Notes in Legislative Department (Philippine Constitution)
Notes in Legislative Department (Philippine Constitution)
Legislative Department
A. Legislative power
Section 1. The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate
and a House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision on initiative and
referendum.
ARTICLE III
Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.
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.
ARTICLE VI
Section 25.5. 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.
Section 25.2. 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.
Section 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, 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.
Section 28. 4. No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the
Members of the Congress.
Section 29.3. 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.
Page 1 of 20
RyD Notes | II. Legislative Department
Section 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 XIV. Section 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.
ARTICLE VI. 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.
ARTICLE VI. Section 31. No law granting a title of royalty or nobility shall be enacted.
ARTICLE VI.
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 25.4 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.
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.
Page 2 of 20
RyD Notes | II. Legislative Department
2. Sufficient standard test — to be sufficient, the standard must specify the limits of the delegate's authority and
identity the conditions under which the legislative policy so announced is to be implemented (Abakada Guro Partylist
v. Purisima, G.R. No. 166715, August 14, 2008).
Delegation of Power
Local Governments
Republic Act No. 4354 otherwise known as the Revised Charter of the City of Davao (Davao City Charter), enacted on
June 19, 1965, vested the local Sangguniang Panlungsod with the legislative power to regulate, prohibit, and fix license
fees for the display, construction, and maintenance of billboards and similar structures. With the aforementioned law,
Congress expressly granted the Davao City government, through the Sangguniang Panlungsod, police power to
regulate billboard structures within its territorial jurisdiction. (Evasco v. Montañez, G.R. No. 199172, February 21, 2018)
[Note: As stated earlier, the power to regulate billboards within its territorial jurisdiction has been delegated by
Congress to the city government via the Davao City Charter. This direct and specific grant takes precedence over
requirements set forth in another law of general application, in this case the National Building Code . Stated
differently, the city government does not need to refer to the procedures laid down in the National Building Code to
exercise this power. Thus, the consistency between Ordinance No. 092-2000 with the National Building Code is
irrelevant to the validity of the former. To be clear, even if the National Building Code imposes minimum
requirements as to the construction and regulation of billboards, the city government may impose stricter limitations
because its police power to do so originates from its charter and not from the National Building Code. The ordinance
specifically governs billboards and other similar structures situated within Davao City, independent of the provisions
of the National Building Code. (Evasco v. Montañez, G.R. No. 199172, February 21, 2018)]
Administrative Bodies
The Court has consistently held that technical rules applicable to judicial proceedings are not exact replicas of those in
administrative investigations. Recourse to discovery procedures as sanctioned by the Rules of Court is then not
mandatory for the OGCLS-BSP. Hence, we cannot subscribe to Norlina's tenacious insistence for the OGCLS-BSP to
strictly adhere to the Rules of Court so as not to purportedly defeat her rights. ( Sibayan v. Alda, G.R. No. 233395,
January 17, 2018)
Thus, the doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction refers to the competence of a court to take cognizance of a
case at first instance. Unlike the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, it cannot be waived. (Republic v.
Gallo, G.R. No. 207074, January 17, 2018) [Note: However, for reasons of equity, in cases where jurisdiction is lacking,
this Court has ruled that failure to raise the issue of non-compliance with the doctrine of primary administrative
jurisdiction at an opportune time may bar a subsequent filing of a motion to dismiss based on that ground by way of
laches. (Republic v. Gallo, G.R. No. 207074, January 17, 2018)]
[The] CIAC (Construction Industry Arbitration Commission) is a quasi-judicial body exercising quasi-judicial powers.
(Metro Rail Development Corporation v. Gammon Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 200401, January 17, 2018)
[Note: CIAC was created under Executive Order No. 1008 to establish an arbitral machinery that will settle
expeditiously problems arising from, or connected with, contracts in the construction industry. Its jurisdiction
includes construction disputes between or among parties to an arbitration agreement, or those who are otherwise
bound by the latter, directly or by reference. Thus, any project owner, contractor, subcontractor, fabricator, or project
manager of a construction project who is bound by an arbitration agreement in a construction contract is under
CIAC's jurisdiction in case of any dispute. (Metro Rail Development Corporation v. Gammon Philippines, Inc., G.R. No.
200401, January 17, 2018)]
[Note: A quasi-judicial agency is a government body, not part of the judiciary or the legislative branch, which
adjudicates disputes and creates rules which affect private parties' rights. It is created by an enabling statute, and thus,
its existence continues beyond the resolution of a dispute and is independent from the will of the parties. Its powers
are limited to those expressly granted or necessarily implied in the enabling law. (Metro Rail Development Corporation
v. Gammon Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 200401, January 17, 2018)]
[Note: Quasi-judicial or administrative adjudicatory power has been defined as the power: "(1) to hear and determine
questions of fact to which legislative policy is to apply, and (2) to decide in accordance with the standards laid down by
the law itself in enforcing and administering the same law ." (Metro Rail Development Corporation v. Gammon Philippines, Inc.,
G.R. No. 200401, January 17, 2018)]
Page 3 of 20
RyD Notes | II. Legislative Department
[Note: Arbitration under a quasi-judicial body is similar to commercial arbitration in that its factual findings are
generally accorded respect and finality. However, commercial arbitration is conducted by ad-hoc bodies created by
stipulation of parties for the purpose of settling disputes concerning their private or proprietary interests. In general,
the findings in commercial arbitration are respected to uphold the autonomy of arbitral awards. On the other hand,
quasi-judicial agencies were created for a speedier resolution of controversies on matters of state interest that require
specialized knowledge and expertise. (Metro Rail Development Corporation v. Gammon Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 200401,
January 17, 2018)]
[Note: Initially, CIAC decisions are appealable only to this Court. However, when the Rules of Court were enacted,
appeals from CIAC decisions became appealable to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43. (Metro Rail Development
Corporation v. Gammon Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 200401, January 17, 2018)]
The SSS (through the SSC) is empowered to issue the necessary rules and regulations for the effective implementation
of R.A. No. 9903. Quasi-legislative power is exercised by administrative agencies through the promulgation of rules
and regulations within the confines of the granting statute and the doctrine of non-delegation of powers from the
separation of the branches of the government. (H. Villarica Pawnshop, Inc. v. Social Security Commission, G.R. No.
228087, January 24, 2018)
… until and unless declared invalid in a proper case, the basic formulas contained in DAR administrative orders
partake of the nature of statutes; xxx (Land Bank of the Philippines v. Alcantara, G.R. No. 187423, February 28, 2018)
Indeed, non-ICCs/IPs cannot be subjected to the special and limited jurisdiction of the NCIP even if the dispute
involves rights of ICCs/IPs since the NCIP has no power and authority to decide on a controversy involving rights of
non-ICCs/IPs which should be brought before the courts of general jurisdiction within the legal bounds of rights and
remedies. Plainly, contrary to the court a quo's conclusion, this case cannot be subjected to the NCIP's jurisdiction as
respondents are clearly non-ICCs/IPs. (Heirs of Tunged v. Sta. Lucia Realty and Development, Inc., G.R. No. 231737,
March 6, 2018)
Bangko Sentral's Monetary Board is a quasi-judicial agency. Its decisions, resolutions, and orders are the decisions,
resolutions, and orders of a quasi-judicial agency. Any action filed against the Monetary Board is an action against a
quasi-judicial agency. This does not mean, however, that Bangko Sentral only exercises quasi-judicial functions. As an
administrative agency, it likewise exercises "powers and/or functions which may be characterized as administrative,
investigatory, regulatory, quasi-legislative, or quasi-judicial, or a mix of these five, as may be conferred by the
Constitution or by statute." (Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, G.R. No. 200678,
June 4, 2018)
[Note: As previously discussed, respondent Bangko Sentral exercises a myriad of functions, including those that may
not be necessarily exercised by a quasi-judicial agency. It is settled, however, that it exercises its quasi-judicial
functions through respondent Monetary Board. Any petition for certiorari against an act or omission of Bangko
Sentral, when it acts through the Monetary Board, must be filed with the Court of Appeals. ( Banco Filipino Savings and
Mortgage Bank v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, G.R. No. 200678, June 4, 2018)]
Section 2. The Senate shall be composed of twenty-four Senators who shall be elected at large by the qualified
voters of the Philippines, as may be provided by law.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the
election, is at least thirty-five years of age, able to read and write, a registered voter, and a resident of the Philippines
for not less than two years immediately preceding the day of the election.
Section 4. The term of office of the Senators shall be six years and shall commence, unless otherwise provided by
law, at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following their election. No Senator shall serve for more than two
consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption
in the continuity of his service for the full term of which he was elected.
1. Senate
Page 4 of 20
RyD Notes | II. Legislative Department
ANS: The Senate shall be composed of 24 Senators who shall be elected at large by the qualified voters of the
Philippines, as may be provided by law.
2. House of Representatives
Section 5.
1. The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members, unless
otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces, cities,
and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the
basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected through a party-
list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.
2. The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total number of representatives
including those under the party list. For three consecutive terms after the ratification of this Constitution, one-
half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or
election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other
sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector.
3. Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and adjacent territory.
Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least one
representative.
4. Within three years following the return of every census, the Congress shall make a reapportionment of
legislative districts based on the standards provided in this section.
Section 6. No person shall be a Member of the House of Representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at least twenty-five years of age, able to read and write, and, except the
party-list representatives, a registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected, and a resident thereof for a
period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the election.
Section 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 June next following their election. No Member of the
House of Representatives shall serve for more than three consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for
any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for which
he was elected.
peasant, urban poor, indigenous, cultural communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by
law, except the religious sector (CONST., Art: VI; Sec.5, par. (2))These members are referred to as sectoral
representatives (NACHURA, supra at 308) and who were last appointed in 1995.
b. Party-list system
separately register under the party-list system. The sectoral wing is by itself an independent sectoral party and is
linked to the political party only through a coalition;
4. A sectoral party or organization is one whose principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and concerns of a
specific sector of the population. It may either be one who:
a. Represents the "marginalized and underrepresented" or
i. Laborer, peasants, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, the handicapped, veterans, and overseas Filipinos;
b. Lacks a "well-defined political constituency"
i. Women, security guards, LPG dealers. etc.
5. A majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that represent the "marginalized and
underrepresented" must belong to the "marginalized and underrepresented" sector they represent. Similarly, a
majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that lack "well-defined political constituencies" must
belong to the sector they represent.
6. The nominees of sectoral parties or organizations that represent the "marginalized and underrepresented" or that
represent those who lack "well- defined political constituencies," either must belong to their respective sectors, or must
have a track record of advocacy for their respective sectors. The nominees of national and regional parties or
organizations must be bona-fide members of such parties or organizations; and
7. National, regional and sectoral parties or organizations shall not be disqualified if some of their nominees are
disqualified, provided that they have at least one nominee who remains qualified (Atong Paglaum Inc. v. COMELEC,
G.R. No. 203766, April 2, 2013).
Note: The guidelines set under the Bagong Bayani case was modified by the ruling of the Supreme Court in Atong
Paglaum Inc. v. COMELEC, supra to allow major political parties to participate in the party-list system through their
sectoral wings.
Q: Discuss the constitutionality of the two-percent (2%) threshold prescribed under R.A. 7941 for the distribution of
additional party-list seats.
ANS: The Supreme Court in BANAT v COMELEC, supra struck down as unconstitutional the two percent threshold in
the distribution of additional party-list seats in the second clause of Section 11 par. (b) of R.A. No 7941. The Court
held that the continued operation of the two percent threshold in the distribution of the additional seats frustrates the
attainment of the permissive ceiling that 20% of the members of the House of Representatives shall consist of party-
list representatives.
Page 7 of 20
RyD Notes | II. Legislative Department
Q: May the COMELEC allow the substitution of nominees of party-lists for causes other than those provided under RA
No.7941?
ANS: No. The COMELEC, despite its role as the implementing arm of the Government in the enforcement and
administration of all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election has neither the authority nor the license
to expand, extend, or add anything to the law it seeks to implement thereby. The IRRs the COMELEC issues for that
purpose should always be in accord with the law to be implemented, and should not override, supplant or modify the
law. It is basic that the IRRs should remain consistent with the law they intend to carry out (Lokin v. COMELEC, G.R.
Nos. 179431-32, June 22, 2010).
Q: May the registration of a party-list be cancelled and the qualifications of its nominees be questioned after it had
been proclaimed winner in the elections?
ANS: Yes. The Constitution grants the COMELEC the authority to register political parties, organizations, or coalitions,
and the authority to cancel the registration of the same on legal grounds. The said authority of the COMELEC is
reflected in Section 6 of R.A. No. 7941. In the case of the party-list nominees/representatives, it is the House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) that has jurisdiction over contests relating to their qualifications. Although it
is the party-list organization that is voted for in the elections, it is not the organization that sits as and becomes a
member of the House of Representatives, but it is the party-list nominee/representative who sits as a member of the
House of Representatives (ABC List v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 193256. March 22, 2011).
Q: May the party list organization remove its representative in HOR and substitute another?
ANS: No. A party-list representative is in every sense "an elected member of the House of Representatives." Although
the vote cast in a party-list election is a vote for a party, such vote, in the end, would be a vote for its nominees, who,
in appropriate cases. would eventually sit in the HOR. They have the same deliberative rights, salaries, and
emoluments (Abayon v. HRET. GR. No. 189466 February 11, 2010). Thus, they may only be removed either by
expulsion with the concurrence of two-thirds (2/3) of all the members of the House of Representatives (CONST.,
Art.VI, Sec. 16); or by the Electoral Tribunal either through an election protest or quo warranto proceeding (CONST.
Art. VI. Sec. 17).
ANS: Section 10. The salaries of Senators and Members of the House 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.
Section 11. A Senator or Member of the House of Representatives 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.
Note: It is available "while the Congress is in session", whether the session is regular or special, or whether or not the
legislator is actually attending his session (BERNAS, Philippine Constitution Reviewer, supra at 232). "Session"
covers the entire period from its initial convening until its final adjournment (CRUZ, Philippine Political Law, supra at
228-229). Members of Congress are not exempt from detention for crime (People v. Jalosjos, G.R. No. 132875-76
February 3, 2000) punishable by more than (6) years of imprisonment.
2. Parliamentary privilege of speech – They shall not be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any
speech or debate made in the Congress or in any committee thereof (Id.).
Page 8 of 20
RyD Notes | II. Legislative Department
Note: However, he can be subjected to disciplinary action by the Congress itself (Chavez v. JBC, G.R. No. 202242,
April 16. 2013).
Q: What are the requisites to avail of the privilege of speech and debate?
ANS: The following are the requisites:
1. That the remarks must be made while the legislature. or the legislative committee is in session; and
2. That they must be made in connection with the discharge of official duties (Jimenez v. Cabangbang, G.R. NO. L-
15905, August 3, 1966)
Q: What does the phrase "in any other place" mean in Section 11, Article VI of the Constitution?
ANS: This section was taken or is a copy of Sec. 6, Clause 1 of Art. 1 of the Constitution of the United States. In that
country, the provision has always been understood to mean that although exempt from prosecution or civil actions for
their words uttered in Congress, the members of Congress may, nevertheless be questioned in Congress itself.
Observe that "they shall not be questioned in any other place" than Congress.
Furthermore, the Rules of the House (Rule XVII, Sec. 7), recognize the House's power to hold a member responsible
"for words spoken in debate" (Osmena, Jr. v. Pendatun, G.R. No. L-17144, October 28, 1960).
Section 13. No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may hold any other office or employment in the
Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including 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.
Note: The general rule is they cannot simultaneously hold the incompatible office while serving their term in office. The
exception is if it is shown that said other office or employment is an extension of their legislative position, is in aid of
legislative duties, or is held by them in an ex officio capacity.
2. Forbidden Office - Neither shall he be appointed to any office which may have been created or whose emoluments
had been increased during the term for which he was elected (CONST., Art. VI, Sec. 13)
Q: What is the effect in case members of the Congress hold incompatible office?
ANS: Forfeiture of the seat in Congress shall be automatic upon the member's assumption of such other office
deemed incompatible with his seat in Congress (Adaza v. Pacana, G.R. No. L-68159, March 18, 1985).
Section 14. No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may personally appear as counsel before any
court of justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other administrative bodies. Neither shall he,
directly or indirectly, be interested financially in any contract with, or in any franchise or special privilege granted by
the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including any government-owned or controlled
corporation, or its subsidiary, during his term 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 on account of his office.
Page 9 of 20
RyD Notes | II. Legislative Department
Q: May a member of Congress who holds a business interest in a corporation awarded a franchise during his term
invoke the principle of separate personalities between him and the corporation as a defense against the prohibition
against financial interest?
ANS: No. A member shall not be interested financially directly or indirectly in any contract with, or in any franchise or
special privilege granted by the Government during his term (CONST., Art, VI, Sec 14). The defense of separate
personalities is inapplicable as the law prohibits even an indirect financial interest.
D. Discipline of members
E. Process of law-making
Note: 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.
1. First reading - reading of the number and title of the bill, which is then referred to the appropriate Committee for
study and recommendation, which may include the conduct of public hearings. The Committee will submit its report
and recommendation for Calendar for second reading.
2. Second reading - reading of the bill in full with the amendments proposed by the Committee, if any, unless copies
thereof are distributed and such reading is dispensed with. The bill will be subject to debates, pertinent motions, and
amendments. After the amendments shall have been acted upon, the bill will be voted on second reading.
3. Third reading - submission of the bill as approved on second reading for a final vote by yeas and nays.
4. Conference Committee Reports - transmittal of the bill approved on third reading by one House to the other House
for concurrence. The other House shall follow the same procedure. If the other House approves the bill without
amendments, the bill is passed by Congress and the same will be transmitted to the President. If the other House
introduces amendments with which the originating House does not agree, the differences will be settled through the
Conference Committees of both Houses. The Conference Committee’s report will have to be approved by both
Houses in order that it will be considered passed by Congress and thereafter sent to the President.
5. Authentication of bills - signing by the Speaker and the Senate President of the printed copy of the approved bill,
followed by the certification by the respective secretaries of the both Houses before it is sent to the President.
Page 10 of 20
RyD Notes | II. Legislative Department
6. President's approval or veto - transmittal of the authenticated bill 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. The President shall communicate his veto of
any bill to the House where it originated within thirty (30) days after the date of receipt thereof; otherwise, it shall
become a law as if he had signed it (CONST., Art. VI. Sec. 27 (1)).
7. Reversal of veto - If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds (2/3) 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 (2/3) of all the Members of that House, it shall become a law (CONST., Art. VI, Sec,
27(1)).
Q: Is the "no amendment on the third reading" clause applicable to the Bicameral Conference Committee?
ANS: No. The "no-amendment rule" refers only to the procedure to be followed by each house of Congress with
regard to bills initiated in each of said respective houses before said bill is transmitted to the other house for its
concurrence or amendment. Verily, to construe said provision in a way as to proscribe any further changes to a bill
after one house has voted on it would lead to absurdity as this would mean that the other house of Congress would be
deprived of its constitutional power to amend or introduce changes to said bill. Thus, Art. VI, Sec. 26 (2) of the
Constitution cannot be taken to mean that the introduction by the Bicameral Conference Committee of amendments
and modifications to disagreeing provisions in bills that have been acted upon by both houses of Congress is
prohibited (Abakada Guro Party List v. Ermita, G.R. Nos. 168056, 169207, 168461, 168463 168730, September 1,
2005).
Q: Are the requirements of three readings on separate days and distribution of printed copies may be dispensed with?
ANS: Yes. Both the requirement of three readings on separate days and distribution of printed copies thereof three (3)
days before its passage may be dispensed with upon the certification by the President of the necessity of the bill's
immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency (CONST., Art. VI, Sec. 26 (2))
Note: The existence of a quorum is based on the proportion between those physically present and the total
membership of the body (BERNAS. Philippine Constitution Reviewer, supra at 238).
Q: What is the difference between (“majority of all the members of the House" and "majority of the House"?
ANS: There is a difference between a majority of "all the members of the House” and a “majority of the House", the
latter requiring less number than the first Therefore, an absolute majority (12) of all the members of the Senate less
one (23) constitutes constitutional majority of the Senate for the purpose of a quorum [Avelino vs Cuenco, G.R. No L
-2821 (Resolution), March 4, 1949].
Note: The same principle may be applied for the determination of quorum in the House of Representatives.
Page 11 of 20
RyD Notes | II. Legislative Department
ANS: This refers to an "Absolute Majority" which requires the majority of all electors regardless of the number of
members present or absent during the time a question is put to a vote, provided a quorum exists.
For example, even if only 23 Senators are present at the vote, an absolute majority would require the concurrence of
at least 13 senators or (24/2)+1. For the HOR. the number would be 126 which is (250/2)+1.
For example, suppose 3 Senators are abroad then majority is at least 11 which is more than half of the Senators who
are within the coercive jurisdiction of Senate.
Q: What is the nature of voting as regards the Congress' power to appoint officers (i.e. Majority and Minority Leaders)
in each house?
ANS: The power to determine the manner of selecting such other officers is derivative of the exercise of the
prerogative conferred by the Constitution that each House shall choose such other officers as, it may deem
necessary. While the Constitution is explicit on the manner of electing a Speaker of the House of Representatives, it
is, however, silent on the manner of selecting other officers thus leaving the same to the exclusive prerogative of each
House. Hence, a candidate who garnered second highest number of votes for Speakership cannot automatically
become the Minority Leader based on "long standing tradition" when such tradition was clearly; overturned by the
House of Representatives (Baguilat, Jr. v. Alvarez, G.R. No. 227757, July 25, 2017).
ARTICLE VI
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.
Page 12 of 20
RyD Notes | II. Legislative Department
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.
Section 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, 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 VII
Section 22. The President shall submit to the Congress, within thirty days from the opening of every regular session
as the basis of the general appropriations bill, a budget of expenditures and sources of financing, including receipts
from existing and proposed revenue measures.
Q: What are the implied limitations on the power of the Congress to appropriate public funds?
ANS: The following are the implied limitations on the said power:
1. The appropriation must be devoted to a public purpose; and
2. The sum authorized to be released must be determinate or at least determinable (Pascual v. Secretary of Public
Works and Communications, G.R No. L-10405, December 29, 1960)
2. The funds to be transferred are taken from savings in other items of their respective appropriations (CONST., Art
VI, Sec. 25(5))
Note: The list of those who may be authorized to transfer funds under the above provision is exclusive. Hence, neither
the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces nor individual members of the Congress may not be given such authority
(Philippine Constitution Association v. Enriquez, supra)
Q: Under the Pork Barrel System, what are the two (2) kinds of lump-sum discretionary funds?
ANS: The Pork Barrel System Involves two (2) kinds of lump sum discretionary funds:
Page 13 of 20
RyD Notes | II. Legislative Department
1. First, there the Congressional Pork Barrel which is herein defined as a kind of lump-sum, discretionary fund-wherein
legislators, either individually or collectively organized into committees, are able to effectively control certain aspects
of the fund's utilization through various post-enactment measures and/or practices; and
2. Second, there is the Presidential Pork Barrel which is herein defined as a kind lump sum, discretionary fund which
allows President to determine the manner of its utilization (Belgica vs. Ochoa; supra).
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.
Q: What arc the limitations on the power of legislative investigation of the Congress?
ANS: The following are the limitations of said power:
1. It must be in aid of legislation;
2. In accordance with duly published rules of procedures; and
3. The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiry shall be respected (CONST., Art. VI, sec 21).
Q: How often should the rules of procedure in the conduct of legislative inquiry be published?
ANS: The phrase "duly published rules of procedure" requires the Senate of every Congress to publish its rules of
procedure governing inquiries in aid of legislation because every Senate is distinct from the one before it or after it.
Since Senatorial elections are held every three (3) years for one-half of the Senate's membership, the composition of
the Senate also changes by the end of each term. Each Senate may thus enact a different set of rules as it may deem
fit.
The requisite of publication of the rules is intended to satisfy the basic requirements of due process (Garcillano v.
House of Representatives Committees on Public Information, G.R. Nos. 170338 & 179275, December 23, 2008).
Q: Discuss the "Question hour" vis-a-vis the oversight functions of the Congress.
ANS: The Supreme Court referred to the oversight function of the Congress under Section 22, Article VI as "question
hour". It was ruled that "Sections 21 and 22”, therefore, while closely related and complementary to each other, should
not be considered as pertaining to the same power of Congress. One specifically relates to the power to conduct
inquiries in aid of legislation, the aim of which is to elicit information that may be used for legislation, while the other
Page 14 of 20
RyD Notes | II. Legislative Department
pertains to the power to conduct a question hour, the objective of which is to obtain information in pursuit of Congress'
oversight function”. (Senate v. Ermita, G.R. No. 169777, April 20, 2006).
Q: Discuss the differences between the right of the Congress to conduct inquiry in aid of legislation (Sec. 21) and its
oversight function (Sec. 22).
ANS: Tile following are the differences between the two powers of the Congress:
Sec.21 (Right to conduct inquiry in aid of legislation) Sec.22 (Oversight function of the Congress)
As to who may appear
Any person Only an executive department head
As to who conducts investigation
Committees Entire body
As to subject matter
Any matter for the purpose of legislation Matters related to the department only
As to purpose
Congress has the power to conduct inquiries in aid of Congress has the power to question executive
legislation the aim of which is to elicit information that department heads, the objective of which is to obtain
may be used for legislation information in pursuit of Congress’ oversight function
As to attendance
Attendance is compulsory Attendance is discretionary hence it is valid for the
President to require that consent be obtained first before
subordinates appear in Congress during the question
hour.
Congress can compel the attendance of executive Congress can not request the appearance of executive
officials subject to the proper application of executive officials if the required consent of the President is not
privilege. obtained first or if no such consent is given.
I. Power of impeachment
Note: No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period one
year (CONST., Art Xl. Sec. 3(5)). Initiation takes plate by the act of filing and referral or endorsement of the
impeachment complaint to the House Committee on Justice (Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No.160261,
November 10, 2003)
J. Electoral Tribunals
Section 17. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the
sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members. Each
Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of nine Members, three of whom shall be Justices of the Supreme Court to be
designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six shall be Members of the Senate or the House of
Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the
political parties and the parties or organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein. The senior
Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman.
Section 19. The Electoral Tribunals and the Commission on Appointments shall be constituted within thirty days after
the Senate and the House of Representatives shall have been organized with the election of the President and the
Speaker. The Commission on Appointments shall meet only while the Congress is in session, at the call of its
Chairman or a majority of all its Members, to discharge such powers and functions as are herein conferred upon it.
Q: Discuss the independence of the respective Electoral Tribunals of the Houses of Congress.
ANS: The Electoral Tribunal is independent of the Houses of Congress (Angara v. Electoral Commission, G.R. No. L-
45081, July 15, 1936) and its decisions may only be reviewed by the Supreme Court upon showing of grave abuse of
discretion in a special civil action for certiorari filed under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (Pena v. House
of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 123037, March 21, 1997).
Q: When does the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) acquire jurisdiction over election cases?
ANS: Once a winning candidate has been duly proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed office as a Member of the
House of Representatives, the COMELEC's jurisdiction over election contests relating to the candidate's election,
returns and qualifications ends, and the HRET's own jurisdiction begins (Limkaichong v. COMELEC, G.R. Nos.
178831-32. April 1, 2009).
Note: The taking of oath or affirmation of Members of the House of Representatives, either collectively or individually.
shall be before the Speaker in open session (Section 6, Rule Il (Membership) of the Rules of the house of
Representatives: Reyes vs Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 207264 (Resolution), June 25, 2013) or before the
Senate President with respect to Senators.
K. Commission on Appointments
Page 16 of 20
RyD Notes | II. Legislative Department
Section 18. There shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of the President of the Senate, as ex officio
Chairman, twelve Senators, and twelve Members of the House of Representatives, elected by each House on the
basis of proportional representation from the political parties and parties or organizations registered under the party-
list system represented therein. The chairman of the Commission shall not vote, except in case of a tie. The
Commission shall act on all appointments submitted to it within thirty session days of the Congress from their
submission. The Commission shall rule by a majority vote of all the Members.
Note: For the Senate, a political party must have at least two (2) members to be entitled to one seat in Commission on
Appointments. Rounding off is not allowed (Guingona v. Gonzales. G.R. No. 106971. October 20, 1992)
Q: Under the Constitution, which appointments need the concurrence of the CA?
ANS: The President shall nominate and with the consent of the Commission on Appointments, appoint: (HAAC)
1. Heads of executive departments (CONST., Art VII, Sec, 16)
2. Ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls (CONST., Art VII, Sec 16);
3. Officers of the AFP from the rank of colonel or naval captain.
4. Officers whose appointments are vested in him by the Constitution.
a. Regular members of the Judicial and Bar Council (CONST. Art. VIII, Sec. 8, par (2))
b. Chairmen and members of the Constitutional Commissions (CONST., Art IX-B. Sec. 1, par. (2)); and
c. Sectoral representatives during the three-consecutive terms after the ratification of the Constitution
(CONST., Art. XVIII, Sec. 7,- Quintos-Deles v. Commission on Appointments, G.R. No. 83216, September4
1989).
Q: What are the appointments that do not need confirmation from the Commission on Appointments?
ANS: The following are the appointments that do not need confirmation from the Commission:
1. Appointment of the Vice President to a Cabinet Position (CONST., Art. VII, Sec.3)
2. Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts (CONST., Art. Vlll, Sec. 9)
3. The Ombudsman and his deputies (CONST., Art. XI, Sec 9);
4. All other officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, and tnose whom he
may be authorized by law to appoint, e.g.:
a. Commissioner of Customs (Sarmiento v. Mison, G.R. No, 79974, December 17, 1987);
b. Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights (Bautista v Salonga, G.R. No. 86439, April 13, 1989); and
c. Appointments and promotions in the Philippine Coast Guard (Soriano v. Lista. G.R. No. 153881, March 24,
2003).
Q: What is the procedure for appointments that need the confirmation of the CA?
ANS: The procedure is as follows:
1. Nomination by the President;
2. Confirmation by the Commission on Appointments;
3. Issuance of commission; and
Page 17 of 20
RyD Notes | II. Legislative Department
4. Acceptance by the appointee (Lacson v. Romero: G.R. L-3081, October 14, 1949).
Voting by the Commission on any nomination or appointment submitted for confirmation shall be by viva voce: except,
upon request of any members, the voting shall be nominal (Rules of the Commission on Appointments. Ch. IV. Sec.
23).
A motion to reconsider, however, is not in order if filed during the last plenary session of the Commission prior to an
adjournment of Congress (Rules of the Commission on Appointments, Ch. IV. Sec. 18).
Q: Is R.A. 6735 sufficient and adequate to amend the Constitution thru a people's initiative?
ANS: R.A. No.6735, also known as the "People's Initiative and Referendum Act", is inadequate or wanting in essential
terms and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned (Santiago v. COMELEC,
G.R. No.127325 March 19, 1997). However in the SC's Minute Resolution denying the motions to reconsider the
dismissal of the petition for people's initiative; "ten (10) Members of the Court reiterated their position, that R.A. No.
6735 is sufficient end adequate to amend the Constitution thru a people's initiative. (Minute Resolution, Lambino v.
Comelec, supra: Binay v. COMELEC. GR. No. 170643, September 8, 2006). The COMELEC subsequently
promulgated on January 2, 2007 Resolution No. 7796, setting forth the rules and regulations to govern the conduct Of
initiative on the Constitution
Q: What is referendum?
ANS: Referendum is the power of the electorate to approve or reject legislation through an election called for that
purpose (R.A. No. 6735, Sec. 2 (c))
Laws
In this regard, it must be said that there is no merit in the contention of petitioner that the amendment introduced by
R.A. No. 9700 cannot be applied retroactively in the case at bar. Primarily, a cursory reading of the provision readily
reveals that Section 19 of R.A. No. 9700 merely highlighted the exclusive jurisdiction of the DAR to rule on agrarian
cases by adding a clause which mandates the automatic referral of cases upon the existence of the requisites therein
stated. Simply, R.A. No. 9700 does not deviate but merely reinforced the jurisdiction of the DAR set forth under
Section 50 of R.A. No. 6657. Moreover, in the absence of any stipulation to the contrary, as the amendment is
essentially procedural in nature it is deemed to apply to all actions pending and undetermined at the time of its
passage. (Chailese Development Company, Inc. v. Dizon, G.R. No. 206788, February 14, 2018)
Parliamentary Immunity
Petitioner admits that he uttered the questioned statements, describing private respondent as former VP Binay's
"front" or "dummy" in connection with the so-called Hacienda Binay, in response to media interviews during gaps
and breaks in plenary and committee hearings in the Senate. With Jimenez as our guidepost, it is evident that
petitioner's remarks fall outside the privilege of speech or debate under Section 11, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.
The statements were clearly not part of any speech delivered in the Senate or any of its committees. They were also
not spoken in the course of any debate in said fora. It cannot likewise be successfully contended that they were made
in the official discharge or performance of petitioner's duties as a Senator, as the remarks were not part of or integral
to the legislative process. (Trillanes v. Castillo-Marigomen, G.R. No. 223451, March 14, 2018, citing Jimenez v. Cabangbang,
124 Phil. 196 [1966])
[Note: To participate in or respond to media interviews is not an official function of any lawmaker ; it is not demanded
by his sworn duty nor is it a component of the process of enacting laws . Indeed, a lawmaker may well be able to
discharge his duties and legislate without having to communicate with the press. A lawmaker's participation in media
interviews is not a legislative act, but is "political in nature," outside the ambit of the immunity conferred under the
Speech or Debate Clause in the 1987 Constitution. Contrary to petitioner's stance, therefore, he cannot invoke
parliamentary immunity to cause the dismissal of private respondent's Complaint. The privilege arises not because
the statement is made by a lawmaker, but because it is uttered in furtherance of legislation. (Trillanes v. Castillo-
Marigomen, G.R. No. 223451, March 14, 2018)]
Appropriations
The petitioners contended that the implementation of the MVPSP using the funds allocated under the item MF02: Motor Vehicle
Registration and Driver's Licensing Regulatory Services was unconstitutional because the item constituted a lump-sum
appropriation that undermined the exercise by the President of his veto power under Article VI, Section 27(2) of the Constitution.
Under the system of Performance Informed Budgeting, the PAPS are grouped or aligned into the Major Final Outputs
(MFOs). However, the groupings do not mean that there are no longer any line-items. As explained in Belgica v.
Executive Secretary, line-items under appropriations should be "specific appropriations of money" that will enable the
President to discernibly veto the same, to wit:
An item, as defined in the field of appropriations, pertains to "the particulars, the details, the distinct and severable
parts of the appropriation or of the bill." In the case of Bengzon v. Secretary of Justice of the Philippine Islands, the US
Supreme Court characterized an item of appropriation as follows:
Page 19 of 20
RyD Notes | II. Legislative Department
"An item of an appropriation bill obviously means an item which, in itself, is a specific appropriation of
money, not some general provision of law which happens to be put into an appropriation bill."
On this premise, it may be concluded that an appropriation bill, to ensure that the President may be able to exercise
his power of item veto, must contain "specific appropriations of money" and not only "general provisions" which
provide for parameters of appropriation.
Further, it is significant to point out that an item of appropriation must be an item characterized by singular
correspondence - meaning an allocation of a specified singular amount for a specified singular purpose, otherwise
known as a "line-item." This treatment not only allows the item to be consistent with its definition as a "specific
appropriation of money" but also ensures that the President may discernibly veto the same. (Dela Cruz v. Ochoa, G.R.
No. 219683, January 23, 2018)
[Note: In Araullo v. Aquino III, the Court has expounded the term item as the last and indivisible purpose of a program
in the appropriation law, which is distinct from the expense category or allotment class. (Dela Cruz v. Ochoa, G.R. No.
219683, January 23, 2018)]
The petitioners' contention that the MF02 constituted a lump-sum appropriation had no basis. The specific
appropriations of money were still found under Details of the FY 2014 Budget which was attached to the 2014 GAA.
They specified and contained the authorized budgetary programs and projects under the GAA xxx. As gleaned from
the Details of the FY 2014 Budget, the MFOs constituted the expense category or class; while the last and indivisible
purpose of each program under the MFOs were enumerated under the Details of the FY 2014 Budget. In particular, the
specific purpose provided under the MF02 was an appropriation for a motor vehicle registration system. Such specific
purpose satisfied the requirement of a valid line-item that the President could discernibly veto. (Dela Cruz v. Ochoa,
G.R. No. 219683, January 23, 2018) [Note: In Jacomille v. Abaya, the Court, upholding the legality of the procurement of
the MVPSP, opined that whatever defects had attended its procurement were "cured" by the appropriation for the full
amount of the project under the 2014 GAA. (Dela Cruz v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 219683, January 23, 2018)]
To explain, Section 29(1), Article VI of the 1987 Constitution ordains that: "No money shall be paid out of the Treasury
except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law." The only exception is found in Section 25(5), Article VI of the
1987 Constitution, by which the President of the Philippines, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Philippines, and the heads of the Constitutional Commissions are authorized
to transfer appropriations to augment any item in the GAA for their respective offices from the savings in other items
of their respective appropriations. The CESB is definitely not among the officials or agencies authorized to transfer
their savings in other items of its appropriation. The CESB came into being by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 1 on
September 1, 1974. The CESB, although intended to be an autonomous entity, is administratively attached to the Civil
Service Commission (CSC), and does not wield the power to authorize the augmentation of items of its appropriations
from savings in other items of its appropriations. With the CSC being the office vested with fiscal autonomy by the
1987 Constitution, the CESB's use of its savings to cover the CNA benefits for its employees had no legal basis. ( Career
Executive Service Board v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 212348, June 19, 2018)
Tax Exemptions
Lastly, while tax exemptions are strictly construed against the taxpayer, the government should not misuse
technicalities to keep money it is not entitled to. (Philippine Air Lines v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. Nos.
206079-80, January 17, 2018)
While tax amnesty is in the nature of a tax exemption, which is strictly construed against the taxpayer, the Court
cannot disregard the plain text of R.A. No. 9480. (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Covanta Energy Philippine
Holdings, Inc., G.R. No. 203160, January 24, 2018)
[Note: Considering that CEPHI completed the requirements and paid the corresponding amnesty tax, it is considered
to have totally complied with the tax amnesty program. As a matter of course, CEPHI is entitled to the immediate
enjoyment of the immunities and privileges of the tax amnesty program. Nonetheless, the Court emphasizes that the
immunities and privileges granted to taxpayers under R.A. No. 9480 is not absolute. It is subject to a resolutory
condition insofar as the taxpayers' enjoyment of the immunities and privileges of the law is concerned. These
immunities cease upon proof that they underdeclared their net worth by 30%. (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v.
Covanta Energy Philippine Holdings, Inc., G.R. No. 203160, January 24, 2018)]
Page 20 of 20