Inquiry in Aid of Legislation When not allowed Bengzon vs Senate Blue Committee, GR 89914, Nov.

. 20, 1991 Benjamin Kokoy Romualdez and his wife together with the Marcoses allegedly enriched themselves at the expense of the Filipino people. That they obtained with the help of the Bengzon law office and Ricardo Lopa Corys brother in law, among others, control over some of the biggest business enterprises in the country including MERALCO, PCI Bank, Shell Philippines and Benguet Consolidated Mining Corporation. Sen. Enrile subsequently delivered a privilege speech alleging that Lopa took over various government owned corporations, which is in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Contained in the speech is a motion to investigate on the matter. The inquiry cannot be given due course, The speech of Enrile contained no suggestion of contemplated legislation; he merely called upon the Senate to look into a possible violation of Sec. 5 of RA No. 3019, otherwise known as The AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices Act. The purpose of the inquiry to be conducted by the Blue Ribbon Committee was to find out whether or not the relatives of Cory, particularly Lopa, had violated the law in connection with the alleged sale of the 36 or 39 corporations belonging to Kokoy to the Lopa Group. There appears to be, therefore, no intended legislation involved. Inquiry in Aid of Legislation Cases filed before a court or quasi-judicial body Standard Chartered Bank vs. Senate Committee on Banks, G.R. No. 167173, December 27, 2007 The mere filing of a criminal or an administrative complaint before a court or a quasi-judicial body should not automatically bar the conduct of legislative investigation. Otherwise, it would be extremely easy to subvert any intended inquiry by Congress through the convenient ploy of instituting a criminal or administrative complaint. Inquiry in Aid of Legislation in Local Government Unit Negtos Oriental Electronic Company vs SK of Dumaguete, GR 72492, Nov. 5, 1987 Atty Galleons question: Whether LGU has the power of inquiry in aid of legislation same as the Congress. There is no express provision either in the 1973 Constitution or in the LGC (BP 337) granting local legislative bodies, the power to subpoena witnesses and the power to punish non-members for contempt. The contempt power (and the subpoena power) if actually possessed, may only be exercised where the subject matter of the investigation is within the jurisdiction of the legislative body. Commission on Appointment HRETs composition rounding off rule Guingona vs Gonzales GR 106971 March 1, 1993

Rounding off the proportional number in determining a partys representation in the Commission on Appointments. It is a fact accepted by all such parties that each of them is entitled to a fractional membership on the basis of the rule on proportional representation of each of the political parties. The problem is what to do with the fraction of .5 or 1/2 to which each of the parties is entitled. The LDP majority in the Senate converted a fractional half membership into a whole membership of one senator by adding one half or .5 to 7.5 to be able to elect Romulo. In so doing one other partys fractional membership was correspondingly reduced leaving the latters representation in the Commission on Appointments to less than their proportional representation in the Senate. This is clearly a violation of Section 18 because it is no longer in compliance with its mandate that membership in the Commission be based on the proportional representation of the political parties. The tribunal and its composition in times of Realignment Daza vs Singson GR 36344, Dec. 21, 1989 LDP was realigned which resulted to the changed of the representation in the Commission on Appointments. They withdrew the seats occupied by Daza (LDP member) and gave it to the new member. Then, the chamber elected new set of representatives in the CoA, Daza was replaced by Singson. Daza contended that since he was given the seat, it should be permanent. However, based on the constitution there should be a Commission on Appointments consisting of twelve Senators and twelve members of the House of Representatives elected by each House respectively on the basis of proportional representation so if there is a realignment of political parties which changes the proportion of the majority and minority members then there should be another election of new set of representatives. Electroral Tribunal Doctrinal Ruling Guerero vs COMELEC GR 137004 July 26, 2000 This case follows the doctrinal ruling once a winning candidate has assumed office the jurisdiction of Comelec over his qualification ends and the jurisdiction of the Electronal Tribunal begins. Background: a petition to disqualify respondent as candidate for congressman, three days before the election, the respondent filed his COC as substitute for the other respondent who withdrew. The petitioner argued that the substitution was fatally defective but the respondent however, was proclaimed as winner and assumed office. Thus, Comelec dismissed the petition on the ground that the matter is now within the exclusive jurisdiction of the HRET.

Opposite of the Doctrinal Ruling. Codilla vs De Venecia GR 150605 Dec. 10, 2002 Unlike the Guerrero case this one is opposed to the Doctrinal Ruling. Doctrinal ruling that once a proclamation has been made and a candidate elect has assumed office, it is this Tribunal that has jurisdiction over an election contest involving members of the House of Representatives. However in this case, HRET cannot assume Jurisdiction the COMELEC has not yet resolved their previous resolution over the Codillas Motion for Reconsideration which is still under the exclusive jurisdiction of COMELEC.

Vetoed power of the President Item or Line Veto Bolinao Electronics vs Valencia GR 20740, June 30, 1964 Valencia claimed damages for CBNs continued operation, he is asking for damages but Valencia failed to show any right if his that has been violated. Also the appropriation to operate the Philippine Broadcasting Service as approved by congress does not allow appropriations for TV stations particularly in Luzon, since there was no appropriation allotted then there can be no damage. Even if it is shown that the president vetoed this provision of the Budget Act, such veto is illegal because he may not legally veto a condition attached to an appropriation or item in the appropriation bill. This ruling, that the executives veto power does not carry with it the power to strike out conditions or restrictions, has been adhered to in subsequent cases. If the veto is unconstitutional, it follows that the same produced no effect whatsoever; and the restriction imposed by the appropriation bill, therefore, remains. Transfer of Funds - Prohibition against transfer of Funds Demetria vs Alba GR 71977, Feb. 27, 1987 Sec. 16[5]. No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations, however, the President, the Prime Minister, the Speaker, 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. PD1177 was passed but Par 1 of Sec 44 of the said Presidential Decree was considered unconstitutional. Par 1 of Sec 44 of PD 1177 unduly overextends the privilege granted under said Section 16[5]. It empowers the President to indiscriminately transfer funds from one department, bureau, office or agency of the Executive Department to any program, project or activity of any department, bureau or office included in the General Appropriations Act or approved after its enactment, without regard as to

whether or not the funds to be transferred are actually savings in the item from which the same are to be taken, or whether or not the transfer is for the purpose of augmenting the item to which said transfer is to be made.