Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 46 views

    022 BUNALES PhilConSa vs. Gimenez

    Uploaded by

    Carissa Cruz
    The main controversy in the case is the constitutionality of RA No. 3836, which allows retirement gratuity and benefits to Senators and Representatives. Petitioner argues this is unconstitutional as the law's title does not indicate it covers retirement benefits, violating the requirement that a bill's subject must be expressed in its title. The Court agrees and rules the title is not germane to the subject matter, violating the Constitution. RA No. 3836 is declared null and void insofar as it refers to retirement benefits for Congress members.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    022 BUNALES PhilConSa vs. Gimenez

    Uploaded by

    Carissa Cruz
    46 views2 pages
    The main controversy in the case is the constitutionality of RA No. 3836, which allows retirement gratuity and benefits to Senators and Representatives. Petitioner argues this is unconstitutional as the law's title does not indicate it covers retirement benefits, violating the requirement that a bill's subject must be expressed in its title. The Court agrees and rules the title is not germane to the subject matter, violating the Constitution. RA No. 3836 is declared null and void insofar as it refers to retirement benefits for Congress members.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The main controversy in the case is the constitutionality of RA No. 3836, which allows retirement gratuity and benefits to Senators and Representatives. Petitioner argues this is unconstitutional as the law's title does not indicate it covers retirement benefits, violating the requirement that a bill's subject must be expressed in its title. The Court agrees and rules the title is not germane to the subject matter, violating the Constitution. RA No. 3836 is declared null and void insofar as it refers to retirement benefits for Congress members.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    46 views2 pages

    022 BUNALES PhilConSa vs. Gimenez

    Uploaded by

    Carissa Cruz
    The main controversy in the case is the constitutionality of RA No. 3836, which allows retirement gratuity and benefits to Senators and Representatives. Petitioner argues this is unconstitutional as the law's title does not indicate it covers retirement benefits, violating the requirement that a bill's subject must be expressed in its title. The Court agrees and rules the title is not germane to the subject matter, violating the Constitution. RA No. 3836 is declared null and void insofar as it refers to retirement benefits for Congress members.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    #22 PHILCONSA vs. GIMENEZ (Bunales) 2.

    The following were the provisions in question:


    December 18, 1965 | Regala, J. | Parts of a Statue - Title a. The provision for the retirement of the members and certain officers of
    Congress is not expressed in the title of the bill, in violation of
    section 21 (1) of Article VI of the Constitution (No bill which may be
    PETITIONER: Philippine Constitution Association, Inc enacted into law shall embrace more than one subject which shall be
    RESPONDENTS: Pedro M. Gimenez expressed in the title of the bill.) – Subject topic
    b. The provision on retirement gratuity is an attempt to circumvent
    SUMMARY: The main controversy in the case, in relation to the topic of
    Parts of the Statute, is the Title of RA No. 3836, where petitioner assails its the Constitutional ban on increase of salaries of the members of
    constitutionality anchored on the non-inclusion of retirement benefits to Congress during their term of office, contrary to the provisions of
    Senators and Members of the House of Representatives after their tenure in Article VI, Section 14 of the Constitution.
    service. According to Philconsa. It is contended that the law in itself is c. The same provision constitutes "selfish class legislation" because it
    unconstitutional for violating Section 21(1) of Art. VI of the Constitution, allows members and officers of Congress to retire after twelve
    and that on ots face, since the law does not indicate in its Title its main (12) years of service and gives them a gratuity equivalent to one
    thought or idea, causes confusion to the public.
    year salary for every four years of service, which is not refundable in
    DOCTRINE: the purpose of the requirement that the subject of an Act case of reinstatement or re-election of the retiree, while all other
    should be expressed in its title is to: (1) prevent surprise or fraud upon the officers and employees of the government can retire only after at least
    Legislature; and (2) to fairly apprise the people, through such publication of twenty (20) years of service and are given a gratuity which is only
    legislation that are being considered, in order that they may have the equivalent to one month salary for every year of service, which, in any
    opportunity of being heard thereon by petition or otherwise, if they shall so case, cannot exceed 24 months.
    desire. Moreover, according to People vs. Carlos, the Constitutional d. The provision on vacation and sick leave, commutable at the highest
    requirement with respect to titles of statutes as sufficient to reflect their
    rate received, insofar as members of Congress are concerned, is
    contents is satisfied if all parts of a law relate to the subject expressed
    in its title, and it is not necessary that the title be a complete index of another attempt of the legislators to further increase their
    the content. compensation in violation of the Constitution.
    ISSUE/s:
    1. Was the title of RA N. 3836 germane to the subject matter of the act -
    NO
    FACTS:
    1. The main contention of the case is the constitutionality of RA No. 3836, RULING: NO. It is not germane to the subject matter and is a violation of the
    insofar as the same allows retirement gratuity and commutation of aforementioned paragraph 1, section 21, Article VI of the Constitution,
    vacation and sick leave to Senators and Representatives, and to the therefore, Unconstitutional. Republic Act No. 3836 is hereby declared null and
    elective officials of both houses of the Congress. The suit was instituted void, in so far as it refers to the retirement of Members of Congress and the
    elected officials thereof, as being unconstitutional.
    by the Philippine Constitution Association, Inc. (Philconsa), a non-profit
    civic organization, duly incorporated under Philippine laws, by way of a RATIO:
    petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction to restrain the 1 It is the contention of petitioner that the said title of Republic Act 3836
    Auditor General of the Philippines and the disbursing officers of both gives no inkling or notice whatsoever to the public regarding the
    Houses of Congress from "passing in audit the vouchers, and from retirement gratuities and commutable vacation and sick leave
    countersigning the checks or treasury warrants for the payment to any privileges to members of Congress. It is claimed that petitioner learned
    of this law for the first time only when Jose Velasco, disbursing officer
    former Senator or former Member of the House of Representatives of
    of the House, testified on January 30, 1964, before Justice Labrador, in
    retirement and vacation gratuities pursuant to Republic Act No. 3836. connection with the hearing of the case, and he revealed that in 1963,

    Classified as Confidential. Please do not forward this to unintended users. Otherwise, request necessary permission.
    Congress enacted the retirement law for its members. Year by year,
    petitioner claims that the appropriations change, yet the question
    remains: are Senators or Members of the House of Representatives
    entitled to such appropriations.
    2 It is to be observed that under Republic Act 3836, amending the first
    paragraph of section 12, subsection (c) of Commonwealth Act 186, as
    amended by Republic Acts Nos. 660 and. 3096, the retirement
    benefits are granted to members of the Government Service
    Insurance System, who have rendered at least 20 years of service
    regardless of age. This paragraph is related and germane to the
    subject of Commonwealth Act No. 186.
    3 On the other hand, the succeeding paragraph of Republic Act 3836
    refers to members of Congress and to elective officers thereof who are
    not members of the Government Service Insurance System. To
    provide retirement benefits, therefore, for these officials, would relate
    to subject matter which is not germane to Commonwealth Act No. 186.
    In other words, this portion of the amendment (re retirement
    benefits for Members of Congress and elected officers, such as the
    Secretary and Sergeants-at-arms for each House) is not related in
    any manner to the subject of Commonwealth Act 186 establishing
    the GSIS and which provides for both retirement and insurance
    benefits to its members.
    4 According to Cooley, the purpose of the requirement that the subject of
    an Act should be expressed in its title is to: (1) prevent surprise or
    fraud upon the Legislature; and (2) to fairly apprise the people, through
    such publication of legislation that are being considered, in order that
    they may have the opportunity of being heard thereon by petition or
    otherwise, if they shall so desire. Moreover, according to People vs.
    Carlos, the Constitutional requirement with respect to titles of statutes
    as sufficient to reflect their contents is satisfied if all parts of a law
    relate to the subject expressed in its title, and it is not necessary
    that the title be a complete index of the content. Moreover,
    according to Sumulong vs. Comelec, TITLES should be given a practical,
    rather than technical, construction. It should be a sufficient compliance
    with such requirement if the title expresses the general subject and all
    the provisions of the statute are germane to that general subject.

    Classified as Confidential. Please do not forward this to unintended users. Otherwise, request necessary permission.

    You might also like