Professional Documents
Culture Documents
File No. 7
V. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
b. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
(4) Within three years following the return of every census, the
Congress shall make a reapportionment of legislative districts
based on the standards provided in this section.
CASES
o Each city with not less than 250 thousand inhabitants, entitled
to at least one (1) representative;
o Each province, irrespective of the number of inhabitants,
entitled to at least one (1) representative.
2. Each district must be contiguous compact and adjacent.
Gerrymandering is not allowed.
CASES
". . . Until such apportionment shall have been made, the House of
Representatives shall have the same number of Members as that
fixed by law for the National Assembly, who shall be elected by the
qualified electors from the present Assembly districts . . ."
The provision does not support the view that, upon the expiration
of the period to make the apportionment, a Congress which fails to
make it is dissolved or becomes illegal. On the contrary, it implies
necessarily that Congress shall continue to function with the
representative districts existing at the time of the expiration of said
period (Gonzales vs. Comelec, 21 SCRA 774).
CASES
(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the
adoption of this Constitution;
(2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
(3) Those born before January 17, 1973 of Filipino mothers, who
elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority, and
(4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
There are two ways of acquiring citizenship: (1) by birth, and (2) by
naturalization. These ways of acquiring citizenship correspond
to the two kinds of citizens: the natural-born citizen, and the
naturalized citizen. A person who at the time of his birth is a citizen
of a particular country, is a natural-born citizen thereof.
On the other hand, naturalized citizens are those who have become
Filipino citizens through naturalization, generally under
Commonwealth Act No. 473, otherwise known as the Revised
Naturalization Law, which repealed the former Naturalization Law
(Act No. 2927), and by Republic Act No. 530. To be
naturalized, an applicant has to prove that he possesses all the
qualifications and none of the disqualifications provided by law to
become a Filipino citizen. The decision granting Philippine
citizenship becomes executory only after two (2) years from its
promulgation when the court is satisfied that during the
intervening period, the applicant has (1) not left the Philippines;
(2) has dedicated himself to a lawful calling or profession; (3) has
not been convicted of any offense or violation of Government
promulgated rules; or (4) committed any act prejudicial to the
interest of the nation or contrary to any Government
announced policies.
CASES
1. Cannot hold any other office or During his term. If he does so,
employment in the Government he forfeits his seat.
or any subdivision, agency or
instrumentality thereof, including
GOCCS or their subsidiaries.
CASES
vii) Discipline
CASES
Section 15. The Congress shall convene once every year on the
fourth Monday of July for its regular session, unless a different
date is fixed by law, and shall continue to be in session for
such number of days as it may determine until thirty days
before the opening of its next regular session, exclusive of
Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. The President may call
a special session at any time.
Section 16. (1). The Senate shall elect its President and the
House of Representatives, its Speaker, by a majority vote of all
its respective Members. Each House shall choose such other
officers as it may deem necessary.
Regular Sessions:
o Congress convenes once every year on the 4th Monday of July
(unless otherwise provided for by law).
o Continues in session for as long as it sees fit, until 30 days before
the opening of the next regular session, excluding Saturdays,
Sundays, and legal holidays.
Special Sessions:
Called by the President at any time when Congress is not in session.
Adjournments:
1. Neither House can adjourn for more than 3 days during the time
Congress is in session without the consent of the other House.
2. Neither can they adjourn to any other place than that where the two
houses are sitting, without the consent of the other.
Election of Officers
o By a majority vote of all respective
members.
Quorum to do business:
1. Majority of each House shall constitute a quorum.
2. A smaller number may adjourn from day to day and may compel the
attendance of absent members.
3. In computing a quorum, members who are outside the country and
thus outside of each House’s coercive jurisdiction are not included.
Discipline:
1. Suspension – needs concurrence of
2/3 of ALL its members and shall not
exceed 60 days. Or,
2. Expulsion – concurrence of 2/3 of
ALL its members.
CASES
Majority may also refer to "the group, party, or faction with the
larger number of votes," not necessarily more than one half. This is
sometimes referred to as plurality. In contrast, minority is "a group,
party, or faction with a smaller number of votes or adherents than
the majority." Between two unequal parts or numbers comprising a
whole or totality, the greater number would obviously be the
majority, while the lesser would be the minority. But where there
are more than two unequal groupings, it is not as easy to say which
is the minority entitled to select the leader representing all the
minorities. While the Constitution is explicit on the manner of
electing a Senate President and a House Speaker, it is, however,
dead silent on the manner of selecting the other officers in both
chambers of Congress. All that the Charter says is that "[e]ach
House shall choose such other officers as it may deem necessary."
The method of choosing who will be such other officers is merely a
derivative of the exercise of the prerogative conferred by the
aforequoted constitutional provision. Therefore, such method must
be prescribed by the Senate itself, not by this Court. Notably, the
Rules of the Senate do not provide for the positions of majority and
minority leaders. Neither is there an open clause providing
specifically for such offices and prescribing the manner of creating
them or of choosing the holders thereof . At any rate, such offices,
by tradition and long practice, are actually extant. But, in the
absence of constitutional or statutory guidelines or specific rules,
this Court is devoid of any basis upon which to determine the
legality of the acts of the Senate relative thereto. On grounds of
respect for the basic concept of separation of powers, courts may
not intervene in the internal affairs of the legislature; it is not within
the province of courts to direct Congress how to do its work.
Legislative rules, unlike statutory laws, do not have the imprints of
permanence and obligatoriness during their effectivity. In fact, they
"are subject to revocation, modification or waiver at the pleasure of
the body adopting them." Being merely matters of procedure, their
observance are of no concern to the courts, for said rules may be
waived or disregarded by the legislative body 49 at will, upon the
concurrence of a majority (Santiago vs. Guingona, GR 134577, Nov. 18,
1998).
ii) Quorum
Majority of each House, but a smaller number may adjourn from day ro
day and may compel the attendance of absent Members in such
manner and under such penalties as such House may determine (Sec.
16 (2), Art. VI)
CASES
iii)Internal Rules
CASES
Journals
Conclusive upon the courts as regards the tenor of the measure passed
by Congress and approved by the President (Mabanag v, Lopez Vito, 78
Phil.1).
CASES
• The Act of Congress, approved July 1, 1902, provides, among other
things, in section 7, that the Philippine Assembly "shall keep a
journal of its proceedings, which shall be published . . . ." Section
275 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the existence of
the "official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial
departments of the United States and of the Philippine Islands . . .
shall be judicially recognized by the court without the introduction
of proof; but the court may receive evidence upon any of the
subjects in this section stated, when it shall find it necessary for its
own information, and may resort for its aid to appropriate books,
documents, or evidence (US vs Pons, 34 Phil 729).”
Even if both the journals and an authenticated copy of the Act had
been presented, the disposal of the issue by the Court on the basis
of the journals does not imply rejection of the enrollment theory,
for, as already stated, the due enactment of a law may be proved
in either of the two ways specified in section 313 of Act No. 190 as
amended (Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito, 78 Phil 1).
• It is well settled that the enrolled bill — which uses the term
"urea formaldehyde" instead of "urea and formaldehyde" — is
conclusive upon the courts as regards the tenor of the measure
passed by Congress and approved by the President. If there has
been any mistake in the printing of the bill before it was certified
by the officers of Congress and approved by the Executive — on
which we cannot speculate, without jeopardizing the principle of
separation of powers and undermining one of the cornerstones of
our democratic system — the remedy is by amendment or curative
legislation, not by judicial decree (Casco Chemical vs. Gimenez, 7 SCRA
347).
d. ELECTORAL TRIBUNALS
Section 17. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall
each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge
of all contests relating to the election, returns, and
qualifications of their respective Members. Each Electoral
Tribunal shall be composed of nine Members, three of whom
shall be Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by the
Chief Justice, and the remaining six shall be Members of the
Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case may be,
who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional
representation from the political parties and the parties or
organizations registered under the party-list system
represented therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral
Tribunal shall be its Chairman.
i) Composition
The Senate and the House shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which
shall be composed of:
CASES
ii) Powers
CASES
• Article VI thereof states: Sec. 17. The Senate and the House of
Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall
be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns,
and qualifications of their respective Members. . . .The foregoing
constitutional provision is reiterated in Rule 14 of the 1991 Revised
Rules of the Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives. In
the recent case of Rasul v. COMELEC and Aquino-Oreta, the Court,
in interpreting the aforesaid constitutional provision, stressed the
exclusivity of the Electoral Tribunal's jurisdiction over its members.
In the same vein, considering that petitioner questions the
proclamation of Henry Lanot as the winner in the congressional
race for the sole district of Pasig City, his remedy should have been
to file an electoral protest with the House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal (HRET) (Caruncho vs. Comelec, GR 135996, Sept. 30,
1999).
Voting / Action
1. The Commission shall rule by majority vote of all
members.
2. The chairman shall only vote in case of a tie.
3. The Commission on Appointments shall act on all appointment
within 30 session days from their submission to Congress.
CASES
ii) Powers
CASES
• Under the provisions of the 1987 Constitution, there are four (4)
groups of officers whom the President shall appoint:
CASES
a. police power
The power vested in the legislature by the
constitutionto make, ordain, and establish
all manner of wholesome and reasonable
laws, statutes, and ordinances, either with
penalties or without, not repugnant to the
Constitution, as they shall judge to be for
the good and welfare of the commonwealth,
and of the subjects of the same.
Basis : public necessity and the right of the State and of the public to
self-protection and self preservation.
Who may exercise: generally the legislature, but also upon valid
delegation:
1. the President
2. Administrative bodies
3. Law making bodies of LGU
b. power of taxation
Who may exercise: generally the legislature, but also upon valid
delegation:
c. eminent domain
power of the State to forcibly take
private property for public use upon
payment of just compensation.
Who may exercise: generally the legislature, but also upon valid
delegation:
1. the President
2. Law-making bodies of LGUs;
3. Public corporations; and
4. Quasi-public corporations
iii)Limitations
a. Substantive Limitations
- Limitations on specific powers (Section
30 and 31)
- Bill of Rights
- Implied limitations: no irrepealable law,
non-encroachment, non-delegation
b. Procedural Limitations
CASES
Sufficiency of Title
CASES
CASES
(2) No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has
passed three readings on separate days, and printed copies thereof in
its final form have been distributed to its Members three days before
its passage, except when the President certifies to the necessity of its
immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency. Upon
the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall be allowed, and
the vote thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter, and the yeas
and nays entered in the Journal.
Section 27. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before
it becomes a law, be presented to the President. If he
approves the same he shall sign it; otherwise, he shall veto it
and return the same with his objections to the House where it
originated, which shall enter the objections at large in its
Journal and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such
reconsideration, two-thirds of all the Members of such House
shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the
objections, to the other House by which it shall likewise be
reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of all the Members
of that House, it shall become a law. In all such cases, the
votes of each House shall be determined by yeas or nays, and
the names of the Members voting for or against shall be
entered in its Journal. The President shall communicate his
veto of any bill to the House where it originated within thirty
days after the date of receipt thereof, otherwise, it shall
become a law as if he had signed it.
(2) The President shall have the power to veto any particular
item or items in an appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill, but
the veto shall not affect the item or items to which he does not
object.
i) Approval of Bills
1. Appropriation bill;
2. Revenue and tariff bills;
3. Bill authorizing increase in public
debts;
4. Bill of local application; and
5. Private bills (Sec. 24, Art. VI)
iii)Pocket veto
- occurs when :
iv)Item veto
CASES
• The Executive must veto a bill in its entirety or not at all. He or
she cannot act like an editor crossing out specific lines, provisions,
or paragraphs in a bill that he or she dislikes. In the exercise of the
veto power, it is generally all or nothing. However, when it comes
to appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, the Administration needs
the money to run the machinery of government and it can not veto
the entire bill even if it may contain objectionable features. The
President is, therefore, compelled to approve into law the entire
bill, including its undesirable parts. It is for this reason that the
Constitution has wisely provided the "item veto powers" to avoid
inexpedient riders being attached to an indispensable appropriation
or revenue measure. The Constitution provides that only a
particular item or items may be vetoed. The power to disapprove
any item or items in an appropriate bill does not grant the authority
to veto a part of an item and to approve the remaining portion of
the same item. We distinguish an item from a provision in the
following manner: "The terms item and provision in budgetary
legislations and practice are concededly different. An item in a bill
refers to the particulars, the details, the distinct and severable
parts . . . of the bill. An 'item' of an appropriation bill obviously
means an item which in itself is a specific appropriation of money,
not some general provision of law, which happens to be put into an
appropriation bill.” Thus, the augmentation of specific
appropriations found inadequate to pay retirement payments, by
transferring savings from other items of appropriation is a provision
and not an item. It gives power to the Chief Justice to transfer funds
from one item to another. There is no specific appropriation of
money involved (Bengzon vs. Drilon, 208 SCRA 133).
CASES
h. POWER OF THE PURSE (SEC. 24, 25, ART. VI; 20 - Art. VII,
SEC. 20 AND 22)
Article VI
(7) If, by the end of any fiscal year, the Congress shall have
failed to pass the general appropriations bill for the ensuing
fiscal year, the general appropriations law for the preceding
fiscal year shall be deemed re-enacted and shall remain in
force and effect until the general appropriations bill is passed
by the Congress.
Article VII
CASES
• Petitioners argue that the said automatic appropriations under
the aforesaid decrees of then President Marcos became functus
oficio when he was ousted in February, 1986; that upon the
expiration of the one-man legislature in the person of President
Marcos, the legislative power was restored to Congress on February
2, 1987 when the Constitution was ratified by the people; that
there is a need for a new legislation by Congress providing for
automatic appropriation, but Congress, up to the present, has not
approved any such law; and thus the said P86.8 Billion automatic
appropriation in the 1990 budget is an administrative act that rests
on no law, and thus, it cannot be enforced. The Court, however, is
not persuaded. Section 3, Article XVIII of the Constitution
recognizes that "All existing laws, decrees, executive orders,
proclamations, letters of instructions and other executive issuances
not inconsistent with the Constitution shall remain operative until
amended, repealed or revoked." This transitory provision of the
Constitution has precisely been adopted by its framers to preserve
the social order so that legislation by the then President Marcos
may be recognized. Such laws are to remain in force and effect
unless they are inconsistent with the Constitution or are otherwise
amended, repealed or revoked (Guingona vs. Carague, 196 SCRA 221).
1. must specify public purpose for which the sum was intended; and
2. must be supported by funds actually available as certified by the
National Treasurer or to be raised by corresponding revenue
proposal included therein (Sec. 25(4),Art. VI).
(7) If, by the end of any fiscal year, the Congress shall have
failed to pass the general appropriations bill for the ensuing
fiscal year, the general appropriations law for the preceding
fiscal year shall be deemed re-enacted and shall remain in
force and effect until the general appropriations bill is passed
by the Congress.
a. Riders
CASES
c. Purpose
CASES
CASES
• If the Legislature has the power to impose a tax... then "the
judicial cannot prescribed to the legislative department of the
Government limitation upon the exercise of its acknowledge
powers." That the Philippine Legislature has the power to impose
such taxes, we think there can be no serious doubt, because "the
power to impose taxes is one so unlimited in force and so
searching in extent, that the courts scarcely venture to declare that
it is subject to any restrictions whatever, except such as rest in the
discretion of the authority which exercises it. It reaches to every
trade or occupation; to every object of industry, use, or enjoyment;
to every species of possession; and it imposes a burden which, in
case of failure to discharge it, may be followed by seizure and sale
or confiscation of property. No attribute of sovereignty is more
pervading, and at no point does the power of the government
affect more constantly and intimately all the relations of life than
through the exactions made under it." If a case were presented
where the abuse of the taxing power of the local legislature was to
extreme as to make it plain to the judicial mind that the power had
been exercised for the sole purpose of destroying rights which
could not be rightfully destroyed consistently with the principles of
freedom and justice upon which the Philippine Government rests,
then it would be the duty of the courts to say that such an arbitrary
act was not merely an abuse of the power, but was the exercise of
an authority not conferred. The only limitation, in so far as these
questions are concerned, placed upon the Philippine Legislature in
the exercise of its taxing power is that found in section 5 of the
Philippine Bill, wherein it is declared "that the rule of taxation in
said Islands shall be uniform." A tax is uniform when it operates
with the same force and effect in every place where the subject of
it is found. The words "uniform throughout the United States," as
required of a tax by the Constitution, do not signify an intrinsic, but
simply a geographical, uniformity, and such uniformity is therefore
the only uniformity which is prescribed by the Constitution.
"Uniformity," as applied to the constitutional provision that all
taxes shall be uniform, means that all property belonging to the
same class shall be taxed alike. The rule does not require taxes to
be graded according to the value of the subject or subjects upon
which they are imposed, especially those levied as privilege or
occupation taxes. We can hardly see wherein the tax in question
constitutes double taxation. The fact that the land upon which the
billboards are located is taxed at so much per unit and the
billboards at so much per square meter does not constitute "double
taxation." Double taxation, within the true meaning of that
expression, does not necessarily affect its validity. And again, it is
not for the judiciary to say that the classification upon which the
tax is based "is mere arbitrary selection and not based upon any
reasonable grounds." The Legislature selected signs and billboards
as a subject for taxation and it must be presumed that it, in so
doing, acted with a full knowledge of the situation (Churchill vs.
Concepcion, 34 Phil 969).
Legislative
Question Hour (Sec. Investigation
22) (Sec. 21)
CASES
• It was admitted and we had ruled that the Senate has the
authority to commit a witness if he refuses to answer a question
pertinent to a legislative inquiry, to compel him to give the
information, i. e., by reason of its coercive power, not its punitive
power. It is now contented by petitioner that if he committed an
offense of contempt or perjury against the legislative body,
because he refused to reveal the identity of the person in
accordance with the demands of the Senate Committee, the
legislature may not punish him, for the punishment for his refusal
should be sought through the ordinary processes of the law, i.e., by
the institution of a criminal action in a court of justice. American
legislative bodies, after which our own is patterned, have the power
to punish for contempt if the contempt has had the effect of
obstructing the exercise by the legislature of, or deterring or
preventing it from exercising, its legitimate functions. The principle
that Congress or any o fits bodies has the power to punish
recalcitrant witnesses is founded upon reason and policy. Said
power must be considered implied or incidental to the exercise of
legislative power, or necessary to effectuate said power. How could
a legislative body obtain the knowledge and information on which
to base intended legislation if it cannot require and compel the
disclosure of such knowledge and information, if it is impotent to
punish a defiance of its power and authority? When the framers of
the Constitution adopted the principle of separation of powers,
making each branch supreme within the realm of its respective
authority, it must have intended each department's authority to be
full and complete, independently of the other's authority or power.
And how could the authority and power become complete if for
every act of refusal, every act of defiance, every act of contumacy
against it, the legislative body must resort to the judicial
department for the appropriate remedy, because it is impotent by
itself to punish or deal therewith, with the affronts committed
against its authority or dignity (Arnault vs. Balagtas, 97 Phil 358).
CASES
i) Indirect Initiative
CASES
ii) Recall
CASES
CASES