3 Philconsa v. Mathay - 18 SCRA 300

8/9/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018
300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Philippine Constitution Association, Inc. vs. Mathay
No. L-25554. October 4, 1966.
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION, INC.,

petitioner, vs. ISMAEL MATHAY and JOSE VELASCO,
respondents.
Constitutional law; Taxpayers may bring action to restrain

officials from wasting public funds.—Taxpayers may bring an
action to restrain officials from wasting public funds through the
enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law (Cf. Philippine
Constitution Association vs. Gimenez, L-23326, December 18,
1966 and other cases).
Same; Where joinder of Congressmen was not necessary.— As
the acts sought to be enjoined were the respondents' passing in
audit and the approval of the payment of the Representatives'
increased salaries, and not the collection or receipt thereof, the
members of the House of Representatives need not be joined as
defendants in the present action. Only the respondent auditors
are the indispensable or proper parties def endant.
Same; Legislative Department; Purpose of limitation on
increase in compensation of Senators and Congressmen.—The
purpose of Section 14, Article VI of the Constitution, which
provides that no increase in the compensation of Senators and
Members of the House of Representatives "shall take effect until
after the full term of all the Members of the Senate and of the
House of Representatives approving such increase," is to place a
"legal bar to the legislators "yielding to the natural temptation to
increase their salaries. Not that the power to provide for higher
compensation is lacking, but with the length of time that has to
elapse before an increase becomes effective, there is a deterrent
factor to any such measure unless the need for it is clearly felt"
(Tañada and Fernando, Constitution of the" Philippines, Vol. 2, p.
867).
Same; To whom restriction applies; Phrase "Expiration of the
full term", construed.—In establishing a waiting period before the
increased compensation for legislators becomes fully effective, the
constitutional provision (Art. VI, Sec. IV) refers to "all the
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017b2b34c196ece51ac4000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/33
members of the Senate and of the House of Repre-sentatives" in

the same sentence, as a single unit, without distinction or
separation between them. The fundamental consideration is that
the terms of office of all members of the Legislature that enacted
the measure (whether Senators or Representatives) must have
expired before the increase in compensation can become
operative.
Same; Increased compensation under Republic Act No. 4134 is
not operative until December 30, 1969—It follows that the
increased compensation provided by Republic Act No. 4134 is not
operative until December 30, 1969, when :the full term of all
members of the Senate and House that approved it on
301
VOL. 18, OCTOBER 4, 1966 301
June 20, 1964 will have expired. Insofar as Republic Act No. 4642
(1965-1966 Appropriations Act) authorizes the disbursement of
the increased compensation prior to the date aforesaid, it also
violates the Constitution and must be held null and void,
BENGZON, J.P., J., concurring:
Constitutional law; Legislative department; Increase in

compensation of Senators and Congressmen; Why word "Congress"
was not used in the proviso.—The terms "the Senate" and "the
House" instead of the word "Congress," were used in the provision
of the Constitution relating to increase in compensation of
Senators and Members of the House of Representatives, obviously
because after every four years the Congress is dissolved, and
while the term of the Members of the House of Representatives
coincides with the lifetime of Congress, the term of a member of
the Senate, being six years, goes beyond the duration of one
Congress and extends to that of the next.
Same; Prohibition against effectivity continues even after the
end of term of Congress which approved the measure.—The use in
the Constitution of the words "Senate" and "House of
Representatives" and of the word "all" before "the Members,"
clearly indicates the intention not to allow an increase in the
compensation therein provided until after the expiration of the
term. of the most junior among the members of the Senate at the
time the increase was approved. . Precisely because the
Constitution speaks of "Senate" and "House of Representatives"
instead of "Congress," the prohibition against effectivity continues

even after the end of the Congress which -approved the measure
and, which amounts to the same thing, even after the term of the
members of the House of Representatives approving the increase.
Same; Word "term" was used in the general sense.—The word
"term" in the provision of the Constitution in question is used in
the general sense. For, otherwise, even in referring to members of
the Senate alone, it should have used "terms" since the Senators
had originally different terms of office (two, four and six years), as
provided for in Section '2 of Article VI of the Constitution, a
provision contemporaneous with the one involved herein. Yet just
the same, the Constitution uses the word "term" to cover all these
different terms of office.
ZALDIVAR, J., concurring:
Constitutional law; Increase of compensation of Senators and

Congressmen: Equal compensation was intended.—The sense of
the Members of the Second National Assembly that
302
approved the constitutional amendment in 1940 was to provide

for equal compensation for the Members of the Senate and the
House of Representatives at all times, not only in amount but also
at the same time within their respective terms of office.
Same; Senators and Congressmen are considered collectively
as far as effectivity of salary increase is concerned; When increase
would take effect.—Section 14, Article VI of the Constitution talks
of the "expiration of the full term of all the Members" then
followed by the words "of the Senate and of the House of
Representatives approving the increase/' This proviso
contemplates the Senate and the House of Representatives as a
body that approved the increase. In referring to the compensation
to be received by each of them, Senators and Members of the
House of Representatives are considered by Section 14
individually. But in the matter of determining the time when the
increase is to take effect they are considered as collective by the
use of the phrase "all the Members of the Senate and of the House
of Representatives approving such increase." The use of the word
all includes every Member of the Senate and of the House of
Representatives, regardless of whether or not he or she voted
affirmatively for the increase. Since there were members of the

Senate whose term of office was longer than that of the House of
Representatives when the increase was approved, it is the term of
the Senators which was the longest that should first expire before
the increase should take effect.
CASTRO. J., concurring:
Constitutional law; Prohibition against increase of salaries of

Members of Congress, construed; Period of time during which
prohibition operates.—Section 14, Article VI of the Constitution
provides in part that "No increase in said compensation shall take
effect until after the expiration of the full term of all the members
of the Senate and of the House of Representatives approving such
increase." The phrase "No increase in said compensation shall
take effect" establishes the character of the provision as a
prohibition or limitation, as can be seen from the unqualified
words "no increase". The words "until after the expiration of the
full term" impart the period of time during which the prohibition
or limitation operates, after which period the increase in
compensation can take effect.
Same; Whose full term must expire first before increase can
take effect.—The immediate as well as the lasting impact of the
words "of the members of the Senate and of the House of
Representatives approving such increase" is that what must first
expire is the full term of the members of both Houses of Congress
approving the increase. It cannot be the full
303
VOL. 18, OCTOBER 4, 1966 303
term of the members of either House, nor yet the full term of the
members of the Senate or that of the members of the House of
Representatives. The key word is the particle "and" As understood
from the common and usual meaning of this word, the expiration
of the 'f ull term of all the members of the Senate is inseparable
from the expiration of the full term of all the members of the
House of Representatives.
Same; When word "or" may be interchanged with "and";
Application of rule to the provision under consideration.— There
is a specific rule of interpretation that would allow "or" to be
interchanged with "and/" in which event a negation of the concept
of joinder would ensue. But this is the exception rather than the
general rule. The exception is resorted to only when a literal

interpretation would pervert the plain intention of the writer or
draftsman as gleaned from the overall context of the writing
and/or from external factors. This does not obtain in the provision
under discussion. Indeed, a departure from the general rule and a
resort to the exception would pervert Section 14 of Article VI.
Same; Disparity of compensation between Senators and
Representatives was not intended.—If the expiration of the full
term of the members of the Senate would be considered as
separable from the expiration of the full term of the members of
the House of Representatives, despite the conjunction "and," then
the result would be to allow members of the House of
Representatives to enjoy the Increase in compensation ahead of
the Senators, thereby producing a disparity of compensation.
Furthermore, if the framers of the provision were concerned with
the realities of the term of office of the Senators and that of the
Representatives, more than with the reality of the parity of
compensation, then they should have staggered the effectivity of
entitlement to the increased salary and allowed the first group of
Senators, elected after the approval of the increase, to enjoy such
increase.
ORIGINAL ACTION in the Supreme Court Prohibition.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Roman Ozaeta and Felixberto Serrano for petitioner.
Solicitor General for respondents.
REYES, J.B.L., J.:
The Philippine Constitution Association, a non-stock, non-

profit association duly incorporated and organized under
the laws of the Philippines, and whose members are
Filipino citizens and taxpayers, has filed in this Court
304

a suit against the former Acting Auditor General of the

Philippines and Jose Velasco, Auditor of the Congress of
the Philippines, duly assigned thereto by the Auditor
General as his representative, seeking to permanently
enjoin the aforesaid officials from authorizing or passing in
audit the payment of the increased salaries authorized by
Republic Act No. 4134 (approved June 10, 1964) to the
Speaker and members of the House of Representatives
before December 30, 1969. Subsequently, Ismael Mathay,
present Auditor General, was substituted for Amable M.

Aguiluz, former Acting Auditor General.
Section 1, paragraph 1, of Republic Act No. 4134
provided, inter alia, that the annual salary of the President
of the Senate and of the Speaker of the House of
Representatives shall be P40,000.00 each; that of the
Senators and members of the House of Representatives,
P32,000.00 each (thereby increasing their present
compensation of P16,000.00 and P7,200.00 per annum for
the Presiding officers and members, respectively, as set in
the Constitution), The section expressly provides that "the
salary increases herein fixed shall take effect in accordance
with the provisions of the Constitution". Section 7, of the
same Act provides "that the salary increase of the
President of the Senate and of the Speaker of the House of
Representatives shall take effect on the effectivity of the
salary increase of Congressmen and Senators.
The Appropriation Act (Budget) for the Fiscal Year July
1, 1965, to June 30, 1966 (Republic Act No. 4642) contained
the following items for the House of Representatives:
"SPEAKER
"1. The Speaker of the House of
Representatives at 'f 16,000 from July 1,
to December 29, 1965 and P40,000 from
December 30, 1965 to June 30, 1966 ... P29,129.00
"MEMBERS
"2. One hundred three Members of the
House of Representatives at P7,200 from
July 1, to December 29, 1965 and
P32,000 from December 30, 1965 to
June 30, 1966 2,032,866.00"
305
VOL. 18, OCTOBER 4, 1966 305

while for the Senate the corresponding appropriation items

appear to be:
1. The President of the Senate . P 16,000.00

2. Twenty-three Senators at P7,200 .... 165,600.00.
Thus showing that the 1965-1966 Budget (R.A. No. 4642)

implemented the increase in salary of the Speaker and
members of the House of Representatives set by Republic

Act 4134, approved just the preceding year 1964.
The petitioners contend that such implementation is
violative of Article VI, Section 14, of the Constitution, as
amended in 1940, that provides as follows:
"SEC. 14. The Senators and the Members of the House of

Representatives shall, unless otherwise provided by law, receive
an annual compensation of seven thousand two hundred pesos
each, including per diems and other emoluments or allowances,
and exclusive only of traveling expenses to and from their
respective districts in the case of Members of the House of
Representatives, and to and from their places of residence in the
case of Senators, when attending sessions of the Congress. No
increase in said compensation shall take effect until after the
expiration of the full term of all the Members of the Senate and of
the House of Representatives approving such increase. Until
otherwise provided by law, the President of the Senate and the
Speaker of the House of Representatives shall each receive an
annual compensation of sixteen thousand pesos." (Italics supplied)
The reason given being that the term of the eight senators
elected in 1963, and who took part in the approval of
Republic Act No. 4134, will expire only on December 30,
1969; while the term of the members of the House who
participated in the approval of said Act expired on
December 30, 1965.
From the record we also glean that upon receipt of a
written protest from petitioners (Petition, Annex "A"),
along the lines summarized above, the then Auditor
General requested the Solicitor General to secure a judicial
construction of the law involved (Annex "B"); but the
Solicitor General evaded the issue by suggesting that an
opinion on the matter be sought from the Secretary of
Justice (Annex "C", Petition). Conformably to the
suggestion, the former Acting Auditor General endorsed
the PHILCONSA letter to the Secretary of Justice on
Novem-
306

ber 26, 1965; but on or before January, 1966, and before the
Justice Secretary could act, respondent Aguiluz, as former
Acting Auditor General, directed his representative in
Congress, respondent Velasco, to pass in audit and approve
the payment of the increased salaries within the limits of

the Appropriation Act in force; hence the filing of the
present action.
The answer of respondents pleads first the alleged lack
of personality of petitioners to institute the action, for lack
of showing of injury; and that the Speaker and Members of
the House should be joined parties defendant. On the
merits, the answer alleges that the protested action is in
conformity with the Constitutional provisions, insofar as
present members of the Lower House are concerned, for
they were, elected in 1965, subsequent to the passage of
Republic Act 4184. Their stand, in short, is that the
expiration of the term ...of the members of the House of
Representatives who approved the increase suffices to
make the higher compensation effective for them,
regardless of the term of the members of the Senate.
The procedural points raised by respondent, through
the. Solicitor General, as their counsel, need not give
pause. As taxpayers, the petitioners may bring an action to
restrain officials from wasting public funds through the
enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law (Cf.
PHILCONSA vs. Gimenez, L-28326, December 18, 1965;
Tayabas vs. Perez, 56 Phil. 257; Pascual vs. Secretary of
Public ' Works, L-10405, December 29, 1960; Pelaez vs.
Auditor General, L-23825, December 24, 1965; Iloilo Palay
,& Corn Planters Association vs. Feliciano, L-24022,
March. 3, 1965). Moreover, as stated in 52 Am. Jur., page
5:
'"The rule that a taxpayer can not, in his individual capacity as

such, sue to enjoin an unlawful expenditure or waste of state
funds, is the minority doctrine."
On the alleged non-joinder of the members of the Lower

House of Congress as parties defendants, suffice it to say
that since the acts sought to be enjoined were the
respondents' passing in audit and the approval of the
payment of the Representatives' increased salaries,, and
not the collection or receipt thereof, only respondent
auditors
307
VOL. 18, OCTOBER 4, 1966 307

were indispensable or proper parties defendant to this

action.
These preliminary questions .out of the way, we now

proceed to the main issue:. Does . Section 14, Art. VI, of the
Constitution require that not only the term of all the
members of the House but also that of all the Senators who
approved the increase must have fully expired before the
increase becomes effective? Or, on the contrary, as
respondents contend, does it. allow the payment of the
Increased compensation to the members of the House of
Representatives who were elected after the expiration of
the term of those House members who approved the
increase, regardless of the non-expiration of the terms of
office of the Senators. who, likewise, participated in the
approval of the increase?
It is admitted that the purpose of the provision is to
place "a legal bar to the legislators yielding to the natural
temptation to Increase their salaries. Not that the power to
provide for higher compensation is lacking, but with the
length of time that has to elapse before an increase
becomes effective, there is a deterrent factor to any such
measure unless the need for it is clearly felt" (Taَñada &
Fernando, Constitution of the Philippines, Vol. 2, p. 867).
Significantly, in establishing what might be termed a
Waiting period before the increased compensation for
legislators becomes fully effective, the constitutional
provision refers to "all the members of the Senate and of
the House of Representatives" in the same sentence, as a
single unit, without distinction or separation between
them. This unitary treatment is emphasized by the fact
that the provision speaks of the "expiration of the full term"
of the Senators and Representatives that approved the
measure, using the singular form, and not the plural,
despite the difference in the terms of office (six years for
Senators and four for Representatives thereby rendering
more evident the intent to consider both houses for the
purpose as indivisible components of one single
Legislature. The use of. the word "term" in the singular,
when combined with the following phrase "all the members
of the Senate and of the House", underscores that in the
application
308

of Article VI, Section 14, the fundamental consideration is

that the terms of office of all members of the Legislature
that enacted the measure (whether Senators or
Representatives) must have expired before the increase in

compensation can become operative. Such disregard of the
separate houses, in favor of the whole, accords in turn with
the fact that the enactment of laws rests on the shoulders
of the entire Legislative body; responsibility therefor is not
apportionable between the two chambers.
It is also highly relevant, in the Court's opinion, to note
that, as reported by Aruego (Framing of the Constitution,
Vol. 1, p. 296, et. seq.), the committee on legislative power
in the Constitutional Convention of 1934, before it was
decided that the Legislature should be unicameral in form,
initially recommended that the increase in the
compensation of legislators should not take effect until the
expiration of the term of office of all members of the
Legislature that approved the increase. The report of the
committee read as follows:
"The Senators and Representatives shall receive for their services

an annual compensation of four thousand pesos including per
diems and other emoluments or allowances and exclusive of
travelling expenses to and from their respective residences when
attending sessions of the National Legislature, unless otherwise
fixed by law: Provided, That no increase in this yearly
compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of the
terms of office of all the Members of the Legislature that approved
such increase." (Italics supplied)
The spirit of this restrictive proviso, modified to suit the

final choice of a unicameral legislature, was carried over
and made more rigid in the first draft of the constitutional
provision, which read: "Provided; That any increase in said
compensation shall not take effect until after the expiration
of the term of office of the Members of the National
Assembly who may be elected subsequent to the approval of
such increase." (Aruego, 1, p 297)
As recorded by the Committee on Style, and as finally
approved and enacted, Article VI, section 5, of the
Constitution of the Commonwealth, provided that:
"No increase in said compensation shall take effect until after the
expiration of the full term of the Members of the National
Assembly elected subsequent to the approval of such increase.”
309
VOL. 18, OCTOBER 4, 1966 309

Finally, with the return to bicameralism in the 1940

amendments to our fundamental law, the limitation
assumed its present form: "No increase in said
compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of
the full term of all the Members of the Senate and of the
House of Representatives approving such increase."
It is apparent that throughout its changes of
phraseology the plain spirit of the restriction has not been
altered. From the first proposal of the committee on the
legislative power of the 1934 Convention down to the
present, the intendment of the clause has been to require
expiration of the full term of all members of the Legislature
that approved the higher compensation, whether the
Legislature be unicameral or bicameral, in order to
circumvent, as far as possible, the influence of self-interest
in its adoption.
The Solicitor General argues on behalf of the
respondents that if the framers of the 1940 amendments to
the Constitution had intended to require the expiration of
the terms not only of the Representatives but also of the
Senators who approved the increase, they would have just
used the expression "term of all the members of the
Congress" instead of specifying "all the members of the
Senate and of the House". This is a distinction without a
difference, since the Senate and the House together
constitute the Congress or Legislature. We think that the
reason for specifying the component chambers was rather
the desire to emphasize the transition from a unicameral to
a bicameral legislature as a result of the 1940 amendments
to the Constitution.
It is also contended that there is significance in the use
of the words "of the" before "House" in the provision being
considered, and in the use of the phrase "of the Senate and
of the House” when it could have employed the shorter
expression "of the Senate and the House", It was
grammatically correct to refer to "the members of the
Senate and (the members) of the House", because the
members of the Senate are not members of the House. To
speak of ''members of the Senate and the House" would
imply that the members of the Senate also held
membership in the House.
310

The argument that if the intention was to require that the

term of office of the Senators, as well as that of the
Representatives, must all expire the Constitution would
have spoken of the "terms" (in the plural) "of the members
of the Senate and of the House", instead of using "term" in
the singular (as the Constitution does in section 14 of
Article VI), has been already considered. As previously
observed, the use of the singular form "term" precisely
emphasizes that in the provision in question the
Constitution envisaged both legislative chambers as one
single unit, and this conclusion is reinforced by the
expression employed, "until the expiration of the full term
of ALL the members of the Senate and of the House of
Representatives approving such increase".
It is finally urged that to require the expiration of the
full term of the Senators before the effectivity of the
increased compensation would subject the present
members of the House of Representatives to the same
restrictions as under the Constitution prior to its
amendment. It may well be wondered whether this was
not, in fact, the design of the framers of the 1940
constitutional amendments. For under either the original
limitation or the present one, as amended, as maximum
delay of six (6) years and a minimum of four (4) is
necessary before an increase of legislators' compensation
can take effect.
If that increase. were approved in. the session
immediately following '-an election, two assemblymen's
terms, of '2 years each., had to elapse under the former
limitation in order that the increase could become
operative, because the original Constitution required that
the new emolument should operate only after expiration of
the term of assemblymen elected subsequently to those who
approved it (Art. VI, sec. 5), and an assemblyman's term
was then '2 years only. Under the Constitution, as
amended. the same interval obtains, since Senators hold
office for six (6) years.
On the other hand, if the increase of compensation were
approved by the legislature on its last session just prior to
an election, the delay is. reduced to four (4) years under the
original restriction, because to the last year
311
VOL. 18, OCTOBER 4, 1966 311

of the term of the approving assemblymen the full 3-year

term of their successors must be added. Once again an
identical period must elapse under the 1940 amendment:
because one-third of the Senators are elected every two
years, so that just before a given election four of the
approving Senators' 'f ull six-year term still remain to run.
To illustrate: if under the original Constitution the
assemblymen elected in, say, 1935 were to approve an
increase of pay in the 1936 sessions, the new pay would not
be effective until after the expiration of the term of the
succeeding assemblymen elected in 1938; i.e., the increase
would not be payable until December 30, 1941, six years
after 1935. Under the present Constitution, if the higher
pay were approved in 1964 with the participation of
Senators elected in 1963, the same would not be collectible
until December 30, 1969, since the said Senators' term
would expire on the latter date.
But if the assemblymen elected in 1935 (under the
original Constitution) were to approve the increase in
compensation, not in 1936 but in 1938 (the last of their 3-
year term), the new compensation would still operate on
December 30, 1941, four years later, since the term of
assemblymen elected in November of 1938 (subsequent to
the approval of the increase) would end in December 30,
1941.
Again, under the present Constitution, if the increase is
approved in the 1965 sessions immediately preceding the
elections in November of that year, the higher
compensation would be operative only on December 30,
1969, also four years later, because the most recently
elected members of the Senate would then be Senators
chosen by the electors in November of 1963, and their term
would not expire until December 30, 1969.
This coincidence of minimum and maximum delays
under the original and the amended constitution can not be
just due to accident, and is proof that the intent and spirit
of the Constitutional restriction on Congressional salaries
has been maintained unaltered. ' But whether designed or
not, it shows how unfounded is the argument that by
requiring members of the present House to await the
expiration of the term of the Senators, who concurred
312

in approving the increase in compensation, they are placed

in a worse position than under the Constitution as
originally written.
The reason for the minimum interval of four years is
plainly to discourage the approval of increases of
compensation just before an election by legislators who can
anticipate their reelection with more or less accuracy. This
salutary precaution should not be nullified by resorting to
technical and involved interpretation of the constitutional
mandate.
In resumé, the Court agrees with petitioners that the
increased compensation provided by Republic Act No. 4134
is not operative until December 30, 1969, when the full
term of all members of the Senate and House that
approved it on June 20, 1964 will have expired.
Consequently, appropriations for such increased
compensation may not be disbursed until December 30,
1969. In so far as Republic Act No. 4642 (1965-1966
Appropriation Act) authorizes the disbursement of the
increased compensation prior to the date aforesaid, it also
violates the Constitution and must be held null and void.
In view of the foregoing, the writ of prohibition prayed
for is hereby granted, and the items of the .Appropriation
Act for the fiscal year 1965-1966 (Republic Act No. 4642)
purporting to authorize the disbursement of the increased
compensation to members of the Senate and the House of
Representatives even prior to December 30, 1969 are
declared void, as violative of Article VI, section 14, of the
Constitution of the 'Republic of the Philippines; and the
respondents, the Auditor General and the Auditor of the
Congress of the Philippines, are prohibited and enjoined
from approving and passing in audit any disbursements of
the increased compensation authorized by Republic Act No.
4134 for Senators and members of the House of
Representatives, before December 30, 1969. No costs.
We concur in the foregoing opinion and in the concurring
opinions of Justices Bengzon, Zaldivar and Castro.
Concepcion, C.J., Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal
and Sanchez, JJ., concur.
313
VOL. 18, OCTOBER 4, 1966 313

BENGZON, J.P., J., concurring:
Fully concurring- with the ponencia of Justice J.B.L. Reyes,

I, should like only to mention a few thoughts related to
some points contained therein.
As stated in the majority opinion, it is argued by
respondents that if it was intended that the increase
should take effect at the same time, the provision of the
Constitution could have been phrased as follows:
expiration of the full term of all the Members of the Congress
approving such increase."
They maintain that in specifying "the Senate" and "the

House" instead of just using the words "the Congress" the
body obviously considered that inasmuch as the terms of
the Representatives and Senators under the legislature
provided for, would not necessarily coincide, the effective
date of the increased salary of the Representatives could
also be different from that of the Senators.
The fact that "Congress" is not used in the provision in
question, in my opinion, is rather an argument for the
petitioner herein. "Congress" is not used, obviously because
after every four years the Congress is dissolved. On the
other hand, the term of a member of the Senate, being six
years, goes beyond the duration of one Congress and
extends to that of the next Congress. In other words, while
the term of the members of the House of Representatives
coincides with the lifetime of the Congress, the term of a
member of the Senate goes beyond the existence of one
Congress,
The Constitution, instead, uses (1) "Senate" and "House
of Representatives" and (2) adds "all" before "the Members",
clearly intending that no increase in the compensation
therein provided for shall take effect until after the
expiration of the term of the most junior among the
members of the Senate at the time the increase was
approved. Precisely, therefore, because the Constitution
speaks of "Senate" and "House of Representatives" instead
of "Congress", the prohibition against effectivity continues
even after the end of the Congress which approved the
measure and, which amounts to the same thing, even after
the end of the term of the members of the
314

House of Representatives approving the increase. In

specifying "the expiration of the full term of all the
Members of the Senate and of the House of
Representatives approving such increase", the Constitution
leaves no doubt that until after the condition is met as to
the Senate, no increase in the compensation laid down for
Senators, and Representatives shall take effect.
It is also contended by respondents, that the
Constitution in using "term" instead of "terms" shows the
clear intention to consider the "term" of the Senators
independently from that of the Representatives, The
contention is untenable. The provision clearly uses "term"
in the general sense. For, otherwise, even in referring to
members of the Senate alone, it should have used "terms"
since the Senators had originally different terms of office
(two, four and six years), as provided for in Section '2 of
Article VI of the Constitution, a provision contemporaneous
with the one involved herein. Yet just the 'same, the
Constitution uses the word "term" (singular) to cover all
these different terms of office,
I, am of the opinion therefore that no other course is
open to the Supreme Court in this case but to apply the
provision of the Constitution restricting the increase of
salaries of Senators and Representatives by subjecting it to
a period of waiting. To forestall the view that the Supreme
Court thereby offends equity, because the other
Constitutional officers—including the members of said
Court—are already receiving their increased salaries under
Republic Act No. 4134, suffice it to bear in mind that it was
within the hands of the legislators themselves if they had
so desired, to have provided that the salary increases of the
aforesaid other Constitutional officers take effect at the
same time as their own. In other words, if they had thought
it would be inequitable to grant salary increases to others
before they could receive their own salary increase—an
argument which, I, am glad to note, has not been advanced
—they could have easily provided that the salary increases
therein given be effective December 30, 1969, as in their
case.
I, consequently reiterate my concurrence.
315
VOL. 18, OCTOBER 4, 1966 315

ZALDIVAR, J., concurring:
During the third regular session of the Fifth Congress of

the Republic of the Philippines House Bill No. 6190 was
approved, and this bill was signed into law on June 20,
1964 by the President of the Philippines and became
Republic Act No. 4134.
Section 1, paragraph A of Republic Act 4134 provides,
among others, that the annual salary of the President of
the Senate and of the Speaker of the House of
Representatives shall be forty thousand pesos, and that of
the Senators and Members of the House of Representatives
shall be thirty-two thousand pesos each. The paragraph
ends with this sentence: "The salary increases herein fixed
shall take effect in accordance with the provisions of the
Constitution."
The pertinent provision of the Constitution as far as the
effectivity of any law increasing the compensation of the
Senators and Members of the House of Representatives is
concerned reads, as follows:
"x x x No increase in said compensation shall take effect until

after the expiration of the full term of all the Members of the
Senate and of the House of Representatives approving such
increase. x x x" (Article VI, Section 14 of the Constitution) :
Inasmuch as House Bill No. 6190 was passed during the

third regular session of the Fifth Congress of the
Philippines, in 1964, said bill was approved by the House of
Representatives whose members were elected in the
elections of November, 1961 and whose term of office would
expire on December 29, 1965; and by the Senate whose
membership was composed of: eight Senators who were
elected in November, 1959 and whose term would expire on
December 29, 1965; eight Senators who were elected in
November, 1961 and whose term would expire on
December 29, 1967; and eight Senators who were elected in
November, 1963 whose. term would expire on December 29,
1969.
Mr. Justice J.B.L. Reyes, writing the opinion of the
Court in the case now before Us, interpreting the effectivity
clause in paragraph A, Section 1) of Republic Act 4134 in
relation to the pertinent provision of Article VI, Sec-
316

tion 14, of the Constitution, herein-above quoted, says that

the increased compensation provided by Republic Act 4134
for the Senators and Members of the House of
Representatives will not take effect until December 30,
1969. I, concur with this opinion because it will not be until
December 29, 1969 when the full term of all the Members
of the Senate and of the House of Representatives that
approved the increase in 1964 would expire. And I, also
agree with the opinion that in so 'f ar as Republic Act No.
4642 (Appropriation Law for the fiscal year 1965-1966)
authorizes the disbursement of the increased compensation
for the Members of the House of Representatives prior to
December 30, 1960 violates the Constitution and must be
held null and void.
My opinion in this regard is based upon a personal
knowledge of how the constitutional proviso, Article VI,
Section 14 of the Constitution, which is now in question,
became a part of our present Constitution. It was the
Second National Assembly which amended our original
Constitution. I, was a humble Member of the Second
National Assembly, representing the province of Antique.
The three important amendments that were
incorporated in our Constitution by the Second National
Assembly in 1940 were the provisions regarding (1) the
establishment of a bicameral legislature composed of a
House of Representatives and a Senate, to take the place of
the then existing unicameral legislature known as the
National Assembly; (2) the change in the term of the office
of the President of the Philippines, and the Vice-President,
which formerly was for a period of six years, to that of four
years, with the proviso that no person shall serve as
President for more than eight consecutive years; and (3)
the creation of the Commission on Elections.
It is regrettable that the deliberations of the Second
National Assembly on the 1940 amendments to the
Constitution were mostly done in caucuses behind closed
doors, and the discussions were not recorded. It was during
the first special sessions of the Second National Assembly
in September, 1939 when discussions on proposed
amendments to the Constitution were held. It was only
after the proposed amendments had been approved in
317
VOL. 18, OCTOBER 4, 1966 317

caucuses when the amendments were embodied in a

resolution and submitted to the National Assembly in open
session. The amendments as approved in caucuses were
embodied in Resolution No. 38 and adopted on September
15, 1939. However, during the second regular sessions in
1940 Resolution No. 38 was amended by Resolution No. 73
which was adopted on April 11, 1940. That is how the
amendments came to be known as the 1940 Amendments.
Those amendments were approved in a plebiscite that was
held on June 18, 1940.
I, still have vivid recollections of the important points
brought up during the deliberations in caucus over
proposed amendments and of the agreements arrived at. I,
remember too the influences that worked, and the
pressures that were brought to bear upon the
Assemblymen, in the efforts to bring about agreements on
very controversial matters and thus secure the insertion of
the desired amendments to the Constitution. The
discussions on the proposed amendments affecting the
legislative branch of the government were specially of
interest to us then because we were in some way personally
affected, as most of us were interested in running for
reelection.
It is not my purpose here to impose on anyone my
recollections of matters that were brought up during our
caucuses then, but I, only wish to emphasize the fact that
my concurring opinion in the decision of the case now
before Us has for its basis my honest and best recollections
of what had transpired, or what had been expressed,
during the caucuses held by the Members of the Second
National Assembly in the deliberations which later brought
about the 1940 amendments,
I, distinctly remember that the proposed amendment to
change the legislature from unicameral to that of
bicameral, just as the proposal to change the term of office
of the President from six years without reelection to that of
four years with one reelection, at first met very strong
opposition by a considerable group of Assemblymen. But
somehow the opposition was finally subdued; so to say. In
the case of the legislature, the basic idea of having two
chambers of the legislature -—one chamber serving as a
check to the other -—was accepted. It was
318

then considered as a wise idea to have the Senate as the

upper chamber, to be composed of members who would be
elected at large, and it was expected that those who would
be elected to the Senate would be men of national prestige;
prestigious because of their known integrity, in their record
and experience as a public servant, or in their prominence
as a successful member of his profession. lt was even said,
then, that the Senate would be a training ground for future
Presidents of the nation. And so, when it was agreed that a
bicameral legislature would be provided in the
Constitution, the next matter that had to be considered
was the tenure of office of the members of each of the two
chambers of the legislature, As far as the terms of the
members of the lower chamber, to be known as the House
of Representatives, there was no disagreement over the
idea that their term be for a period of 'f our years, to
coincide with the term of the President. But as far as the
term of office of the members of the upper chamber, to be
known. as the Senate, there was at first a divergence of
opinion. There was a group that supported the idea that
the term of the members of the upper chamber be four
years, similar to that of the House of Representatives, so
that in the national elections that would take place every
four years there would be elections for President, Vice-
President, and all the members of the Congress of the
Philippines. However, there was a very strong advocacy on
the part of top political leaders at that time that the Senate
should be made a continuing body, such that the complete
membership of that chamber should not be elected during
the national elections that would take place every four
years.
Finally, it was agreed that the members of the Senate,
which was decided to be composed of twenty-four, would
have a term of six years, one-third of which number would
be elected every two years. The idea of having elections of
one-third of the membership of the Senate was adjusted. to
the situation that in between two national elections there
were the elections for local officials. The question regarding
the term of office of the Members of the first Senate to be
elected under the Constitution as amended was settled by
inserting a proviso that the
319
VOL. 18, OCTOBER 4, 1966 319

first senators elected should, in the manner provided by

law, be divided equally into three groups: the senators of
the first group to serve for a term of six years, those of the
second group to serve for a term of four years, and those of
the third group for a term of two years (Article VI, Section
3). And for the purposes of the-first elections under the
amended Constitution Commonwealth Act No. 666 was
enacted by the National Assembly providing, as far as the
first Senate was concerned, that "The Senate shall, within
ten days after it shall have been organized with the
election of its President, determine by lot which of the
elected Senators shall belong to the group who shall serve
six years,' which to the group who shall serve for four
years, and which to the group which shall serve for two
years." (Section 9, Com. Act No. 666)
When the matter regarding the compensation of the
members of both chambers came up for the deliberation,
there were proposals that the Senators be given more
compensation than the Members of the House of
Representatives, and a number of proposals were presented
regarding the amount of compensation that would be paid;
to the Senators or to the Representatives, as the case may
be. This matter was the subject of long discussions. It was
finally agreed that the amount of compensation for the
Senators and for the Members of the House of
Representatives be the same, and it was fixed at P7,200.00
per annum each, including per diems and other
emoluments, exclusive only of travelling expenses in going
to and returning from the sessions. There was an increase
of P2,200.00 over-, the P5,000.00 per annum that the
Members of the National Assembly were receiving at the
time. It is thus seen that in the matter of compensation the
sense of the Members of the Second National Assembly
who amended the Constitution in 1940 was to provide for
an equal compensation for the Members of the Senate and
to the Members of the House of Representatives,
When the matter regarding the increase in the
compensation of the Senators and of the Representatives
came up for consideration, there was unanimity among the
Assemblymen in support of the idea that members of the
320

Congress of the Philippines may approve a law increasing

their compensation, but that no Member of the House of
Representatives or of the Senate that approved the law

increasing the compensation should receive the increased
compensation during their term of office when the increase
was approved. I, remember that the question as to when
the increase of compensation as approved by the Members
of the Congress of the Philippines should take effect was
the subject of a prolonged and heated discussion. Many
Members of the National Assembly wanted to continue
with the provision of Article VI, Section 5, of the original
Constitution that "No increase in said compensation shall
take effect until after the expiration of the full term of the
Members of the National Assembly elected subsequent to
the approval of such increase." I, have taken note that no
less than eighteen members of the Second National
Assembly in 1940 were members, of the 1934 constitutional
convention that drafted the original Constitution, and it
was this group of Assemblymen that were zealous in
maintaining the idea that one full term of a member of the
legislature subsequent to the approval of the increase in
compensation should be made to lapse before the increase
shall take effect. But this idea could not be insisted upon
because while that was feasible in the case of Members of
the National Assembly which was a unicameral body, that
idea could not be adopted in a bicameral body where the
term of office of the members of one chamber was not the
same as that of the members of the other chamber. I, recall
that it was finally agreed to simply adopt the constitutional
precept that no Senator or Member of the House of
Representatives may receive any increase in compensation,
as approved by the House and the Senate of a particular
Congress, bef ore the expiration of the term of all the
members of the House of Representatives and of the Senate
that approved the increase, Inasmuch as the term of the
Members of the House of Representatives is shorter than
that of the Senators, it was understood that the expiration
of the term of the Members of the Senate that approved the
increase should be awaited before the increase in
compensation would take effect. As finally worded by the
Committee on Style of the Assembly,
321
VOL. 18, OCTOBER 4, 1966 321

and that Committee on Style was headed by the illustrious

and indefatigable Assemblyman Gregorio Perfecto, who
later became a worthy member of this Court, that
constitutional precept which became part of Section 14,

Article VI of the amended Constitution was worded as
follows:
expiration of the full term of all the Members of the Senate and of
the House of Representatives approving such increase."
It should be noted that the above-quoted portion of Section

14, Article VI of the Constitution talks of the "expiration of
the full term of all the Members" then followed by the
words "of the Senate and of the House of Representatives
approving such increase/' This proviso contemplates not the
Representatives or the Senators who voted in favor of the
increase, but the Senate and the House of Representatives
as a body that approved the increase. And so, because the
understanding of the amending Assemblymen was that the
effectiveness of the increase should take place after the
expiration of the term of the Senators with the Iongest
term among the Members of the Senate that approved the
increase the constitutional proviso was so worded "shall
take effect until after the full term of all the members of
the Senate and of the House of Representatives approving
such increase." It will be noted that this Section 14 starts -
'with using the words "Senators and Members of the House
of Representatives" in referring to the compensation to be
received by each. They are considered individually. But in
the matter of determining the time when the increase is to
take effect they are considered as collective by the use of
the phrase "all the Members of the Senate and of the House
of Representatives approving such increase." The use of the
word all includes every Member of the Senate and of the
House of Representatives, regardless of whether or not he
or she voted affirmatively for the increase. It is the House
and the Senate that approved the increase. And so because
the effectiveness of the increase depends on the expiration
of the term of all the members of both chambers it stands to
reason that all the members of the two chambers were
taken into consi-
322

deration, and because when the increase was approved by

the Senate and the House of Representatives there were
members, of the Senate whose term of office was longer
than. that. of. some other Members of the Senate and of the
Members. of -the House of Representatives it is the term of
the Senators which was the longest that should first expire
before the increase should take effect. That is how I,
understood then that portion of Section 14, Article VI of the
Constitution, and I, sincerely believe that that was also
how most if not all of my colleagues understood it.
The question precisely was raised whether under that
constitutional proviso, as above-quoted, the Members of the
House of Representatives who are elected during the
elections subsequent to the approval of the increase by the
Congress of the Philippines could receive the increased
compensation inasmuch as the term of those Members of
the House that had approved the increase had already
expired. I, remember that it was the understanding of the
Members of the National Assembly that those members of
the House of Representatives who would be elected
subsequent to the approval of such increase could not
immediately receive the increased compensation as
approved during the preceding Congress; and neither could
the eight Senators who would be elected along with those
Representatives in the same elections. To allow those
newly elected Representatives and Senators to receive the
increased compensation would give rise to a situation
whereby the Members of the House of Representatives and
eight Senators would be receiving a compensation higher
than that received by at least sixteen Members of the
Senate, including the President of the Senate, as the case
might happen. That would be inconsistent with the basic
idea adopted by the Members of the National Assembly
that the compensation of the Members of the House of
Representatives and those of the Senate should be the
same; and it is only logical that when we say that the
compensation of the Members of the House and of the
Members of the Senate is the same, that compensation
should be the same not only in amount but also at the same
time within their respective terms of office.
323
VOL. 18, OCTOBER 4, 1966 323

It was envisaged by the Members of the National Assembly

that the salary increase, under the constitutional proviso
now in question, would become effective after the lapse of
two years, or four years, as the case may be, after the
commencement of the term of office of those Members of
the House of Representatives that are elected in the

elections subsequent to the approval of the increase. In the
case of the lapse of four years, which we have just stated, it
would mean that it would be the Members of the House of
Representatives who would be elected in the second
elections subsequent to the approval of the increase who
would receive the increased compensation.
As I, have stated, it was the sense of the Members of the
Second National Assembly that approved the constitutional
amendment in 1940 that the increase in the compensation
for Members of the House of Representatives and of the
Senate would take effect only until after the expiration of
the full term of the senators who were Members of the
Senate that approved the incr It is my recollection that the
main idea of the Members of the National Assembly in
adopting the proviso in question was to maintain the
equality of the compensation of the Members of the House
of Representatives and of the Senate at all times.
Three situations were anticipated to happen by the
amending Assemblymen under the constitutional proviso in
question:
1. This is the first situation. Let us take the case of the
First Congress of the Philippines which was elected in
November, 1941 already under the Constitution as
amended in 1940. This Congress was composed of a House
of Representatives whose members were elected for a term
of (4 years, to expire on December 29, 1945; and of a Senate
composed of eight Senators with a term of 6, years to expire
on December 29, 1947; eight senators with a term of (4
years to expire on December 29, 1945, and eight senators
with a term of :& years to expire on December 29, 1943.
If a law increasing the compensation of Members of
Congress was passed during the sessions of 1942,
supposing that there was no war, the increase would take
324

effect on December 30, 1947, after the expiration of the

term of the eight senators who were elected in the elections
in November, 1941 who served for a term of six years. The
term of the eight senators who were elected in 1941 and
who would have served for only two years would have
expired on December 29, 1943; and the term of the eight
senators who would have served for four years would have
expired on December 29, 1945. The term (4 years) of the
Representatives who were elected in November, 1941

would also have expired on December 29, 1945. But in
November, 1943 elections for eight senators who would
serve for a regular term of 6, years would have taken place;
and likewise elections for a full House of Representatives
and for another set of senators to serve for a full term of six
years would have taken place in November, 1945. If the
war did not upset the national affairs a new Congress
would have convened in January, 1946, already composed
of a House of Representatives and a Senate whose
members would all have been elected for a term of six years
each.
So, on December 80, 1947 when the increase in the
compensation would take effect, the increased
compensation would be uniformly enjoyed by all members
of Congress (Senators and Representatives alike)—those
Senators who were elected in the 1943, 1945 and 1947
elections, and by the Members of the House of
Representatives who were elected in the 1945 elections.
Under that situation, the Members of the House of
Representatives who were elected in 1945 would have
waited for two years before they could receive the increased
compensation that was approved in the 1942 sessions of
Congress. And this is so, because it is on December 29,
1947, when the sixyear term of the eight Senators who
were Members of the Senate that approved the increased
compensation in 1942 (along with the then existing House
of Representatives) had expired.
2. Now let us take the second situation. Let us take the
case of a Congress that is normally constituted. When I,
say "normally constituted" I, mean a Congress composed of
a House of Representatives whose members had been
elected for a term of four years, and a Senate that
325
VOL. 18, OCTOBER 4, 1966 325

is composed of Members who had each been elected 'f or a

term of six years, although at different elections, as
provided in the Constitution.
We make the Third Congress of the Republic of the
Philippines as an example. This Congress covered the
period of four years from January, 1954 to December, 1957,
inclusive. During the first two years (or two regular
sessions) this Congress was composed of the House of
Representatives whose members were elected in the
elections of November, 1953 and whose term would expire

on December 29, 1957; and twenty-four senators: eight who
were elected in November, 1953 whose term would expire
on December 29, 1959; eight who were elected in
December 29, 1957; and eight who were elected in
December 29, 1955.
If a law increasing the salary is passed, say in the first
regular session of the Third Congress in May, 1954, then
the increase provided for in this law would take effect on
December 30, 1959. Why ? Because that law was approved
by the House of Representatives (the term of whose
members ended on December 29, 1957) and by a Senate at
least eight of whose members were elected in November,
1953 and whose term of' office would expire on December
29, 1959. That means that the members of the House of
Representatives who were elected in the elections of
November, 1957 (many of whom may be members of the
Third Congress who voted for the law in May, 1954) would
have to wait for two years before they could receive the
increased compensation. In other words, beginning
December 30, 1959, the Members of the House of
Representatives and all the Members of the Senate (those
elected in the 1955, 1957 and 1959 elections) would all be
uniformly getting the increased salary.
3. Let us take the third situation. We still use the Third
Congress of the Republic of the Philippines as an example.
Let us suppose that the law increasing the compensation
was passed in the third regular session of the Third
Congress in May, 1956. This time the Third Congress is
composed of the same members of the House of
Representatives who were elected in November, 1953,
326

but the Senate has a different composition. The Senate

would already be composed of eight new Senators who were
elected during the elections of November, 1955 and whose
term of office would expire on December 29, 1961, the
remaining eight Senators elected in 1953 and eight
Senators who were elected in 1951. If the law increasing
the compensation is passed during the regular session of
1956 this law would be approved by the House of
Representatives and by the Senate that had eight new
members whose term would expire on December 29, 1961.

Since the term of these new eight Senators would expire on
December 29, 1961, then the increased compensation would
take effect on December 30, 1961.
In November, 1957 there were elections and a new
House of Representatives was then elected, and the term of
office of the members of the new House would expire on
December 29, 1961. Likewise, a new set of eight Senators
were elected whose term would expire on December 29,
1963. Those Members of the House of Representatives who
were elected in November, 1957, among whom perhaps
were Representatives who voted for the increase during the
1956 sessions, would not enjoy the increased compensation
because their term would expire on December 29, 1961—
the very same date of the termination of the term of the
eight Senators who were elected in 1955 and who were
Members of the Senate that approved the increase during
the session of 1956. In this case the increased
compensation would be received by the Members of the
House of Representatives who were elected in the elections
of November, 1961, along; with the Senators who were
elected in November, 1961 and the remaining Senators who
were elected in 1959 and 1957. They would all be receiving
the same compensation and at the same time while they are
in office during. the term for which they were elected.
As far as the House of Representatives is concerned, the
situation as portrayed in this third case is the same
situation as that which was contemplated by the framers of
the original Constitution of 1935 when it was provided in
the Constitution as adopted that the increase in salary
should not take effect "until after the expiration of the
327
VOL. 18, OCTOBER 4, 1966 327

full term of the Members of the National Assembly elected

subsequent to the approval of such increase." In the
example we have given, the increase in salaries of the
Members of the House of Representatives which was
approved by the Members of the House in the third regular
session of the Third Congress did not take effect until after
the expiration of the full term of the Members of the House
who were elected subsequent to the approval of such
increase,
The case now before Us is similar to Case No. '2 that we
have portrayed above. Republic Act 4134 was approved
during the regular session of the Fifth Congress of the

Republic of the Philippines in May, 1964 and signed into
law by the President on June 20, 1964. As I, have stated
earlier, the increase provided in- this law was approved by
the House of Representatives whose members were elected
in November, 1961, and whose term of office expired on
December 29, 1965; and by the Senate composed of eight
Senators who were elected in November, 1963 whose term
would expire on December 29, 19619, eight Senators who
were elected in November, 1961 whose term would expire
on December 29, 1967, and eight Senators who were
elected in November, 1959 whose term had expired on
December 29, 1965. Inasmuch as the increase would take
effect at the expiration of the term of the Senators who
were elected in November, 1963—which is on December 29,
1969—the Members of the present House of
Representatives cannot receive this increased
compensation during their present term of office. It will be
the Members of the House of Representatives who will be
elected in November, 1969, along with the Senators elected
in 1965, 1967 and 1969, who will receive this increased
compensation. They will then all be receiving the same
compensation during the time that they are in office.
I, have endeavored to make a discourse of facts as 1.
know them, because I, sincerely believe that the
interpretation embodied in the opinion penned by my
esteemed colleague, Mr. Justice J.B.L. Reyes, of the
pertinent provision of Article VI, Section 14 of our
Constitution is in consonance with the facts and
circumstances as I, remember them, and as I, know them.
As I, have stated at the
328

early part of this concurring opinion, it is not my purpose to

impose on anyone my recollection of what transpired, or of
what had been discussed about, or of what had been agreed
upon, by the Members of the Second National Assembly
during the deliberations which brought about the 1940
amendments to our Constitution. My perception and my
memory are as frail as those of any other human being, and
I may have incurred myself in error. It just happened that
the facts and the circumstances that I, have herein
narrated, as I, remember them, have engendered in my
mind an opinion, nay a conviction, which dovetails with the
opinion of my illustrious colleague that has penned the

opinion for the majority of the Court in this case.
CASTRO, J., concurring:
Republic Act 4134, increasing the salary of all the members

of Congress, was approved on June 20, 1964. In the light of
the constitutional prohibition or limitation embodied in
section 14 of article. VI of the Constitution, when does such
increase in salary take effect? Shall effectivity be this year
1966 for the members of the. House of Representatives,
considering that the full term of the members thereof who
participated in the approval of the salary increase has
expired? Even if the full terms of all the members of the
Senate, as composed in 1964, have not expired? Or shall
effectivity be only on December 30, 1969, after the
expiration of the full term of the senators elected in 1963?
I, fully adhere to and support the position taken by my
esteemed brethren, Justices J.B.L. Reyes, Jose P. Bengzon
and Calixto Zaldivar. Their thoroughgoing treatment of the
issue effectively exploits logical, historical and empirical
considerations leading quite inevitably to the firm
conclusion that the salary increase provided for by
Congress in 1964 can take eff ect, for any and all members
of Congress, only after the expiration of the full term of the
senators elected in 1963, that is to say, only after December
29, 1969.
There is, however, a vital aspect of the problem that, in
my view, requires not only projection but emphasis
329
VOL. 18, OCTOBER 4, 1966 329

as well. This is the language of the pertinent constitutional

prohibition or limitation which by itself forcefully compels
the very conclusion arrived at by the majority of the Court.
We cannot. overemphasize the essential role of
language. It is one of the distinctive qualities of man,
especially of modern thinking man. Man does feel and
analyze his intellectual and material experiences; but more
than this he has the ability to articulate, and through
articulation he manages synthesis and brings forth the
creation and evolution of culture, literature, science and
law. In the process, the unceasing effort is to say what is
meant and to mean what is said.
How, then, is the constitutional prohibition or limitation

on congressional salary increases stated? "No increase in
said compensation shall take effect until after the
expiration of the full term of all the members of the Senate
and of the House of Representatives approving such
increase." This statement has a literal message of striking
clarity. The phrase "No increase in said compensation shall
take effect" establishes the character of the provision as a
prohibition or limitation, as can be seen from the
unqualified words "no increase". The words "until after the
expiration of the full term" impart the period of time
during which the prohibition or limitation operates, after
which period the increase in compensation can take effect.
Whose full term must first expire before the increase can
take effect? It is the full term "of the members of the
Senate and of the House of Representatives approving such
increase." The immediate as well as lasting impact of these
words is that what must first expire is the full term of the
members of both houses of Congress approving the
increase. It cannot be the full term of the members of either
house, nor yet the full term of the members of the Senate or
that of the members of the House of Representatives.
The key word is the particle "and". "And" is a
conjunction pertinently defined as meaning "together
with," "joined with" (Funk and Wagnalls New Standard
Dictionary of the English Language, p. 105); ""along or
together with," "added to or linked to," used to conjoin
330

Philippine Constitution. Association, Inc. vs. Mathay
word with word, phrase with phrase, clause with clause

(Webster's New International Dictionary, p. ,.98). The word
"and" does not,mean -"or"; it is a conjunction used to denote
a joinder or union, "binding together," "relating the one to
the other" (See '2 Words and Phrases, 569-571.).
As understood from the common and usual meaning of
the conjunction "and," the expiration of the full term of all
the members of the Senate is inseparable from the
expiration of the full term of all the members of the House
of Representatives, From the perspective of semantics, it is
undeniably perceived that those who framed the
constitutional provision, when they utilized the word "and,"
stated what they meant and meant what they stated.
There is to be sure, a specific rule of interpretation that
would allow "or" to be interchanged with, “and,” in which
event a negation of the concept of joinder would ensue. But

this is the exception rather than the general rule. The
exception is resorted to only when a literal interpretation
would pervert the plain intention of the writer or
draftsman as gleaned from the overall context of the
writing and/or from external factors. This does not obtain
in the provision under discussion. Indeed, a departure from
the general rule and a resort to the exception would pervert
section 14 of article VI. Note the parity of compensation of
the senators and the members of the House of
Representatives. If the expiration of the full term of the
members of the Senate would be considered as separable
from the expiration of the full term of the members of the
House of Representatives, despite the conjunction "and,"
then the result would be to allow members of the House of
Representatives to enjoy the increase in compensation
ahead of the senators, thereby producing a disparity of
compensation; Furthermore, if the framers of the provision
were concerned with the realities of the term of office of the
senators and that of the representatives, more than with
the reality of the parity of compensation, then they should
have staggered the effectivity of entitlement to the
increased salary and allowed the first group of senators
elected after the approval of the increase to enjoy such
increase.
331
VOL. 18, OCTOBER 15, 1966 331

Cordero vs. Gonda
The prohibition or limitation may be stated elsewise: 'The

full terms of all the members of the Senate and of the
House of Representatives approving such increase must
first expire before an increase in compensation can take
effect." Would the literal meaning of the provision still be
in doubt?
The framers of the constitutional provision under
discussion certainly were not wanting of competent legal
stylists. With such more reason, then, must they be
regarded as having achieved a unity of intention,
statement and meaning. These experienced stylists could
have so easily phrased the provision differently to conform
to a different intention. For example, it could have been: "x
x x until after the expiration of the full term of all the
members of the Senate or of the House of Representatives
approving such increase, as the case may be." But this was
not done, and we cannot deviate from what able stylists

have plainly stated in plain language.
Concepcion, C.J., Barrera, Dizon, Regala,

Makalintal and Sanchez, JJ., concur.
Writ of prohibition granted.
Note.—In Philippine Constitution Association, Inc. vs.

Gimenez, L-23326, Dec. 18, 1965, the right of the Philconsa
to institute an action for prohibition for the purpose of
testing the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 3836,
which appropriates retirement benefits for Senators and
Congressmen, was upheld. That law was declared
unconstitutional as being in contravention of section 14,
Article VI of the Constitution and being in violation of the
equal protection clause.
_____________
© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

3 Philconsa v. Mathay - 18 SCRA 300

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3 Philconsa v. Mathay - 18 SCRA 300

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3 Philconsa v. Mathay - 18 SCRA 300

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/9/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 018

300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

No. L-25554. October 4, 1966.

PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Constitutional law; Taxpayers may bring action to restrain

members of the Senate and of the House of Repre-sentatives" in

VOL. 18, OCTOBER 4, 1966 301

Philippine Constitution Association, Inc. vs. Mathay

BENGZON, J.P., J., concurring:

Constitutional law; Legislative department; Increase in

instead of "Congress," the prohibition against effectivity continues

ZALDIVAR, J., concurring:

Constitutional law; Increase of compensation of Senators and

302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Philippine Constitution Association, Inc. vs. Mathay

approved the constitutional amendment in 1940 was to provide

affirmatively for the increase. Since there were members of the

CASTRO. J., concurring:

Constitutional law; Prohibition against increase of salaries of

VOL. 18, OCTOBER 4, 1966 303

Philippine Constitution Association, Inc. vs. Mathay

general rule. The exception is resorted to only when a literal

ORIGINAL ACTION in the Supreme Court Prohibition.

REYES, J.B.L., J.:

The Philippine Constitution Association, a non-stock, non-

304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

a suit against the former Acting Auditor General of the

present Auditor General, was substituted for Amable M.

VOL. 18, OCTOBER 4, 1966 305

while for the Senate the corresponding appropriation items

1. The President of the Senate . P 16,000.00

Thus showing that the 1965-1966 Budget (R.A. No. 4642)

members of the House of Representatives set by Republic

"SEC. 14. The Senators and the Members of the House of

306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

the payment of the increased salaries within the limits of

'"The rule that a taxpayer can not, in his individual capacity as

On the alleged non-joinder of the members of the Lower

VOL. 18, OCTOBER 4, 1966 307

were indispensable or proper parties defendant to this

These preliminary questions .out of the way, we now

308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

of Article VI, Section 14, the fundamental consideration is

Representatives) must have expired before the increase in

"The Senators and Representatives shall receive for their services

The spirit of this restrictive proviso, modified to suit the

VOL. 18, OCTOBER 4, 1966 309

Finally, with the return to bicameralism in the 1940

310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The argument that if the intention was to require that the

VOL. 18, OCTOBER 4, 1966 311

of the term of the approving assemblymen the full 3-year

312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

in approving the increase in compensation, they are placed

VOL. 18, OCTOBER 4, 1966 313

BENGZON, J.P., J., concurring:

Fully concurring- with the ponencia of Justice J.B.L. Reyes,

They maintain that in specifying "the Senate" and "the

314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

House of Representatives approving the increase. In