TOPIC IV.

PHILIPPINES AS A STATE

1.) Sovereignty
- Sovereignty is the supreme and uncontrollable power inherent in a State by which that State
is governed.
- Two kinds of Sovereignty: Legal and Political. Legal Sovereignty is the authority which has
the power to issue final commands. Political Sovereignty is the power behind legal
sovereign.
- Internal or External. Internal refers to the power of the State to control its domestic affairs.
External, which is the power of the State to direct its relations with other States, is also
known as independence.

 In Laurel v. Misa the court held that Absolute and permanent allegiance of the
inhabitants of a territory occupied by the enemy of their legitimate government or
sovereign is not abrogated or severed by the enemy occupation, because the
sovereignty of the government or government de jure is not transferred thereby to the
occupier, as held in the case of Co Kim Chan vs Valdez Tan Keh.
 In Peralta v. Director of Prisons, the court held that if there is a change of sovereignty
the political laws are not suspended but rather abrogated.
 In Tiamco v. Diaz,
 In People v. Perfecto, the accused had written an editorial against the Philippine Senate
and was prosecuted under a provision of the Spanish Penal Code punishing insults to
ministers of the crown. The Supreme Court acquitted him, holding that particular article
of the said code had been automatically abrogated, being political in nature, upon
advent of American Sovereignty.

2.) Government
a.) Government in General
- Is the agency or instrumentality through which the will of the State is formulated, expressed
and realized.

b.) Kinds of Government

- De jure government has rightful title but no power or control, either because this has been
withdrawn from it or because it has not yet actually entered into the exercise thereof.
- De facto government, is a government of fact, that is, it actually exercises power or control
but without legal title.

 In Co Kim Cham v. Tan Keh, the supreme court held that

 In Lawyers league of a better Philippiens v. Corazon Aquino,
c.) Functions: Constituent and Ministrant
- Constituent, which are mandatory for the Government to perform because they constitute
the very bonds of society, such as the maintenance of peace and order, regulation of
property and property rights, the administration of justice, etc.
 - Ministrant, those intended to promote the welfare, progress and prosperity of the people,
and which are merely optional for Government to perform. (public works, public education,
public charity, health and safety regulations, regulations of trade and industry.)

 In Shipside, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143377, February20,2001, it was held that
the Bases Conversion Development Authority (BCDA), created under R.A. 7227,
performs functions which are basically proprietary in nature. The promotion of
economic and social development of Central Luzon, in particular, and the country’s goal
for enhancement, in general, do not make BCDA equivalent to Government. Other
corporations, such as SSS, GSIS, NIA, although performing functions aimed at promoting
public interest and public welfare, are not invested with government attributes. [Thus,
with the transfer to BCDA of Camp Wallace, the government no longer had a right or
interest to protect; the real party in interest to recover the property is, thus, the BCDA,
not the Republic of the Philippines.]

 In PHHC v. CIR, the court held that the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction over labor
disputes involving GOCC but not the performing governmental functions. Since the
National Housing Association was created, the Philippine government has carried mass
housing and resettlement program to meet the needs of Filipinos. The PHHC is
governmental institution performing governmental functions. Thus, the Court grant the
petition and set aside the assailed resolution of the Court of CIR.

 In Agricultural Credit v. Confederation of Unions in Government corp & offices,

d.) Concept of Parens Patriae

- The state as Parens Patriae, or guardian of the rights of the people.

 In the case of Government of the Philippine Islands v Monte de Piedad, contributions

were collected during the Spanish regime for the relief of the victims of an earthquake
but part of the money was never distributed and instead deposited with the defendant
bank. In an action for its recovery filed later by the government, the defendant
questioned the competence of the plaintiff, contending that the suit could be instituted
only by the intended beneficiaries themselves or by their heirs. The supreme court
rejected this view and upheld the right of the government to the file the case for the
State as parens patriae.

 In Samahan ng mga Progresibong Kabataan v. Quezon city, the court rule that

TOPIC V. DOCTRINE OF NON – SUABILITY

1.) Basis
 Article XVI, Section 3
Section 3. The State may not be sued without its consent.
  There can be no legal right against the authority which makes the law on which the right
depends [Republic v. Villasor, 54 SCRA 83], However, it may be sued if it gives consent,
whether express or implied.

2.) Immunity of other states and international organs

 In Minucher v. Court of Appeals, the court ruled that a foreign agent, operating within a
territory, can be cloaked with immunity from suit as long as it can be established that he
is acting within the directives of the sending state.
 In Arigo v. Swift, the court ruled that the waiver of State immunity under the VF A
pertains only to criminal jurisdiction and not to special civil actions such as the present
petition for issuance of a writ of Kalikasan. In fact, it can be inferred from Section 17,
Rule 7 of the Rules that a criminal case against a person charged with a violation of an
environmental law is to be filed separately.
 In Lasco v. United Nations Revolving Fund for Natural Resources Exploration (UNRFNRE),
the court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court upheld the diplomatic immunity of
private respondent as established by the letter of the Department of Foreign Affairs
recognizing and confirming such immunity in accordance with the 1946 Convention on
the Privileges and Immunities of the UN of which the Philippines is a signatory.
 In the case between SEAFDEC v. Acosta, the court ruled that Being an intergovernmental
organization, SEAFDEC including its Departments (AQD), enjoys functional independence
and freedom from control of the state in whose territory its office is located. In so far as
they are autonomous and beyond the control of any one State, they have a distinct
juridical personality independent of the municipal law of the State where they are
situated. As such, according to one leading authority “they must be deemed to possess a
species of international personality of their own.” (Salonga and Yap, Public International
Law, 83 [1956 ed.]) One of the basic immunities of an international organization is
immunity from local jurisdiction, i.e., that it is immune from the legal writs and
processes issued by the tribunals of the country where it is found.
 In Callado v. IRRI, 244 SCRA 210, the Court upheld anew the constitutionality of Sec. 3,
P.D. 1620, which provides that the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) shall enjoy
immunity from any penal, civil and administrative proceedings, except insofar as that
immunity has been expressly waived by the Director General of the Institute or his
authorized representative. Citing International Catholic Migration Commission v. Calleja
(and Kapisanan ng Manggagawa at TAC sa IRRI v. Secretary of Labor), 190 SCRA 120, the
Court stated that the letter of the Acting Secretary of Foreign Affairs to the Secretary of
Labor and Employment constituted a categorical recognition by the Executive Branch of
the Government that IRRI enjoys immunities accorded to international organizations, a
determination held to be a political question conclusive upon the Courts in order not to
embarrass a political department of the government.
3.) What constitutes a suit against the state
 In Professional Video Inc. V. TESDA, Supreme Court ruled that TESDA being an agency of
the State may not be sued without its consent. The proscribed suit that the state
immunity principle covers takes on various forms, namely: a suit against the Republic by
name; a suit against an unincorporated government agency; a suit against a government
agency covered by a charter with respect to the agency’s performance of governmental
functions; and a suit that on its face is against a government officer, but where the
ultimate liability will fall on the government. In the present case, the writ of attachment
was issued against a government agency covered by its own charter.
 In Republic v Feliciano, the court ruled that a suit against the State, under settled
jurisprudence is not permitted, except upon a showing that the State has consented to
be sued, either expressly or by implication through the use of statutory language too
plain to be misinterpreted. It may be invoked by the courts sua sponte at any stage of
the proceedings. Waiver of immunity, being a derogation of sovereignty, will not be
inferred lightly. But must be construed in strictissimi juris (of strictest right). Moreover,
the Proclamation is not a legislative act. The consent of the State to be sued must
emanate from statutory authority. Waiver of State immunity can only be made by an act
of the legislative body.
 In Tan v. Director of Forestry, the Supreme Court said that State immunity from suit may
be invoked as long as the suit really affects the property, rights or interests of the State
and not merely those of the officers nominally made party defendants. In this case, the
Court said that the promotion of public welfare and the protection of the inhabitants
near the public forest are property rights and interests of the State
 Liwayway Vinzons-Chato v. Fortune Tobacco Corporation,

4.) Suits Against Government Agencies

 In the case of Air Transportation Office v. Spouse Ramos, The Supreme Court ruled that
The State’s immunity from suit does not extend to the petitioner (ATO) because it is an
agency of the State engaged in an enterprise that is far from being the State’s exclusive
prerogative. The CA thereby correctly appreciated the juridical character of the ATO as
an agency of the Government not performing a purely governmental or sovereign
function, but was instead involved in the management and maintenance of the Loakan
Airport, an activity that was not the exclusive prerogative of the State in its sovereign
capacity. Hence, the ATO had no claim to the State’s immunity from suit.
 In the case Municipality of San Fernando v. Judge Firme, the court held that Municipal
corporations, like provinces and cities, are agencies of the State when they are engaged
in governmental functions and therefore should enjoy the sovereign immunity from suit.
Nevertheless, they are subject to suit even in the performance of such functions
because their charter provided that they can sue and be sued.

 In National Electrification Administration v. Morales, the court said, First of all, the
mantle of the State's immunity from suit did not extend to the NHA despite its being a
government-owned and -controlled corporation. Under Section 6(i) of Presidential
 Decree No. 757, which was its charter, the NHA could sue and be sued. As such, the NHA
was not immune from the suit of Roxas.
 In Farolan v. Court of Tax Appeals, the Supreme Court said that the Bureau of Customs,
being an unincorporated agency without a separate juridical personality, enjoys
immunity from suit. It is invested with an inherent power of sovereignty, namely the
power of taxation; it performs governmental functions.
 In Civil Aeronautics Administration v. Morales, THE DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY
DOES NOT APPLY TO GOVERNMENT OWNED AND CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS. - This
doctrine has been reaffirmed in the recent case of Malong v. Philippine National
Railways [G.R. No. L-49930, August 7, 1985, 138 SCRA 63], where it was held that the
Philippine National Railways, although owned and operated by the government, was not
immune from suit as it does not exercise sovereign but purely proprietary and business
functions. Accordingly, as the CAA was created to undertake the management of airport
operations, which primarily involve proprietary functions, it cannot avail of the
immunity from suit accorded to government agencies performing strictly governmental
functions.
 In Department of Health v. Philippine Pharmawealth, As a general rule, a state may not
be sued. However, if it consents, either expressly or impliedly, then it be the subject of a
suit. There is express consent when a law, either special or general, so provides. On the
other hand, there is implied consent when the state “enters into a contract or it itself
commences litigation.” However, it must be clarified that when a state enters into a
contract, it does not automatically mean that it has waived its non-suability. The State
“will be deemed to have impliedly waived its non-suability [only] if it has entered into a
contract in its proprietary or private capacity. [However,] when the contract involves its
sovereign or governmental capacity[,] xx x no such waiver may be implied. ”Statutory
provisions waiving [s]tate immunity are construed in strictissimi juris. For, waiver of
immunity is in derogation of sovereignty.”
 In Sanders v. Veridiano, the Supreme Court spoke of a number of well-recognized
exceptions when a public officer may be sued without the prior consent of the State, viz:
(1) to compel him to do an act required by law; (2) to restrain him from enforcing an act
claimed to be unconstitutional; (3) to compel the payment of damages from an already
appropriated assurance fund or to refund tax over-payments from a fund already
available for the purpose; (4) to secure a judgment that the officer impleaded may
satisfy by himself without the State having to do a positive act to assist him; and (5)
where the government itself has violated its own laws, because the doctrine of state
immunity “cannot be used to perpetrate an injustice”.
5.) Forms of Consent
- In order that suit may lie against the state, there must be consent, either express or implied.
Where no consent is shown, state immunity from suit may be invoked as a defense by the
courts sua sponte at any stage of the proceedings, because waiver of immunity, being in
derogation of sovereignty, will not be inferred lightly and must be construed in strictissimi
juris. Accordingly, the complaint (or counterclaim) against the State must allege the
existence of such consent (and where the same is found), otherwise, the complaint may be
dismissed.
 In Merritt v. Government of the Philippine Islands, supra., while consent to be sued was
granted through a special law, the government was held not liable for damages, because
under the attendant circumstances the government was not acting through a special
agent.
 In Republic v. Purisima, Express consent of the State may be manifested through general
or special law. Solicitor General cannot validly waive immunity from suit. Only the
Congress can.
 In Amigable v. Cuenca, 43 SCRA 360, an action for the recovery of the value of the
property taken by the government and converted into a public street without payment
of just compensation was allowed, despite the failure of the property owner to file his
claim with the Auditor General. Invoking Ministerio v. City of Cebu, 40 SCRA 464, the
Supreme Court said that suit may lie because the doctrine of State immunity cannot be
used to perpetrate an injustice.
 In De los Santos v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 223 SCRA 11, where it was held that
the “public respondents’ belief that the property is public, even if buttressed by
statements of other public officials, is no reason for the unjust taking of petitioner’s
property”; after all, the TCT was in the name of the petitioner.
 In Froilan v. Pan Oriental Shipping, the Supreme Court held that the government
impliedly allowed itself to be sued when it filed a complaint in intervention for the
purpose of asserting claim for affirmative relief against the plaintiff to the recovery of
the vessel. The immunity of the state from suits does not deprive it of the right to sue
private parties in its own courts. The state as plaintiff may avail itself of the different
forms of actions open to private litigants. In short, by taking the initiative in an action
against a private party, the state surrenders its privileged position and comes down to
the level of the defendant. The latter automatically acquires, within certain limits, the
right to set up whatever claims and other defenses he might have against the state.
 In Republic (PCGG) v. Sandiganbayan, 227 shares in Negros Occidental Golf and Country
Club, Inc. (NOGCCI) owned and registered in the name of private respondent Benedicto
were sequestered and taken over by PCGG fiscal agents. In a suit for payment of dues of
the sequestered shares, PCGG raised, among others, the defense of immunity from suit.
The Supreme Court held that by entering into a Compromise Agreement with Benedicto,
the Republic stripped itself of its immunity and placed itself in the same level as its
adversary. When the State enters into a contract through its officers or agents, in
furtherance of a legitimate aim and purpose and pursuant to constitutional legislative
authority, whereby mutual or reciprocal benefits accruse and rights and obligations
arise therefrom, the State may be sued even without its express consent, precisely
because by entering into a contract, the sovereign descends to the level of the citizen.
 6.) Suability v. Liability
- A distinction should first be made between suability and liability. "Suability depends on the
consent of the state to be sued, liability on the applicable law and the established facts. The
circumstance that a state is suable does not necessarily mean that it is liable; on the other hand,
it can never be held liable if it does not first consent to be sued. Liability is not conceded by the
mere fact that the state has allowed itself to be sued. When the state does waive its sovereign
immunity, it is only giving the plaintiff the chance to prove, if it can, that the defendant is liable.

 In Republic vs. Villasor, Consent to be sued does not include consent to the execution of
judgment against it. Such execution will require another waiver, because the power of
the court ends when the judgment is rendered, since government funds and properties
may not be seized under writs of execution or garnishment, unless such disbursement is
covered by the corresponding appropriation as required by law.
 In Lockheed Detective and Watchman Agency v. UP, The Supreme Court finds that the
CA correctly applied the case of NEA. Like NEA, UP is a juridical personality separate and
distinct from the government and has the capacity to sue and be sued. Thus, also like
NEA, it cannot evade execution, and its funds may be subject to garnishment or levy.
However, before execution may be had, a claim for payment of the judgment award
must first be filed with the COA.
 In UP v. Dizon, the court held that the funds of the UP are government funds that are
public in character. They include the income accruing from the use of real property
ceded to the UP that may be spent only for the attainment of its institutional objectives.
Hence, the funds subject of this action could not be validly made the subject of the
RTC’s writ of execution or garnishment. The adverse judgment rendered against the UP
in a suit to which it had impliedly consented was not immediately enforceable by
execution against the UP, because suability of the State did not necessarily mean its
liability.
 In Municipality of Makati v. Court of Appeals, 190 SCRA 206, it was held that where the
municipality fails or refuses, without justifiable reason, to effect payment of a final
money judgment rendered against it, the claimant may avail of the remedy of
mandamus in order to compel the enactment and approval of the necessary
appropriation ordinance and the corresponding disbursement of municipal funds to
satisfy the money judgment.

TOPIC VI. PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES UNDER THE 1987 CONSTITUTION

7.) Principles (Article II, Sections 1-6)

a.) Preamble, 1987 Constitution
PREAMBLE: We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to
build a just and humane society, and establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and
aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to
ourselves and our posterity, the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law
and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace, do ordain and promulgate this
Constitution.
 b.) Democratic and Republican State; Manifestations
- Republicanism [Sec. 1. Art. II: “The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty
resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them”].
Manifestations.
- a) Ours is a government of laws and not of men [Villavicencio v. Lukban, 39 Phil 778].
- b) Rule of the majority. [Plurality in elections]
- c) Accountability of public officials.
- d) Bill of Rights.
- e) Legislature cannot pass irrepealable laws.
- f) Separation of powers.

c.) Renunciation of war and adoption of generally accepted principles of international law
- Renunciation of war. The historical development of the policy condemning or outlawing war in
the international scene:
a) Covenant of the League of Nations, which provided conditions for the right to go to
war;
b) Kelloqq-Briand Pact of 1928. also known as the General Treaty for the Renunciation
of War, ratified by 62 States, which forbade war as “an instrument of national policy”.
c) Charter of the United Nations. Art. 2 of which prohibits the threat or use of force
against the territorial integrity or political independence of a State.
 Article XVIII, Section 25
 Section 25. After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the Republic of the
Philippines and the United States of America concerning military bases, foreign military
bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty
duly concurred in by the Senate and, when the Congress so requires, ratified by a
majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose,
and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State.

CASE: In Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association v. Health Secretary, The Supreme Court clarified
that under the 1987 Constitution, international can become part of the sphere of domestic law either by
transformation or incorporation. The transformation method requires that an international law be
transformed into a domestic law through a constitutional mechanism such as local legislation. The
incorporation method applies when, by mere constitutional declaration, international law is deemed to
have the force of domestic law. Treaties become part of the law of the land through transformation
pursuant to Article VII, Section 21 of the Constitution, which provides that no treaty or international
agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the members of
the Senate. Thus, treaties or conventional international law must go through a process prescribed by the
Constitution for it to be transformed into municipal law that can apply to domestic conflicts.

CASE: The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal tribunals or local courts are
confronted with situations in which there appears to be a conflict between a rule of international law
and the provisions of the constitution or statute of the local state. Efforts should first be exerted to
harmonize them, so as to give effect to both. In a situation, however, where the conflict is irreconcilable
and a choice has to be made between a rule of international law and municipal law, jurisprudence
dictates that the municipal courts should uphold municipal law. In Ichong v. Hernandez, 101 Phil 115,
the reason given by the Court was that the Retail Trade National Law was passed in the exercise of the
police power, which cannot be bargained away through the medium of a treaty or a contract.
d.) Civilian Supremacy over the Military
- Civilian Supremacy Sec. 3. Art. II: “Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the
military. The Armed Forces of the Philippines is the protector of the people and the State. Its
goal is to secure the sovereignty of the State and the integrity of the national territory".

e.) Government as protector of the people, and people as defenders of the state
 RA 9163, Sections 2,4,5, and 6
 Section 2. Declaration of Policy - It is hereby affirmed the prime duty of the government
to serve and protect its citizens. In turn, it shall be the responsibility of all citizens to
defend the security of the State and in fulfillment thereof, the government may require
each citizen to render personal, military or civil service. Recognizing the youth's vital
role in nation-building, the State shall promote civic consciousness among the youth and
shall develop their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual and social well-being. It shall
inculcate in the youth patriotism, nationalism, and advance their involvement in public
and civic affairs. In pursuit of these goals, the youth, the most valuable resource of the
nation, shall be motivated, trained, organized and mobilized in military training, literacy,
civic welfare and other similar endeavors in the service of the nation.
 Section 4. Establishment of the National Service Training Program. - There is hereby
established a National Service Training Program, which shall form part of the curricula of
all baccalaureate degree courses and of at least two (2)-year technical vocational
courses and is a requisite for graduation, consisting of the following service
components:
 (1) The Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC), which is hereby made option and
voluntary upon the effectivity of this Act; (2) The Literacy Training Service; and (3) The
Civic Welfare Training Service
The ROTC under the NSTP shall instill patriotism, moral virtues, respect for rights of
civilians, and adherence to the Constitution, among others. Citizenship training shall be
given emphasis in all three (3) program components.
The Commission on Higher Education (CHED) and Technical Education and Skills
Development Authority (TESDA), in consultation with the Department of National
Defense (DND), Philippine Association of State Universities and Colleges (PASUC),
Coordinating Council of Private Educational Associations of the Philippines (COCOPEA)
and other concerned government agencies, may design and implement such other
program components as may be necessary in consonance with the provisions of this Act.
 Section 5. Coverage - Students, male and female, of any baccalaureate degree course or
at least two (2)-year technical vocational courses in public and private educational
institutions shall be required to complete one (1) of the NSTP components as requisite
for graduation.
 Section 6. Duration and Equivalent Course Unit - Each of the aforementioned NSTP
program components shall be undertaken for an academic period of two (2) semesters.
In lieu of the two (2) semester program for any of the components of the NSTP, a one
(1)-summer program may be designed, formulated and adopted by the DND, CHED, and
TESDA.
f.) Separation of Church and State
 Principles of separation: Article III, Section 5; Article IX (C), Section 3 (3), Section 4 (2)
ARTICLE III, SECTION 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious
profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed.
No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

 Exceptions: Article VI, Section 28 (3), Section 29 (2); Article XIV, Section 3 (3), Section 4
(2)
ARTICLE VI, SEC 28 (3) charitable institutions, churches and parsonages or convents
appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and
improvements, actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable, or
educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation.

ARTICLE, SEC 29 (2) No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or
employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church,
denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher,
minister, or other religious teacher, or dignitary as such, except when such priest,
preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal
institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium.

ARTICLE, SEC 3 (3) At the option expressed in writing by the parents or guardians,
religion shall be allowed to be taught to their children or wards in public elementary and
high schools within the regular class hours by instructors designated or approved by the
religious authorities of the religion to which the children or wards belong, without
additional cost to the Government.

ARTICLE, SEC 4 (2) Educational institutions, other than those established by religious
groups and mission boards, shall be owned solely by citizens of the Philippines or
corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by
such citizens. The Congress may, however, require increased Filipino equity participation
in all educational institutions.

The control and administration of educational institutions shall be vested in citizens of

the Philippines.

No educational institution shall be established exclusively for aliens and no group of

aliens shall comprise more than one-third of the enrollment in any school. The
provisions of this subsection shall not apply to schools established for foreign diplomatic
personnel and their dependents and, unless otherwise provided by law, for other
foreign temporary residents.
CASE: In Estrada v. Escritor, the Supreme Court held that benevolent neutrality recognizes that
government must pursue its secular goals and interests but at the same time strives to uphold religious
liberty to the greatest extent possible within flexible constitutional limits.

8.) Policies (Article II, Sections 7-28)

a.) Independent Foreign Policy
Sec. 7, Art. II: The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its relations with
other states, the paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorial integrity,
national interest, and the right to self-determination. Sec. 8, Art. II: “The Philippines,
consistent with the national interest, adopts and pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear
weapons in its territory”.

 In Bayan v. Zamora, The ratification by the president of the VFA and the
concurrence of the senate should be taken as a clear and unequivocal expression of
our nation’s consent to be bound by said treaty, with the concomitant duty to
uphold the obligations and responsibilities embodied therein. It becomes obligatory
and incumbent on our part, under the principles of international law to be bound by
the terms of agreement (Article 2, section 2). As a member of the family of nations,
the country agrees to be bound by the generally accepted rules for the conduct of
its international relations. We cannot readily plead the constitution as a convenient
excuse for non-compliance with our obligations, duties and responsibilities under
international law.
 In Province of North Cotabato v. Govt of the PH Peace panel on ancestral domain,
the supreme with regards to International law, The Philippines adopts the generally
accepted principle of international law as part of the law of the land. In international
law, the right to self-determination has long been recognized which states that
people can freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic,
social, and cultural development. There are the internal and external self-
determination—internal, meaning the self-pursuit of man and the external which
takes the form of the assertion of the right to unilateral secession. This principle of
self-determination is viewed with respect accorded to the territorial integrity of
existing states. External self-determination is only afforded in exceptional cases
when there is an actual block in the meaningful exercise of the right to internal self-
determination. International law, as a general rule, subject only to limited and
exceptional cases, recognizes that the right of disposing national territory is
essentially an attribute of the sovereignty of every state.

On matters relative to indigenous people, international law states that indigenous

peoples situated within states do not have a general right to independence or
secession from those states under international law, but they do have rights
amounting to what was discussed above as the right to internal self-determination;
have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal
and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous
functions; have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have
traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.
 Clearly, there is nothing in the law that required the State to guarantee the
indigenous people their own police and security force; but rather, it shall be the
State, through police officers, that will provide for the protection of the people.
With regards to the autonomy of the indigenous people, the law does not obligate
States to grant indigenous peoples the near-independent status of a state; since it
would impair the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent
states.

b.) Freedom from Nuclear Weapons

c.) Social Justice and Human Rights

 Art XIII, Sections 1 and 2
 SECTION 1. The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures
that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social,
economic, and political inequalities, and remove cultural inequities by equitably
diffusing wealth and political power for the common good. To this end, the State
shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, and disposition of property and its
increments.
 SECTION 2. The promotion of social justice shall include the commitment to create
economic opportunities based on freedom of initiative and self-reliance.

 In Calalang v. Williams, Justice Laurel says that, Social Justice is ‘neither

communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy,’ but the humanization of
laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by the State so that justice
in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated.
Social Justice means the promotion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by
the Government of measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the
component elements of society, through the maintenance of a proper economic
and social equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of the community,
constitutionally, through the adoption of measures legally justifiable, or extra-
constitutionally, through the exercise of powers underlying the existence of all the
governments on the time-honored principle of salus populi est suprema lex.
 Art XIII, Section 18
SECTION 18. The Commission on Human Rights shall have the following powers and
functions:

(1) Investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of human rights
violations involving civil and political rights;

(2) Adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure, and cite for contempt
for violations thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court;
 (3) Provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of human rights of all
persons within the Philippines, as well as Filipinos residing abroad, and provide for
preventive measures and legal aid services to the underprivileged whose human
rights have been violated or need protection;

(4) Exercise visitorial powers over jails, prisons, or detention facilities;

(5) Establish a continuing program of research, education, and information to

enhance respect for the primacy of human rights;

(6) Recommend to the Congress effective measures to promote human rights and to
provide for compensation to victims of violations of human rights, or their families;

(7) Monitor the Philippine Government’s compliance with international treaty

obligations on human rights;

(8) Grant immunity from prosecution to any person whose testimony or whose
possession of documents or other evidence is necessary or convenient to determine
the truth in any investigation conducted by it or under its authority;

(9) Request the assistance of any department, bureau, office, or agency in the
performance of its functions;

(10) Appoint its officers and employees in accordance with law; and

(11) Perform such other duties and functions as may be provided by law.

 Writ of Amparo
 Petition. – The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person
whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by an
unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or
entity. The writ shall cover extra-legal killings and enforced disappearances or
threats thereof.
d.) Sanctity of Family Life, Life of the mother, Life of the Unborn
 In Spouses Imbong v. Ochoa, Article II section 12 of the Constitution states: “The
State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the
family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the
mother and the life of the unborn from conception.” The court also recognized that
life begins during fertilization. Thus, partially banning contraceptives that only kill or
destroy a fertilized ovum.
e.) Equality between men and women
 RA 9262,
 Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004
 RA 7192,
 Women in Development and Nation Building Act.
 RA 6725
 AN ACT STRENGTHENING THE PROHIBITION ON DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN
WITH RESPECT TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT, AMENDING FOR THE
PURPOSE ARTICLE ONE HUNDRED THIRTY-FIVE OF THE LABOR CODE, AS AMENDED.
f.) Balanced and Healthful Ecology
 In Oposa v. Factoran, Their personality to sue in behalf of succeeding generations is
based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a
balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right considers the “rhythm and
harmony of nature” which indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious disposition,
utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the country’s forest, mineral,
land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, offshore areas and other natural resources to the
end that their exploration, development, and utilization be equitably accessible to
the present as well as the future generations.

 Writ of Kalikasan
 A Writ of Kalikasan is a legal remedy under Philippine law that provides protection
of one's Constitutional right to a healthy environment, as outlined in Section 16,
Article II of the Philippine Constitution, which says the "state shall protect and
advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with
the rhythm and harmony of nature."
 In Mosqueda v. Pilipino Banana Growers & Exporters Association Inc., The acts of
the local government unit designed to ensure the health and lives of its constituents
and to promote a balanced and healthful ecology are well within the corporate
powers vested in the local government unit. Advancing the interest of the residents
who are vulnerable to the alleged health risk due to their exposure to pesticide drift
justifies the motivation behind the enactment of the ordinance. However, the
occurrence of pesticide drift is not limited to aerial spraying but results from the
conduct of any mode of pesticide application. Even manual praying or truck-
mounted boom spraying produces drift that may bring about the same
inconvenience, discomfort and alleged health risks to the community and to the
environment. The banning does not weed out the harm that the ordinance seeks to
achieve The principle of precaution appearing in the rules of procedure for
environmental cases involves matters of evident in cases where there is lack of
scientific certainty in establishing a causal link between human activity and
environmental effect. But it is not applicable if there is no indication of threat of
environmental harm, of if the threatened harm is trivial or easily reversible. In the
case at bar, there has been to scientific study involving the effects of aerial spraying.
There has been no reported outbreak connected to the pesticide applied for the
past 4 decades.
 g.) Priority to Education, Science, Technology, Arts, Culture and Sports
h.) Protection to Labor
i.) Self-Reliant and Independent Economy
 Article XII Sec 10 (2), in the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the
national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified
Filipinos.
j.) Indispensable Role of Private Sector
k.) Comprehensive Rural Development and Agrarian Reform
l.) Indigenous Cultural Communities
m.) Autonomy of Local Governments
n.) Full Public Disclosure
 In Valmonte v. Belmonte, The Supreme Court ruled that the right to information is
an essential premise of a meaningful right to speech and expression. The right to
information goes hand-in-hand with the constitutional policies of full public
disclosure and honestly in the public services. It is meant to enhance the widening
role of citizenry in governmental decision-making as well in checking abuse in the
government. The people’s right to information is limited to matters of public
concern” which is the first requisite. The states policy of full public disclosure is
limited to transactions involving public interest and is subject to reasonable
conditions prescribed by law.
 In Akbayan v. Aquino, the Supreme Court held that To be covered by the right to
information, the information sought must meet the threshold requirement that it
be a matter of public concern x From the nature of the JPEPA as an international
trade agreement, it is evident that the Philippine and Japanese offers submitted
during the negotiations towards its execution are matters of public concern. This,
respondents do not dispute. They only claim that diplomatic negotiations are
covered by the doctrine of executive privilege, thus constituting an exception to the
right to information and the policy of full public disclosure.

TOPIC VII. Legislative Department: Structure

1.) Composition of Congress; Senate; House of Representatives

 Composition
- Congress is composed of the Senate and House of Representatives
- Senate: 24 Senators
- HOR: Not more than 250 members; Composed of Party List Rep of 20%

 Apportionment
 Shall be made in accordance with the number of respective inhabitants, on the basis of a
uniform and progressive ratio.
i.) Each city with not less than 250,000 inhabitants shall be entitled for at least one
representative.
ii.) Each province, irrespective of number of inhabitants, entitled to at least one
representative.
  Reapportionment
 Reapportionment of Legislative Districts may be made through a special law.

A.) Party List

 Definition
 Party List System is a mechanism of proportional representation in the election of
representatives to the HOR from national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations or
coalitions thereof registered with the COMELEC.

 Party – Means either political or sectoral party or a coalition of parties.

 Political – Refers to an organized group of citizens advocating an ideology or
platform, principles and policies.
 National Party – When its constituency is spread over the geographical territory of
the regions.
 Regional Party – When its constituency is spread over the geographical territory of
at least a majority of the cities and provinces comprising the region.

 Sectoral Party – refers to an organized group of citizens belonging to any of the following
sectors: labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly,
handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers and professionals, whose principal
advocacy pertains to the special interest and concerns of their sector.

 Sectoral organization – refers to a group of citizens or a coalition of groups of citizens who

share similar physical attributes or characteristics, employment, interests or concerns.

 Coalition – refers to an aggrupation of duly registered national, regional, sectoral parties or

organizations for political and/or election purposes.

 Qualifications for a party-list member

 Natural-born citizen of the Philippines
 Registered Voter
 Resident of the PH for at least one year
 Able to read and write
 Bonafide member of the party or organization which he seeks to represent for at least 90 days.
 25 years of age
 YOUTH SECTOR: At least 25 years old and not less than 30 years old.

 Number
 The party-list representatives shall constitute 20% of the total number of the members of the
HOR including those under the part-list.

- In determining the allocation of seats for the second vote, the following procedure must be
observed:
 i.) The parties, organizations and coalitions shall be ranked from highest to the lowest
based on the number of votes they garnered during elections
ii.) The parties, organizations and coalitions receiving at least 2% of the total votes cast for
the party-list system shall be entitled to one seat each; provided, that those garnering
more than 2% of the votes shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their
total number of votes;
iii.) Provided, finally, that each party, organization or coalitions, shall be entitled to not
more than three (3) seats.

CASE: In Veterans Federation Party v COMELEC, the SC reversed its ruling that the 38 respondent
parties, organizations, coalitions were each entitled to a party-list seat despite their failure to obtain at
least 2% each of the national vote in the 1998 party-list election.

The Court said that the Constitution and RA 7941 mandate at least 4 inviolable parameters:

a.) The 20% allocation – the combined number of all party-list congressmen shall not exceed 20% of
the total membership of the HOR.
b.) The 2% threshold – only those parties garnering a minimum of the 2% of the total valid votes
cast for the party-list system are qualified to have a seat in the House.
c.) The 3-seat limit – each qualified party, regardless of the number of votes it actually obtained, is
entitled to a maximum of three seats (one qualifying and 2 additional)
d.) Proportional representation – the additional seats which a qualified party is entitled to shall be
computed “in proportion to their total number of votes”.

Additional Seats = Votes cast for Qualified Party

Votes case for First Party x Alloted seats for First Party

Formula for Additional Seats:

CASE: In Ang Bagong Bayani – OFW Labor Party v. COMELEC the Supreme Court said even Major Political
parties allowed by the Constitution to participate in the Party-list system, they must however comply
with the guidelines in order that a political party registered under the party-list system may be entitled
to a seat in the HOR.

a.) Must represent marginalized and under-represented sectors

b.) Major political parties must comply with this statutory policy
c.) Ang Bagong Buhay Hayaang Yumabong (as a party) must be subject to the express constitutional
prohibition against religious sects
d.) The party must not be disqualified under RA 7941
e.) The party must not be an adjunct of an entity or project funded by the government
f.) The party and its nominees must comply with the requirements of the law
g.) The nominee must also represent a marginalized or under-represented sector
h.) The nominee must be able to contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate
legislation that will benefit the nation.
 2.) Qualifications and Term of Office

QUALIFICATIONS

SENATOR (ARTICLE IV, Sec. 3) House of Representatives

Natural Born Citizen, on the day of elections Natural-Born Citizen, on the day of elections
35 years of AGE 25 years of AGE
able to READ AND WRITE able to READ AND WRITE
Registered Voter in the District in which he shall
Registered Voter
be elected
Resident of the Philippines for not less than two Resident thereof for a period of no less than one
years immediately preceding the day of the year immediately preceding the day of the
election. election.
EXCEPT THE PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVES
CASE: In Social Justice Society vs. Dangerous Drugs Board, the Supreme Court held that the COMELEC or
Congress cannot enact a law prescribing qualifications for one aspiring to run for and serve as Senator in
addition those laid down by the Constitution. The Constitution is the basic law to which all laws must
conform; no act shall be valid if it conflicts with the Constitution.
Commented [AQ1]: Accdng to, Article IV Section 2,
“Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the
Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to
acquire or perfect their Philippine Citizenship. Those who
elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph
(3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens.
Commented [AQ2]: Of age that is when the polls are
opened and the votes are casts, and not on the day of
proclamation of the winners by the board of canvassers.
Commented [AQ3]: Residence is defined as the place
where one habitually resides and to which, when he is
absent, he has the intention of returning.

TERM

SENATORS (ARTICLES VI and XVIII) House of Representatives

“Sec. 7. The Members of the House of
Representatives shall be elected for a term of
three years which shall begin, unless otherwise
provided by law, at noon on the thirtieth day of
“Sec. 4. The term of office of the Senators shall
June next following their election.”
be six years and shall commence, unless
otherwise provided by law, at noon on the
“No Member of the House of Representatives
thirtieth day of June next following their
shall serve for more than three consecutive
election.”
terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for
any length of time shall not be considered as an
interruption in the community of his service for
the full term for which he was elected.”
“Sec. 2. The Senators, Members of the House of
Representatives, and the local officials first
 elected under this Constitution shall serve until
noon of June 30, 1992.”

“Of the senators, elected in the election in 1992,

the first twelve obtaining the highest number of
votes shall serve for six years and the remaining
twelve for three years.”

a.) Residency Requirement

Residence is acquired by living in a place, whereas domicile can exist without actually living in a place.
The important thing in domicile is that, once residence has been established in one place, there should
be an intention to stay there permanently, even if residence is also established in some other place.

Domicile can be lost only (1) when there is actual removal or change of domicile, (2) when there is a
bonafide intention to abandon the residence and establish a new one and there are acts which
correspond with the purpose. This domicile of origin continues if there is no clear and positive proof of
the concurrence of the above.

CASE: In Romualdez-Marcos v. COMELEC, Residence is synonymous with domicile which reveals a

tendency or mistake the concept of domicile for actual residence, a conception not intended for
the purpose of determining a candidate’s qualifications for the election to the House of
Representatives as required by the 1987 Constitution. An individual does not lose his domicile even if he
has lived and maintained residences in different places. In the case at bench, the evidence adduced by
Motejo lacks the degree of persuasiveness as required to convince the court that
an abandonment of domicile of origin in favor of a domicile of choice indeed incurred. It cannot be
correctly argued that Marcos lost her domicile of origin by operation of law as a result of her marriage to
the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos. Assuming that Imelda gained a new domicile after her marriage
and acquired right to choose a new one only after the death of Pres. Marcos, her actions upon returning
to the country clearly indicated that she chose Tacloban, her domicile of origin, as her domicile of
choice. To add, petitioner even obtained her residence certificate in 1992 in Tacloban, Leyte while living
in her brother’s house, an act, which supports the domiciliary intention clearly manifested. She even
kept close ties by establishing residences in Tacloban, celebrating her birthdays and other important
milestones.

CASE: In Macalintal v. COMELEC, the affidavit is required of immigrants and permanent residents abroad
because by their status in their host countries, they are presumed to have relinquished their intent to
return to this country; thus, without the affidavit, the presumption of abandonment of Philippine
domicile shall remain.
 b.) Term vs. Tenure

Term – means the period of time during which the officer may claim to hold office as of right, and fixes
the interval after which the several incumbents shall succeed one another

Tenure – represents the term during which the incumbent actually holds the office. The term of office is
not affected by the hold-over. The tenure may be shorter than the term for reasons or beyond the
power of incumbent.

CASE: In Gaminde v. COA, The term of office of Ms. Thelma P. Gaminde as Commissioner, Civil Service
Commission, under an appointment extended to her by President Fidel V. Ramos on June 11, 1993.
Expired on February 02, 1999.However, she served as de facto Officer in good faith until February 02,
2000, and thus entitled to receive her salary and other emoluments for actual service rendered.
Consequently, the Commission on Audit erred in disallowing in audit such salary and other emoluments,
including that of her co-terminus staff.

CASE: In Socrates v. COMELEC,

c.) Election
- Elections for Congress of the Philippines were held on the Second Monday of May, 1987.

CASE: Special: To fill a vacancy, but elected member shall serve only for the unexpired portion of the
term [Sec. 9, Art. VI]

CASE:

3.) Salaries
- Art VI, Sec 10: The salaries of Senators and Members of Representatives shall be determined by
law. No increase in said compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of the full term
of all the Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives approving such increase.
- Art XVIII, Sec. 17: Until the Congress provides otherwise, the President shall receive an annual
salary of three hundred thousand pesos; the Vice-President, the Senate President, the Speaker
of the House of Representatives, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, two hundred forty
thousand pesos each; the Senator, the Members of the House of Representatives, the Associate
Justices of the Supreme Court, the Chairmen of the Constitutional Commissions, two hundred
four thousand pesos each; and the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, one hundred
eighty thousand pesos each.

4.) Parliamentary Immunity / Privileges (Section 11)

ART VI, Sec. 11: A Senator or Member of the HORs shall, in all offenses punishable by not more
than six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session. No
member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in
the Congress or in any committee thereof.
 a.) Freedom from Arrest

In all offenses punishable by not more than six (6) years imprisonment, a Senator or a member of the
House of Representatives “shall be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session.”

CASE: In Trillanes IV v. Judge Pimentel, . In this case, petitioner Antonio Trillanes sought from the Makati
RTC leave to attend Senate sessions and to convene his staff, resource persons and guests and to attend
to his official functions as Senator. He anchored his motion on his right to be presumed innocent, and
claims that the Jalosjos ruling should not be applied to him, because he is a mere detention prisoner and
is not charged with a crime involving moral turpitude. The Makati RTC denied the motion. Elevating the
matter, the Supreme Court denied Trillanes’ petition on the ground that Sec. 13, Art. Ill of the
Constitution, explicitly provides that crimes punishable by reclusion perpetua are nonbailable. The Court
further said that the presumption of innocence does not necessarily carry with it the full enjoyment of
civil and political rights.

CASE: In People v. Jalosjos, the Supreme Court denied the motion of Congressman Jalosjos that he be
allowed to fully discharged the duties of a Congressman, including attendance at legislative sessions and
committee hearings despite his having been convicted by the trial court of a non-bailable offense. The
denial was premised on the following: [i] membership in Congress does not exempt an accused from
statutes and rules which apply to validly incarcerated persons; [ii] one rationale behind confinement,
whether pending appeal or after final conviction, is public self-defense, i.e., it is the injury to the public,
not the injury to the complainant, which state action in criminal law seeks to redress; [iii] it would
amount to the creation of a privileged class, without justification in reason, if notwithstanding their
liability for a criminal offense, they would be considered immune from arrest during their attendance in
Congress and in going to and returning from the same; and [iv] accused-appellant is provided with an
office at the House of Representatives with a full complement of staff, as well as an office at the
Administration Building, New Bilibid Prison, where he attends to his constituents; he has, therefore,
been discharging his mandate as member of the House of Representatives, and being a detainee, he
should not even be allowed by the prison authorities to perform these acts.

b.) Privilege of Speech and Debate

It is a privilege or immunity of a member of Congress from being questioned or held liable in any other
place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof. There are two
requirements that must concur: (1) The remarks must be made while the legislature or the legislative
committee is functioning, or in session. (2) Must be made in connection with the discharge of official
duties. (Coffin v. Coffin)

CASE: In Osmena v. Pendatun, the president of the Philippines himself who had been vilified by the
petitioner could not file any civil or criminal action against him because of this immunity. Nonetheless,
the majority of the members of the House of Representatives in which the questioned speech was
delivered were not precluded from demonstrating their loyalty to the chief executive by declaring
Osmena guilty of disorderly behavior and suspending him in the exercise of disciplinary power.

CASE: In Jimenez v. Cabangbang, the Supreme Court declared that the privilege could not be invoked by
a legislator who had allegedly maligned the plaintiff in an open letter to the President of the Philippines
coursed through and published in the newspapers. The finding was that he had written the letter at a
time when the Congress was in recess and in his private capacity only.

CASE: In Pobre v. Sen Santiago, Indeed, her privilege speech is not actionable criminally or in a
disciplinary proceeding under the Rules of Court. It is felt, however, that this could not be the last word
on the matter. The Court is not hesitant to impose some form of disciplinary sanctions on Senator/Atty.
Santiago for what otherwise would have constituted an act of utter disrespect on her part towards the
Court and its members. The factual and legal circumstances of this case, however, deter the Court from
doing so, even without any sign of remorse from her. Basic constitutional consideration dictates this
kind of disposition.

5.) Restrictions (Secs. 12, 13, 14, 20)

Section 12 – All Members of the State and the House of Representatives shall, upon assumption of
office, make a full disclosure of their financial and business interests. They shall notify the House
concerned of a potential conflict of interest that may arise from the filing of a proposed legislation of
which they are authors. Commented [AQ4]: Reason: to prevent them from using
the influence of their position and to reduce, if not
Section 13 – No Senators or Member of the House of Representatives may hold any other office or eliminate, the propagation of their personal and business
employment in the government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including interest, especially those which are contrary to and adverse
to public interest.
government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries, during his term without forfeiting
his seat. Neither shall he be appointed to any office which may have been created or the emoluments
thereof increased during the term for which he was elected. Commented [AQ5]: They cannot hold incompatible
offices. They cannot be appointed to any office which may
Section 14 – No Senators or Member of the House of Representatives may personally appear as counsel have been created or the emoluments thereof increased
before any court of justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other administrative during the term for which they were elected.
Exception: Except if it is shown that said other office or
bodies. Neither shall he, directly or indirectly, be interested financially in any contract with, or in any employment is an extension of the legislative position or is
subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including any government-owned or controlled in aid of legislative duties.
corporations, or its subsidiary, during his terms of office. He shall not intervene in any matter before any
office of the government for his pecuniary benefit or where he may be called upon to act an of his
office. Commented [AQ6]: Disqualification Lawyer-Legislator to
practice his profession absolute?
No. When it pertains to appearance during a trial, or a
hearing before any judicial or quasi-judicial body, the same
6.) Sessions (ART VI, Sec 15.) may be made not by him but any of the associates of his law
Sec 15. – The Congress shall convene once every year on the fourth Monday of July for its firm.
regular session, unless a different date is fixed by law, and shall continue to be in session for Commented [AQ7]: Are all contracts or transactions of
such number of days as it may determined until thirty days before the opening of its next the GOVT barred?
What is barred are only those contracts from which a
regular session, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. The President may call a legislator is expected to derive gain or profit at the expense
special session at any time. of the government or any of its agencies or
instrumentalities.
a.) Regular Sessions (Secs 15 and 16[5])
 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.
b.) Special Sessions
 A special session may be called by the President at any time.

 Art VII Secs 10-11

 Section 10. The Congress shall, at ten o'clock in the morning of the third day after the vacancy in
the offices of the President and Vice-President occurs, convene in accordance with its rules
without need of a call and within seven days, enact a law calling for a special election to elect a
President and a Vice-President to be held not earlier than forty-five days nor later than sixty
days from the time of such call. The bill calling such special election shall be deemed certified
under paragraph 2, Section 26, Article V1 of this Constitution and shall become law upon its
approval on third reading by the Congress. Appropriations for the special election shall be
charged against any current appropriations and shall be exempt from the requirements of
paragraph 4, Section 25, Article V1 of this Constitution. The convening of the Congress cannot
be suspended nor the special election postponed. No special election shall be called if the
vacancy occurs within eighteen months before the date of the next presidential election.
 Section 11. Whenever the President transmits to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of
the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers
and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary,
such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice-President as Acting President. Whenever
a majority of all the Members of the Cabinet transmit to the President of the Senate and to the
Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to
discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice-President shall immediately assume the
powers and duties of the office as Acting President. Thereafter, when the President transmits to
the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written
declaration that no inability exists, he shall reassume the powers and duties of his office.
Meanwhile, should a majority of all the Members of the Cabinet transmit within five days to the
President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, their written
declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the
Congress shall decide the issue. For that purpose, the Congress shall convene, if it is not in
session, within forty-eight hours, in accordance with its rules and without need of call. If the
Congress, within ten days after receipt of the last written declaration, or, if not in session, within
twelve days after it is required to assemble, determines by a two-thirds vote of both Houses,
voting separately, that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,
the Vice-President shall act as President; otherwise, the President shall continue exercising the
powers and duties of his office.

 Art VII Sec 18 par 3

 The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency
of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within
thirty days from its filing.
 c.) Joint sessions
 Instances when both houses meet in joint session but they vote separately:
1.) When they choose the President of the Philippines under Sec. 4, Art. VII;
2.) When they determine the disability of the President under Sec. 11, Art. VII;
3.) When they confirm the nomination of the Vice-President under Sec. 9, Art. VII;
4.) When they propose constitutional amendments under Sec. 1, Art. XVII;
5.) 2/3 votes of both Houses in joint session assemble, voting separately, is needed to declare
the existence of a state of war.

 Instances when both houses meet in joint session and vote jointly:
1.) When they revoke or extend the proclamation of martial law or a proclamation suspending
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus under Sec. 18, Art VII;
2.) Both Houses cannot, during sessions, adjourn for more than three days, or transfer to a
place other than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting without the consent of the
other.

7.) Officers (Section 16)

The only officers prescribed by the Constitution are those of the President of the Senate and the
Speaker of the House of Representatives, both of whom are elected by a majority vote of all the
Members of their respective Houses. Each House, however, may decide to have other officers.
8.) Quorum (Section 16)
Quorum means the number of members required to be present before a body can do business.
Quorum in the Senate and in the House is a majority of actual members. A smaller member
present may either adjourn or compel the attendance of absent Members in such manner, and
under such penalties, as such House may provide.

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.

(2) A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may
adjourn from day to day and may compel the attendance of absent Members in such manner, and under
such penalties, as such House may provide.

(3) Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly behavior,
and, with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its Members, suspend or expel a Member. A penalty of
suspension, when imposed, shall not exceed sixty days.

(4) Each House shall keep a Journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same,
excepting such parts as may, in its judgment, affect national security; and the yeas and nays on any
question shall, at the request of one-fifth of the Members present, be entered in the Journal. Each
House shall also keep a Record of its proceedings.

(5) Neither House during the sessions of the Congress shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn
for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
CASE: In Avelino v. Cuenco, The Court adopts a hands-off policy on this matter. 1. The Court found it
injudicious to declare the petitioner as the rightful President of the Senate, since the office depends
exclusively upon the will of the majority of the senators, the rule of the Senate about tenure of the
President of that body being amenable at any time by that majority. 2. At any session hereafter held
with thirteen or more senators, in order to avoid all controversy arising from the divergence of opinion
here about quorum and for the benefit of all concerned, the said twelve senators who approved the
resolutions herein involved could ratify all their acts and thereby place them beyond the shadow of a
doubt.
CASE: In Defensor-Santiago v. Guingona,
CASE: In Arroyo vs. De Venecia, Rules of each House of Congress are hardly permanent in character.
They are subject to revocation, modification or waiver at the pleasure of the body adopting them as
they are primarily procedural. Courts ordinarily have no concern with their observance. They may be
waived or disregarded by the legislative body. Consequently, mere failure to conform to them does not
have the effect of nullifying the act taken if the requisite number of members has agreed to a particular
measure. But this is subject to qualification. Where the construction to be given to a rule affects person
other than members of the legislative body, the question presented is necessarily judicial in character.
Even its validity is open to question in a case where private rights are involved.
CASE: In Abas Kida v. Senate of the PH,

9.) Rules of Proceedings (Sections 16, 21)

- Each house may determine the rules of its proceedings.
CASE:
CASE:

10.) Discipline
- House may punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of 2/3 of all
its members, suspend (for not more than sixty days) or expel a member.

CASE: Osmena v. Pendatun, where the supreme court said the determination of the acts which
constitute disorderly behavior is within the full discretionary authority of the House concerned, and the
Court will not review such determination, the same being a political question.

CASE:

CASE:

11.) Journal and Congressional Records

a.) The Enrolled Bill Theory

An enrolled bill is one duly introduced and finally passed by both Houses, authenticated by the proper
officers of each, and approved by the President. The enrolled bill is conclusive upon the courts as
regards the tenor of the measure passed by Congress and approved by the President. Court is bound
under the doctrine of separation of powers by the contents of a duly authenticated measure of the
legislature [Mabanag v. Lopez Vito, 78 Phil 1; Arroyo v. De Venecia, G.R. No. 127255, August 14, 1997], If
a mistake was made in the printing of the bill before it was certified by Congress and approved by the
President, the remedy is amendment or corrective legislation, not a judicial decree [Casco (Phil)
Chemical Co. v. Gimenez, 7 SCRA 347].

CASE:

b.) Probative value of Journal

CASE: U.S. v. Pons – The supreme court refused to go beyond the recitals in the legislative journals,
which it held to be conclusive on the courts. “To inquire into the veracity of the journals of the
Philippine Legislature” it rules, “when they are, as we have said, clear and explicit, would be to violate
both the letter and spirit of the organic laws by which the Philippine Government was brought into
existence, to invade a coordinate and independent department of the Government, and to interfere
with the legitimate powers and functions of the Legislature.” But except only where the matters are
required to be entered in the journals, like the yeas and nays on the final reading of the bill or on any
question at the request of one-fifth of the members present, the contents of the enrolled bill shall
prevail over those of the journal in case of conflict.

c.) Matters to be entered in the Journal

 Yeas and nays on 3rd and final reading

Section 26. (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.

 Veto message of the President

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.

 Yeas and nays on repassing of vetoed bill

 Yeas and nays on any question upon request of 1/5 of members present

Section 16. (4) (4) Each House shall keep a Journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the
same, excepting such parts as may, in its judgment, affect national security; and the yeas and nays on
any question shall, at the request of one-fifth of the Members present, be entered in the Journal. Each
House shall also keep a Record of its proceedings.

d.) Journal Entry Rule v. Enrolled Bill Theory

Enrolled bill prevails, except as to matters which, under the Constitution, must be entered in the
Journal. See Astorga v. Villegas, 56 SCRA 714; Morales v. Subido, 26 SCRA 150.

CASE:

12.) Congressional Record

- Each house shall also keep a record of its proceedings.

13.) Adjournment (Sections 16)

The two prohibitions mentioned in Sec. 16[5] are the following:

1.) During the sessions of the Congress, neither House shall adjourn for more than three (3) days
without the consent of the other.
2.) During the sessions of Congress, neither House shall adjourn to any other place than that in
which the two Houses shall be sitting.

14.) Electoral Tribunals

a.) Composition
- Three Supreme Court justices designated by the Chief Justice, and six members of the house
concerned chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties
registered under the party- list system represented therein. The Senior Justice shall be its
Chairman.

CASE:

CASE: In Tanada vs. Cuenco, held that the right to nominate to the legislative seats in the Electoral
Tribunals belonged to the majority and minority parties in the chamber, not to the chamber itself or
to the majority party therein if the minority did not make its own nomination.

CASE: Abbas v. Senate Electoral Tribunal. On the disqualification of the senator-members of the
Senate Electoral Tribunal, because an election contest is filed against them, see Abbas v. Senate
Electoral Tribunal, 166 SCRA 651, where the Supreme Court held that it cannot order the
disqualification of the Senators-members of the Electoral Tribunal simply because they were
themselves respondents in the electoral protest, considering the specific mandate of the
Constitution and inasmuch as all the elected Senators were actually named as respondents.

b.) Function/Power/Judicial Review

CASE: But the HRET may assume jurisdiction only after the winning candidate (who is a party to the
election controversy) shall have been duly proclaimed, has taken his oath of office and has assumed the
functions of the office, because it is only then that he is said to be a member of the House [Aquino v.
Comelec, 248 SCRA 400]. Thus, in Vinzons-Chato v. Comelec, G.R. No. 172131, April 2, 2007 the Court
said that once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed officed as a
Member of the House of Representatives, the Comelec’s jurisdiction over the election contest relating
to his election, returns and qualifications ends, and the HRET's own jurisdicition begins.

CASE:

CASE:

CASE:

CASE:

CASE:

CASE:

CASE:

CASE: The Electoral Tribunal is independent of the Houses of Congress [Angara v. Electoral Commission,
63 Phil 139; Morrero v. Bocar, 66 Phil 429], and its decisions may be reviewed by the Supreme Court
only upon showing of grave abuse of discretion in a petition for certiorari filed under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court [Pena v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal G R No 123037, March 21, 1997].

15.) The COA

CASE: Composition: The Senate President, as ex officio Chairman, 12 Senatorsand 12 Members of the
House of Representatives, elected by each House on the basis of proportional representation from the
political parties registered under the party-list system represented therein. The Chairman shall not vote
except in case of a tie. See Daza v. Singzon, 180 SCRA 496; Coseteng v. Mitra, 187 SCRA 377; Cunanan v.
Tan, 5 SCRA 1.

CASE: In Guingona v. Gonzales, 214 SCRA 789, the Supreme Court heldthat a political party must have at
least two elected senators for every seat in the Commission on Appointments. Thus, where there are
two or more political parties represented in the Senate, a political party/coalition with a single senator
in the Senate cannot constitutionally claim a seat in the Commission on Appointments. It is not
mandatory to elect 12 Senators to the Commission; what the Constitution requires is that there must be
at least a majority of the entire membership.
TOPIC VIII. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT: POWERS

1.) General Plenary Powers

- Legislative Power is the power to propose, enact, amend and repeal laws.

CASE:

CASE:

CASE:

2.) Limitations to the Power of Legislation

a.) Express Limitations
 Bill of Rights Art. III
 Article VI, Secs. 26, 28
Section 26 - Section 26. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject
which shall be expressed in the title thereof. (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 28 - Section 28. (1) The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The Congress
shall
evolve a progressive system of taxation. (2) The Congress may, by law, authorize the President
to fix within specified limits, and subject to such limitations and restrictions as it may impose,
tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts
within the framework of the national development program of the Government. (3) Charitable
institutions, churches and personages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit
cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and improvements, actually, directly, and exclusively used
for religious, charitable, or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation. (4) No law
granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the
Members of the Congress.

 Article XIV, Sec. 4[3]

(3) All revenues and assets of non-stock, non-profit educational institutions used actually,
directly, and exclusively for educational purposes shall be exempt from taxes and duties. Upon
the dissolution or cessation of the corporate existence of such institutions, their assets shall be
disposed of in the manner provided by law.
 Proprietary educational institutions, including those cooperatively owned, may likewise be
entitled to such exemptions, subject to the limitations provided by law, including restrictions on
dividends and provisions for reinvestment.

 Article VI, Secs. 29-31

Section 29. (1) No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an
appropriation made by law. (2) No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied,
paid, or employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church,
denomination, sectarian
institution, or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, other religious teacher, or
dignitary as such, except when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the
armed forces, or to any penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium. (3) All
money collected on any tax levied for a special purpose shall be treated as a special fund and
paid out for such purpose only. If the purpose for which a special fund was created has been
fulfilled or abandoned, the balance, if any, shall be transferred to the general funds of the
Government.

Section 30. No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as
provided in this Constitution without its advice and concurrence.

Section 31. No law granting a title of royalty or nobility shall be enacted.

CASE:

b.) Implied Substantive Limitations

 Non-Delegation
 Prohibition against the passage of irrepealable laws

CASE:

CASE:

3.) Requirements as to bills

a.) Origins of certain bills
 Article VI, Sections 24 and 25
Section 24. All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of the
public debt, bills of local application, and private bills, shall originate exclusively in the
House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments.

Section 25. (1) The Congress may not increase the appropriations recommended by the
President for the operation of the Government as specified in the budget. The form,
content and manner of preparation of the budget shall be prescribed by law.
 (2) No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the general appropriations bill
unless it relates specifically to some particular appropriation therein. Any such provision
or enactment shall be limited in its operation to the appropriation to which it relates.

(3) The procedure in approving appropriations for the Congress shall strictly follow the
procedure for approving appropriations for other departments and agencies.

(4) A special appropriations bill shall specify the purpose for which it is intended, and
shall
be supported by funds actually available as certified by the National Treasurer, or to be
raised by a corresponding revenue proposal therein.

(5) No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, the
President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may,
by law, be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their
respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.

(6) Discretionary funds appropriated for particular officials shall be disbursed only for
public purposes to be supported by appropriate vouchers and subject to such guidelines
as may be prescribed by law.

(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.

 CASE
 CASE
 CASE

 Article VI, Sec 29

Section 29. (1) No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an
appropriation made by law.
(2) No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed,
directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination,
sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, other religious
teacher, or dignitary as such, except when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is
assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal institution, or government orphanage or
leprosarium.
 (3) All money collected on any tax levied for a special purpose shall be treated as a
special fund and paid out for such purpose only. If the purpose for which a special fund was
created has been fulfilled or abandoned, the balance, if any, shall be transferred to the general
funds of the Government.

 CASE

 Article VI, Sec 28
Section 28. (1) The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The Congress shall
evolve a progressive system of taxation. (2) The Congress may, by law, authorize the
President to fix within specified limits, and subject to such limitations and restrictions as
it may impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and
other duties or imposts within the framework of the national development program of
the Government. (3) Charitable institutions, churches and personages or convents
appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and
improvements, actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable, or
educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation. (4) No law granting any tax
exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a majority
of all the Members of the Congress

 Art. XIV, Sec. 4[3] and [4]

 (3) All revenues and assets of non-stock, non-profit educational institutions used
actually, directly, and exclusively for educational purposes shall be exempt from taxes
and duties. Upon the dissolution or cessation of the corporate existence of such
institutions, their assets shall be disposed of in the manner provided by law. Proprietary
educational institutions, including those cooperatively owned, may likewise be entitled
to such exemptions, subject to the limitations provided by law, including restrictions on
dividends and provisions for reinvestment.
 (4) Subject to conditions prescribed by law, all grants, endowments, donations, or
contributions used actually, directly, and exclusively for educational purposes shall be
exempt from tax.

 CASE

b.) Subject and Title

 CASE
 CASE

c.) Procedure for passage of bills

 Article VI, Sec. 26[2]
 (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.

 CASE
 CASE
 CASE

d.) Pocket Veto; Partial Veto

 Article VI, Section 27
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.

 CASE
 CASE
 CASE
e.) Effectivity of Laws
 CASE
 EO 200, June 18, 1987
 CASE

f.) Power of Appropriation

 Article VI, section 29
Section 29. (1) No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an
appropriation made by law.

(2) No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed,

directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church,
denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher,
minister, other religious teacher, or dignitary as such, except when such priest,
preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal
institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium.
(3) All money collected on any tax levied for a special purpose shall be treated as a
special fund and paid out for such purpose only. If the purpose for which a special
fund was created has been fulfilled or abandoned, the balance, if any, shall be
transferred to the general funds of the Government.

 Article VI, Section 25

Section 25. (1) The Congress may not increase the appropriations recommended by
the President for the operation of the Government as specified in the budget. The
form, content, and manner of preparation of the budget shall be prescribed by law.
(2) No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the general appropriations bill
unless it relates specifically to some particular appropriation therein. Any such
provision or enactment shall be limited in its operation to the appropriation to
which it relates.
(3) The procedure in approving appropriations for the Congress shall strictly follow
the procedure for approving appropriations for other departments and agencies.
(4) A special appropriations bill shall specify the purpose for which it is intended,
and shall be supported by funds actually available as certified by the National
Treasurer, or to be raised by a corresponding revenue proposal therein.
(5) No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, the
President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives,
the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional
Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in the general
appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their
respective appropriations.
 (6) Discretionary funds appropriated for particular officials shall be disbursed only
for public purposes to be supported by appropriate vouchers and subject to such
guidelines as may be prescribed by law.
(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.

 CASE
 CASE
 CASE

4.) Aids to Legislation

a.) Legislative Inquiries
 Article VI, Section 21
Section 21. The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective
committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly
published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in, or affected by,
such inquiries shall be respected.

 CASE
 CASE
 CASE
 CASE
 CASE
 CASE
 CASE
 CASE
 CASE
 CASE
 CASE
 CASE
 CASE

b.) Question Hour

  Article VI, Section 22
Section 22. The heads of departments may, upon their own initiative, with the
consent of the President, or upon the request of either House, as the rules of each
House shall provide, appear before and be heard by such House on any matter
pertaining to their departments. Written questions shall be submitted to the
President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives at least
three days before their scheduled appearance. Interpellations shall not be limited to
written questions, but may cover matters related thereto. When the security of the
State or the public interest so requires and the President so states in writing, the
appearance shall be conducted in executive session.

 CASE

5.) Other Powers

a.) As Board of Canvassers in Elections for Pres. & Vice-Pres. (Article VII, Sec 4.)
Section 4. The President and the Vice-President shall be elected by direct vote of the people
for a term of six years which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following
the day of the election and shall end at noon of the same date, six years thereafter. The
President shall not be eligible for any re-election. No person who has succeeded as
President
and has served as such for more than four years shall be qualified for election to the same
office at any time.

No Vice-President shall serve for more than two successive terms. Voluntary renunciation of
the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity
of the service for the full term for which he was elected. Unless otherwise provided by law,
the regular election for President and Vice-President shall be held on the second Monday of
May. The returns of every election for President and Vice-President, duly certified by the
board of canvassers of each province or city, shall be transmitted to the Congress, directed
to the President of the Senate. Upon receipt of the certificates of canvass, the President of
the
Senate shall, not later than thirty days after the day of the election, open all the certificates
in the presence of the Senate and the House of Representatives in joint public session, and
the Congress, upon determination of the authenticity and due execution thereof in the
manner provided by law, canvass the votes.
 The person having the highest number of votes shall be proclaimed elected, but in case two
or more shall have an equal and highest number of votes, one of them shall forthwith be
chosen by the vote of a majority of all the Members of both Houses of the Congress, voting
separately.

The Congress shall promulgate its rules for the canvassing of the certificates. The Supreme
Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns,
and qualifications of the President or Vice-President, and may promulgate its rules for the
purpose.

b.) Call Special Election for President and Vice-President (Art. VII, Sec. 10)
Section 10. The Congress shall, at ten o'clock in the morning of the third day after the
vacancy in the offices of the President and Vice-President occurs, convene in accordance
with its rules without need of a call and within seven days, enact a law calling for a special
election to elect a President and a Vice-President to be held not earlier than forty-five days
nor later than sixty days from the time of such call. The bill calling such special election shall
be deemed certified under paragraph 2, Section 26, Article V1 of this Constitution and shall
become law upon its approval on third reading by the Congress. Appropriations for the
special election shall be charged against any current appropriations and shall be exempt
from the requirements of paragraph 4, Section 25, Article V1 of this Constitution. The
convening of the Congress cannot be suspended nor the special election postponed. No
special election shall be called if the vacancy occurs within eighteen months before the date
of the next presidential election.

c.) Revoke/ extend suspension of privilege of writ of habeas corpus, declaration of martial law
(Art. VII, Sec. 18)

Section 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the
Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to
prevent
or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the
public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law.
Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in
writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its
Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which
revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the
Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to
be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety
requires it.
 The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such proclamation
or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call.

The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the
sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its
decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.

A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the
functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of
jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to
function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall apply only to persons
judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in, or directly connected with, invasion.

During the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, any person thus
arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be
released.

 CASE

d.) Approve Presidential Amnesties (Article VII, Sec. 19)

Section 19. Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this Constitution,
the President may grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and
forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment. He shall also have the power to grant
amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress.

e.) Confirm certain appointments (Art. VII, Sec. 9 and 16)

Section 9. Whenever there is a vacancy in the Office of the Vice-President during the term
for which he was elected, the President shall nominate a Vice-President from among the
Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives who shall assume office upon
confirmation by a majority vote of all the Members of both Houses of the Congress, voting
separately.

Section 16. The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on
Appointments, appoint the heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls, or officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval
 captain, and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution. He
shall also appoint all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not
otherwise provided for by law, and those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint.
The Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of other officers lower in rank in the
President alone, in the courts, or in the heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or
boards. The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of the
Congress, whether voluntary or compulsory, but such appointments shall be effective only
until disapproved by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the
Congress.

 CASE

f.) Concur in treaties (Art. VII, Sec. 21)

Section 21. No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless
concurred
in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.

 CASE

g.) Declare war and delegate emergency powers (Sec 23)

Section 23. (1) The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses in joint session
assembled, voting separately, shall have the sole power to declare the existence of a state
of
war.

(2) In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may, by law, authorize the
President, for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to
exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. Unless sooner
withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next
adjournment
thereof.

 CASE
h.) Judge President’s fitness (Article VII, Sec. 11, par. 4)
If the Congress, within ten days after receipt of the last written declaration, or, if not in
session, within twelve days after it is required to assemble, determines by a two-thirds vote
of both Houses, voting separately, that the President is unable to discharge the powers and
duties of his office, the Vice-President shall act as President; otherwise, the President shall
continue exercising the powers and duties of his office.