[No. 34361.

November 5, 1930]

CANDIDO B. LOPEZ, petitioner and appellant, vs. JOSE

DE LOS REYES, in his capacity as Peace Officer and
Assistant Chief of the Constabulary, respondent and
appellee.

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; HOUSE OF

REPRESENTATIVES, PHILIPPINE LEGISLATURE;
LEGISLATIVE POWER IN THE PHILIPPINES TO
PUNISH NON-MEMBERS FOR CONTEMPT; "HABEAS
CORPUS."—Where no traverse to the return to the writ of
habeas corpus was interposed, and where no exception to
the denial of the application for permission to offer
evidence was made in the court below, no question of fact
is involved. Under such conditions, at strictly question 'of
law in other words of jurisdiction, is presented for
determination on habeas corpus.

171

VOL. 55, NOVEMBER 5, 1930 171

Lopez vs. De los Reyes

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.—Where the liberty of the citizen is

concerned, the legality of the action taken by the
legislative body in punishing for contempt is a proper
subject for inquiry on habeas corpus.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; In—The experience of Great Britain and the

United States described and the cases on the subject
reviewed. The legislative power to punish for contempt
arises by implication, is 'justified only by the right of self-
preservation, and is the least possible power adequate to
the end proposed.

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.—The Philippine Legislature could not

divest itself, or either of its Houses, of the essential and
inherent power to punish for contempt, in cases to which
the ppTVer of either House properly extended.
 5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.—A limited power to punish non-members
for contempt resides in the House of Representatives of
the Philippine Legislature.

6. ID.; ID.; In.; ID.—Imprisonjnent f or a term not exceeding

the session of the deliberative body in which the contempt
occurred is the limit of the authority to deal directly by
way of contempt, without criminal prosecution.

7. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.—One, L, assaulted Representative D on

October 23, 1929. The House of Representatives of which
Representative D was a member then adopted a resolution
on November 6, 1929, requiring the Speaker to order the
arrest of L to be confined in Bilibid Prison for twenty-four
hours. The House adjourned that session, the second, at
midnight on November 8, 1929. without the order of arrest
having been served on L. A confirmatory resolution was
approved by the House on September 16, 1930, during the
third session of the Philippine Legislature. Shortly
thereafter, a new warrant of arrest was issued by the
Speaker of the House of Representatives, and L was taken
into custody by a constabulary officer. The trial judge
dismissed the petition for habeas corpus and remanded
the petitioner to the custody of the respondent for
compliance with the order of the House of
Representatives. Held: Error in refusing to grant the writ
of habeas corpus, and L ordered discharged from custody.

Per JOHNSON, J., dissenting:

8. LEGISLATIVE BODIES; POWER TO PUNISH FOR

CONTEMPT; "HABEAS CORPUS."—The power of
legislative bodies to punish for contempt is inherent and a
necessary power for their protection, orderly deliberation
and perpetuation. The power of the Legislature of the
Philippine Islands to punish for contempt is inherent and
needs no statutory or constitutional authority

172

172 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lopez vs. De los Reyes

for that purpose. An order punishing for contempt, issued

by a particular legislative entity, continues to have full
force and effect until final adjournment—until that
particular legislative entity passes out of existence.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of
Manila. Albert, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Del Rosario & Lualhati and Eusebio M. Lopez for
appellant.
Attorney-General Jaranilla for appellee.
Ricardo Nepomuceno and Monico Mercado as amici
curiæ.

MALCOLM, J.:

This is an application for the writ of habeas corpus to

relieve the petitioner from restraint of his liberty, by a
ranking officer of the Constabulary, under a warrant of
arrest issued by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, pursuant to resolutions of the House
finding the petitioner guilty of contempt. In addition to
counsel for the petitioner and the Attorney-General for the
respondent, Honorable Ricardo Nepomuceno and
Honorable Monico iMercado, members of the House of
Representatives, have appeared as amici curiæ.
On September 16, 1930, the House of Representatives
adopted the following:
"RESOLUTION CONFIRMING AND RATIFYING THE
RESOLUTION OF THIS HOUSE, NUMBER
FIFTYONE, AND AUTHORIZING ALL PEACE
OFFICERS TO COMPLY WITH THE SAME.
"Whereas, the following resolution was adopted by the
House of Representatives on November 6, 1929:
" 'RESOLUTION REQUIRING THE SPEAKER OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO ORDER THE
ARREST OF CANDIDO LOPEZ TO BE CONFINED IN
THE BILIBID PRISON FOR TWENTYFOUR HOURS.
" 'Whereas, on October 23, 1929, Candido Lopez attacked
and assaulted, without any justification, the Honorable
173

VOL. 55, NOVEMBER 5, 1930 173

Lopez vs. De los Reyes

Jose D. Dimayuga, who was then and is now a member of

the House of Representatives of the Philippine Islands,
while said Representative was going to the hall of the
House of Representatives to attend the sessions which were
then about to begin, as a result of which attack and assault
said Representative was unable to attend the sessions on
that day and those of the two days next following, by
reason of the threats which Mr. Candido Lopez made
against said Representative, Honorable Jose D. Dimayuga;
" 'Whereas, these acts of aggression and assault were
committed by the aforesaid Mr. Candido Lopez knowing f
ull well as he then knew that said Representative was and
is one of the members of the House of Representatives, who
was then going to the hall of said House to attend the
sessions thereof which were about to begin at the moment
of the aggression;
" 'Whereas, said Candido Lopez appeared before the
Committee on Privileges of the House of Representatives
where he was notified that he was charged with contempt
for having violated the privileges of one of the members of
this house, and then and there had the opportunity to
defend himself personally and by counsel, and to adduce
evidence in his favor;
" 'Whereas, all the foregoing facts have been established
beyond reasonable doubt; Now, therefore,
" 'Be it resolved, To declare, as it hereby declares, said
Candido Lopez guilty of contempt of the House of
Representatives for having violated the privileges of one of
the members of said House of Representatives;
" 'Be it further resolved, To order, as it hereby orders,
that said Candido Lopez be punished by confinement in
Bilibid Prison, Manila, as any other transgressor of the
law, for a period of twenty-four hours; and
" 'Finally be it resolved, That the corresponding order of
arrest be issued in due form, signed by the Speaker,
stamped with the Seal of the House of Representatives, and
addressed to the Sergeant-At-Arms, Mr. Alfredo Ja-
174

174 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lopez vs. De los Reyes

vier, requiring and ordering the said Sergeant-At-Arms to

comply with this order.'
"Whereas, said resolution has not been complied with up
to the present time, notwithstanding the efforts done by
the Sergeant-At-Arms of the House of Representatives,
because said Candido Lopez has concealed himself, taking
advantage of all kinds of subterf uges in order to avoid
compliance therewith and to defy the authority of this
House;
"Whereas, the Committee on Privileges of this House,
acting on the petition for reconsideration presented after
the approval of said resolution, has arrived at the
conclusion that there is no ground to modify or revoke the
aforesaid resolution; Now, therefore,
"Be it resolved, To confirm and ratify, as it hereby
confirms and ratifies, the aforementioned resolution;
"Be it further resolved, To order and authorize, as it
hereby orders and authorizes, the Sergeant-At-Arms of this
House, or his agents, or any official or member of the
Insular Police or any police officer, in compliance with said
resolution, to arrest said Candido Lopez for confinement in
Bilibid Prison, Manila, to serve therein the sentence of
twenty-four hours imposed by said Resolution;
"Be it finally resolved, That the corresponding order of
arrest be issued in due form, signed by the Speaker,
stamped with the Seal of the House of Representatives, and
addressed to the Sergeant-At-Arms of this House, or any of
his agents, or any official or member of the Insular Police,
or any peace ofRcer, ordering and requiring compliance
with this order."
From the above, it will be observed that the alleged
assault by Lopez on Representative Dimayuga occurred on
October 23, 1929. The House of Representatives adopted its
original resolution, requiring the Speaker to order the
arrest of Lopez, to be confined in Bilibid Prison f or
twentyfour hours, on November 6, 1929. The House
adjourned that session, the second, at midnight on
November 8, 1929, without the order of arrest having been
served on Lopez.
175

VOL. 55, NOVEMBER 5, 1930 175

Lopez vs. De los Reyes

The confirmatory resolution hereinbefore quoted was

approved on September 16, 1930, during the third session
of the Philippine Legislature.
It further appears that a new warrant of arrest was
issued by the Speaker of the House of Representatives on
September 17, 1930. Lopez was taken into custody by
Colonel De los Reyes, Assistant Chief of the Constabulary,
on September 19, 1930. Immediately a writ of habeas
corpus was obtained from Honorable Mariano Albert,
Auxiliary Judge of First Instance sitting in the City of
Manila. Eight reasons were enumerated to show illegal
restraint of the petitioner, including as the most important
the fol-lowing:
"(a) Because the House of Representatives is absolutely
lacking in authority and jurisdiction to try and punish any
citizen in this country with imprisonment for alleged
assault committed on any person irrespective of rank or
social position, f or the power to try and punish any person
as charged with violation of law lies exclusively within the
province of the judicial department of the Philippine
Government;
" (b) Because the House of Representatives has lost its
jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner and the
offense charged, for the act complained of is alleged to have
been committed on the person of Representative Dimayuga
on or about October 23, 1929, and the session of the House
of Representatives having adjourned at midnight of
November 8, 1929, any order issued after the period of that
session in which the alleged offense was committed is
without force and effect." The Attorney-General, in his
return, after formal allegations, stated:
"4. That the Philippine House of Representatives has
power to order the commitment of persons guilty of
contempt against it and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives is empowered to issue the warrant of
arrest above referred to;

176

176 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lopez vs. De los Reyes

"5. That this court has no jurisdiction to entertain this

petition, in view of the separation of powers between the
Executive, Legislative and Judicial Departments of the
Government;
"6. That this court has no power to inquire into the
correctness of the facts recited in the resolution of the
House of Representatives punishing the petitioner for
contempt." The trial judge dismissed the petition, with
costs, and remanded the petitioner to the custody of the
respondent for compliance with the order of the House of
Representatives. The petitioner appealed from the
judgment to this court and here, in compliance with the
law, the appeal has been given precedence over all actions
pending in the Supreme Court.
In order to clear the ground for a decision of the main
issues, it should first of all be noted that no question of fact
is involved, since no traverse to the return was interposed,
and since no exception to the denial of the application for
permission to offer evidence was made in the court below.
We agree with the Attorney-General that a strictly
question of law, in other words of jurisdiction, is presented
for determination. In the same connection, we may say
further that the court need not inquire into the correctness
of the facts recited in the original resolution of the House of
Representatives punishing the petitioner for contempt. We
cannot, however, concur with the statement of the
Attorney-General that, because of the separation of powers,
the courts have no jurisdiction to entertain this petition.
Where the liberty of the citizen is concerned, the legality of
the action taken by the legislative body in punishing for
contempt is a proper subject for inquiry on habeas corpus.
(Zagala vs. Ilustre [1925], 48 Phil 282; Lorenzo vs. Director
of Health [1927], 50 Phil., 595; Burnham vs. Morrissey
[1859], 14 Gray, Mass, 226, fully concurred in by the
United States Supreme Court in Kilbourn vs. Thompson
[1880], 103 U. S., 168.)

177

VOL. 55, NOVEMBER 5, 1930 177

Lopez vs. De los Reyes

This leaves us then with the negation in the petition of the

power of the House of Representatives to order the
commitment of persons guilty of contempt against it and
with the affirmation of this power in the return. This
leaves us further with the denial in the petition of
jurisdiction in the House of Representatives on account of
the power being only coextensive with the session of the
body in which the alleged contempt occurred, not specially
answered in the return. There are other points mentioned
in the assignment of errors and in the briefs, but the
foregoing impress us as disclosing the two main issues
deci'sive of the case. We will take them under view in
order.
I. Power of the House of Representatives to punish for
contempt.—For comparative and informative purposes, it is
advisable to turn to the experience of Great Britain and the
United States. The Houses of the British Parliament were
originally courts of judicature, and still retain, on account
of that origin, the power to punish for contempt. But it is
not to be inferred, because of this power of the Houses in
the British Parliament, that a like power belongs to
legislative assemblies in the British dependencies, as for
instance, in the House of Assembly of Newfoundland. In
the United States, the theory of the division of powers
negatives any implication of the possession by the Congress
of the United States of the commingled legislative and
judicial authority as to contempts, which is exercised by
the English House of Commons. The two Houses of the
Congress of the United States do not possess the general
power of punishing for contempt, and the cases in which
they can do so are very limited. The power to deal directly
by way of contempt, without criminal prosecution, may be
implied from the constitutional grant of legislative power to
the Congress in so far, and so far only, as such authority is
necessary to preserve and carry out the legialative power
granted. The two Houses of the Congress,
178

178 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lopez vs. De los R&ges

in their separate relations possess such auxiliary powers as

are appropriate to make the express powers effective. In
these latter cases, the power to punish for contempt rests
solely upon the right of self-preservation. Proceeding on
this theory, punishment has been imposed for assaults
upon members of the House of Representatives which
prevented members from attending the sessions of the
House. But the power does not extend to the infliction of
punishment as such. In the apt phrase 6f Chief Justice
White of the United States Supreme Court, "It is a means
to an end and not the end itself." (Burdett vs. Abbott
[1811}, 14 East, 1; Kielley vs, Carson [1841], 4 Moo. P. C.,
63; Anderson vs. Dunn [1821], 6 Wheat, 204,—questioned
and rejected as to some of its reasoning in later decisions of
the United States Supreme Court—; Kilbourn vs.
Thompson, supra; Re Chapman [1896], 166 U. S., 661;
Marshall vs. Gordon [1917], 243 U. S., 521; McGrain vs.
Daugherty [1927], 273 U. S., 135.)
The power of the State Legislatures in the United States
to punish for contempt may be somewhat broader in theory
than that of the Congress of the United States. A number
of State constitutions and statutes authorize each House of
the Legislature to punish for contempt. Even without
express constitutional provisions, the view generally taken
by the State courts is that the power to punish for
contempt is inherent in the bodies composing the
legislative branch, and that the legislative bodies may
inflict punishment on those guilty of acts which tend
directly to defeat, embarrass, or obstruct legislative
proceedings. (Ex parte Parker [1906], 74 S. C., 466; 7 Am.
and Eng. Ann. Cas., 874, 876 Note; .In re Davis [1897], 58
Kans., 368; State vs. Mathews [1859], 37 "N. H., 450.)
 With this background, we turn to consider the poWer of
a legislative body in the Philippines to punish for contempt.
It is a question of first impression. General legislative
powers, with certain exceptions, are vested in the
Philippine Legislature, consisting of the Senate
179

VOL. 55, NOVEMBER 5, 1930 179

Lopez vs. De 2os Reyes

and the House 6f Representatives. The Philippine

Legislature, it has been said, has practically the same
powers in the Philippine Islands, within the sphere in
which it may operate, as the Congress of the United States.
(Alejandrino vs. Quezon [1926], 271 U.S., 528; Tiaco vs.
Forbes [1913], 228 U. S., 549; Chanco vs. Imperial [1916],
34 Phil., 329; U, S. vs. Pompeya [1915], 31 PhiL, 245.) No
express power to punish for contempt was granted by the
Organic Act to the Senate and the House of
Representatives save the power to deal with contempts
committed by their own members. The Senators and
Representatives, except in specified cases, are, however,
privileged from arrest during their attendance at the
sessions of their respective Houses and in going to and
returning from the same.
Act No. 1755 punishes disturbances of legislative bodies
by fine or imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.
Section 102 of the Administrative Code, similarly punishes
contempts by recalcitrant witnesses of a legislative body or
committee. The Penal Code, in addition, contains various
provisions for the punishment of transgressors against the
law. It is now argued that, because of these laws,
particularly Act No. 1755, the Philippine Legislature has
defined the punishable acts against its own authority, and
has delegated its power of punishment to the courts.
The untenability of this position is apparent on its face.
In the first place, the Philippine Legislature could not
divest either of its Houses of the inherent power to punish
for contempt. In the second place, the same act could be
made the basis for contempt proceedings and for a criminal
prosecution. It has been held that a conviction and
sentence of a person, not a member, by the House of
Representatives of the United States Congress, for an
assault and battery upon a member, is not a bar to a
subsequent criminal prosecution by indictment for the
offense. (U. S. vs. Houston [1832], 2$ Fed. Gas., 379.) In the
third place, and most important of all, the argument fails
 180

180d PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lopez vs. De los Reyes

to take cognizance of the purpose of punishment for

contempt, and of the distinction between punishment for
contempt and punishment for crime. Let us reflect 011 this
last statement for a moment. The implied power to pun-ish
for contempt is coercive in nature. The power to punish
crimes is punitive in nature. The first is a vindication by
the House of its own privileges. The second is a proceeding
brought by the State before the courts to punish offenders.
The two are distinct, the one from the other. (Marshall vs.
Gordon, supra.)
In the case of Re Chapman, supra, the United States
Supreme Court fully settled the point that the Congress of
the United States could exercise its implied power to
punish for contempt to the end of the session of the House,
even though it had enacted a statute for the punishment of
such contempt as a misdemeanor. In refuting the
contention "that the law delegates to the District of
Columbia Criminal Court the exclusive jurisdiction and
power to punish as contempt the acts denounced, and thus
deprives the Houses of Congress of their constitutional f
unctions in the particular class of cases," the court, through
Chief Justice Fuller, stated "that Congress could not divest
itself, or either of its Houses, of the essential and inherent
power to punish for contempt, in cases to which the power
of either House properly extended."
Notwithstanding the lack of constitutional authority, it
would hardly be reasonable to suppose that the Houses of
the Philippine Legislature were intended to f unction in the
restricted way in which an assembly like that of
Newfoundland was intended to function. A power essential
to permit the Houses of the Philippine Legislature to
perform their duties without impediment, as contemplated
by the Organic Act, must be assumed. There is as much
necessity for the Houses in a territorial legislature to
possess the power to punish for contempt as there is for the
Houses in the Congress of the United States and the
Houses in the State Legislatures to possess this power.
181

VOL. 55, NOVEMBER 5, 1930 181

Lopez vs. De los Reyes
Accordingly, we rule that a limited power to punish persons
not members for contempt resides in the House of
Representatives of the Philippine Legislature.
II. Duration of the punishment for contempt.—
Conceding, without really having to decide, that the House
of Representatives, in the exercise of a fair discretion with
which the courts should not interfere, was justified in
finding Lopez in contempt, as contemplated in the original
resolution, we pass to the consideration of the second
branch of the case. As will soon appear, the proposition
which follows is accepted with hardly any dissent, namely,
imprisonment for a term not exceeding the session of the
deliberative body in which the contempt occurred, is the
limit of the authority to deal directly by way of contempt,
without criminal prosecution.
This is the rule in England for the House of Commons
but not for the House of Lords. In the celebrated case of
Stockdale vs. Hansard ([1839], 9 Ad. & E., 1), Lord
Denman, the Chief Justice, in a masterly opinion, to use
the words of the United States Supreme Court in Kilbourn
vs. Thompson, supra, said the following: "However flagrant
the contempt, the House of Commons can only commit till
the close of the existing session. Their privilege to commit
is not better known than this limitation of it. Though the
party should deserve the severest penalties, yet, his offence
being committed the day before a prorogation, if the House
ordered his imprisonment but for a week, every Court in
Westminster Hall and every Judge of all the courts would
be bound to discharge him by habeas corpus."
Likewise it may be said to be the rule for the Congress of
the United States. In congressional practice, the only
instance where a person was imprisoned by the House of
Representatives, and such imprisonment extended beyond
the adjournment of the session, occurred in the case of
Patrick Woods in 1870. But the following year, in the case
of White and Ramsdell, the United

182

182 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lopez vs. De los Reyes

States Senate virtually repudiated the action of the House

in Wood's case. (Eberling, Congressional Investigations, pp.
180 et seq.) The United States Supreme Court has twice
definitely held that the power is limited to imprisonment
during the session of the legislative body affected by the
contempt. (Anderson vs. Dunn, supra; Marshall vs. Gordon,
supra.) The language of the higher court in the case first
cited was: "And although the legislative power continues
perpetual, the legislative body ceases to exist on the
moment of its adjournment or periodical dissolution. It
follows, that imprisonment must terminate with that
adjournment." The language of the higher court in the case
last cited was: "And the essential nature of the power also
makes clear the cogency and application of the two
limitations which were expressly pointed out in Anderson
vs. Dunn, supra, that is, that the power even when applied
to subjects which justified its exercise is limited to
imprisonment and such imprisonment may not be extended
beyond the session of the body in which the contempt
occurred." Except where regulated by express
constitutional provisions, it is found to be the rule for the
States of the American Union that the imprisonment
terminates with the legislative session. As the Supreme
Court of Kansas puts it, "The extent of the punishment to
be inflicted, while resting in the discretion of the legislative
body imposing it, has never been held to extend beyond fine
and imprisonment; and where imprisonment is imposed, it
has always been held to terminate with the session of the
legislature. * * * The power to imprison the citizen is not to
be lightly implied." (In re Davis, supra.)
Just as there is no good reason to suppose that the
Houses of the Philippine Legislature would be left without
the power of self-preservation to be realized through the
power to punish for contempt, so is there no good reason 'to
suppose that the principle relative to the termination of the
imprisonment, which is acceptable to the House of
183

VOL. 55, NOVEMBER 5, 1930 183

Lopez vs. De los Reyes

Commons, the upper House and probably the lower House

of the Congress of the United States, and the Houses of the
State Legislatures, is not equally applicable to a House of
the Philippine Legislature.
At this point, it should be explained that the Philippine
Legislature meets annually. It convenes on the 16th day of
July of every year and continues in session not longer than
one hundred days exclusive of Sundays. Each legislature
holds three sessions numbered according to their sequence
as first, second, or third, as the case may be, (Organic Act,
sec. 18; Admin. Code, secs. 94, 98.)
 The language of the United States Supreme Court in
passing on the duration of the imprisonment for contempt
of the Houses of the Congress of the United States, and by
analogy on the duration of the imprisonment for contempt
to the Houses of the Philippine Legislature, really needs no
interpretation. When the court spoke of the imprisonment
terminating with "adjournment," the word "adjournment"
was clearly used as in the United States Constitution. It is
now sought to give to "adjournment" the meaning of "final
adjournment" at the end of the triennial legislative period.
But this interpretation does not accord with the
pronouncements of the United States Supreme Court in the
Pocket Veto Case decided only last year. (Okanogan
Indians vs. U, S., U. S. Supreme Court, Adv. Op., 503.)
Again when the United States Supreme Court spoke of the
imprisonment not extending "beyond the session of the
body in which the contempt occurred," the word "session"
was used in the constitutional sense. A, strained and
unnatural grammatical construction is not proper. There is
not one session either of the Congress of the United States
or the Philippine Legislature, but in the case of the latter,
there are three distinct and separate sessions.
Giving application now to the exact words of the United
States Supreme Court, which it is our bounden duty to do,
"the session of the body in which the contempt oc-
184

184 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lopez vs. De los Reyes

curred" was the second session of the Philippine

Legislature. That session was adjourned as provided by
law, without the resolution affecting Lopez having been
enforced. It was this session beyond which the
imprisonment could not be extended. When at the next
session, the third, the order of arrest was attempted to be
resuscitated, the House was without legal right so to
proceed. The fact that the House at this third session,
without a new hearing and adjudication, passed a
confirmatory resolution of the resolution approved at the
second session, added. nothing to the legal position of the
House. The legislative function to act having ceased with
the cessation of the legislative power in a previous session,
a resolution could not be revived by mere reapproval.
The proposition previously enunciated will bear
analytical reexamination. We have said that the power to
find in contempt rests fundamentally on the power of self-
preservation. That is true even of contempt of court where
the power to punish is exercised on the preservative and
not on the vindictive principle. Where more is desired,
where punishment as such is to be imposed, a criminal
prosecution must be brought, and in all fairness to the
culprit, he must have thrown around him all the
protections afforded by the Bill of Rights. Proceeding a step
further, it is evident that, while the legislative power is
perpetual, and while one of the bodies composing the
legislative power disappears only every three years, yet the
sessions of that body mark new beginnings and abrupt
endings, which must be respected.
Where a person, who is declared in contempt of the
House of Representatives at one session of the Legislature,
is not committed to prison during that session, it is very
doubtful if a new order for his commitment may be made at
the next ensuing session of the Legislature. This right has
never been exercised by any legislative body deriving from
the common law system. On the contrary, the uniform
practice of such bodies appears to have proceeded
185

VOL. 55, NOVEMBER 5, 1930 185

Lopez vs. De los Reyes

upon the assumption that the power to punish an invasion

of legislative privileges ends with the session during which
the wrongful act was done. It is true that the rule
expressed by the authorities on this point was not
formulated with reference to the power of a succeeding
session to give effect to the original resolution declaring the
offender in contempt, but, as already stated, the practice of
English and American legislative bodies speaks loudly
against the existence of the power for the House of
Representatives in this case. An innovation which
experience has shown to be really unnecessary for the
protection of the lawmaking body would be most unwise,
Occasional acts of personal violence against members of the
Legislature will no doubt occur over long periods of time,
but their number will not be increased by the conclusion
reached in this case, which is either that the offender must
be committed to prison by the offended body during its
current session, or punishment must be left to the ordinary
process of the courts, wherein the penalties inflicted will
tend to be more severe in the main than those which would
have been imposed by the legislative body itself. .
 We recur again to the oft-repeated and all controlling
thought that the legislative power to punish for contempt
arises by implication, is justified only by the right of
selfpreservation, and is the least possible power adequate
to the end proposed. We point out again that where
imprisonment is imposed for contempt of a legislative body
in the United States, it terminates with the adjournment of
the session of the body in which the contempt occurred. We
emphasize again the absolute absence of any judicial
precedent which acknowledges the right of a legislative
body to extend punishment for contempt beyond the
adjournment of the session, and that to go against the
unanimous authority to the contrary, would be to sanction
a power for the Houses of the Philippine Legislature
greater than that which any legislative body in the United
186

186 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lopez vs. De los Reyes

States, including the Houses of the Congress of the United

States, is permitted to exercise. No legal cause for the
restraint of the petitioner i§ shown.
It follows from what has been said that the trial court
erred in refusing to grant the writ of habeas corpus and its
judgment must be, as it is hereby, reversed, and the record
remanded with directions to discharge the petitioner from
custody. So ordered, without costs.

Street, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

AVANCEÑA, C. J., concurring and dissenting in part:

I agree with the majority opinion that the Legislature has

inherent power to commit the petitioner to twentyfour
hours' imprisonment for contempt. But I do not agree that
the order of commitment can only be executed during the
particular session in which the act of contempt was
committed. I therefore vote for the affirmance of the
judgment appealed from.
This case must be decided in accordance with the
doctrine laid down by the United States Supreme Court in
Anderson vs. Dunn, and ratified in Marshall -vs. Gordon.
The doctrine referred to is epitomized in the case of
Anderson vs. Dunn as follows: "And although the
legislative power continues perpetual, the legislative body
ceases to exist on the moment of its adjournment or
periodical dissolution. It follows, that imprisonment must
terminate with that adjournment."
From this doctrine it follows, in my judgment, that the
imposition of the penalty is limited to the existence of the
legislative body, which ceases to function upon its final
periodical dissolution. The doctrine refers to its existence
and not to any particular session thereof. This must be so,
inasmuch as the basis of the power to impose such a
penalty is the right which the Legislature has to self-
preservation, and which right is enforceable during the
existence of the legislative body. Many causes might be
conceived to constitute contempt to the Legislature, which
would continue to be a menace to its preservation
187

VOL. 55, NOVEMBER 5, 1930 187

Lopez vs. De los Reyes

during the existence of the legislative body against which

contempt was committed.
If the basis of the power of the Legislature to punish for
contempt exists while the legislative body exercising it is in
session, then that power and the exercise thereof must
perforce continue until its final adjournment and the
election of its successor.

JOHNS, J., with whom concur VILLAMOR and

OSTRAND, JJ., concurring and dissenting:

The opinion of Justice Malcolm is well written, exhaustive,

and learned, and the authorities which he cites are all good
law.
As stated, this case is one of first impression in this
court, and from our point of view, the question presented
has never been decided by any court. All of the American
authorities cited and quoted are founded upon the
provisions of the Constitution of the United States or of
some one of its states, and there is a marked legal
distinction between the rule of construction of a
constitutional provision and of a legislative act.
The people of the Philippine Islands have never adopted
a constitution, and no constitutional convention has ever
been held here. The primary power to adopt a constitution
is vested in the people and not in the legislature. The
Constitution of the United States was the final result of a
constitutional convention composed of delegates from the
different states by whom it was prepared and then
submitted to the different states for adoption. All of the
state constitutions are the results of constitutional
conventions.
In Words and Phrases, vol. 2, p. 1462, the word
"Constitution" is thus defined:
"A constitution is not the beginning of a country, nor the
origin of appropriate rights. It is not the fountain of law,
nor the incipient state 6f government. It grants no rights to
the people, but it is the creature of their power, the
instrument of their convenience. Designed for their
protection in the enjoyment of the rights and powers they

188

188 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lopez vs. De los Reyes

possessed before the constitution was made, it is but the

framework of political government, and necessarily based
on the preexisting rights, habits, and modes of thought.
(State i)8. County Treasurer, 4 S. C. [4 Rich.], 520, 536.)
"When the people associate, and enter into a compact,
for the purpose of establishing government, that compact,
whatever may be its provisions, or in whatever language it
may be written, is the constitution of the state, revocable
only by the people, or in the manner they prescribe. It is by
this instrument that government is instituted, its
departments created, and the powers to be exercised by it
conferred. (Bates vs. Kimball [Vt.], 2 D. Chip., 77, 84.)
"A constitution is defined by Judge Story to be a
fundamental law or basis of government. It is established
by the people, in their original sovereign capacity, to
promote their own happiness, and permanently to secure
their rights, property, independence, and common welfare.
(McKoan vs. Devries, 3 Barb., 196, 198 [quoting 1 Story,
Const., secs. 338, 339]; Church vs. Kelsey, 7 Sup. Ct., 897,
898; 121 U. S., 282; 30 L. ed., 960.)
"A constitution is the form of government, delineated by
the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first
principles of fundamental laws are established. The
constitution is certain and fixed. It contains the permanent
will of the people, and is the supreme law of the land. It is
paramount to the legislature, and can be revoked or altered
only by the authority that made it. (Vanhorne's Lessee vs.
Dorrance, 2 U. S. [2 Dall.], 304, 308; 28 Fed. Cas., 1012; 1
L. ed., 391.)
"A constitution is an act of extraordinary legislation by
which the people establish the structure and mechanism of
their government, and in which they prescribe
fundamental rules to regulate the motions of the several
parts. (Eakin Raub [Pa.], 12 Serg. & R., 330, 347.)
"Every state constitution is a compact made by and
between the citizens of a state to govern themselves in
189

VOL. 55, NOVEMBER 5, 1930 189

Lopez vs. De los Reyes

a certain manner, and the Constitution of the United

States is likewise a compact made by the people of the
United States to govern themselves, as to general objects,
in a certain manner. (Per Jay, C. J., in Chisholm vs,
Georgia [Pa.], 2 Dall., 419, 471; 1 L, ed., 440.)
"A constitution is the written charter enacted and
adopted by the people of a state through a combination of
representatives, or in any way the people may choose to
act, by which a government for them is obtained and
established, and by which the people give organic and
corporate form to that ideal thing, a state, for all time to
come, or during the life of the state. (Lynn vs. Polk, 76
Tenn. [8 Lea], 121, 165.)
"The term 'constitution' is used in several senses. In a
broad sense of the term, we may speak of a constitution
resting upon usage or acquiescence, as in England. But in
this country, when we use the term, we refer exclusively to
the sovereign acts of the people, acting by conventions or in
other constitutional modes. (Horsman vs. Allen, 61 Pac.,
796, 799; 129 Cal., 139 [citing Cooley, Const. Lim., pp. 5,
6].)
"In American constitutional law, the word 'constitution'
is used in a restricted sense, as implying a written
instrument agreed on by the people of the Union, or of any
one of the states, as the absolute rule of action and decision
for all departments and officers of the government in
respect to all of the points covered by it, which must control
until it shall be changed by the authority which established
it, and in opposition to which any act or regulation of any
such department or officer, or even the people themselves,
will be altogether void. (Cline vs. State, 36 Tex. Cr. R., 320,
350; 36 S. W., 1099, 1107; 37 S. W., 722; 61 Am. St. Rep.,
850 [citing Cooley, Const. Lim., p. 5].)
"The term 'constitution' implies an instrument of a
permanent and abiding nature, and, while it contains
provision for revision, it indicates the will of the people that
the underlying principles upon which it rests, as well as
 190

190 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lopez vs. De los Reyes

the substantial entirety of the instrument, shall be of a like

permanent and abiding nature. (Livermore vs. Waite, 36
Pac., 424, 426; 102 Cal., 113; 25 L. R. A., 312.)
"A constitution, 'according to the common acceptation of
the word in the United States, may be said to be an
agreement of the people, in their individual capacities,
reduced to writing, establishing and fixing certain
principles for the government of themselves. Among these
principles, one of the most important in all our
constitutions is to prescribe and limit the objects of
legislative power. The people are sovereign, in power they
are supreme, and the legislature acts by delegated and
circumscribed authority; circumscribed as to its objects,
circumscribed as to its extent over these objects.' (State vs.
Parkhurst, 9 N. J. Law [4 Halst.], 427 443.)"
Ruling Case Law, vol. 6, p. 16, says:
"2. Definitions and Purposes of Constitutions.—A
constitution is a system of fundamental laws or principles
for the government of a nation, society, corporation or other
aggregation of individuals, and it may be either written or
unwritten.. In the United States, the word 'constitution,' as
applied to the organization of the federal and state
governments always implies a writing, and it is understood
in the further restricted sense of an enactment by the
direct action of the people providing for the form of
government and defining the powers of the several
departments, thus creating a fundamental law which is
absolute and unalterable except by the authority from
which it emanated. Its purpose is to prescribe the
permanent framework of the system of government and
assign to the different departments their respective powers
and duties, and to establish certain fixed first principles on
which government is founded. A constitution differs from a
statute in that a statute must provide the details of the
subject of which it treats, whereas a constitution usually
states general principles, and builds the substantial
foundation and general framework of the law and
191

VOL. 55, NOVEMBER 5, 1930 191

Lopez vs. De los Reyes
government. In same respects a constitutional provision is
a higher form of statutory law, which the people may
provide shall be self-executing where the object is to put it
beyond the power of the legislature to render such
provision nugatory by refusing to pass laws to carry it into
effect.
"3. PermQnency and Generality of Constitutions.—A
constitution, unlike a statute, is intended not merely to
meet existing conditions, but to govern the future. It has
been said that the term 'constitution' implies an
instrument of a permanent nature. Since it is recognized
that its framers could not anticipate conditions which
might arise thereafter in the progress of the nation, and
could not establish all the law which from time to time
might be necessary to conform to the changing conditions of
a community, as a rule a constitution does not deal in
details, but enunciates the general principles and general
directions which are intended to apply to all new facts that
may come into being, and which may be brought within
those general principles or directions. It has been said that
it would have been an unwise attempt to provide, by
immutable rules, for exigencies which, if foreseen at all,
must have been seen dimly, and which can be best provided
for as they occur, and that it would have deprived the
legislature of the capacity to avail itself of experience, to
exercise its reason, and to accommodate its legislation to
circumstances. Although the rigidity of a written
constitution may at times obstruct progress, its stability is
in-tended to protect the people from frequent and violent
fluctuations of public opinion."
The same rule is also laid down in Corpus Juris.
The people of the Philippine Islands have never adopted
a constitution or held a constitutional convention, and it
must be conceded that any powers or duties which the
Philippine Legislature may have were conferred upon it by
Acts of Congress of the United States, and that Congress is
powerless to adopt or even amend the Constitution of
192

192 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lopez vs. De los Reyes

the United States or of any State of the United States,

much less to adopt a constitution f or the Philippine
Islands. In the final analysis, any power which the
Philippine Legislature may have is not derived from a
constitution.
 From an examination of the United States authorities
cited in Justice Malcolm's opinion, it will be found that all
of them are based upon the Constitution of the United
States or of a state constitution, and that, for such reasons
in the cases cited, the court have held that the legislature,
acting and sitting under a constitution, for its own
preservation, has limited, inherent power to punish for
contempt.
As Ruling Case Law says:
"A constitution differs from a statute in that a statute
must provide the details of the subject of which it treats,
whereas a constitution usually states general principles,
and builds the substantial foundation and general
framework of the law and government."
As stated in Words and Phrases above quoted:
"The constitution is certain and fixed. It contains the
permanent will of the people, and is the supreme law of the
land. It is paramount to the legislature, and can be revoked
or altered only by the authority that made it."
While the courts have held that in a certain class of
cases, the Legislature, sitting and acting under a
constitution, has the inherent power to punish for
contempt, no court has ever held that the Legislature can
invest a legislative act with that inherent power, and that
would be especially true of a criminal law or an act of a
criminal nature.
The facts in the instant case are important.
The resolution of the Philippine Legislature upon which
the petitioner was tried and convicted is as follows:
     *      *      *      *      *      *      *
" 'Whereas, on October 23, 1929, Candido Lopez attacked
and assaulted, without any justification, the Honorable
Jose D. Dimayuga, who was then and is now a member of
193

VOL. 55, NOVEMBER 5, 1930 193

Lopez vs. De los Reyes

the House of Representatives of the Philippine Islands,

while said Representative was going to the hall of the
House of Representatives to attend the sessions which were
then about to begin, as a result of which attack and assault
said Representative was unable to attend the sessions on
that day and those of the two days next following, by
reason of the threats which Mr. Candido Lopez made
against said Representative, Honorable Jose D. Dimayuga;
 " 'Whereas, those acts of aggression and assault were
committed by the aforesaid Mr. Candido Lopez knowing
full well as he then knew that said Representative was and
is one of the members of the House of Representatives, who
was then going to the hall of said House to attend the
sessions thereof which were about to begin at the moment
of the aggression;'"
     *      *      *      *      *      *      *
This is a quasi-criminal proceeding in which there is no
presumption of fact in favor of the prosecution. All of such
presumptions are in favor of the petitioner, and it appears
that at the time the alleged acts were committed, the
Legislature was not sitting in actual session. Neither is it
alleged that they were committed in the legislative halls or
even in the legislative building. Hence, analyzing the
specific charge, we have this situation. The petitioner
assaulted a member of the Legislature who was enroute to
the legislative building to attend a session of the
Legislature which had not been convened or called to order,
and it was for the commission of such an assault that he
was tried, convicted, and sentenced by the Legislature to
twenty-four hours in Bilibid Prison.
It is conceded that on October 9, 1907, the Philippine
Commission, which was created by an Act of Congress,
enacted Act No. 1755, which is as follows:
"No. 1755.—An Act to prohibit the disturb
ance of the Philippine Commission, the
Philippine Assembly, or of any provin-
194

194 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lopez vs. De los Reyes

  cial board or municipal or township

council; to punish disorderly conduct in
the immediate view or presence of said
bodies; to punish the fraudulent
altering of the draft of any bill,
resolution, ordinance, or act pending
before orenacted by any such body or
the Philippine Legislature; to compel
the attendance of witnesses and the
production of evidence before the
Philippine Commission or Philippine
Assembly, or before any committee of
either or both said bodies, and for other
purposes.
Legislative bodies, 'By authority of the United States, be it
Philippine enacted by the Philippine Commission,
Islands. that:
Prevention of "SECTION 1. Any person who willfully
metting or or by force or fraud prevents or
disturbance of attempts to prevent the meeting of the
procedings Philippine Comm ission or the
organizing or meeting of the Philippine
                              
Assembly or of any Insular legislative
body of the Philippine Islands
hereafter established, or the meeting
or organizing of any provincial board or
municipal or township council, and any
person who willfully disturbs the
Philippine Comm ission or the
Philippine Assembly, or any Insular
legislative body of the Philippine
Islands hereafter established, or any
provincial board or municipal or
township council, while in session, or
who is guilty of any disorderly conduct
in the immediate view or presence of
any such body tending to interrupt the
proceedings of such body or to impair
the respect due to its authority, shall
be punished by a fine of not more than

195

VOL. 55, NOVEMBER 5, 1930 195

Lopez vs. De los Reyes

two thousand pesos or by imprisonment

for not more than five years, or by both, in
the discretion of the court."                         
     *      *      *      *      *      *      *
That is very broad and comprehensive. It not only
applies to persons who by force or fraud prevent or attempt
to prevent the meetings of the Philippine Commission or
any Insular, legislative body, but it goes further and
applies to any person "who is guilty of any disorderly
conduct in the immediate view or presence of any such
body tending to interrupt its proceedings," or "to impair the
respect due to its authority." For the commission of any
such acts, the person "shall be punished by a fine of not
more than two thousand pesos or by imprisonment for not
more than five years, or by both, in the discretion of the
court." Among the first things which the Philippine
Commission did was to enact this law which has been in
force ever since. By its own act the Legislature vested the
power and authority in the courts to try, decide, and punish
the identical act f or which the Legislature itself tried and
convicted the petitioner. But it is contended that the
Legislature has the inherent power to punish for contempt,
and that it could not delegate that power to the courts.
There would be much force in that contention, if the
Legislature was acting under and was a creature of a
constitution.
The fact that said Act No. 1755 was approved by the
Philippine Commission on October 9, 1907, seven days
before the organization of the Philippine Assembly, is not
without significance. For it is to be presumed that the
American members of the then Philippine Commission
were aware of the existing jurisprudence as to the inherent
power of the legislative bodies in the United States to
punish for contempt, and yet they deemed it wise to pass
said Act, thus indicating that the Philippine Assembly then
about to be inaugurated ought not to possess the same
inherent power to punish for contempt third persons. Not

196

196 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lopez vs. De los Reyes

only this. On March 10, 1917, the Philippine Legislature

approved Act No. 2711, otherwise known as the
Administrative Code, section 102 of which provides:
"SEC. 102. Contempt of legislative body or committee.—
Any person who, being summoned to attend as a witness
before the Philippine Legislature, or either House thereof,
or before any committee of either of said bodies lawfully
clothed with authority to take testimony, fails or refuses,
without legal excuse, to attend pursuant to such summons,
and any person who, being present before any such body or
committee, willfully refuses to be sworn or placed under
affirmation or to answer any legal inquiry or to produce,
upon reasonable notice, any material and proper books,
papers, documents, records, or other evidence in his
possession or under his control, required by any such body,
shall be punished by a fine not to exceed one thousand
pesos, or imprisonment not to exceed six months, or both
such fine and imprisonment."
Assuming again that the Philippine Legislature was also
aware of the inherent power of the United States Congress
and of the State Legislatures to punish contumacious
witnesses for contempt, the inclusion of the above-quoted
section in the Administrative Code clearly shows that said
Philippine Legislature never considered itself possessed of
such inherent power to punish third persons; otherwise
such section of the Administrative Code would have been
entirely superfluous.
We frankly concede that, where under a constitution the
Legislature is vested with and has the inherent power to
punish for contempt, the Legislature cannot delegate that
power, for the simple reason that the power of the
Legislature is inferior and subordinate to that of the
constitution. It is for such reasons that the Legislature
cannot adopt, modify or amend a constitution. The power to
do that is vested in the higher authority of the sovereign
people.
It will be noted that in none of the authorities cited in
the opinion of Justice Malcolm is any mention or refer-

197

VOL. 55, NOVEMBER 5, 1930 197

Lopez vs. De los Reyes

ence made to the provisions in Act No. 1755 or of any

similar provisions. In fact, for aught that appears, there is
no such or similar provisions in the laws of any other
country, and such provisions are sui generis to the
Philippine Islands. It is very apparent upon its face that
the purpose and intent of Act No. 1755 was to ves the
courts with the power to try and punish the alleged acts,
and to do the very thing which. the Legislature itself tried
to do in this case. If, as now claimed, the Legislature has
all of that inherent power, why was Act No. 1755 enacted?
And why did it give the courts the power to try and punish
for such offenses ? Act No. 1755 was enacted for a specific
purpose and to meet conditions then existing. Its terms and
provisions are broad and drastic, and its punishment is
severe, and it was designed to protect the person and body
of a member of the Legislature or even of the city council
from an assault or bodily harm, and for twentythree years
it has answered well its purpose.
Much stress is attached to the contention that the
Legislature has such inherent power for its own protection
and preservation. We frankly concede that, if the alleged
acts were committed within the halls of the Legislature and
while it was sitting in actual session, it would then have
the power to maintain and preserve order and to do
anything necessary for the conduct of its own business or
its own preservation. But, as stated, the alleged acts were
not committed while the Legislature was sitting in actual
session, and it does not appear from the record that they
were committed even in the legislative building, and
assuming everything to be true, as alleged, it does not
appear that they resulted in any real or substantial
interference with the proceedings of the Legislature.
Article 587 of the Penal Code provides:
"The penalty of arresto menor shall be imposed upon any
person who shall inflict upon another any physical injuries
which shall prevent the person injured from working for a
period of from one to seven days, or shall make medical
attendance necessary for the same period."

198

198 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lopez vs. De los Reyes

Under the provision of this article, if guilty as charged, the

petitioner could be convicted and sentenced to from one to
thirty days' imprisonment.
Hence, in the final analysis, if the Legislature has the
power to punish a third person for contempt for an assault
upon one of its members outside of its legislative hall, that
person would be guilty of three distinct offenses for one and
the same act. He could be tried and convicted by the
Legislature itself for an assault upon one of its members,
and sentenced to any period not beyond the legislative
session. He could then be tried and convicted by the court
for the same identical offense under the provisions of Act
No. 1755, and fined not more than P2,000 or imprisonment
for not more than five years, or by both, in the discretion of
the court. He could also be tried and convicted by the court
for that same offense under article 587 of the Penal Code,
and sentenced to from one to thirty days' imprisonment.
We concede that the United States decisions lay down
the rule that where the Legislature, acting and sitting
under a constitution, has the inherent power to punish for
contempt, that a conviction for that offense is not a bar to a
prosecution in the court for the crime of assault and
battery, which in the instant case would correspond to
article 58J of the Penal Code. Be that as it may, none of
those decisions are in point. First, for the simple reason
that the Legislature of the Philippine Islands is not sitting
or acting under a constitution, but is a creature of an Act of
Congress of the United States, which has no power to adopt
or even amend the Constitution of the United States or any
State of the United States, much less to adopt a
constitution for the Philippine Islands. Second, that the
people of the Philippine Islands have never adopted or held
a constitutional convention. Third, none of those decisions
are founded upon Act No. 1755 or any similar provision.
They are all based upon the inherent power of a legislature
under
199

VOL, 55, NOVEMBER 5, 1930 199

Lopez vs. De los Reyes

a constitution. Fourth, to permit the exercise of that

alleged inherent power of the Philippine Legislature under
an Act of Congress would subject the offender to three
different penalties. One by the Legislature itself, one under
Act No. 1755, and the third under article 587 of the Penal
Code, and all for an act committed outside of the legislative
halls, and while the Legislature was not sitting in actual
session.
We are clearly of the opinion, upon the admitted facts,
that the Philippine Legislature had no legal right to try
much less convict and sentence the petitioner to
imprisonment in Bilibid. That when Act No. 1755 was
enacted it vested in the courts, by its express terms and
provisions, the power to try and punish contemptuous acts
committed on one of its members outside of the legislative
halls and while the Legislature was not sitting in actual
session, in addition to which the alleged offender could also
be tried, convicted, and punished under article 587 of the
Penal Code.
For such reasons, the alleged trial, conviction, and
sentence of the Legislature is null and void, and the writ
should be granted, and to that extent we concur in the
result. From this point of view, it is unnecessary to discuss
or express an opinion on the remaining question.

ROMUALDEZ, J., concurring and dissenting in part:

With due respect to the majority opinion, I believe the

judgment appealed from should be affirmed.
It is alleged in the return to the writ that on October 23,
1929, while Representative Jose Dimayuga was proceeding
to the House of Representatives to attend the session, the
petitioner herein knowingly assaulted said representative,
thereby preventing him from attending the session of the
house that day, and on two other days.
 I agree with the majority opinion that these facts must
be admitted, inasmuch as they were neither duly traversed
nor contradicted, and the petition to present evidence to
the contrary having been denied without an exception from
the petitioner.

200

200 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lopez vs. De los Reyes

I agree with the writer of the opinion that the House of

Representatives has sufficient power to take disciplinary
action in cases of contempt like the one under
consideration. Such power is inherent in the right of the
Legislature to self-preservation and the exercise of its f
unctions; and in the particular case in question, I am of
opinion that, in view of the facts of the case, the authority
exercised is also a necessary consequence derived a fortiori
from the immunity of a member of the legislature from
arrest for certain crimes and misdemeanors, while
attending the legislative session or going to or from the
sessions.
But I dissent from the majority opinion where it denies
to the House of Representatives the right to exercise that
power during the present session, which is a session of the
same legislature, though subsequent to that wherein the
act of contempt was committed. In my opinion, where, as in
the case before us, the members composing the legislative
body against which the contempt was committed have not
yet completed their three-year term, the House may take
action against the petitioner herein.
I see nothing contrary to this conclusion in the cases of
Anderson vs. Dunn (6 Wheaton, 230), and Marshall vs.
Gordon (243 U. S., 521), cited in the majority opinion, in
the judgment appealed from, and in the briefs filed by both
parties. The restrictions laid upon the penalty for this kind
of contempt, as I understand them, are merely that the
punishment is limited to imprisonment, and that such
imprisonment shall not extend beyond the session when
service begins. These limitations have nothing to do with
the exercise of the power to punish for contempt, but only
with the duration of the imprisonment. That is why it was
said in Marshall vs. Gordon:
"And the essential nature of the power also makes clear
the cogency and application of the two limitations which
were expressly pointed out in Anderson vs. Dunn, supra;
that is, that the power, even when applied to subjects
which

201

VOL. 55, NOVEMBER 5, 1930 201

Lopez vs. De los Reyes

justified its exercise, is limited to imprisonment, and such

imprisonment may not be executed beyond the session of the
body in which the contempt occurred." (Italics ours.)
If it were intended to limit the power to by
imprisonment the passage italicised should have read: "and
the power may not be exercised" (using "the power" instead
of "such imprisonment" and "exercised" instead of
"executed" as relating to power) "beyond the session of the
body in which the contempt occurred."
The timeliness of exercising that power at a session
subsequent to that when the contempt occurred, in general,
is a matter strictly within the discretion of the offended
legislative body, and courts cannot pass upon it unless
there is evidence of a manifest and absolute disregard of
discretion, which does not appear from the record in the
present case. The f acts of record show that the contempt
was not punished during the session when it occurred, not
because of negligence or condonation of the offense by the
House, but because the petitioner could not be arrested.
The following is a pertinent ruling from the case of
Marshall vs. Gordon, cited above:
"On the contrary, when an act is of such a character as
to subject it to be dealt with as a contempt under the
implied authority, we are of opinion that jurisdiction is
acquired by Congress to act on the subject, and therefore
there necessarily results from this power the right to
determine, in the use of legitimate and fair discretion, how
far from the nature and character of the act there is
necessity for repression to prevent immediate recurrence;
that is to say, the continued existence of the interference or
obstruction to the exercise of the legislative power. And of
course in such case, as in every other, unless there be
manifest and absolute disregard of discretion ound a mere
exertion of arbitrary power coming within the reach of
constitutional limitations, the exercise of the authority is not
subject to judicial interference." (Italics ours.)
202

202 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

 Lopez vs. De los Reyes

The allegation that the petitioner was not duly heard is

contradicted by the return to the writ which has not in any
way been denied or controverted.
The warrant of arrest signed by the Speaker of the
House is perfectly valid and the lack of an express oath
taken in the act does not detract from the legal effect
thereof, as shown by the Attorney-General in his brief,
citing the case of McGrain vs. Daugherty (273 U. S., 135).
There is no merit in the allegation that the respondent
as a Constabulary officer has no authority to return the
warrant of arrest. This is one of his functions provided in
section 831 of the Administrative Code, and the
Constabulary Manual adopted under the provision of
section 843 of said Code.
These are the considerations upon the strength of which
I believe that the power which the majority of this court
has recognized in the House of Representatives was legally
exercised in the case at bar.
I vote for the affirmance of the judgment appealed from.

JOHNSON, J., dissenting:

This is an appeal from a very interesting and instructive

opinion of Judge Mariano Albert denying the petition of the
appellant for the writ of habeas corpus. The facts upon
which the petition was based are simple and may be stated
briefly as follows:
The appellant was arrested on the morning of
September 19, 1930, by the respondent by virtue of a
warrant of arrest signed by the Honorable Manuel Roxas,
Speaker of the House of Representatives, in pursuance of a
resolution of said House approved September 16, 1930. The
warrant of arrest was issued by reason of an alleged act of
contempt against the Legislature committed on October 23,
1929, upon the person of Representative Jose Dimayuga by
the petitioner, during its sessions in 1929, The appellant
now asks that said warrant of arrest be declared illegal and
void and that he be released from said arrest.

203

VOL. 55, NOVEMBER 5, 1930 203

Lopez vs. De los Reyes

Upon a full and careful consideration of the facts and the

law, Judge Mariano Albert denied the petition and
dismissed the same with costs, and ordered the petitioner
remanded to the custody of the respondent for compliance
with the order of the Speaker of the House of
Representatives. From that decision the petitioner
appealed, and now, through his attorneys, makes two
principal contentions: (a) That the Legislature of the
Philippine Islands has no authority to punish him for
contempt, and (b) that the alleged contempt having been
committed during the former sessions of the Legislature
(1929), the Legislature which imposed the punishment
during its period of sessions in 1930 is without right or
authority to impose the punishment complained of.
Upon these questions practically every member of this
court has presented a separate opinion covering a wide
range of subjects but differing in their conclusions. Much
has been said which, in my opinion, is not germane to the
subject before us.
The Legislature of the Philippine Islands is a duly
organized legislative body under an Act of the Congress of
the United States. Its authority to act as a legislative body
is not even now questioned by any of the parties in this
action. It is a body elected by the people for a definite
period, with authority to hold sessions and to enact laws
upon the subjects delegated to it. Being a regularly
organized legislative body, we think the general rules
governing such bodies should be applied. The legislative
body of the Philippine Islands is composed of two branches
under the law, (a) a House of Representatives and (b) a
Senate.
Cooley, in his very valuable work on Constitutional
Limitations, said:
"Each house has also the power to punish members for
disorderly behavior. and other contempts of its authority,
as well as to expel a member for any cause which seems
203
204

204 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lopez vs. De los Reyes

to the body to render it unfit that he continue to occupy one

of its seats. This power is generally enumerated in the
constitution among those which the two houses may
exercise, but it need not be specified in that instrument,
since it would exist whether expressly conferred or not. It is
'a necessary and incidental power to enable the house to
perform its high functions, and it is necessary to the safety
of the state. It is a power of protection. A member may be
physically, mentally, or morally wholly unfit; he may be
affected with a contagious disease, or insane, or noisy,
violent, and disorderly, or in the habit of using profane,
obscene, and abusive language.' And, 'independently of
parliamentary customs and usages, our legislative houses
have the power to protect themselves by the punishment
and expulsion of a member;' and the courts cannot inquire
into the justice of the decision, or even so much as examine
the proceedings to see whether or not the proper
opportunity for defense was furnished.
"Each house may also punish contempts of its authority
by other persons, where they are committed in its presence,
or where they tend directly to embarrass or obstruct its
legislative proceedings; and it requires f or the purpose no
express provision of the constitution conferring the
authority. It is not very well settled what are the limits to
this power; and in the leading case in this country the
speaker's warrant for the arrest of the person adjudged
guilty of contempt was sustained, though it did not show in
what the alleged contempt consisted. In the leading
English case a libellous publication concerning the house
was treated as a contempt; and punishment has sometimes
been inflicted for assaults upon members of the house, not
committed in or near the place of sitting, and for the arrest
of members in disregard of their constitutional privilege.
"When imprisonment is imposed as a punishment, it
must terminate with the final adjournment of the house,
and if the prisoner be not then discharged by its order,
205

VOL. 55, NOVEMBER 5, 1930 205

Lopez vs. De los Reyes

he may be released on habeas corpus." (Cooley's

Constitutional Limitations, pp. 190, 191,-7th ed.)
Accepting as I do the eminent authority of Judge Cooley
and the cases cited in support of his argument, I see no
escape from the conclusion that the Legislature of the
Philippine Islands has inherent power to punish for
contempt all such cases as Judge Cooley mentions. Many
other cases might be cited in support of the conclusions of
Judge Cooley. Many of the other decisions are cited and
clearly discussed by Judge Mariano Albert. I feel that no
comments are necessary to sustain the splendid argument
and the wise conclusions of Judge Albert on that particular
question.
 Granting that the Legislature has inherent power to
punish for contempt, we pass to a discussion of the second
question, to wit, When must the punishment imposed be
carried into effect? Upon that question Judge Cooley, as We
have stated above, makes the statement: "When
imprisonment is imposed as a punishment, it must
terminate with the final adjournment of the house, and if
the prisoner be not then discharged by its order, he may be
released on habeas corpus." (Jefferson's Manual, sec. 18;
Richard's Case, 1 Lev., 165.)
If I understand the statement of Judge Cooley and the
authorities he cites, he means that a legislative body
having the inherent power to punish for contempt, may
punish contempts at any time before the final adjournment
of that body. But what do we mean by the phrase "final
adjournment of that body?" It simply means that during
the existence of the particular legislature it may punish for
contempt at any time before "final adjournment." If I
understand correctly the authorities cited by Judge Cooley,
"final adjournment" means the time when a particular
legislative body goes out of existence as a legislative body.
To illustrate: the legislature may be elected for a period of
three years and no more. At the expiration of three years,
that body ceases to exist as a legislative entity. In

206

206 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lopez vs. De los Reyes

other words, it has gone out of existence upon final

adjournment, and of course having gone out of existence as
a legislative body, it ceases to have any legislative
authority, and not having any legislative authority or
authority as a legislature, its power to carry into effect any
of its orders has ceased and it is powerless to enforce any of
its' orders made during its legal existence.
If an examination of the journals of the legislature may
be made, we will find that a distinction is made between (a)
daily adjournments of the sessions, (b) adjournment at the
end of each period of sessions and (c) final ad-journment, by
virtue of which the legislature goes out of existence. For the
daily adjournment, the following language is used: "Se
levantó la sesión * * *, acor-dándose celebrar la siguiente el
........................de .................... 19................... " The language
for the adjournment of the legislature at each period of
sessions is as follows: "El Presidente declaró levantada la
sesión sine die del primer período de sesiones * * *," while
the language used for the final adjournment is: "Sr.
Presidente: Ahora, caballeros de la Cámara, de acuerdo con
la resolución concurrent6 adoptada por ambas cámaras, se
levanta la sesi6n de la Cámara de Representantes sine die."
If we may be permitted to examine the Congressional
Record of the Congress of the United States, we will find
that different languages are used for (a) daily adjourn-
ment, (b) adjournment at the end of each period of sessions,
and (c) final adjournment, by virtue of which it goes out of
existence. For daily adjournment the following language is
used: "Accordingly the House, under the order heretofore
made, adjourned until to-morrow, etc." For the
adjournment at the end of each period of sessions, the
following language is used "The Chair (the Speaker)
declares the first session of the Sixty-fourth Congress
adjourned without day." For the final adjournment, which
terminates the existence of that particular body, the
following language is used: "I (the Speaker) declare the

207

VOL. 55, NOVEMBER 5, 1930 207

Lopez vs. De los Reyes

House of Representatives of the Sixty-third Congress

adjourned without day."
After an examination of the journals of the Legislature
of the Philippine Islands as well as those of the Congress of
the United States, we observe that there are three classes
of adjournments of sessions of those legislative bodies: (a)
Adjournment of the sessions from day to day, (b)
adjournment of sessions from one period to another, of the
same legislature or Congress, and (c) final ad-journment of
the particular legislature or Congress, which means that
that particular entity, as a legislative body, has ceased to
exist and has no further power as a legal entity for the
purposes of legislation.
If I understand the facts in this case, the Legislature
which authorized Manuel Roxas, its Speaker, to order the
arrest of the appellant on September 16, 1930, is exactly
the same legislative entity against which the appellant
committed contempt in 1929, and had not finally adjourned
at the time the present petition for the writ of habeas
corpus was presented to the Court of First Instance of the
City of Manila. Said Legislature, therefore, at the time of
the consideration of the petition for the writ of habeas
corpus, still had full authority to carry into effect, through
proper channels, the order of arrest complained of.
 There has been a good deal of discussion concerning the
sessions of the Legislature and its right to punish for
contempt after the close of the sessions at which the
contempt was committed. In my judgment the argument
which supports the contention that the power to punish has
ceased to exist, after the close of the sessions at which the
contempt was committed, is not well supported, unless the
close of the period of sessions is a final. adjournment or a
sine die adjournment, which means that that particular
legislative body, as a legislative entity, has gone out of
existence. In my judgment there is no support for the
contention that the close of a particular period of sessions

208

208 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Fulton Iron Works Co. vs. China Banking Corporation

deprives the legislative body of its right to punish for

contempt committed during that period.
In view of all of the f oregoing, I am f orced to the
conclusion that the judgment appealed from should be
affirmed, with costs.
Judgment reversed.

___________________

© Copyright 2022 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.