippine citizenship upon taking the following
29
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
Natural born citizens of the Philippines who, after the candidacy, make a personal and sworn renunciation
of any and all foreign citizenship before any public
effectivity of this Act, become citizens of a foreign country officer authorized to administer an oath;
shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking the
3. Those appointed to any public office shall subscribe
aforesaid oath.
and swear to an oath of allegiance to the Republic of
the Philippines and its duly constituted authorities
Section 4. Derivative Citizenship - The unmarried child, prior to their assumption of office: Provided, That
they renounce their oath of allegiance to the country
whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted, below eighteen
where they took that oath;
(18) years of age, of those who re-acquire Philippine
citizenship upon effectivity of this Act shall be deemed 4. Those intending to practice their profession in the
Philippines shall apply with the proper authority for a
citizenship of the Philippines.
license or permit to engage in such practice; and
Section 5. Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities - 5. That right to vote or be elected or appointed to any
Those who retain or re-acquire Philippine citizenship under public office in the Philippines cannot be exercised
by, or extended to, those who:
this Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be
subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under a. are candidates for or are occupying any public
existing laws of the Philippines and the following office in the country of which they are
naturalized citizens; and/or
conditions:
b. are in active service as commissioned or non-
1. Those intending to exercise their right of surffrage commissioned officers in the armed forces of
must meet the requirements under Section 1, Article the country which they are naturalized
V of the Constitution, Republic Act No. 9189, citizens.
otherwise known as "The Overseas Absentee Voting
Act of 2003" and other existing laws;
Section 6. Separability Clause - If any section or
2. Those seeking elective public office in the Philippines provision of this Act is held unconstitutional or invalid, any
shall meet the qualification for holding such public
other section or provision not affected thereby shall remain
office as required by the Constitution and existing
laws and, at the time of the filing of the certificate of valid and effective.
30
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
Section 8. Effectivity Clause - This Act shall take effect (Sgd.) GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO
after fifteen (15) days following its publication in the President of the Philippines
Official Gazette or two (2) newspaper of general circulation.
o Maquiling v. Comelec, G.R. No. 195649,
Approved, April 16, 2013
31
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
32
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
WHO SEEK ELECTIVE PUBLIC OFFICE, TO RENOUNCE ANY o Sobejana-Condon v. Comelec, G.R. No.
AND ALL FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP.
198742, August 10, 2012
SECTION 40(D) OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE
DISQUALIFIES THOSE WITH DUAL CITIZENSHIP FROM TEODORA SOBEJANA-CONDON, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION
RUNNING FOR LOCAL ELECTIVE POSITIONS. ON ELECTIONS, LUIS M. BAUTISTA, ROBELITO V. PICAR and
WILMA P. PAGADUAN,Respondents.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
33
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
The petitioner ran for Mayor in her hometown of Caba, La mayor of Caba La union and nullified her proclamation as
Union in the 2007 elections. She lost in her bid. She again the winning candidate.
sought elective office during the May 10, 2010 elections
this time for the position of Vice-Mayor. She obtained the After that the decision was appealed to the comelec, but
highest numbers of votes and was proclaimed as the the appeal was dismissed y the second division and
winning candidate. She took her oath of office on May 13, affirmed the decision of the trial court.
2010. The petitioner contends that since she ceased to be an
Soon thereafter, private respondents Robelito V. Picar, Australian citizen on September 27, 2006, she no longer
Wilma P. Pagaduan7 and Luis M. Bautista,8 (private held dual citizenship and was only a Filipino citizen when
respondents) all registered voters of Caba, La Union, filed she filed her certificate of candidacy as early as the 2007
separate petitions for quo warranto questioning the elections. Hence, the "personal and sworn renunciation of
petitioners eligibility before the RTC. The petitions similarly foreign citizenship" imposed by Section 5(2) of R.A. No.
sought the petitioners disqualification from holding her 9225 to dual citizens seeking elective office does not apply
elective post on the ground that she is a dual citizen and to her.
that she failed to execute a "personal and sworn Issue: W/N petitioner disqualified from running for elective
renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any office due to failure to renounce her Australian Citizenship
public officer authorized to administer an oath" as imposed in accordance with Sec. 5 (2) of R.A 9225
by Section 5(2) of R.A. No. 9225.
Ruling:
The petitioner denied being a dual citizen and averred that
since September 27, 2006, she ceased to be an Australian R.A. No. 9225 allows the retention and re-acquisition of
citizen. She claimed that the Declaration of Renunciation of Filipino citizenship for natural-born citizens who have lost
Australian Citizenship she executed in Australia sufficiently their Philippine citizenship18 by taking an oath of allegiance
complied with Section 5(2), R.A. No. 9225 and that her act to the Republic.
of running for public office is a clear abandonment of her
Australian citizenship. Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who, after the
effectivity of this Act, become citizens of a foreign country
The trial decision ordered by the trial court declaring shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking the
Condon disqualified and ineligible to hold office of vice aforesaid oath.
34
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
35
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
No member of the House of Representatives shall serve for ANSWER: It shall not be considered as an interruption in
more than three consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of
the continuity of his service for the full term for
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. 4, Article VI).
which he was elected.
36
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
Then came the May 10, 2010 elections where Abundo and Issue: Whether or Not Abundo is deemed to have served
Torres again opposed each other. When Abundo filed his three consecutive terms.
certificate of candidacy for the mayoralty seat, Torres lost
no time in seeking the formers disqualification to run, the Supreme Court Decision: No, Abundo has not served
corresponding petition predicated on the three- for three consecutive terms.
consecutive term limit rule. On June 16, 2010, the In the present case, the Court finds and declares that the
COMELEC First Division issued a Resolution finding for two-year period during which his opponent, Torres,
Abundo, who in the meantime bested Torres by 219 votes was serving as mayor should be considered as an
and was accordingly proclaimed 2010 mayor-elect of Viga, interruption.
Catanduanes. The three-term limit rule for elective local officials, a
disqualification rule, is found in Section 8, Article X of the
Ruling of the RTC: RTC declared Abundo ineligible to 1987 Constitution, which provides:
serve as municipal mayor. The Court found Abundo to have
Sec. 8. The term of office of elective local officials,
already served three consecutive mayoralty terms, to wit,
except barangay officials, which shall be determined
2001-2004, 2004-2007 and 2007-2010, and, hence, by law, shall be three years and no such official
disqualified for another, i.e., fourth, consecutive term. shall serve for more than three consecutive
Abundo, the RTC noted, had been declared winner in the terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any
aforesaid 2004 elections consequent to his protest and length of time shall not be considered as an
occupied the position of and actually served as mayor for interruption in the continuity of his service for the full
over a year of the remaining term, i.e., from May 9, 2006 to term for which he was elected. (Emphasis supplied.)
June 30, 2007, to be exact. To the RTC, the year and a and is reiterated in Sec. 43(b) of Republic Act No. (RA)
month service constitutes a complete and full 7160, or the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991, thusly:
service of Abundos second term as mayor. Sec. 43. Term of Office.
37
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
To constitute a disqualification to run for an elective local House of Representatives shall be held on the
office pursuant to the aforequoted constitutional and
statutory provisions, the following requisites must concur: second Monday of May.(Sec 8, Art VI)
(1) that the official concerned has been elected for
three consecutive terms in the same local Special Election
government post; and
(2) that he has fully served three consecutive terms. In case of vacancy in the Senate or in the House of
The facts of the case clearly point to an involuntary Representatives, a special election may be called to fill
interruption during the July 2004-June 2007 term and it such vacancy in the manner prescribed by law,
bears to stress at this juncture that Abundo, for the 2004
election for the term starting was the duly elected mayor
which effectively removed Abundos case from the ambit of But the Senator or Member of the House of Representatives
the three-term limit rule. thus elected shall serve only for the unexpired term. (Sec
Election / Vacancies (Section 8 and 9, Art VI)
Section 9)
The Constitution mandates that there should always be
SECTION 8. Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular adequate representation for every province or legislative
election of the Senators and the Members of the House of district. If a vacancy occurs in a manner contemplated in
Representatives shall be held on the second Monday of May.
the Constitution, then Congress has the authority if not the
SECTION 9. In case of vacancy in the Senate or in the House duty to call for special elections.[Lozada v. COMELEC,
of Representatives, a special election may be called to fill (1983)]
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.
Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular SECTION 10. The salaries of Senators and Members of the House
election of the Senators and the Members of the of Representatives shall be determined by law. No increase in said
38
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of the full
OF THE SENATE, SPEAKER OF
term of all the Members of the Senate and the House of
HOUSE REP. & CHIEF JUSTICE
Representatives approving such increase.
OF THE SC
39
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
40
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
Respondent argues:
o RA 7941 requirement for "age" for youth
The Court agreed with petitioner that the increased sector representative only applicable to first three
elections after the party list act.
compensation provided by RA 4134 is not operative until
o There was no resultant change in affiliation.
December 30, 1969, when the full term of all members of
the Senate and House that approved it will have expired. ISSUE:
Whether the requirement for youth sector
representatives apply to respondent Villanueva
Amores v. House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal, G.R. No. 189600, June 29, 2010 RULING:
Villauneva ineligible to hold office as a member of
Party-list Representatives: HoR representing CIBAC
AMORES v HRET
GR 189600, 6/29/2010 HELD:
Villanueva's arguments are invalid. The law is clear.
SUMMARY: If representative of youth sector, should be between
Petition to declare Villanueva as ineligible to hold office as 25 to 30.
representative of CIBAC for being overage to represent Villanueva is ineligible to also represent OFW.
youth. Change of affiliation must be made six months Sectoral representation should be changed SIX
before elections. Youth sector is represented by 25 30. MONTHS prior to elections.
FACTS:
Parliamentary Immunities (Section
5/14/2009: Petition for certiorari challenging the 11)
assumption of office of one Emmanuel Joel Villanueva
as representative of CIBAC in the HoR.
Petitioner argues: SECTION 11. A Senator or Member of the House of
o Villanueva was 31 at the time of filing of Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than
nomination, beyond the age limit of 30 which was
the limit imposed by RA 7941 for "youth sector". six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the
o Villanueva's change of affiliation from Youth Congress is in session. No Member shall be questioned nor be held
Sector to OFW and families not affected six
liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress
months prior to elections.
or in any committee thereof.
41
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
ANSWER: Legislators are privileged from arrest while People v. Jalosjos, G.R. no. 132875-
Congress is in session with respect to offenses
76, February 3, 2000
punishable by up to 6 years of imprisonment.
People vs. Jalosjos G.R. No. 132875-76, February 3, 2000
Purpose
What is the purpose of parliamentary
immunities? Facts: The accused-appellant, Romeo Jalosjos, is a full-
fledged member of Congress who is confined at the
ANSWER : It is not for the benefit of the officials; rather, it
national penitentiary while his conviction for statutory rape
is to protect and support the rights of the people by
and acts of lasciviousness is pending appeal. The accused-
ensuring that their representatives are doing their jobs
appellant filed a motion asking that he be allowed to fully
according to the dictates of their conscience. It is
discharge the duties of a Congressman,
indispensable no matter how powerful the offended
including attendance at legislative sessions
party is.
and committee meetings despite his having been convicted
May a congressman who committed an offense in the first instance of a non-bailable offense on the basis
punishable for not more than 6 years, but is not of popular sovereignty and the need for his constituents to
attending session, be arrested? be represented.
42
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
Issue: Whether or not accused-appellant should be for the absence is a legitimate one. The confinement of a
allowed to discharge mandate as member of House of Congressman charged with a crime punishable by
Representatives imprisonment of more than six years is not merely
authorized by law, it has constitutional foundations. To
Held: Election is the expression of the sovereign power of allow accused-appellant to attend congressional sessions
the people. However, inspite of its importance, the and committee meetings for 5 days or more in a week will
privileges and rights arising from having been elected may virtually make him a free man with all the privileges
be enlarged or restricted by law. appurtenant to his position. Such an aberrant situation not
only elevates accused-appellants status to that of a special
class, it also would be a mockery of the purposes of the
The immunity from arrest or detention of Senators and
correction system.
members of the House of Representatives arises from a
provision of the Constitution. The privilege has always been o Privilege of Speech and Debate
granted in a restrictive sense. The provision granting an
What does speech or debate encompass?
exemption as a special privilege cannot be extended
beyond the ordinary meaning of its terms. It may not be
ANSWER: It includes a vote or passage of a resolution, all
extended by intendment, implication or equitable
the utterances made by Congressmen in the
considerations. performance of their functions such as speeches
delivered, statements made, or votes casts in the halls of
The accused-appellant has not given any reason why he Congress. It also includes bills introduced in Congress
should be exempted from the operation of Sec. 11, Art. VI (whether or not it is in session) and all the other utterances
of the Constitution. The members of Congress cannot (made outside or inside the premises of Congress) provided
compel absent members to attend sessions if the reason they are made in accordance with a legislative function.
(Jimenez, V. abangbang, G.R. No. L15905, August 3, 1966)
43
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
Speech and Debate Clause the disciplinary authority of the Congress. [Osmena v.
Pendatun, (1960)]
In this case, a clarification of the scope and limitation of the
parliamentary immunity was made. There was reiteration Can a senatorlawyer be disbarred or disciplined
that, First, Congressional immunity is a guarantee of by the Supreme Court for statements made during a
immunity from answerability before an outside forum but privilege speech?
not from answerability to the disciplinary authority of
congress itself; ANSWER: No. Indeed, the senatorlawyers privilege
speech is not actionable criminally or in a disciplinary
Second, to come under the guarantee the speech or proceeding under the Rules of Court. The Court, however,
debate" must be one made "in Congress or in any would be remiss in its duty if it let the Senators
committee thereof." [Jimenez V. Cabangbang, (1966)] offensive and disrespectful language that definitely
tended to denigrate the institution pass by. It is
Each House of the Congress can discipline its members for imperative on the Courts part to reinstill in
disorderly conduct or behavior. Senator/Atty. Santiago her duty to respect courts of
justice, especially this Tribunal, and remind her anew
What constitutes disorderly behavior is entirely up to
that parliamentary nonaccountability thus granted to
Congress to define.
members of Congress is not to protect them against
prosecutions for their own benefit, but to enable them, as
Although a member of Congress shall not be held liable in
the peoples representatives, to perform the functions of
any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress
their office without fear of being made responsible
or in any committee thereof, such immunity, although
before the courts or other forums outside the
absolute in its protection of the member of Congress
congressional hall. It is intended to protect members of
against suits for libel, does not shield the member against
congress against government pressure and intimidation
aimed at influencing the decisionmaking prerogatives
44
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
of Congress and its members. (Pobre v. Sen. Defensor Bartolome Cabangbang was a member of the House of
Representatives and Chairman of its Committee on
Santiago, A.C. No. 7399, Aug. 25, 2009) National Defense. In November 1958, Cabangbang caused
the publication of an open letter addressed to the
Purpose Philippines. Said letter alleged that there have been
allegedly three operational plans under serious study by
some ambitious AFP officers, with the aid of some civilian
Note: The purpose of the privilege is to insure the political strategists. That such strategists have had
effective discharge of functions of Congress. The collusions with communists and that the Secretary of
Defense, Jesus Vargas, was planning a coup dtat to place
privilege may be abused but it is said that such is not so him as the president. The planners allegedly have
damaging or detrimental as compared to the denial or Nicanor Jimenez, among others, under their guise and that
Jimenez et al may or may not be aware that they are being
withdrawal of such privilege. used as a tool to meet such an end. The letter was said to
have been published in newspapers of general circulation.
Does publication fall under the scope of speech? Jimenez then filed a case against Cabangbang to collect a
sum of damages against Cabangbang alleging that
Cabangbangs statement is libelous. Cabangbang
ANSWER: No, not all the time. The same shall be petitioned for the case to be dismissed because he said
made while Congress is in session and not during its that as a member of the lower house, he is immune from
suit and that he is covered by the privileged
recess. However, if publication is made when Congress
communication rule and that the said letter is not even
is not in session, it is not privileged because libelous.
Congressman is said to be not acting as congressman. ISSUE: Whether or not the open letter is covered by
(Jimenez, v. Cabangbang, G.R. No. L15905, August 3, privilege communication endowed to members of
Congress.
1966)
HELD: No. Article VI, Section 15 of the Constitution
provides The Senators and Members of the House of
Jiminez v. Cabangbang, 17 Scra 876 Representatives shall in all cases except treason, felony,
(1966) and breach of the peace. Be privileged from arrest during
their attendance at the sessions of the Congress, and in
17 SCRA 876 Political Law Freedom of Speech and going to and returning from the same; and for any speech
Debate or debate therein, they shall not be questioned in any
other place.
45
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
The publication of the said letter is not covered by said allegations were found to be baseless and malicious, he
expression which refers to utterances made by may be subjected to disciplinary actions by the lower
Congressmen in the performance of their official functions, house.
such as speeches delivered, statements made, or votes
Osmea then questioned the validity of the said resolution
cast in the halls of Congress, while the same is in session
before the Supreme Court. Osmea avers that the
as well as bills introduced in Congress, whether the same is
resolution violates his parliamentary immunity for speeches
in session or not, and other acts performed by
delivered in Congress. Congressman Salipada Pendatun
Congressmen, either in Congress or outside the premises
filed an answer where he averred that the Supreme Court
housing its offices, in the official discharge of their duties
has not jurisdiction over the matter and Congress has the
as members of Congress and of Congressional Committees
power to discipline its members.
duly authorized to perform its functions as such at the time
of the performance of the acts in question. Congress was ISSUE: Whether or not Osmeas immunity has been
not in session when the letter was published and at the violated?
same time he, himself, caused the publication of the said HELD: No. Section 15, Article VI of the 1935 Constitution
letter. It is obvious that, in thus causing the communication enshrines parliamentary immunity upon members of the
to be so published, he was not performing his official duty, legislature which is a fundamental privilege cherished in
either as a member of Congress or as officer of any every parliament in a democratic world. It guarantees the
Committee thereof. Hence, contrary to the finding made by legislator complete freedom of expression without fear of
the lower court the said communication is not absolutely being made responsible in criminal or civil actions before
privileged. the courts or any other forum outside the Hall of Congress.
However, it does not protect him from responsibility before
Osmena v. Pendatun, 109 phil. 863, Oct.
the legislative body whenever his words and conduct are
28, 1960 considered disorderly or unbecoming of a member therein.
Therefore, Osmeas petition is dismissed.
Sergio Osmea, Jr. vs Salipada Pendatun
Conflict of Interest (Section 12)
109 Phil. 863 Political Law The Legislative Department
Parliamentary Immunity
SECTION 12. All Members of the Senate and the House of
In June 1960, Congressman Sergio Osmea, Jr. delivered a
speech entitled A Message to Garcia. In the said speech, Representatives shall, upon assumption of office, make a full
he disparaged then President Carlos Garcia and his disclosure of their financial and business interests. They shall notify
administration. Subsequently, House Resolution No. 59 was
the House concerned of a potential conflict of interest that may
passed by the lower house in order to investigate the
charges made by Osmea during his speech and that if his
46
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
arise from the filing of a proposed legislation of which they are the term for which he was elected.(Art VI Sec
authors. 13)
Cannot personally appear as counsel before
Incompatible and Forbidden Offices any court, electoral tribunal, quasi-judicial and
(Section 13) administrative bodies during his term of office.
(Art VI Sec 14)
SECTION 13. No Senator or Member of the House of Shall not be financially interested, directly or
Representatives may hold any other office or employment in the indirectly, in any contract with, or franchise or
Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, special privilege granted by the government
including government-owned or controlled corporations or their during his term of office. (Art VI Sec 14)
subsidiaries, during his term without forfeiting his seat. Neither shall Shall not intervene in any matter before any
he be appointed to any office which may have been created or the office of the government when it is for his
emoluments thereof increased during the term for which he was pecuniary benefit or where he may be called
elected. upon to act on account of his office. (Art VI Sec
14)
Disqualifications:
o Incomplete Offices
May not hold any other office or employment in
What are the prohibitions attached to a
the government during his term without
legislator during his term?
forfeiting his seat. (Art VI Sec 13)
May not be appointed to any office created or
ANSWER:
the emoluments thereof were increased during
47
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
Incompatible office No senator or member of the appointed to any office in the government that has
House of Representatives may hold any other office or been created or the emoluments thereof have been
employment in the Government, or any subdivision, increased during his term. Such a position is forbidden
agency, or instrumentality thereof, including office. The purpose is to prevent trafficking in public office.
government owned and controlled corporations or their
subsidiaries during his term without forfeiting his seat The provision does not apply to elective offices.
(Sec. 13, Article VI, 1987 Constitution)
The appointment of the member of the Congress to
Note: Forfeiture of the seat in Congress shall be the forbidden office is not allowed only during the term
automatic upon the members assumption of such for which he was elected, when such office was created or
other office deemed incompatible with his seat in its emoluments were increased. After such term, and
Congress. However, no forfeiture shall take place if the even if the legislator is reelected, the disqualification no
member of Congress holds the other government office longer applies and he may therefore be appointed to
in an exofficio capacity. the office.
48
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
Petitioners Liban, et al., who were officers of the Moreover, the PNRC is NOT a GOCC because it is a
Board of Directors of the Quezon City Red Cross Chapter, privately-owned, privately-funded, and privately-run
filed with the Supreme Court what they styled as Petition charitable organization and because it is controlled by a
to Declare Richard J. Gordon as Having Forfeited His Seat in Board of Governors four-fifths of which are private sector
the Senate against respondent Gordon, who was elected individuals. Therefore, respondent Gordon did not forfeit his
Chairman of the Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) Board legislative seat when he was elected as PNRC Chairman
of Governors during his incumbency as Senator. during his incumbency as Senator.
Petitioners alleged that by accepting the The Court however held further that the PNRC
chairmanship of the PNRC Board of Governors, respondent Charter, R.A. 95, as amended by PD 1264 and 1643, is void
Gordon ceased to be a member of the Senate pursuant to insofar as it creates the PNRC as a private corporation
Sec. 13, Article VI of the Constitution, which provides since Section 7, Article XIV of the 1935 Constitution
that [n]o Senator . . . may hold any other office or states that [t]he Congress shall not, except by general
employment in the Government, or any subdivision, law, provide for the formation, organization, or regulation
agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government- of private corporations, unless such corporations are
owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries, owned or controlled by the Government or any subdivision
during his term without forfeiting his seat. Petitioners or instrumentality thereof. The Court thus directed the
cited the case of Camporedondo vs. NLRC, G.R. No. PNRC to incorporate under the Corporation Code and
129049, decided August 6, 1999, which held that the register with the Securities and Exchange Commission if it
PNRC is a GOCC, in supporting their argument that wants to be a private corporation. The fallo of the Decision
respondent Gordon automatically forfeited his seat in the read:
Senate when he accepted and held the position of
Chairman of the PNRC Board of Governors. WHEREFORE, we declare that the office of the
Chairman of the Philippine National Red Cross is not a
Formerly, in its Decision dated July 15, 2009, the government office or an office in a government-owned or
Court, voting 7-5,[1] held that the office of the PNRC controlled corporation for purposes of the prohibition in
Chairman is NOT a government office or an office in a Section 13, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. We also
GOCC for purposes of the prohibition in Sec. 13, Article VI declare that Sections 1, 2, 3, 4(a), 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,
of the 1987 Constitution. The PNRC Chairman is elected by and 13 of the Charter of the Philippine National Red Cross,
the PNRC Board of Governors; he is not appointed by the or Republic Act No. 95, as amended by Presidential Decree
President or by any subordinate government official.
49
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
Nos. 1264 and 1643, are VOID because they create the very lis mota of the case. We have reiterated the rule as to
PNRC as a private corporation or grant it corporate powers. when the Court will consider the issue of constitutionality
in Alvarez v. PICOP Resources, Inc., thus:
Respondent Gordon filed a Motion for Clarification
and/or for Reconsideration of the Decision. The PNRC This Court will not touch the issue of
likewise moved to intervene and filed its own Motion for unconstitutionality unless it is the very lis mota. It is a well-
Partial Reconsideration. They basically questioned the established rule that a court should not pass upon a
second part of the Decision with regard to the constitutional question and decide a law to be
pronouncement on the nature of the PNRC and unconstitutional or invalid, unless such question is raised
the constitutionality of some provisions of the PNRC by the parties and that when it is raised, if the record also
Charter. presents some other ground upon which the court may
[rest] its judgment, that course will be adopted and the
II. THE ISSUE constitutional question will be left for consideration until
Was it correct for the Court to have passed upon and such question will be unavoidable.
decided on the issue of the constitutionality of the PNRC [T]his Court should not have declared void certain
charter? Corollarily: What is the nature of the PNRC? sections of . . . the PNRC Charter. Instead, the Court should
III. THE RULING have exercised judicial restraint on this matter, especially
since there was some other ground upon which the Court
[The Court GRANTED reconsideration and MODIFIED could have based its judgment. Furthermore, the PNRC,
the dispositive portion of the Decision by deleting the the entity most adversely affected by this declaration of
second sentence thereof.] unconstitutionality, which was not even originally a party to
this case, was being compelled, as a consequence of the
NO, it was not correct for the Court to have Decision, to suddenly reorganize and incorporate under the
decided on the constitutional issue because it was Corporation Code, after more than sixty (60) years of
not the very lis mota of the case. The PNRC is sui existence in this country.
generis in nature; it is neither strictly a GOCC nor a
private corporation. Since its enactment, the PNRC Charter was amended
several times, particularly on June 11, 1953, August 16,
The issue of constitutionality of R.A. No. 95 was not 1971, December 15, 1977, and October 1, 1979, by virtue
raised by the parties, and was not among the issues of R.A. No. 855, R.A. No. 6373, P.D. No. 1264, and P.D. No.
defined in the body of the Decision; thus, it was not the
50
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
1643, respectively. The passage of several laws relating to must be reconciled and harmonized with Article XII, Section
the PNRCs corporate existence notwithstanding the 16 of the Constitution, instead of using the latter to negate
effectivity of the constitutional proscription on the creation the former. By requiring the PNRC to organize under the
of private corporations by law is a recognition that the Corporation Code just like any other private corporation,
PNRC is not strictly in the nature of a private corporation the Decision of July 15, 2009 lost sight of the PNRCs
contemplated by the aforesaid constitutional ban. special status under international humanitarian law and as
an auxiliary of the State, designated to assist it in
discharging its obligations under the Geneva Conventions.
A closer look at the nature of the PNRC would show
that there is none like it[,] not just in terms of structure, but
also in terms of history, public service and official status The PNRC, as a National Society of the International
accorded to it by the State and Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, can neither be
the international community. There is merit in PNRCs classified as an instrumentality of the State, so as not to
contention that its structure is sui generis. It is in lose its character of neutrality as well as its independence,
recognition of this sui generis character of the PNRC nor strictly as a private corporation since it is regulated by
that R.A. No. 95 has remained valid and effective from the international humanitarian law and is treated as
time of its enactment in March 22, 1947 under the 1935 an auxiliary of the State.
Constitution and during the effectivity of the 1973
Constitution and the 1987 Constitution. The PNRC Charter Although [the PNRC] is neither a subdivision, agency,
and its amendatory laws have not been questioned or or instrumentality of the government, nor a GOCC or a
challenged on constitutional grounds, not even in this case subsidiary thereof . . . so much so that respondent, under
before the Court now. the Decision, was correctly allowed to hold his position as
Chairman thereof concurrently while he served as a
[T]his Court [must] recognize the countrys Senator, such a conclusion does not ipso facto imply that
adherence to the Geneva Convention and respect the the PNRC is a private corporation within the
unique status of the PNRC in consonance with its treaty contemplation of the provision of the Constitution, that
obligations. The Geneva Convention has the force and must be organized under the Corporation Code. [T]he sui
effect of law. Under the Constitution, the Philippines adopts generis character of PNRC requires us to approach
the generally accepted principles of international law as controversies involving the PNRC on a case-to-case basis.
part of the law of the land. This constitutional provision
51
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
52
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
pecuniary benefit or where he may be called Under those facts and circumstances that there
upon to act on account of his office. (Art VI Sec has been an indirect "appearance as counsel
14) before ... an administrative body" and that is a
circumvention of the Constitutional prohibition.
Certain salient circumstances militate against the
intervention of Assemblyman Fernandez in the The "intervention" was an afterthought to enable
SEC Case. him to appear actively in the proceedings in some
other capacity. [Puyat v De Guzman,(1982)]
He had acquired a mere P200.00 worth of stock in
IPI, representing ten shares out of 262,843
outstanding shares.
Puyat v. De Guzman, 113 SCRA 31 (1982)
He acquired them after the contested election of
Eugenio Puyat vs Sixto De Guzman, Jr.
Directors, after the quo warranto suit had been
filed before SEC, and one day before the 113 SCRA 31 Political Law The Legislative Department
scheduled hearing of the case before the SEC. Appearance in Court
53
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
confer with each other, Estanislao Fernandez entered his NOTE: Under Section 14, Article VI of the 1987
appearance as counsel for Acero. Puyat objected as he Constitution:
argued that it is unconstitutional for an assemblyman to
appear as counsel (to anyone) before any administrative No Senator or member of the House of Representatives
body (such as the SEC). This being cleared, Fernandez may personally appear as counsel before any court of
inhibited himself from appearing as counsel for Acero. He justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial
instead filed an Urgent Motion for Intervention in the said and other administrative bodies. Neither shall he, directly
SEC case for him to intervene, not as a counsel, but as a or indirectly, be interested financially in any contract with,
legal owner of IPI shares and as a person who has a legal or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the
interest in the matter in litigation. The SEC Commissioner Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality
granted the motion and in effect granting Fernandez leave thereof, including any government-owned or controlled
to intervene. corporation, or its subsidiary, during his term of office. He
shall not intervene in any matter before any office of the
ISSUE: Whether or not Fernandez, acting as a stockholder Government for his pecuniary benefit or where he may be
of IPI, can appear and intervene in the SEC case without called upon to act on account of his office.
violating the constitutional provision that an assemblyman
must not appear as counsel in such courts or bodies? Appearance of the legislator is now barred before all courts
of justice, regardless of rank, composition, or jurisdiction.
HELD: No, Fernandez cannot appear before the SEC body The disqualification also applies to the revived Electoral
under the guise that he is not appearing as a counsel. Even Tribunal and to all administrative bodies, like the Securities
though he is a stockholder and that he has a legal interest and Exchange Commission and the National Labor
in the matter in litigation he is still barred from appearing. Relations Commission. Courts martial and military
He bought the stocks before the litigation took place. tribunals, being administrative agencies, are included.
During the conference he presented himself as counsel but
because it is clearly stated that he cannot do so under the Sessions (Section 15)
constitution he instead presented himself as a party of
interest which is clearly a workaround and is clearly an SECTION 15. The Congress shall convene once every year on the
act after the fact. A mere workaround to get himself
fourth Monday of July for its regular session, unless a different date
involved in the litigation. What could not be done directly
could not likewise be done indirectly. is fixed by law, and shall continue to be in session for such number
of days as it may determine until thirty days before the opening of
54
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
its next regular session, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal o Article VII, Section 11
holidays. The President may call a special session at any time. o Article VII, Section 18
Is Congress considered in session during a What are the instances when there are special
recess? sessions?
Special Sessions under the Constitution Congress is not in session (Sec. 15 of Art. VI).
55
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
SECTION 16. (1) The Senate shall elect its President and the What is a Mandatory Recess?
House of Representatives its Speaker, by a majority vote of all
its respective Members. ANSWER:
Each House shall choose such other officers as it may deem A mandatory recess is prescribed for the 30day period
necessary. before the opening of the next regular session, excluding
Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays. This is the
minimum period of recess and may be lengthened by
(2) A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do
the Congress in its discretion. It may however, be
business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day called in special session at any time by the President.
and may compel the attendance of absent Members in such (Sec. 15, Art. VI)
manner, and under such penalties, as such House may
provide.
(5) Neither House during the sessions of the Congress shall, What are the instances when Congress is voting
without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three separately and voting jointly?
days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses
shall be sitting. ANSWER
56
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
Officers of the Congress (Section 16 (1)) SEN. MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO and SEN.
FRANCISCO S. TATAD vs. SEN. TEOFISTO T.
57
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
GUINGONA, JR. and SEN. MARCELO B. FERNAN, G.R. The following day, Senators Santiago and Tatad filed before
No. 134577, November 18, 1998 Case Digest the Supreme Court a petition for quo warranto alleging that
Senator Guingona has been usurping, unlawfully holding
FACTS: and exercising the position of Senate minorit leader, a
On July 27, 1998, the Senate of the Philippines convened position that, according to them, rightfully belongs to
for the first regular session of the 11th Congress. On the Senator Tatad.
agenda for the day was the election of officers. Senator ISSUES:
Francisco S. Tatad and Senator Marcelo B. Fernan were
nominated for the position of Senate President. By a vote of Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over the
20 to 2, Senator Fernan was duly elected President of the petition?
Senate.
Was there an actual violation of the Constitution?
Thereafter, Senator Tatad manifested, with the agreement
of Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, he was assuming the Was Respondent Guingona usurping, unlawfully holding
position of minority leader. He explained that those who and exercising the position of Senate minority leader?
had voted for Senator Fernan comprised the majority while Did Respondent Fernan act with grave abuse of discretion
those who voted for him, belonged to the minority. During in recognizing Respondent Guingona as the minority
the discussion, Senator Juan M. Flavier also manifested that leader?
the senators belonging to the LAKAS-NUCD-UMDP --
numbering 7, and, thus, also a minority -- had chosen RULING:
Senator Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr. as minority leader. No
consensus was arrived at during the following days of First Issue: Court's Jurisdiction
session.
In the instant controversy, the petitioners claim
On July 30, 1998, the majority leader, informed the body that Section 16 (1), Article VI of the Constitution has not
that he received a letter from the 7 members of the LAKAS- been observed in the selection of the Senate minority
NUCD-UMDP, stating that they had elected Senator leader. They also invoke the Courts judicial power to
Guingona as minority leader. The Senated President then determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of
recognized Senator Guingona as minority leader of the discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on
Senate. the part of respondents.
58
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
The Court took jurisdiction over the petition stating that It extant. But, in the absence of constitutional or statutory
is well within the power and jurisdiction of the Court to guidelines or specific rules, this Court is devoid of any basis
inquire whether indeed the Senate or its officials upon which to determine the legality of the acts of the
committed a violation of the Constitution or gravely abused Senate relative thereto. On grounds of respect for the
their discretion in the exercise of their functions and basic concept of separation of powers, courts may not
prerogatives. intervene in the internal affairs of the legislature.
59
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
the Senate, the Lakas-NUCD-UMDP. By unanimous A quorum is such number which enables a body to
resolution of the members of this party that he be the
transact its business. It is such number which makes
minority leader, he was recognized as such by the Senate
President. Such formal recognition by Respondent Fernan a lawful body and gives such body the power to pass a
came only after at least two Senate sessions and a caucus, law or ordinance or any valid act that is binding.
wherein both sides were liberally allowed to articulate their
standpoints. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
What is a quorum?
ANSWER
ANSWER:
In the absence of quorum, each House may adjourn
from day to day and may compel the attendance of
60
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
absent members in such manner and under such of the session for about two hours. Upon insistent demand
by Taada, Mariano Cuenco, Prospero Sanidad and other
penalties as each House may provide. Senators, Avelino was forced to open session. He however,
together with his allies initiated all dilatory and delaying
Note: The members of the Congress cannot compel absent tactics to forestall Taada from delivering his piece. Motions
being raised by Taada et al were being blocked by Avelino
members to attend sessions if the reason of absence is a and his allies and they even ruled Taada and Sanidad,
legitimate one. The confinement of a Congressman among others, as being out of order. Avelinos camp then
moved to adjourn the session due to the disorder. Sanidad
charged with a nonbailable offense (more than 6 however countered and they requested the said
years) is certainly authorized by law and has adjournment to be placed in voting. Avelino just banged his
constitutional foundations (People v. Jalosjos, G.R. No. gavel and he hurriedly left his chair and he was
immediately followed by his followers. Senator Tomas Cabili
13287576, February 3, 2000) then stood up, and asked that it be made of record it
was so made that the deliberate abandonment of the
Avelino v, Cuenco, 83 Phil., 17 (1949) Chair by the Avelino, made it incumbent upon Senate
President Pro-tempore Melencio Arranz and the remaining
members of the Senate to continue the session in order not
to paralyze the functions of the Senate. Taada was
subsequently recognized to deliver his speech. Later,
Arranz yielded to Sanidads Resolution (No. 68) that Cuenco
be elected as the Senate President. This was unanimously
approved and was even recognized by the President of the
Philippines the following day. Cuenco took his oath of office
thereafter. Avelino then filed a quo warranto proceeding
before the SC to declare him as the rightful Senate
Jose Avelino vs Mariano Cuenco
President.
83 Phil. 17 Political Law The Legislative Department
ISSUE: Whether or not the SC can take cognizance of the
Election of Members/Quorum/Adjournment/Minutes
case.
On February 18, 1949, Senator Lorenzo Taada invoked his
HELD: No. By a vote of 6 to 4, the SC held that they cannot
right to speak on the senate floor to formulate charges
take cognizance of the case. This is in view of the
against the then Senate President Jose Avelino. He
separation of powers, the political nature of the
requested to do so on the next session (Feb. 21, 1949). On
controversy and the constitutional grant to the Senate of
the next session day however, Avelino delayed the opening
the power to elect its own president, which power should
61
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
not be interfered with, nor taken over, by the judiciary. The difference between a majority of all the members of the
SC should abstain in this case because the selection of the House and a majority of the House, the latter requiring
presiding officer affects only the Senators themselves who less number than the first. Therefore an absolute majority
are at liberty at any time to choose their officers, change or (12) of all the members of the Senate less one (23),
reinstate them. Anyway, if, as the petition must imply to be constitutes constitutional majority of the Senate for the
acceptable, the majority of the Senators want petitioner to purpose of a quorum. Furthermore, even if the twelve did
preside, his remedy lies in the Senate Session Hall not in not constitute a quorum, they could have ordered the
the Supreme Court. arrest of one, at least, of the absent members; if one had
been so arrested, there would be no doubt Quorum then,
Supposed the SC can take cognizance of the case,
and Senator Cuenco would have been elected just the
what will be the resolution?
same inasmuch as there would be eleven for Cuenco, one
There is unanimity in the view that the session under against and one abstained.
Senator Arranz was a continuation of the morning session
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (filed by Avelino on
and that a minority of ten senators (Avelino et al) may not,
March 14, 1949)
by leaving the Hall, prevent the other (Cuenco et al) twelve
senators from passing a resolution that met with their Avelino and his group (11 senators in all) insist that the SC
unanimous endorsement. The answer might be different take cognizance of the case and that they are willing to
had the resolution been approved only by ten or less. bind themselves to the decision of the SC whether it be
right or wrong. Avelino contends that there is no
**Two senators were not present that time. Sen. Soto was
constitutional quorum when Cuenco was elected president.
in a hospital while Sen. Confesor was in the USA.
There are 24 senators in all. Two are absentee senators;
Is the rump session (presided by Cuenco) a one being confined and the other abroad but this does not
continuation of the morning session (presided by change the number of senators nor does it change the
Avelino)? Are there two sessions in one day? Was majority which if mathematically construed is + 1; in this
there a quorum constituting such session? case 12 (half of 24) plus 1 or 13 NOT 12. There being only
The second session is a continuation of the morning 12 senators when Cuenco was elected unanimously there
session as evidenced by the minutes entered into the was no quorum.
journal. There were 23 senators considered to be in session The Supreme Court, by a vote of seven resolved to assume
that time (including Soto, excluding Confesor). Hence, jurisdiction over the case in the light of subsequent events
twelve senators constitute a majority of the Senate of which justify its intervention. The Chief Justice agrees with
twenty three senators. When the Constitution declares that the result of the majoritys pronouncement on the quorum
a majority of each House shall constitute a quorum, the upon the ground that, under the peculiar circumstances of
House does not mean all the members. Even a majority the case, the constitutional requirement in that regard has
of all the members constitute the House. There is a become a mere formalism, it appearing from the evidence
62
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
that any new session with a quorum would result in Sec. 5 (5) Title VI of the original Constitution which required
Cuencos election as Senate President, and that the Cuenco concurrence of two-thirds of the members of the National
group, taking cue from the dissenting opinions, has been Assembly to expel a member was amended by Sec. 10 (3)
trying to satisfy such formalism by issuing compulsory Article VI of the present Constitution, so as to require the
processes against senators of the Avelino group, but to no concurrence of two-thirds of all the members of each
avail, because of the Avelinos persistent efforts to block all House. Therefore, as Senator Confesor was in the United
avenues to constitutional processes. For this reason, the SC States and absent from the jurisdiction of the Senate, the
believes that the Cuenco group has done enough to satisfy actual members of the Senate at its session of February 21,
the requirements of the Constitution and that the majoritys 1949, were twenty-three (23) and therefore 12 constituted
ruling is in conformity with substantial justice and with the a majority.
requirements of public interest. Therefore Cuenco has been
legally elected as Senate President and the petition is Rules: Discipline of Members (Section 16 (3))
dismissed.
Justice Feria: (Concurring) Each house may punish its members for disorderly
Art. 3 (4) Title VI of the Constitution of 1935 provided that behavior, and with the concurrence of 2/3 of ALL its
the majority of all the members of the National Assembly
members:
constitute a quorum to do business and the fact that said
provision was amended in the Constitution of 1939, so as
to read a majority of each House shall constitute a quorum 1. Suspension (shall not exceed 60 days)
to do business, shows the intention of the framers of the 2. Expulsion
Constitution to base the majority, not on the number
fixed or provided for in the Constitution, but on
actual members or incumbents, and this must be Other disciplinary measures:
limited to actual members who are not incapacitated
to discharge their duties by reason of death,
incapacity, or absence from the jurisdiction of the A. deletion of unparliamentary remarks from the record
house or for other causes which make attendance of B. FINE
the member concerned impossible, even through C. IMPRISONMENT
coercive process which each house is empowered to
issue to compel its members to attend the session in D. CENSURE
order to constitute a quorum. That the amendment was
intentional or made for some purpose, and not a mere Senate expelled Senator Alejandrino for disorderly
oversight, or for considering the use of the words of all the
members as unnecessary, is evidenced by the fact that conduct for assaulting Senator de Vera during one of
63
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
their debates in session. Senate adopted a resolution o Spouses Dela Paz, et. Al V. Senate Committee,
depriving Senator Alejandrino of all the prerogatives, G.R. No. 128055, April 18, 2001
privileges and emoluments of his office for the period of
Inquiry in Aid of Legislation Jurisdiction and Publication
one year.
The Court held that the resolution was illegal since it In October 2008, Gen. De La Paz, a senior officer of the
PNP, headed a delegation of 8 to attend an Interpol GA.
amounted to expulsion and it would deprive the De La Paz brought with him his wife and 3 days after the
electoral district of representation without any means to scheduled GA, de la Paz is also scheduled to retire. After
the GA, De La Paz was apprehended in the departure
fill the vacancy. The Senate had no authority to suspend
area for he was carrying with him 105,000.00
an appointed Senator like Senator Alejandrino. (P6,930,000.00). He was also carrying with him
[Alejandrino v. Quezon, (1924)] 45,000.00 (P2,970,000.00). He failed to declare in
writing that he is carrying such an amount and this is in
violation of the United Nations Convention Against
Corruption and the United Nations Convention Against
Transnational Organized Crime. De La Paz and his group
Rules of Proceedings was later released but the s were confiscated by the
Russians. Upon arrival to the Philippines, De La Paz was
o Each House shall determine its own issued a subpoena by the Senate Committee on Foreign
procedural rules. Relations for the investigation it was to conduct
involving the Moscow incident. De La Paz averred that
o Issues may either be: the said committee does not have jurisdiction of the
Political- On matters affecting only internal case. De La Paz argued that the Committee is devoid of
any jurisdiction to investigate the Moscow incident as
operation of the legislature, the
the matter does not involve state to state relations as
legislatures formulation and provided in paragraph 12, Section 13, Rule 10 of the
implementation of its rules. Senate Rules of Procedure (Senate Rules). They further
claim that respondent Committee violated the same
Justiciable - when the legislative rule Senate Rules when it issued the warrant of arrest
affects private rights. without the required signatures of the majority of the
members of respondent Committee. They likewise assail
the very same Senate Rules because the same were not
64
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
published as required by the Constitution, and thus, But when the contents of the journal conflicts with that
cannot be used as the basis of any investigation
involving them relative to the Moscow incident. of an enrolled bill, the enrolled bill prevails over the
ISSUE: Whether or not the said Committee has contents of the journal.
jurisdiction over the matter.
HELD: The SC ruled against De La Paz. Section 16(3), Congress may validly continue enacting bills even
Article VI of the Philippine Constitution states:Each beyond the reglementary period of adjournment. When
House shall determine the rules of its proceedings. This
provision has been traditionally construed as a grant of the journal shows that Congress conducted a sine die
full discretionary authority to the Houses of Congress in session where the hands of the clock are stayed in order
the formulation, adoption and promulgation of its own
to afford Congress the opportunity to continue its
rules. The challenge to the jurisdiction of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, raised by petitioner in the session. All bills enacted during the sine die session are
case at bench, in effect, asks this Court to inquire into a valid and conclusive upon the Courts.
matter that is within the full discretion of the Senate.
The issue partakes of the nature of a political question.
Also, the signatures were properly obtained as The Journals are conclusive evidence of the contents
evidenced by the approval of the Senate president and thereof and Courts are bound to take judicial notice of
it is shown that the gathering of the signatures is in
accordance with the Rules. It is also shown that the them. [US vs Pons (1916)]
Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of
Legislation were also published in two newspapers of Matters mandated by the Constitution to be
general circulation.
entered in the Journals
Journals and Records (Section 16 (4)) o Article VI, Section 16 (4)
o Article VI, Section 26 (2)
Probative value of the Journal o Article VI, Section 27 (1)
The Journal is conclusive upon the courts. Matters required to be entered in the Journal
65
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
Yeas and Nays on third and final reading of An enrolled bill is the official copy of approved legislation
a bill and bears the certifications of the presiding officers of each
Veto message of the President House.
Yeas and Nays on the repassing of a bill
vetoed by the President where the certifications are valid and are not withdrawn,
Yeas and Nays on any question at the the contents of the enrolled bill are conclusive upon the
request of 1/5 of members present. courts.
Article XI, Section 3 (3) RATIONALE OF ENROLLED BILL THEORY- An enrolled Act in
Journal v. Enrolled Bill the custody of the Secretary of State, and having the
official attestations of the Speaker of the House of
It may be noted that the enrolled bill theory is based Representatives, of the President of the Senate, and of the
mainly on "the respect due to coequal and independent President of the United States, carries, on its face, a solemn
departments," which requires the judicial department "to assurance by the legislative and executive departments of
accept, as having passed Congress, all bills authenticated the government, charged, respectively, with the duty of
in the manner stated." Thus it has also been stated in other enacting and executing the laws, that it was passed by
cases that if the attestation is absent and the same is not Congress. The respect due to coequal and independent
required for the validity of a statute, the courts may resort departments requires the judicial department to act upon
to the journals and other records of Congress for proof of its that assurance, and to accept, as having passed Congress,
due enactment. [Astorga v. Villegas, (1974)] all bills authenticated in the manner stated; leaving the
courts to determine, when the question properly arises,
The Enrolled Bill Theory whether the Act, so authenticated, is in conformity with the
Constitution [Astorga vs Villegas, (1974) citing Field vs.
Clark].
66
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
Respect due to a co-equal department requires the courts Casco paid the required margin fee for its imported urea
and formaldehyde. Casco however paid in protest as it
to accept the certification of the presiding officer of the
maintained that urea and formaldehyde are tax exempt
legislative body. [Casco vs Gimenez (1963)] transactions. The Central Bank agreed and it issued
vouchers for refund. The said vouchers were submitted to
A duly authenticated bill or resolution imports absolute Pedro Gimenez, the then Auditor General, who denied the
verity and is binding on the courts.[Mabanag v. Lopez Vito, tax refund. Gimenez maintained that urea and
formaldehyde, as two separate and distinct components
(1947)]
are not tax exempt; that what is tax exempt is urea
formaldehyde (the synthetic resin formed by combining
o Casco Phil. Chemical Company v. Gimenez, 7 urea and formaldehyde). Gimenez cited the provision of
SCRA 347 Sec. 2, par 18 of Republic Act No. 2609 which provides:
67
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
formaldehyde, not the latter a finished product, citing in speculate, without jeopardizing the principle of separation
support of this view the statements made on the floor of of powers and undermining one of the cornerstones of our
the Senate, during the consideration of the bill before said democratic system the remedy is by amendment or
House, by members thereof. curative legislation, not by judicial decree.
The enrolled bill however used the term urea o Telentino v. Secretary of Finance, 235 SCRA
formaldehyde
630
ISSUE: Whether or not the term urea formaldehyde
should be construed as urea and formaldehyde. Arturo Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance
235 SCRA 630 (1994) 249 SCRA 635 (1995) Political
HELD: No. Urea formaldehyde is not a chemical solution. It
Law Origination of Revenue Bills EVAT Amendment by
is the synthetic resin formed as a condensation product Substitution
from definite proportions of urea and formaldehyde under
Arturo Tolentino et al are questioning the constitutionality
certain conditions relating to temperature, acidity, and time
of RA 7716 otherwise known as the Expanded Value Added
of reaction. Urea formaldehyde is clearly a finished Tax (EVAT) Law. Tolentino averred that this revenue bill did
product, which is patently distinct and different from urea not exclusively originate from the House of Representatives
and formaldehyde, as separate articles used in the as required by Section 24, Article 6 of the Constitution.
manufacture of the synthetic resin known as urea Even though RA 7716 originated as HB 11197 and that it
formaldehyde. passed the 3 readings in the HoR, the same did not
complete the 3 readings in Senate for after the 1st reading
The opinions or statements of any member of Congress it was referred to the Senate Ways & Means Committee
during the deliberation of the said law/bill do not represent thereafter Senate passed its own version known as Senate
the entirety of the Congress itself. What is printed in the Bill 1630. Tolentino averred that what Senate could have
done is amend HB 11197 by striking out its text and
enrolled bill would be conclusive upon the courts.
substituting it with the text of SB 1630 in that way the bill
The enrolled bill which uses the term urea remains a House Bill and the Senate version just becomes
formaldehyde instead of urea and formaldehyde is the text (only the text) of the HB. (Its ironic however to
conclusive upon the courts as regards the tenor of the note that Tolentino and co-petitioner Raul Roco even
measure passed by Congress and approved by the signed the said Senate Bill.)
President. If there has been any mistake in the printing of ISSUE: Whether or not the EVAT law is procedurally infirm.
the bill before it was certified by the officers of Congress
and approved by the Executive on which the SC cannot
68
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
HELD: No. By a 9-6 vote, the Supreme Court rejected the Interval between the session of one Congress and that
challenge, holding that such consolidation was consistent
with the power of the Senate to propose or concur with of another.
amendments to the version originated in the HoR. What the
Constitution simply means, according to the 9 justices, is
that the initiative must come from the HoR. Note also that
there were several instances before where Senate passed
its own version rather than having the HoR version as far
as revenue and other such bills are concerned. This
practice of amendment by substitution has always been
accepted. The proposition of Tolentino concerns a mere
15. The Electoral Tribunals Section 17
matter of form. There is no showing that it would make a
significant difference if Senate were to adopt his over what SECTION 17. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall
has been done.
each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all
14. Adjournment Section 16 (5) contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their
respective Members. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of
What is the rule on adjournment? nine Members, three of whom shall be Justices of the Supreme
Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six
ANSWER:
shall be Members of the Senate or the House of Representatives,
as the case may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of
Neither House during the sessions of the Congress
proportional representation from the political parties and the parties
shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more
or organizations registered under the party-list system represented
than 3 days, nor to any other place than that in which
therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its
the two Houses shall be sitting. (Sec. 16, Art. VI)
Chairman.
ANSWER:
What is the composition of the electoral tribunal
(ET)?
69
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
1. 3 Supreme Court Justices designated - Cong. Camasura revealed to Cong. Cojuangco (LDP
by the Chief Justice Sec. Gen) that he voted for Bondoc because he was
2. 6 members of the Chamber consistent with truth, justice and self-respect and that
they would abide by the results of the recounted votes
concerned (Senate or HoR) chosen
where Bondoc was leading.
on the basis of proportional
representation from the political - Cong. Camasura was then expelled from his party
(LDP) because it was a complete betrayal to his party when
parties and parties registered
he decided for Bondoc.
under the partylist system (Sec. 17,
Art. VI). - HRET then ordered Camasura to withdraw and
rescind his nomination from the tribunal.
Note: The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall - Bondoc filed for petition for certiorari, prohibition and
be its chairman. mandamus to HRET from its resolution.
ISSUE:
o Bondoc v. Pineda, 201 SCRA 792 (1991)
W/N THE HOUSE OF REP. EMPOWERED TO INTERFERE WITH
Bondoc v Pineda THE DISPOSITION OF AN ELECTION CONTEST IN THE HRET
BY REORGANIZING THE REPRESENTATION IN THE TRIBUNAL
FACTS:
OF THE MAJORITY PARTY?
- Pineda, member of Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino
W/N HRET RESOLUTION TO ORDER CAMASURA TO
(LDP) and Bondoc, member of Nacionalista Party (NP) were
WITHDRAW AND RESCIND HIS NOMINATION IS VALID
rival candidates for Representative for 4TH district of
Pampanga. Pineda was proclaimed winner. Bondoc filed a HELD:
protest at the House of Rep Electoral Tribunal (HRET)
NO! COURT SAID THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY
POLITICAL PARTY TO CONTROL VOTING IN THE TRIBUNAL .
70
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
THE TRIBUNAL HAS THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION AS JUDGE What is the jurisdiction of the Electoral
TO CONTESTS RELATING TO ELECTION, RETURNS AND
Tribunals?
QUALIFICATIONS OF THE MEMS OF THE HOUSE OF REP.
1. IT IS A CLEAR IMPAIRMENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL Each electoral tribunal shall be the sole judge of all
PREROGATIVE OF THE HRET TO BE THE SOLE JUDGE OF contests relating to the election, returns, and
THE ELECTION CONTEST BET. PINEDA AND BONDOC. TO qualifications of their respective members (Sec. 17, Art.
SANCTION INTERFERENCE BY THE HOUSE OF REP. WOULD
VI, 1987 Constitution). This includes determining the
REDUCE TRIBUNAL AS TOOL FOR THE AGGRANDIZEMENT
validity or invalidity of a proclamation declaring a
OF THE PARTY IN POWER (LDP)
particular candidate as the winner.
2. MEMBERS OF THE TRIBUNAL MUST BE NON-PARTISAN.
CAMASURA WAS DISCHARGING HIS FUNCTIONS WITH
Note: The electoral tribunal has rulemaking power
COMPLETE DETACHMENT, IMPARTIALITY AND
(Lazatin v. HRET, G.R. No. L84297, Dec. 8, 1988).
INDEPENDENCE. DISLOYALTY TO PARTY AND BREACH OF
PARTY DISCIPLINE -> NOT VALID GROUND FOR EXPULSION
OF MEMBER OF THE TRIBUNAL It is independent of the Houses of Congress and its
decisions may be reviewed by the Supreme Court only
3. IT VIOLATES CAMASURAS RIGHT TO SECURITY OF
TENURE. MEMBERS OF HRET ARE ENTITLED TO SECURITY upon showing of grave abuse of discretion.
OF TENURE. MEMBERSHIP MAY NOT BE TERMINATED W/O
UNDUE CAUSE SUCH AS: EXPIRATION OF TERM OF OFFICE, The mere fact that the members of either the Senate or
DEATH, PERMANENT DISABILITY, RESIGNATION FROM the House sitting on the electoral tribunal are those
POLITICAL PARTY, FORMAL AFFILIATION WITH ANOTHER which are sought to be disqualified due to the filing of an
PARTY. DISLOYALTY IS NOT A VALID CAUSE!
election contest against them does not warrant all of
Jurisdiction them from being disqualified from sitting in the ET.
71
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
72
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
questions involving her eligibility as first nominee, said Abayon, Whether or not respondent HRET has jurisdiction over the
were internal concerns of Aangat Tayo. question of qualifications of petitioners Abayon and Palparan.
In G.R. HELD:
189506, petitioner Jovito S. Palparan, Jr. is the first nominee of the
Bantay party-list group that won a seat in the 2007 elections for although it is the party-list organization that is voted for in the
the members of the House of Representatives. Lesaca and the elections, it is not the organization that sits as and becomes a
others alleged that Palparan was ineligible to sit in the House of member of the House of Representatives. Section 5, Article VI of
Representatives as party-list nominee because he did not belong the Constitution,5 identifies who the members of that House are:
to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors that Bantay
represented, namely, the victims of communist rebels, Civilian Sec. 5. (1). The House of Representatives shall be composed of
Armed Forces Geographical Units (CAFGUs), former rebels, and not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise
security guards. fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative
districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the
Petitioner Palparan countered that the HRET had no jurisdiction Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their
over his person since it was actually the party-list Bantay, not he, respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and
that was elected to and assumed membership in the House of progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be
Representatives. Palparan claimed that he was just Bantays elected through a partylist system of registered national, regional,
nominee. Consequently, any question involving his eligibility as and sectoral parties or organizations. (Underscoring supplied)
first nominee was an internal concern of Bantay. Such question
must be brought, he said, before that party-list group, not before Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution9 provides that the HRET
the HRET. shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to, among other
things, the qualifications of the members of the House of
ISSUE: Representatives. Since, as pointed out above, party-list nominees
are elected members of the House of Representatives no less
73
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
REGINA ONGSIAKO REYES, Petitioner, v. The averred proclamation is the critical pointer to the
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and JOSEPH SOCORRO correctness of petitioner submission.The crucial question is
B. TAN, Respondents. whether or not petitioner could be proclaimed on May 18,
74
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
2013. Differently stated, was there basis for the offered and admitted in evidence. She assails the
proclamation of petitioner on May 18 , 2013. admission of the blog article of Eli Obligacion as hearsay
and the photocopy of the Certification from the Bureau of
The June 25, 2013 resolution held that before May 18, Immigration. She likewise contends that there was a
2013, the COMELEC En Banc had already finally disposed of violation of her right to due process of law because she was
the issue of petitioner lack of Filipino citizenship and not given the opportunity to question and present
residency via its resolution dated May 14, 2013, cancelling controverting evidence.
petitioner certificate of candidacy. The proclamation which
petitioner secured on May 18, 2013 was without any basis. It must be emphasized that the COMELEC is not bound to
On June 10, 2013, petitioner went to the Supreme Court strictly adhere to the technical rules of procedure in the
questioning the COMELEC First Division ruling and the May presentation of evidence. Under Section 2 of Rule I, the
14, 2013 COMELEC En Banc decision, baseless COMELEC Rules of Procedure "shall be liberally construed in
proclamation on 18 May 2013 did not by that fact of order to achieve just, expeditious and inexpensive
promulgation alone become valid and legal. determination and disposition of every action and
proceeding brought before the Commission." In view of the
ISSUE: Whether or not Petitioner was denied of due fact that the proceedings in a petition to deny due course
process? or to cancel certificate of candidacy are summary in nature,
then the "newly discovered evidence" was properly
HELD: Petitioner was denied of due process. admitted by respondent COMELEC.
POLITICAL LAW: administrative due process Furthermore, there was no denial of due process in the
case at bar as petitioner was given every opportunity to
Petitioner alleges that the COMELEC gravely abused its argue her case before the COMELEC. From 10 October 2012
discretion when it took cognizance of "newly-discovered when Tan's petition was filed up to 27 March 2013 when
evidence" without the same having been testified on and the First Division rendered its resolution, petitioner had a
75
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
period of five (5) months to adduce evidence. duty to prove that she is a natural-born Filipino citizen and
Unfortunately, she did not avail herself of the opportunity has not lost the same, or that she has re-acquired such
given her. status in accordance with the provisions of R.A. No. 9225.
Aside from the bare allegation that she is a natural-born
In administrative proceedings, procedural due process only citizen, however, petitioner submitted no proof to support
requires that the party be given the opportunity or right to such contention. Neither did she submit any proof as to the
be heard. As held in the case of Sahali v. COMELEC: The inapplicability of R.A. No. 9225 to her.
petitioners should be reminded that due process does not
necessarily mean or require a hearing, but simply an The Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
opportunity or right to be heard. One may be heard, not
solely by verbal presentation but also, and perhaps many o Limkaichong v. Comelec, G.R. No.
times more creditably and predictable than oral argument, 178831-32, April 1, 2009
through pleadings. In administrative proceedings moreover,
583 SCRA 1 Political Law The Legislative
technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly Department Jurisdiction of the Electoral Tribunals
applied; administrative process cannot be fully equated
Jocelyn Limkaichong ran as a representative in the
with due process in its strict judicial sense. Indeed,
1st District of Negros Oriental. Olivia Paras, her rival,
deprivation of due process cannot be successfully invoked and some other concerned citizens filed
where a party was given the chance to be heard on his disqualification cases against Limkaichong.
motion for reconsideration. Limkaichong is allegedly not a natural born citizen of
the Philippines because when she was born her
father was still a Chinese and that her mom, though
In moving for the cancellation of petitioner's COC, Filipino, lost her citizenship by virtue of her marriage
respondent submitted records of the Bureau of Immigration to Limkaichongs dad. During the pendency of the
showing that petitioner is a holder of a US passport, and case against Limkaichong before the (Commission on
that her status is that of a "balikbayan." At this point, the Elections) COMELEC. Election day came and votes
were cast. Results came in and Limkaichong won
burden of proof shifted to petitioner, imposing upon her the
76
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
over her rival Paras. COMELEC after due hearing The proclamation of Limkaichong was
declared Limkaichong as disqualified. About 2 days valid. The COMELEC Second Division
after the counting of votes, COMELEC declared rendered its Joint Resolution dated May
Limkaichong as a disqualified candidate. 17, 2007. On May 20, 2007,
Limkaichong timely filed with the
On the following days however, notwithstanding COMELEC En Banc her motion for
their proclamation disqualifying Limkaichong, the reconsideration as well as for the lifting
COMELEC issued a proclamation announcing of the incorporated directive
Limkaichong as the winner of the recently conducted suspending her proclamation. The
elections. This is in compliance with Resolution No. filing of the motion for reconsideration
8062 adopting the policy-guidelines of not effectively suspended the execution of
suspending the proclamation of winning candidates the May 17, 2007 Joint Resolution.
with pending disqualification cases which shall be Since the execution of the May 17, 2007
without prejudice to the continuation of the hearing Joint Resolution was suspended, there
and resolution of the involved cases. Paras was no impediment to the valid
countered the proclamation and she filed a petition proclamation of Limkaichong as the
before the COMELEC. Limkaichong asailed Paras winner. Section 2, Rule 19 of the
petition arguing that since she is now the proclaimed COMELEC Rules of Procedure provides:
winner, the COMELEC can no longer exercise
jurisdiction over the matter. It should be the HRET Sec. 2. Period for Filing Motions for Reconsideration.
which should exercise jurisdiction from then on. A motion to reconsider a decision, resolution, order
COMELEC agreed with Limkaichong. or ruling of a Division shall be filed within five (5)
days from the promulgation thereof. Such motion, if
ISSUE: not pro forma, suspends the execution for
Whether or not the proclamation done implementation of the decision, resolution, order and
by the COMELEC is valid. ruling.
Whether or not COMELEC should still 2. No. The HRET must exercise jurisdiction after
exercise jurisdiction over the matter. Limkaichongs proclamation. The SC has invariably
held that once a winning candidate has been
HELD: proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed office as a
77
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
Member of the lower house, the COMELECs twelve Senators and twelve Members of the House of
jurisdiction over election contests relating to his
Representatives, elected by each House on the basis of
election, returns, and qualifications ends, and the
HRETs own jurisdiction begins. It follows then that proportional representation from the political parties and parties or
the proclamation of a winning candidate divests the organizations registered under the party-list system represented
COMELEC of its jurisdiction over matters pending therein. The Chairman of the Commission shall not vote, except in
before it at the time of the proclamation. The party
case of a tie. The Commission shall act on all appointments
questioning his qualification should now present his
case in a proper proceeding before the HRET, the submitted to it within thirty session days of the Congress from their
constitutionally mandated tribunal to hear and submission. The Commission shall rule by a majority vote of all the
decide a case involving a Member of the House of Members.
Representatives with respect to the latters election,
returns and qualifications. The use of the word
1. Composition
sole in Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution
and in Section 250 of the OEC underscores the
exclusivity of the Electoral Tribunals jurisdiction over What is the composition of the Commission on
election contests relating to its members. Appointments (CA)?
ANSWER:
78
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
Appointments. Thus, where there are two or more The members of the Commission shall be elected by
political parties represented in the Senate, a political each House on the basis of proportional representation
party/coalition with a single senator in the Senate from the political party and party list. Accordingly, the
cannot constitutionally claim a seat in the Commission sense of the Constitution is that the membership in the
on Appointments. It is not mandatory to elect 12 senators Commission on Appointment must always reflect political
to the Commission; what the Constitution requires is alignments in Congress and must therefore adjust to
that there must be at least a majority of the entire changes. It is understood that such changes in party
membership. (Guingona, Jr. v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 106971, affiliation must be permanent and not merely
October 20, 1992) temporary alliances (Daza v. Singson, G.R. No. 86344,
December 21, 1989 ). Endorsement is not sufficient to get
How are the 12 Senators and 12 a seat in COA.
Representatives chosen?
What is the jurisdiction of the CA?
ANSWER:
ANSWER:
79
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
C. Officers of the AFP from the rank of Meantime, Senator Ma. Ana Consuelo A.S. Madrigal
of PDP-Laban wrote a letter claiming that the
Colonel or naval captain Senate contingent in the CA violated the
D. Officers of the AFP from the rank of constitutional requirement of proportional
representation. The Senator avers that political
vested in him by the Constitution (i.e. parties PMP and KAMPI were given more seats than
COMELEC members) (Bautista v. Salonga, they were entitled to in the CA and the political party
PRP and other Independents cannot be represented
G.R. No. 86439, April 13, 1989)
in the CA.
The CA, speaking through its Ex-Officio Chairman
o Drilon v. De Venecia, G.R. No. 180050, July 31, Manny Villar, advised Senator Madrigal that CA has
neither the power nor the discretion to reject a
2009 member who is elected by either House, and that
any complaints about the election of a member or
FRANKLIN M. DRILON, et al. v. HON. JOSE DE members should be addressed to the body that
VENECIA, et al 594 SCRA 743 (2009) elected them. Villar further explained that
instructions have been given to transmit the
Issues involving the deprivation of a seat in the original copies of Senator Madrigals letters to the
Commission on Appointments should be lodged Senate Secretary for their immediate inclusion in the
before the respective Houses of Congress and not Order of Business of the Session of the Senate.
with the Supreme Court. Madrigal, not satisfied with the CAs action, filed a
The Senate and the House of Representatives petition with the Supreme Court for prohibition and
elected their respective contingents to the mandamus with a prayer for the issuance of a
Commission on Appointments (CA). In the second temporary restraining order/ writ of preliminary
week of August 2007, Franklin Drilon et al. went to injunction against Senator Villar as Senate President
respondent then Speaker Jose de Venecia to ask for and Ex-Officio Chairman of the CA.
one seat for the Liberal Party in the CA. However, no
report or recommendation was proffered by the The Court consolidated the petitions filed by Drilon
Legal Department, drawing Representative Taada to et al. and Madrigal et al.
request a report or recommendation on the matter
within three days. Hence spawned the filing by ISSUES:
Drilon (in representation of the Liberal Party), et al.,
alleging that the liberal party with at least twenty Whether or not the petition before the Supreme
(20) members who signed herein, is Court is proper.
constitutionally entitled to one (1) seat in the CA.
80
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
The first petition, G.R. No. 180055, has thus indeed among those chosen and was listed as a
been rendered moot with the designation of representative of the Liberal Party.
a Liberal Party member of the House contingent to
the CA, hence, as prayed for, the petition is
withdrawn. As for the second petition, G.R. No. On September 16, 1988, the Laban ng
183055, it fails. Senator Madrigal failed to show that Demokratikong Pilipino was reorganized, resulting in
she sustained direct injury as a result of the act
a political realignment in the House of
complained of. Her petition does not in fact allege
that she or her political party PDP-Laban was Representatives. On the basis of this development,
deprived of a seat in the CA, or that she or PDP- the House of Representatives revised its
Laban possesses personal and substantial interest
to confer on her/it locus standi. representation in the Commission on Appointments
Senator Madrigals primary recourse rests with the by withdrawing the seat occupied by the petitioner
respective Houses of Congress and not with this and giving this to the newly-formed LDP. The
Court. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction dictates
that prior recourse to the House is necessary before chamber elected a new set of representatives
she may bring her petition to court. Senator Villars consisting of the original members except the
invocation of said doctrine is thus well-taken.
petitioner and including therein respondent Luis C.
Singson as the additional member from the LDP.
81
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
Whether or not the realignment will validly change may transpire in the political alignments of its
the composition of the Commission on Appointments membership. It is understood that such changes
must be permanent and do not include the
HELD: temporary alliances or factional divisions not
involving severance of political loyalties or formal
At the core of this controversy is Article VI, Section disaffiliation and permanent shifts of allegiance from
18, of the Constitution providing as follows: one political party to another.
Sec. 18. There shall be a Commission on The Court holds that the respondent has been validly
Appointments consisting of the President of the elected as a member of the Commission on
Senate, as ex officio Chairman, twelve Senators and Appointments and is entitled to assume his seat in
twelve Members of the House of Representatives, that body pursuant to Article VI, Section 18, of the
elected by each House on the basis of proportional Constitution.
representation from the political parties and parties
2. Organization Section 19
or organizations registered under the party-list
system represented therein. The Chairman of the
SECTION 19. The Electoral Tribunals and the Commission on
Commission shall not vote, except in case of a tie.
Appointments shall be constituted within thirty days after the Senate
The Commission shall act on all appointments
and the House of Representatives shall have been organized with
submitted to it within thirty session days of the
the election of the President and the Speaker. The Commission on
Congress from their submission. The Commission
Appointments shall meet only while the Congress is in session, at
shall rule by a majority vote of all the Members.
the call of its Chairman or a majority of all its Members, to discharge
such powers and functions as are herein conferred upon it.
The authority of the House of Representatives to
change its representation in the Commission on SECTION 20. The records and books of accounts of the Congress
Appointments to reflect at any time the changes that shall be preserved and be open to the public in accordance with
law, and such books shall be audited by the Commission on Audit
82
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
which shall publish annually an itemized list of amounts paid to and Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with
expenses incurred for each Member. amendments.
SECTION 21. The Senate or the House of Representatives or any SECTION 25. (1) The Congress may not increase the
of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of appropriations recommended by the President for the operation of
legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. the Government as specified in the budget. The form, content, and
The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries manner of preparation of the budget shall be prescribed by law.
shall be respected.
(2) No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the general
SECTION 22. The heads of departments may upon their own appropriations bill unless it relates specifically to some particular
initiative, with the consent of the President, or upon the request of appropriation therein. Any such provision or enactment shall be
either House, as the rules of each House shall provide, appear limited in its operation to the appropriation to which it relates.
before and be heard by such House on any matter pertaining to
their departments. Written questions shall be submitted to the (3) The procedure in approving appropriations for the Congress
President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of shall strictly follow the procedure for approving appropriations for
Representatives at least three days before their scheduled other departments and agencies.
appearance. Interpellations shall not be limited to written questions,
but may cover matters related thereto. When the security of the (4) A special appropriations bill shall specify the purpose for which it
State or the public interest so requires and the President so states is intended, and shall be supported by funds actually available as
in writing, the appearance shall be conducted in executive session. certified by the National Treasurer, or to be raised by a
corresponding revenue proposed therein.
SECTION 23. (1) The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of both
Houses in joint session assembled, voting separately, shall have the (5) No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of
sole power to declare the existence of a state of war. appropriations; however, the President, the President of the Senate,
the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of
(2) In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may, the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions
by law, authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in the general
such restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other
and proper to carry out a declared national policy. Unless sooner items of their respective appropriations.
withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease
upon the next adjournment thereof. (6) Discretionary funds appropriated for particular officials shall be
disbursed only for public purposes to be supported by appropriate
SECTION 24. All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills vouchers and subject to such guidelines as may be prescribed by
authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of local application, and law.
private bills shall originate exclusively in the House of
83
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
(7) If, by the end of any fiscal year, the Congress shall have failed to (2) The President shall have the power to veto any particular item or
pass the general appropriations bill for the ensuing fiscal year, the items in an appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill, but the veto shall not
general appropriations law for the preceding fiscal year shall be affect the item or items to which he does not object.
deemed reenacted and shall remain in force and effect until the
general appropriations bill is passed by the Congress. SECTION 28. (1) The rule of taxation shall be uniform and
equitable. The Congress shall evolve a progressive system of
SECTION 26. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace taxation.
only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.
(2) The Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix within
(2) No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has specified limits, and subject to such limitations and restrictions as it
passed three readings on separate days, and printed copies thereof may impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and
in its final form have been distributed to its Members three days wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts within the framework of
before its passage, except when the President certifies to the the national development program of the Government.
necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or
emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto (3) Charitable institutions, churches and parsonages or convents
shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be taken immediately appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands,
thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered in the Journal. buildings, and improvements, actually, directly, and exclusively used
for religious, charitable, or educational purposes shall be exempt
SECTION 27. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it from taxation.
becomes a law, be presented to the President. If he approves the
same, he shall sign it; otherwise, he shall veto it and return the (4) No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the
same with his objections to the House where it originated, which concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress.
shall enter the objections at large in its Journal and proceed to
reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of all the SECTION 29. (1) No money shall be paid out of the Treasury
Members of such House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.
together with the objections, to the other House by which it shall
likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of all the (2) No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied,
Members of that House, it shall become a law. In all such cases, the paid, or employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or
votes of each House shall be determined by yeas or nays, and the support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or
names of the Members voting for or against shall be entered in its system of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, or other
Journal. The President shall communicate his veto of any bill to the religious teacher, or dignitary as such, except when such priest,
House where it originated within thirty days after the date of receipt preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or
thereof; otherwise, it shall become a law as if he had signed it. to any penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium.
84
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT ARTICLE VI
(3) All money collected on any tax levied for a special purpose shall
be treated as a special fund and paid out for such purpose only. If
the purpose for which a special fund was created has been fulfilled
or abandoned, the balance, if any, shall be transferred to the
general funds of the Government.
85