You are on page 1of 6

Political Law Title Must Express One Subject

Alalayan and the Philippine Power and Development Company assails the power vested in
NAPOCOR that in any contract for the supply of electric power to a franchise holder, receiving at
least 50% of its electric power and energy from it to require as a condition that such franchise holder
shall not realize a net profit of more than twelve percent annually of its investments plus two-month
operating expenses. Also it could renew all existing contracts with franchise holders for the supply
of electric power and energy,. This is all in pursuant to RA 3043 and the amendments it offered to
RA 2641. Alalayan and PPDC are contractors with NAPOCOR. They are re-suppliers of power
produced by NAPOCOR. They aver that the provision of the said RA is a rider in only meant to
increase the capital stock of NAPOCOR.
ISSUE: Whether or not RA 3043 is constitutional.
HELD: No bill which may be enacted into law shall embrace more than one subject which shall be
expressed in [its] title . . . This provision is similar to those found in many American State
Constitutions. It is aimed against the evils of the so-called omnibus bills as log-rolling legislation as
well as surreptitious or unconsidered enactments. Where the subject of a bill is limited to a
particular matter, the lawmakers along with the people should be informed of the subject of proposed
legislative measures. This constitutional provision thus precludes the insertion of riders in legislation,
a rider being a provision not germane to the subject matter of the bill. Alalayan asserts that the
provision objected to is such a rider.
To lend approval to such a plea is to construe the above constitutional provision as to cripple or
impede proper legislation. To impart to it a meaning which is reasonable and not unduly technical, it
must be deemed sufficient that the title be comprehensive enough reasonably to include the general
object which the statute seeks to effect without expressing each and every end and means
necessary for its accomplishment. Thus, mere details need not be set forth. The legislature is not
required to make the title of the act a complete index of its contents. The provision merely calls for all
parts of an act relating to its subject finding expression in its title. More specifically, if the law
amends a section or part of a statute, it suffices if reference be made to the legislation to be
amended, there being no need to state the precise nature of the amendment. Of course, the
Constitution does not require Congress to employ in the title of an enactment, language of such
precision as to mirror, fully index or catalogue all the contents and the minute details therein. It
suffices if the title should serve the purpose of the constitutional demand that it inform the legislators,
the persons interested in the subject of the bill, and the public, of the nature, scope and
consequences of the proposed law and its operation. And this, to lead them to inquire into the body
of the bill, study and discuss the same, take appropriate action thereon, and, thus, prevent surprise
or fraud upon the legislators.

PHILIPPINE JUDGES ASSOCIATION, ET AL. vs. PETE PRADO

Direct Filing

Facts;

Republic Act 7354 was passed into law stirring commotions from the Judiciary. Under its Sec 35 as implemented by
Philippine Postal Corporation through its Circular No.92-28. The franking privelege of the Supreme Court, COA, RTCs,
MTC, MTCC, and other government offices were withdrawn from them.

In addition, the petitioners raised the issue of constitutionality and the methods adopted prior it becoming a law.



Issues;

WON RA 7354 is unconstitutional.

- Violative of Art VI Sec 26(1) which says '"Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be
expressed in the title thereof."

- Violative of Art VI Sec 26(2) which says '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.

- Violative of the Equal protection clause


Ruling:

The Supreme Court sustained as to the violation of Art VI Sec 26(1) ruling further that it's adoption is within the terms
prescribed by law saying that the title of the bill is not required to be an index to the body of the act, or to be as
comprehensive as to cover every single detail of the measure.

However, Sec 35 was ruled out to be in violation of the equal protection clause. The distinction made by the law is
superficial. It is not based on substantial distinctions that make real differences between the Judiciary and the grantees of
the franking privilege.

Therefore, RA 7354 is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Political Law Origination of Revenue Bills EVAT Amendment by Substitution
Tolentino et al is questioning the constitutionality of RA 7716 otherwise known as the Expanded
Value Added Tax (EVAT) Law. Tolentino averred that this revenue bill did not exclusively originate
from the House of Representatives as required by Section 24, Article 6 of the Constitution. Even
though RA 7716 originated as HB 11197 and that it passed the 3 readings in the HoR, the same did
not complete the 3 readings in Senate for after the 1
st
reading it was referred to the Senate Ways &
Means Committee thereafter Senate passed its own version known as Senate Bill 1630. Tolentino
averred that what Senate could have done is amend HB 11197 by striking out its text and
substituting it w/ the text of SB 1630 in that way the bill remains a House Bill and the Senate version
just becomes the text (only the text) of the HB. Tolentino and co-petitioner Roco [however] even
signed the said Senate Bill.
ISSUE: Whether or not EVAT originated in the HoR.
HELD: By a 9-6 vote, the SC rejected the challenge, holding that such consolidation was consistent
with the power of the Senate to propose or concur with amendments to the version originated in the
HoR. What the Constitution simply means, according to the 9 justices, is that the initiative must
come from the HoR. Note also that there were several instances before where Senate passed its
own version rather than having the HoR version as far as revenue and other such bills are
concerned. This practice of amendment by substitution has always been accepted. The proposition
of Tolentino concerns a mere matter of form. There is no showing that it would make a significant
difference if Senate were to adopt his over what has been done.

ABAKADA Guro Party List vs. Ermita

G.R. No. 168056 September 1, 2005



FACTS:
Before R.A. No. 9337 took effect, petitioners ABAKADA GURO Party List, et al., filed a petition
for prohibition on May 27, 2005 questioning the constitutionality of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No.
9337, amending Sections 106, 107 and 108, respectively, of the National Internal Revenue Code
(NIRC). Section 4 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of goods and properties, Section 5 imposes a 10%
VAT on importation of goods, and Section 6 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of services and use or lease
of properties. These questioned provisions contain a uniformp ro v is o authorizing the President,
upon recommendation of the Secretary of Finance, to raise the VAT rate to 12%, effective January
1, 2006, after specified conditions have been satisfied. Petitioners argue that the law is
unconstitutional.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not there is a violation of Article VI, Section 24 of the Constitution.

2. Whether or not there is undue delegation of legislative power in violation of Article VI Sec 28(2)
of the Constitution.

3. Whether or not there is a violation of the due process and equal protection under Article III
Sec. 1 of the Constitution.

RULING:

1. Since there is no question that the revenue bill exclusively originated in the House of
Representatives, the Senate was acting within its constitutional power to introduce amendments to
the House bill when it included provisions in Senate Bill No. 1950 amending corporate income taxes,
percentage, and excise and franchise taxes.

2. There is no undue delegation of legislative power but only of the discretion as to the execution of
a law. This is constitutionally permissible. Congress does not abdicate its functions or unduly
delegate power when it describes what job must be done, who must do it, and what is the scope of
his authority; in our complex economy that is frequently the only way in which the legislative
process can go forward.

3. The power of the State to make reasonable and natural classifications for the purposes of
taxation has long been established. Whether it relates to the subject of taxation, the kind of
property, the rates to be levied, or the amounts to be raised, the methods of assessment, valuation
and collection, the States power is entitled to presumption of validity. As a rule, the judiciary will
not interfere with such power absent a clear showing of unreasonableness, discrimination, or
arbitrariness.
Facts:

Eusebio Nazario was charged in violation of refusal and failure to pay his municipal taxes
amounting to Php 362.62 because of his fishpond operation provided under Ordinance 4,
Series of 1955, as amended. He is a resident of Sta. Mesa Manila and just leases a
fishpond located at Pagbilao, Quezon with the Philippine Fisheries Commission. The years
in question of failure to pay was for 1964, 1965, and 1966. Nazario did not pay because he
was not sure if he was covered under the ordinance. He was found guilty thus this petition.

Issues:

1. Whether or not Ordinance 4, Series of 1955, as amended null and void for being
ambiguous and uncertain
2. Whether or not the ordinance was unconstitutional for being ex post facto

Held:

1. No, the coverage of the ordinance covers him as the actual operator of the fishpond thus
he comes with the term Manager. He was the one who spent money in developing and
maintaining it, so despite only leasing it from the national government, the latter does not
get any profit as it goes only to Nazario. The dates of payment are also clearly stated
Beginnin and taking effect from 1964 if the fishpond started operating in 1964.
2. No, it is not ex post facto. Ordinance 4 was enacted in 1955 so it cant be that the
amendment under Ordinance 12 is being made to apply retroactively. Also, the act of non-
payment has been made punishable since 1955 so it means Ordinance 12 is not imposing a
retroactive penalty

The appeal is DISMISSED with cost against the appellant.


ESTRADA v SANDIGANBAYANG.R. No. 148560, November 19, 2001
Facts: Petitioner Joseph Estrada prosecuted An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder,
wishes to impress upon the Court that the assailed law i s so defectively fashioned that it
crosses that thi n but di stinct li ne which divi des the valid from the constitutionally i nfirm.
His contentions are mainly based on the effects of the said law that it suffers from the
vice of vagueness; it dispenses with the "reasonable doubt" standard in criminal prosecutions; and it
abolishes the element of mens rea in crimes already punishable under The Revised Penal Code saying
that it violates the fundamental rights of the accused.
The f oc al poi nt of t he c as e i s t he al l eged vaguenes s of t he l aw i n t he
t er ms i t us es . Particularly, this terms are: combination, series and unwarranted. Because of this,
the petitioner uses the facial challenge on the validity of the mentioned law.
Issue: Whether or not the petitioner possesses the locus standi to attack the validity of the law using the
facial challenge.
Ruling: On how the law uses the terms combination and series does not constitute
vagueness. The petitioners contention that it would not give a fair warning and sufficient notice of
what the lawseeks to penali ze cannot be plausi bly argued. Void-for-
vagueness doctri ne is manifestlymisplaced under the petitioners reli ance since ordinary i
ntelli gence can understand whatconduct is prohibited by the statute. It can only be invoked against
that specie of legislation that is utterly vague on its face, wherein clarification by a saving clause or
construction cannot be invoked. Said doctrine may not invoked in this case since the statute
is clear and free from ambiguity. Vagueness doctrine merely requires a reasonable degree
of certainty for the statute to be upheld, not absolute precision or mathematical exactitude. On the
other hand, over breadth doctrine decrees that governmental purpose may not
beac hi eved by means whi c h s weep unnec es s ar i l y br oadl y and t her eby i nvade t
he ar ea of protected freedoms .Doctrine of strict scrutiny holds that a facial challenge is allowed to
be made to vague statute and to one which is overbroad because of possible chilli ng effect
upon protected speech. Furthermore, in the area of criminal l aw, the law cannot take
chances as i n the area of free speech. A facial challenge to legislative acts is the most difficult
challenge to mount success fully since the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists.
Doctrines mentioned are analytical tools devel oped for facial chal lenge of a statute in
free speech cases. With respect to such statue, the established rule is that one to who application of a
statute is constitutional will not be heard to attack the statute on the ground that impliedly it might
also be taken as applyi ng to other persons or other situations in which its application
might be unconstitutional. On its face i nvali dation of statues results i n striki ng
them down entirely on the ground that they might be applied to parties not before the Court whose
activities are constitutionally protected. It is evident that the purported ambiguity of the Plunder Law is
more imagined than real. The crime of plunder as a malum in se is deemed to have been
resolve in the Congress decision to include it among the heinous crime punishable by reclusion
perpetua to death. Supreme Court holds the plunder law constitutional and petition is dismissed for
lacking merit

You might also like