The Legislature Article VI

Sec. 1 a bicameral body nature of legislative power o plenary legislative power: "any power deemed to be legislative by usage and tradition is possessed by Congress, unless the organic act has lodged it elsewhere." o except to the extent reserved to the people in Sec. 32 of same art. o corollary to this is that it may not delegate its law making power (principle of nondelegability) o another thing, Congress may not pass irrepealable laws. separation of powers o each is prevented from invading the domain of the others o allows for "checks and balances" the net effect of which is no one department is able to act without the cooperation of at least one of the other departments. o this is to prevent the concentration of powers in one department and thereby to avoid tyranny. limits on legislative power o it is subject to substantive limitations which circumscribe both the exercise of the power itself and the allowable subjects of legislation. o substantive limitations are found in the Bill of Rights. o leg. power is subject to procedural limitations prescribing the manner of passing bills and the form they should take the holders of legislative power: Congress, people through iniative and referendum, president in emergency o Sec. 32- subject to exceptions the Congress may impose in contrast to Congress' plenary legislative power o President can be given a role in "initiative and referendum" only if s/he is given a role by law. non-delegability of legislative power (potestas delagata non delegari potest) o administrative agencies are authorized to exercise vast regulatory powers and the rules and regulations they issue have the force of law. This is justified by: a non-legislative body may be authorized to "fill up the details of a statute" Congress may pass contingent legislation (legislation which leaves to another body the business of ascertaining the facts necessary to bring the law into actual operation.) the 2 reasons above show that the function performed by the admin agency is not law-making but law-execution. in order to ensure that the power delegated is not law-making power, the statute making the delegation must be Pelaez v. Auditor General: a) complete in itself- must contain the policy; (nothing left to do but to enforce it) b)fix a standard-limits to which the delegate must conform in the performance of his duties Free Telephone Workers Union v. Minister of Labor and Employment: Liberalization on the rules of delegation under the 1973 Constitution would lead to "an appreciable measure of concord and harmony between policy making branches of the government, executive and legislative" and that while "conceptually, there still exists a distinction between the formulation and implementation, the fundamental principle of separation of powers of which non delegation is a logical corollary becomes even more flexible and malleable" Exceptions to non delegability on local governments since they are allowed to legislate on purely local matters. o Rubi v. Provincial Board: this is exception is "sanctioned by immemorial practice." Since what is given to local legislative bodies is true legislative power and not just the power to promulgate rules and regulations, it is not necessary that the delegating statute follow the rules for valid delegation applicable to the empowerment of administrative agencies. It is sufficient that the statute indicate the subject matter over which the local law-making agency may legislate. Permissible delegation is permitted to the following cases: o delegation of tariff powers to the President (Sec 28 (2) Art. VI) o delegation of emergency powers to the President (Sec. 23 (2))

delegation to the people at large (referendum, plebiscite) delegation to local governments (local legislatures are more knowledgeable than the national lawmaking body on matters of purely local concern and are therefore in a better position to enact necessary and appropriate legislation thereon.) o delegation to administrative bodies (with the proliferation of specialized activities and their attendant peculiar problems, the national legislature has found it more and more necessary to entrust to admin agencies the "power of subordinate legislation") Miller v. Mardo o to create a public office is a legislative function o quasi-judicial v. rule-making power o legislative functions cannot be delegated o o Sec. 2 composition and election of senate Sec. 3 qualifications of senators o residence requirement is satisfied if one is domiciled in the Philippines even if not physically present in the Phils during the 2 year period o age qualification must be possessed on the day the votes are cast as fixed by law and not on the day of proclamation Sec. 4 the term of senators- 6 years with one immediate reelection; may run again after 3 years after the expiration of 2nd term staggering of terms Sec. 5 Composition of the House of Reps o district and party list reps o apportionment Sec. 6 qualifications of district and party-list reps. Sec. 7 the term of representatives - 3 years and shall not serve for more than 3 consecutive terms Sec. 8 elections to be held on 2nd monday of May Sec. 9 Filling vacancies-holding of special elections is not mandatory Sec. 10 Salary of Senators and Reps- increase must take effect after the full term of the authors of the increase Sec. 11 Privilege from arrest-applies only for as long as Congress is in session, WON the legislator is actually attending it. o Martinez v. Morfe: the privilege did not include immunity from arrest arising from an act or omission punishable by law. It covered immunity only from civil arrests. o Immunity from arrest is not enjoyed by one who has been convicted: People v. Jalosjos: Members of Congress are not exempt from detention for crime. Parliamentary freedom of speech and debate o 1987 Consti: guarantee of immunity from answerability before an outside forum but not from answerability to the disciplinary authority of Congress itself o on "shall not be questioned in any other place" Osmea v. Pendatun: "to enable and encourage a representative of the public to discharge his public trust with firmness and success" for "it is indispensably necessary that he should enjoy the fullest liberty speech, and that he should be protected from the resentment of every one, however powerful, to whom the exercise of that liberty may occasion offense." o 1987Consti: to come under the guarantee the "debate or speech" must be one made "in the Congress or in any committee thereof." (not only refers to the locale but to the nature of the speech/debate as well) Jimenez v. Cabangbang: speech/debate must be in Congress and in the official discharge of their duties as members of Congress. Sec. 12 disclosure of Financial and business interests Sec. 13 disqualifications from holding any other office but may accept an appointment, but automatically forfeits seat in Congress Sec. 14 prohibitions on:

o o

lawyer legislator: cannot appear as counsel and cannot appear under the guise of "intervention" but may appear in person if in fact he is a genuine party in the case. conflict of interest: legislator cant intervene in any matter before any office of the govt for his pecuniary benefit (either direct or indirect benefit)

Sec. 15 Sessions of Congress-may stay in session almost all year round if they wish; pres may call a special session any time Sec. 16 Officers of Congress o The only officers prescribed by the Consti are the Senate Pres and Speaker of the House; it is up to the Houses to have other officers and it is up to them how these other officers are chosen Santiago and Tatad v. Guingona: in the absence of any constitutional or statutory guidelines or specific rules, the 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 powers of the courts to direct Congress how to do its work. o ON WON the judiciary may look into the legality of the election of a Senate President: Avelino v. Cuenco:Court refused to assume jurisdiction (controversy was political in nature and the constitutional grant to the Senate of the power to elect its own president should not be taken over by the judiciary)but in the reconsideration they assumed jurisdiction (following the facts that ensued after their denial. Some senators ignored orders of arrest for absenting senators.) Quorum to do Business - based on the total membership of the body o Santiago v. Guingona -> 2 senses of majority: (1)minimum of votes to become Senate Pres, not the block. (2) political party where majority belongs Internal rules and discipline o Osmea v. Pendatun: legislature has absolute control over its rules; on matters affecting only the internal operation of the legislature, the formulation and implementation of legislature's rules is beyond the reach of the courts. (***Art. VIII Sec 1 or expanded jurisdiction of the courts doesnt apply here, in other words.) Journals, Records o Mabanag v. Lopez-Vito journal conflicted with what is found in the "enrolled bill" but "enrolled bill is binding to the courts" pursuant to separation of powers" enrolled bill is a duly authorized copy of a bill or resolution bearing the signature of the speaker and the senate pres and the certifications of the secretaries of both houses. o Astorga v. Villegas what gives probative value to an enrolled bill is the certification it receives from the officers of the leg. 1935: what counted was the senate pres' and speaker's signatures in this case the enrolled bill lost its probative value coz the SP and Pres of the Phils withdrew their sigs after inaccuracies in the bill were found o Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance even though the challenge to the bill came from an incumbent Senator and former Senate Pres, the court refused to go beyond the "enrolled bill" Sec. 17 Electoral Tribunal o On Composition Bondoc v. Pineda Camasura's expulsion was a clear impairment of the Tribunal's prerogative to be the sole judge of election contests. (The LDP tried to manipulate the ET's decision by expelling Camasura as member) o On Jurisdiction Angara v. Electoral Commission 1935: "Electoral Commission shall be the sole judge of the electionsxxx" : a power traditionally lodge in the legislative body itself was taken away and given to "an independent, impartial, and non-partisan tribunal." The innovation was an answer to the "long-felt need of determining legislative contests devoid of partisan considerations." 1987 Consti: when there has been a proclamation and defeated candidate claims to be the winner, the jurisdiction belongs to

Elec. trib not to comelec coz it's concerned with preproclamation. Independence of ET they are independent constitutional creations which have the power to create their own rules and are not under the supervision or control of Congress.

Sec. 18 Commission on Appointments: composition, nature and functions Sec. 19 Constitution of ET and Commission on Appointments =30 days after Congress convenes. Sec. 20 Records and books of accounts shall be preserved and be open to public Sec. 21 Legislative Investigations o Arnault v. Nazareno- foundation of the power of legislative investigation and the means of enforcing it were stated in this case. o Limits on the power of legislative investigation: it must be " in aid of legislation" ->direct relation to the subject of inquiry not necessary to a specific legislation it must be "in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure" -> as seen in Osmea v Pendatun "the rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected." ->emphasizes right against self-incrimination, unreasonable searches and seizures o no person can be punished for contumacy as a witness unless his or her testimony is req'd in a manner into which the legislature or any of its committees has jurisdiction to inquire o Another limit: Power to commit a witness for contempt ceases upon final adjournment -> Senate (a continuing body) no limit; H of Rep->till adjournment o On broad scope of "in aid of leg. inquiry" Bengzon Jr v. Senate -committee went beyond what was allowable SC: investigation is not in aid of legislation because Sen. Enrile's speech contained no suggestion of contemplated legislation but merely pointed to determine whether the relatives of Pres Aquino, particularly Lopa, had violated the law. Sec. 22 Congress and Heads of Departments o Different for Sec. 21 which deals with inherent power of leg. investigation in aid of of leg. for which Congress or its committees are authorized to summon witnesses. o but because of separation of powers-> Sec 22 deals with the delicate relationship of the heads of depts. to the Pres. o 1987 Consti: adopted the "question hour" during which the Members of the Cabinet and their deputies may be required to appear and answer questions and interpellations Sec. 23 o (1) declaration of war "existence of state of war" more in accordance with Art II Sec. 2 which states that we renounce aggressive war as an instrument of nat'l policy o (2) Delegation of emergency powers: 2 limits can be given "for a limited period" -> may be withdrawn by a resolution (no need for Pres. approval unlike statutes) and by automatic cessation upon next adjournment of the Congress. (When Congress is not in session, no emergency powers may be given to the President.) subject to restrictions the Congress may provide: may be narrow/broad as Congress may make them. Sec. 24 Origin of money bill, private bills and bills of local application appropriation bill - purpose is to set aside a sum of money for public use revenue or tariff bills - raising revenues only not those for other purpose that may create incidental revenue bills of local application->reach is limited to specific localities such as a creation of a town private bills ->those which affect private persons such as granting a citizenship to a specific foreigner o theory is that district reps are closer to the pulse of the people than senators are and are therefore in a better position to determine both the extent of the legal burden they are capable of bearing and benefits they need. meaning of origination and scope of Senate's power to introduce amendments were discussed in Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance: involving VAT law, there was a conference committee and the House approved the report which for practical purposes was the

Senate billwas there was a violation of origination->Court said that the exclusivity of the prerogative of the HR means simply that the House alone can initiate the passage of a revenue bill, such that, if the House doesnt initiate one, no revenue law will be passed. But once the House has approved a revenue bill and passed it on to the Senate, the Senate may completely overhaul it by amendment, substitutionit doesnt matter whether Senate already anticipated the bill" Sec. 25 Limits to appropriate o Art. VI sec 24,25 and 29 and VII sec 22 provide a list of explicit restrictions on the power of Congress to appropriate money. o "no moneymade by law" is a limit not on the power of Congress but on the disbursing authority of the executive dept. Prohibition of increase Prohibition of riders in appropriation bills o provisions unrelated to the appropriation bill are considered prohibited "riders" o The rule on riders combined with the Pres' power of "item-veto" and with the doctrine of "inappropriate provisions" has given the Pres tremendous control over money legislation. Transfer of funds o The list of those who may be authorized to transfer funds under this provision is exclusive. Hence, the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces may not be given such authority. Likewise, individual members of Congress may not be given such authority and must seek approval from the Speaker or the Senate President if law has authorized the latter. (Philconsa v. Enriquez) almost identical provision of the 1973 Consti was discussed under Demetria v. Alba: Court said that the provision is intended "to afford the heads of the different branches of the government and those of the constitutional commissions considerable flexibility in the use of public funds and resources" but that leeway granted was limited. "The purpose of augmenting an item and such transfer may be made only if there are savings from another item in the appropriation of the gov't branch or constitutional body." PD 1177 was declared unconstitutional in this case as it empowered the Pres to transfer indiscriminately funds without regard whether those were actually savings. Gonzales v. Macaraig: the defect in PD 1177 sec 44 was corrected by RA 6670 and the statute survived through the doctrine of inappropriate provisions (see sec.27.) Appropriations must be for a public purpose Public money can be appropriated only for a public purpose. This limit arises from the relation between power to spend and the power to tax. Sec. 26 Subject and title of bills: general prohibition of "riders" o every bill shall embrace only one subject->mandatory and not directory and needed for the validity of legislation o Lidasan v. Comelec: the title "An Act Creating the Municipality of Dianaton in the Province of Lanao del Norte" was not found sufficient to cover a provision which in fact created the municipality of Dianaton out of barrios some of which were outside the province of Lanao del Norte." Three Readings o 3 separate readings-> separate readings on separate days and that printed copies of the bill in its final form should be distributed 3 days before its passage. o only exception to the rule is when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment->dispenses with the req't that the readings be on separate days and that the bill be in printed final form. Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance: there was no dispute that the VAT law bill had gone through 2nd and 3rd readings on the same day. The Court said that "the 'unless' clause must be read in relation to the 'except' clause because the two are really coordinate clauses of the same sentence." Hence, what the provision means is that the President's certification effects a dispensation from all the requirements. Sec. 27 Passage of bills o 2 steps before a bill becomes a law: must be approved by both Houses of Congress->votes may be obtained by viva voce; or roll call with a yea or nay vote required during the last and third rdgs of a bill; at the request of 1/5 of the Members present and in re-passing a bill over the veto of the President must be approved by the President by positive act or inaction. If the Pres doesnt act on a bill, it becomes a law after 30 days.

The final approval of a bill, however, does not make it immediately effective. Taada v. Tuvera has made it very clear that laws become effective only after adequate publication. This case involved the interpretation of Art. 2 of the Civil Code. "Otherwise provided" refers to the date of effectivity and not to the requirement of publication itself, which cannot in any event be omitted. This clause does not mean that the legislature may make the law effective immediately upon approval or on any other date without its previous publication. Omission would offend due process as it would deny the public knowledge of the laws that are supposed to govern it. Conference Committees o Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance: the Court had the opportunity to delve into the limits of what the conference committees may do. o See ABAKADA v. Ermita. Veto power; "item veto" o As a general rule, if the President disapproves of a provision in a bill approved by Congress, he should veto the entire bill. S/he is not allowed to veto separate parts of a bill while retaining the others. It is only in the case of appropriation, revenue, and tariff bills that he is authorized to exercise item-veto. o No set form of words is required to make out an appropriation. The appropriation bill that is subject to item-veto is any appropriation bill and not just the general appropriation bill. (A.B. is understood to mean a bill whose purpose is to set apart a certain sum from the public revenue for a specified purpose.) o An item in a bill "is the particulars, the details, the distinct and severable parts..ot the bill." It can be an entire section of a bill or a severable portion of a section. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Tax Appeals: An "item" in a revenue bill does not refer to an entire section imposing a particular kind of tax, but rather to the subject of the tax and the tax rate. Bengzon v. Drilon: the veto was declared invalid. (GAA of 1992->among the authorized uses of the fund was the adjustment of pension of justices as authorized by an earlier law. The Pres. vetoed the use of the fund for the adjustment of the pension of justices.) In declaring the veto invalid, the Court said that it was not the veto of an item. The item was the entire 500,000,000 peso allocation out of which unavoidable obligations not adequately funded in separate items could be met. What the President had vetoed, according to the Court, was the method of meeting unavoidable obligations or the manner of using the 500 million pesos. o When a provision of an appropriation bill affects one or more items of the same, the Pres. cannot veto the provision without at the same time vetoing the particular item or items to which it relates. Philconsa v. Enriquez: the Court invalidated the veto of a restriction on the use of funds for road maintenance and a restriction on the use of funds for the purchase of medicines since the veto did not include a veto of the appropriated fund themselves. The new "doctrine of inappropriate provisions" o Gonzales v. Macaraig, Jr. marks the Court's acceptance of what eventually would be referred to as the "doctrine of inappropriate provisions." What the doctrine says is that a provision that is constitutionally inappropriate for an appropriation bill may be singled out for veto even if it is not an appropriation or revenue "item" This case involved the 1989 and 1990 GAA. ; 1989 GAA contained Sec. 55, which had a similar one in the 1990 GAA sec 16. on the use of savings. The Pres vetoed the similar provisions. Were the vetoed sections "items" of an appropriation bill? Court said they werent items. o items and provision in budgetary legislation and practice are concededly different. An item refers to the particulars, the details, the distinct and severable parts of the bill. It is an indivisible sum of money dedicated to a stated purpose. xxx.. it is not suome general provision of law which happens to be put into an appropriation bill. o Veto was allowable veto of distinct and severable provisions on the basis of ART VI Sec.11(2) of the 1935 Consti. The proper remedy in a case of a provision that has no relation to any other in the appropriation bill is to consider it an unconstitutional "rider" under sec. 25 (2). This case considered it a rider. o Philconsa v. Enriquez: the Court reiterated its view that the Pres. possesses the power to veto a provision in an appropriation bill even if it is not an item. This time, the Court didnt argue from the omitted 1935 provision but from the doctrine of inappropriate provisions.

As the Constitution is explicit that the provision which Congress can include in an appropriations bill must "relate specifically to some particular appropriation therein" and "be limited in its operation to the appropriation to which it relates," it follows that any provision which does not relate to any particular item of appropriation, is considered "an inappropriate provision" which can be vetoed separately from an item. Also to be included in the category of "inappropriate provisions" are unconstitutional provisions and provisions which are intended to amend other laws, because clearly these kinds of laws have no place in an appropriation bill. o This is to prevent the legislature from forcing the President to veto an entire appropriation law thereby paralyzing the govt. The solution is sec. 25(7) which provides for the automatic reenactment of the GAA of the previous year until the new one is approved. o What all this comes down to is that UNDER THE NEW DOCTRINE OF "inappropriate provisions" ANY PROVISION OR CONDITION IN AN APPROPRIATION BILL WHICH IN THE JUDGEMENT OF THE PRESIDENT VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION MAY BE VETOED SEPARATELY FROM THE ENTIRE BILL WITHOUT NEED TO VETO THE APPROPRIATION TO WHICH THEY ARE ATTACHED. This is a judge-made rule which expands the "item veto" rule so much debated in 1935. Executive "impoundment" o this is another way of exercising executive veto. o this means the refusal to spend funds already allocated by Congress fro a specific purpose. No provision about this in the Consti. o This also came up in Philconsa v. Enriquez: Pres. didnt veto the provision but said instead in his veto msg that the implementation of the provision would be subject to his prior approval taking into consideration the peace and order situation in the affected localities. (*** this is where it was said that a provision in an appropriation act cannot be used to repeal or amend other laws, in this case, PD 1597 and RA 6758) Sec. 28 Power of taxation: scope and purpose o Power to tax is an inherent power of the government. This provisions is not a grant of power but a list of limits on the inherent and otherwise almost unlimited power to tax. o Although Phil. jurisprudence frowns on the notion of the power of tax as the power to destroy because taxation must not be oppressive. (***remember abakada again.) o Power to tax is also used as a tool for regulation (of property. Either tax of police power is used). o Power to tax is the power to keep alive. (Life blood of the State accdng to sir.) Limitations on the power to tax o Power to tax exists for the general welfare. Implicit limit in this is that it should be exercised only for a public purpose. Specific limits on the taxing power: "uniform and equitable" o Uniformity: when it operates with the same force and effect in every place where the subject of it is found; doesnt prohibit classification for purposes of taxation. o The taxing power may be made to fall more heavily upon some than upon others. When this happens, the test of constitutionality is not just the uniformity rule, but also the equal protection clause and the notion of "progressive system of taxation." Req't for valid classification for purposes of taxation. the classification must be based upon substantial distinctions which make real differences; (substantial not arbitrary) must be germane to the purpose of the law;(germane to achieve legislative purpose) must apply not only to the present conditions but also to future conditions substantially identical to those of the present;(law applies, all things being equal to both present and future conditions) must apply equally to all those who belong to the same class. (applies equally well to all those belonging to the same class) o uniformity corresponds to the 3rd and 4th req't o (recall again ABAKADA) Progressive system of taxation o a tax is progressive when the rate increases as the tax base increases o power of taxation must be used as an instrument for a more equitable distribution of wealth Delegated tax legislation o the rule that revenue bills must originate from the HR doesnt prevent Congress from exercising this delegating authority. (Garcia v. Exec. Secretary)

nor does it invalidate the delegated authority even if it involves authority to create revenue measures

Tax exemptions-exemptions must be for a public purpose, uniform and equitable and in conformity with the equal protection clause. o John Hay Peoples Alternative Coalition et al v. Lim et al -> law allows exemption from taxes but must be granted by Congress o at least the Majority of Congress must concur to grant such exemption o Presumption against exemption from taxation: taxation is the life blood of the State (and of the lawyers too.) Sec. 29 Fiscal Powers of Congress o Congress is the guardian of the public treasury. Again, Sec. 24, 25, 29 together with Art VII Sec 22 contain the limitations on the power to spend. Sec. 29 contains the limitations on the power to tax. Guingona Jr. v. Carague dealt with the controversy surrounding automatic appropriation for foreign debt servicing. The principal contention of petitioners was that (1) appropriation bills under sec 24 must originate in the HR and (2) there must be definiteness, certainty and exactness in an appropriation On the first argument: o SC said: framers of the Consti didnt contemplate that existing laws in the statute books including existing presidential decrees appropriating public money are reduced to mere "bills" that must go through the legislative mill. On the second argument: o SC resolved it by applying the principles on delegation: although the subject PDs dont state specific amounts to be paid, necessitated by the very nature of the problem being addressed, the amounts nevertheless are made certain by the legislative parameters provided in the decrees. The Executive is not of unlimited discretion as to the amounts to be disbursed for debt servicing. o After Congress has made the appropriation, it is the executive that actually spends the fund. Special funds o as a measure to ensure the proper utilization of money collected for a specified public purpose, the 1987 Consti, restating another principle, treats the proceeds as a special fund to be paid out for such purpose. If that purpose has been fulfilled or is no longer forthcoming, the balance, if any, shall then be transferred to the general funds of the gov't which may thereafter be appropriated by Congress and expended for any legitimate purpose within the scope of the general fund. Sec. 30 appellate jurisdiction of the SC o Sec. 2 of Art. VIII gives to Congress the power to apportion the jurisdiction of courts. o Congress is then free to add or subtract from the powers of the courts except insofar as these have been fixed by the Consti o This section is a response to the concern that the SC might be swamped with jurisdictional concerns which might inhibit it from an expeditious disposition of important cass; doesnt prohibit Congress form INCREASING the jurisdiction of the SC but simply prescribes that any such increase should be with the advice and concurrence of the Court. Sec. 31 Titles of royalty or nobility->(sayang!) Malolos Consti also prohibited this grant and according to its draft, govt must authorize first before receiving honors, titles of honor etc. Sec. 32 initiative and referendum->current implementing law is RA 6735 o req'ts. : at least 10 % of the total number of the registered voters of which every leg. district is represent by at least 3% of the registered voters thereof; sign a petition for the purpose and register.